One Edition, or Many?

[Catullus64]

So, rather than start another "When/what/why is 5.5/6e" thread, I thought I'd try to take a different perspective on the questions about the future of the game which seem to loom over this forum like a +3 Sword of Damocles.

Does it make sense for the Dungeons & Dragons of the future to be one RPG system at all?

See, D&D as a brand is king of the mountain. Its biggest competitors in the RPG market are dwarfs by comparison. Nobody else could brand themselves "the world's greatest roleplaying game" without irony. But with that preeminence comes a problem (also like Damocles): if it's going to maintain an image as the roleplaying game for everyone, D&D needs to present itself as all things to all people. It doesn't just need to be a good roleplaying game, it needs to be a system that can accommodate any playstyle, any level of mechanical engagement and complexity, any theme, any setting, any preference. And I'm sorry to say that the actual game isn't really that; and if it were, it would have to involve sanding away every edge of personality and character. It would be game design soup, and not one of the tasty soups.

If someone criticizes a smaller, more niche title on the basis of not having mechanics or fluff for a specific aspect of play, that game (personified for rhetorical effect) can say, "sorry, that's not what this game is about." D&D can't make that same reply, because if it does, it tarnishes its image as the roleplaying game for everyone, and thus undermines its ability to continue dominating the market as it does.

There are a few paths that D&D could take: 1). Continue trying to please everybody, and therein succeed in pleasing nobody. 2). Prune D&D down to a very specific version of the game, thus alienating everyone except the people who are into that specific thing (this approach we will call "fiscal suicide"). Or 3). To accommodate varied desires, make varied products. Make several leaner, more narrowly targeted RPGs under the D&D name. Call them "X: A Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game." Or something better, I'm clearly not a marketing professional. These concurrent "sub-editions" could still share a lot of their basic game terminology, such that picking up one when you're already familiar with another would be relatively easy.

While there is some precedent for this in the multiple concurrent editions of 1e, I don't think the environment of today is really comparable to that era. I also have no idea, assuming this is even remotely feasible, what the dividing lines between these concurrent sub-editions would be. If this were to be a path that the game could feasibly take, what sort of sub-editions do you think would stand up on their own? Would you divide them by gameplay focus, fantasy genre, rules complexity, or something else?

[Toadkiller]

I think other than on the forums most tables already take a hit or miss approach as to what they take from the library of resources. Everybody that does that ends up with their own “version” that they are playing that is variably compatible with the “version” being played by another group down the street.

On the forums we tend to have some folks that want their version, and only their version, to be published. In short, I don’t think there is really a broadly recognized problem that needs addressing.

I know many are clutching their pearls about the changes to racial stats. But here’s the thing - you’ve always been able to ignore that either way. You’ve always been able to let the players play what they want. We were doing it 30+ years ago and we still can.

[Silly Name]

When, exactly, has D&D claimed to be a system that can satisfy any random person's desired genre or playstyle? When the designer talk about D&D being for everyone, they refer to accessibility and creating a welcoming community, not being magically suited to all tastes.

Case in point: D&D has always been a fantasy game. It has flirted with other genres through various settings, but those were always "D&D's take on X", with fantasy always playing a part. D&D is the world's greatest roleplaying game because it's the most famous and successful, not because it can also do nitty-gritty realistic noir investigations on top of heroic high fantasy.

The designers (and WotC) obviously operate on some design principles that direct their work, and when a new edition gets made it will have some fundamental principles and design goals that influence how it looks. I honestly don't see the game heading down having sub-editions or multiple concurrent product lines. Current D&D doesn't aim to offer varying levels of mechanical complexity, for example, and I don't see why WotC would start working on a "Basic" and "Advanced" Sixth edition instead of just Sixth Edition.

[Unoriginal]

The D&D staff does not have the means to work on a lot of D&D products.


That's a undisputable fact, and the reason for the slow path the staff took for the first five years of production (or more, if you count the pre-core book playtest). Even at their current pace (which is faster than previously), many people feel that the products are rushed through production.


The only way for D&D to "split" into different branches would be to hire a ton more people and somehow make them coordinate . Which we know WotC isn't interested in.


When, exactly, has D&D claimed to be a system that can satisfy any random person's desired genre or playstyle? When the designer talk about D&D being for everyone, they refer to accessibility and creating a welcoming community, not being magically suited to all tastes.

Case in point: D&D has always been a fantasy game. It has flirted with other genres through various settings, but those were always "D&D's take on X", with fantasy always playing a part. D&D is the world's greatest roleplaying game because it's the most famous and successful, not because it can also do nitty-gritty realistic noir investigations on top of heroic high fantasy.

Also this. D&D's goal is to be D&D, and it only emulates D&D.

3.X tried very hard to pretend it was/could be an universal system, and it didn't work out.

[Keravath]

D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game. There have been elements of the game that edge toward science fiction (Gamma World and d20 modern (I think-never played it) for example) but in my experience other game systems tend to do these genres better since the game system is designed for situations that are more common in modern or futuristic settings.

D&D wasn't simple in its previous incarnations (AD&D and 3.5e are not the easiest systems to understand).

In my opinion, the main reasons for the popularity of 5e are the rewrite to streamline the d20 system dividing the rolls into attack rolls, saving throws and ability checks and the simplified class system (resembling 1e) with the addition of archetypes to add variety for each of the classes. This makes the number of choices manageable for newer players while still providing sufficient options for more experienced players.

The system is then designed around the core book - the PHB - with three categories of supplemental materials.
1) Additional rules and character options
2) Settings
3) Adventures

Players and DMs then have a choice about which direction they want to take their game. They can create their own setting or choose a published one. They can create their own adventure or choose a published one ... and they can decide if they want any additional rules or if they are happy with the PHB. The game is completely playable with just the PHB (though the DM should ideally have a monster manual too since creating monsters takes a lot of time).

I would argue that D&D is already doing as you suggest. They have the core game in the PHB and they produce supplementary materials that they know will have much narrower appeal and smaller audiences. However, the supplemental materials enable DMs and players to more easily create the game they want to run.

If a group wants to run a MtG based D&D game then they might pick up Ravinica and/or Theros. If a group wants to run in the forgotten realms then they might buy SCAG. The same goes for Wildemount or the other settings books. In addition, if the DM wants to save some time then they might buy an adventure book like TftYP or GoS and add the adventures to their world or pick up one of the larger hardcover adventures and run it either in FR or whatever setting they have chosen.

The strength of the D&D system is that the core rules are the same and independent of setting or adventure. If WotC created a bunch of RPGs, one for each setting then folks would ask "well which is D&D - that is the one I want to play!". In addition, someone who wanted to play in the different settings would get repeated content since each of these "RPGs" would have to repeat the basic system rules.

tl;dr

1) D&D is not suited to running all genres of RPGs so trying to create one game to satisfy them all probably won't succeed (though GURPS did a decent job I think).
2) D&D is already modular allowing folks to pick and choose which content they want - with reliance on a single core rule book with more streamlined rules than previous editions - this makes it more accessible and more popular than previous editions.

[Xervous]

D&D benefits from a consistent transferable experience. A fireball is a fireball at any typical table. A greatsword is 2d6 at any typical table.

From a sales perspective they’re well aware of the grave TSR dug for itself in producing so many setting specific books. Setting specific details are transferable but not everyone cares about a given setting. If they don’t overproduce content here there’s no hazard.

Alternate rules are another way to pull in new interest or grow sales. However there’s a great deal of risk here because of the potential for eroding the transferable experience.

I expect them to dig the edition’s grave in rules, both alterations and optional ones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also this. D&D's goal is to be D&D, and it only emulates D&D.

3.X tried very hard to pretend it was/could be an universal system, and it didn't work out.

I agree. 5e makes no attempt to be a universal system. Not even a universal fantasy system. It does D&D, which is its own genre, with its own conventions.

[Catullus64]

The D&D staff does not have the means to work on a lot of D&D products.


That's a undisputable fact, and the reason for the slow path the staff took for the first five years of production (or more, if you count the pre-core book playtest). Even at their current pace (which is faster than previously), many people feel that the products are rushed through production.


The only way for D&D to "split" into different branches would be to hire a ton more people and somehow make them coordinate . Which we know WotC isn't interested in.


No way for me to respond to everyone, especially the people who disagree with my whole premise from the outset, so I just singled out this point as being odd. D&D is growing and growing fast; from what I've read, sales have never been better. Surely the amount of resources that can be invested into development has the potential to grow in proportion? As in, D&D shows X amount of growth, and thus the developers can lobby for Y additional money to diversify and expand their product line? Sorry for the grade-school understanding of how investment and product development works, but I don't see how "lack of resources" is and necessarily will remain an obstacle.

[Xervous]

No way for me to respond to everyone, especially the people who disagree with my whole premise from the outset, so I just singled out this point as being odd. D&D is growing and growing fast; from what I've read, sales have never been better. Surely the amount of resources that can be invested into development has the potential to grow in proportion? As in, D&D shows X amount of growth, and thus the design team can lobby for Y additional money to diversify and expand their product line? Sorry for the grade-school understanding of how investment and product development works, but I don't see how "lack of resources" is and necessarily will remain an obstacle.

Past a point it becomes more costly to attempt to reach customers as you saturate the market. Think about 10 different books with one printing run each for a system. Then think of 20, 40, 100, 200. How many printing runs will sell out? How many will even turn a profit? Past a point not enough people will be interested in new releases to justify making the content.

[Unoriginal]

Surely the amount of resources that can be invested into development has the potential to grow in proportion? As in, D&D shows X amount of growth, and thus the developers can lobby for Y additional money to diversify and expand their product line? Sorry for the grade-school understanding of how investment and product development works, but I don't see how "lack of resources" is and necessarily will remain an obstacle.

They *could* do that, but they won't.

WotC has already demonstrated that they're in their "let's ask for a bigger return with nearly the same means as before" stage, and once it doesn't work in the long run they will go back to their "alright it was a bad idea, let's be less ambitious" stage (one way or another).

It is more than hugely unlikely that they will break their decades-old pattern and go "we need to invest way more if we want way more". Especially now that they're own by Hasbro.


Past a point it becomes more costly to attempt to reach customers as you saturate the market. Think about 10 different books with one printing run each for a system. Then think of 20, 40, 100, 200. How many printing runs will sell out? How many will even turn a profit? Past a point not enough people will be interested in new releases to justify making the content.

Also this.

[MrStabby]

So, rather than start another "When/what/why is 5.5/6e" thread, I thought I'd try to take a different perspective on the questions about the future of the game which seem to loom over this forum like a +3 Sword of Damocles.

Does it make sense for the Dungeons & Dragons of the future to be one RPG system at all?

See, D&D as a brand is king of the mountain. Its biggest competitors in the RPG market are dwarfs by comparison. Nobody else could brand themselves "the world's greatest roleplaying game" without irony. But with that preeminence comes a problem (also like Damocles): if it's going to maintain an image as the roleplaying game for everyone, D&D needs to present itself as all things to all people. It doesn't just need to be a good roleplaying game, it needs to be a system that can accommodate any playstyle, any level of mechanical engagement and complexity, any theme, any setting, any preference. And I'm sorry to say that the actual game isn't really that; and if it were, it would have to involve sanding away every edge of personality and character. It would be game design soup, and not one of the tasty soups.

If someone criticizes a smaller, more niche title on the basis of not having mechanics or fluff for a specific aspect of play, that game (personified for rhetorical effect) can say, "sorry, that's not what this game is about." D&D can't make that same reply, because if it does, it tarnishes its image as the roleplaying game for everyone, and thus undermines its ability to continue dominating the market as it does.

There are a few paths that D&D could take: 1). Continue trying to please everybody, and therein succeed in pleasing nobody. 2). Prune D&D down to a very specific version of the game, thus alienating everyone except the people who are into that specific thing (this approach we will call "fiscal suicide"). Or 3). To accommodate varied desires, make varied products. Make several leaner, more narrowly targeted RPGs under the D&D name. Call them "X: A Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game." Or something better, I'm clearly not a marketing professional. These concurrent "sub-editions" could still share a lot of their basic game terminology, such that picking up one when you're already familiar with another would be relatively easy.

While there is some precedent for this in the multiple concurrent editions of 1e, I don't think the environment of today is really comparable to that era. I also have no idea, assuming this is even remotely feasible, what the dividing lines between these concurrent sub-editions would be. If this were to be a path that the game could feasibly take, what sort of sub-editions do you think would stand up on their own? Would you divide them by gameplay focus, fantasy genre, rules complexity, or something else?

Whilst I am not sure I agree, I don't think I disagree as hard as others here. I think there is some merit to the idea.

The issue I think this helps with is optional rules. Everyone thinks their particular preference for optional rules is the right way, and looks at DMs a bit wierd if they don't opt to use the optional rules for feats or do chose to use the optional rules for spell points. If there were "genres" that bundled up different sets of optional rules and options together then it would at least enable a) some content to be gated for worlds for which they were appropriate and b) create a justified expectation amongst players for what is an option.

You want to play a Noir game - then Gritty realism rules are on the table along with lingering injuries and trauma, the honour stat is not in use and paladins and clerics and druids are not in play but artificers are. Divinations spells are limited to X,Y,Z... and so on.

Certain spells like divination spells screwing with investigative game styles, enchantment spells causing problems with certain types of socially focussed games and so on could be addressed by this.



I am not saying it would work well. I am not saing it would be right or profitable but grouping of rules/content together for certain game styles could make sense and might be worth exploring. I think there are interesting, if dangerous options.

[Catullus64]

I think other than on the forums most tables already take a hit or miss approach as to what they take from the library of resources. Everybody that does that ends up with their own “version” that they are playing that is variably compatible with the “version” being played by another group down the street.

On the forums we tend to have some folks that want their version, and only their version, to be published. In short, I don’t think there is really a broadly recognized problem that needs addressing.

I know many are clutching their pearls about the changes to racial stats. But here’s the thing - you’ve always been able to ignore that either way. You’ve always been able to let the players play what they want. We were doing it 30+ years ago and we still can.

Maybe mine is a more niche opinion than I assumed (always likely), but I don't find the freedom to modulate with lots of options to be a satisfying substitute for having a purpose-designed game system out of the box that has a narrow, specific vision of what it wants to be, and pursues that vision singularly. Many such RPGs exist already; is it hard to imagine wanting something called Dungeons & Dragons, with D&D's history, name recognition, and iconic images behind it, to provide that experience?

Now, of course everyone differs on what they want that narrow, singular-vision experience to be; rather than trying to preach our preferred experiences as the One True D&D, or throwing our hands up and saying "here's all of the options in a bag, do it your way", why not simply make different games which cater to different desires?*

*With the understanding, of course, that such games would necessarily be slower to release, shorter, and rougher around the edges as a result of targeting and being budgeted for a narrower audience. That's a sacrifice I might be willing to accept.

[KorvinStarmast]

D&D benefits from a consistent transferable experience.
{snip}
From a sales perspective they’re well aware of the grave TSR dug for itself in producing so many setting specific books. Setting specific details are transferable but not everyone cares about a given setting. If they don’t overproduce content here there’s no hazard.

Alternate rules are another way to pull in new interest or grow sales. However there’s a great deal of risk here because of the potential for eroding the transferable experience.

I expect them to dig the edition’s grave in rules, both alterations and optional ones. About 80% of what I was thinking, particularly the 'don't oversaturate the market' piece. Slow grow may not make Hasbro happy every quarter, but slow grow avoids falling off of the cliff.

[Composer99]

Whilst I am not sure I agree, I don't think I disagree as hard as others here. I think there is some merit to the idea.

The issue I think this helps with is optional rules. Everyone thinks their particular preference for optional rules is the right way, and looks at DMs a bit wierd if they don't opt to use the optional rules for feats or do chose to use the optional rules for spell points. If there were "genres" that bundled up different sets of optional rules and options together then it would at least enable a) some content to be gated for worlds for which they were appropriate and b) create a justified expectation amongst players for what is an option.

You want to play a Noir game - then Gritty realism rules are on the table along with lingering injuries and trauma, the honour stat is not in use and paladins and clerics and druids are not in play but artificers are. Divinations spells are limited to X,Y,Z... and so on.

Certain spells like divination spells screwing with investigative game styles, enchantment spells causing problems with certain types of socially focussed games and so on could be addressed by this.



I am not saying it would work well. I am not saing it would be right or profitable but grouping of rules/content together for certain game styles could make sense and might be worth exploring. I think there are interesting, if dangerous options.

I think this sort of thing - discussing the bundles of variant rules and excisions needed to make a particular style of fantasy work - is something that ought to have been in the DMG from the outset.

(The DMG describes several different styles of fantasy, but doesn't offer mich guidance, IMO, on how to make any given style work with the base rules and the DMG variants.)

[Catullus64]

Whilst I am not sure I agree, I don't think I disagree as hard as others here. I think there is some merit to the idea.

The issue I think this helps with is optional rules. Everyone thinks their particular preference for optional rules is the right way, and looks at DMs a bit wierd if they don't opt to use the optional rules for feats or do chose to use the optional rules for spell points. If there were "genres" that bundled up different sets of optional rules and options together then it would at least enable a) some content to be gated for worlds for which they were appropriate and b) create a justified expectation amongst players for what is an option.

You want to play a Noir game - then Gritty realism rules are on the table along with lingering injuries and trauma, the honour stat is not in use and paladins and clerics and druids are not in play but artificers are. Divinations spells are limited to X,Y,Z... and so on.

Certain spells like divination spells screwing with investigative game styles, enchantment spells causing problems with certain types of socially focussed games and so on could be addressed by this.


I am not saying it would work well. I am not saing it would be right or profitable but grouping of rules/content together for certain game styles could make sense and might be worth exploring. I think there are interesting, if dangerous options.

Even if you disagree or are cautious on the whole, I appreciate the more constructive tone. I always like to lead with the most drastic, pie-in-the-sky version of an idea that occurs to me, and do the collective work of bringing it back down to earth afterwards.

The idea of having the modular pieces of the ruleset be sortable by flavors of fantasy, or by relative emphasis on the three pillars, or other criteria that people use to categorize their games is still in the direction of my suggestion. That seems like a much more elegant design than coming up with the individual rules, and telling DMs and players to sort out how to actually synthesize them into a working game.

[Keravath]

Even if you disagree or are cautious on the whole, I appreciate the more constructive tone. I always like to lead with the most drastic, pie-in-the-sky version of an idea that occurs to me, and do the collective work of bringing it back down to earth afterwards.

The idea of having the modular pieces of the ruleset be sortable by flavors of fantasy, or by relative emphasis on the three pillars, or other criteria that people use to categorize their games is still in the direction of my suggestion. That seems like a much more elegant design than coming up with the individual rules, and telling DMs and players to sort out how to actually synthesize them into a working game.

This statement seems to assume that 5e is not a working game. Personally, I have no real issues with it whatsoever and I run things mostly RAW. Fundamentally, I think, 5e works - and if it works why does it need fixing?

You also mentioned "a purpose-designed game system out of the box that has a narrow, specific vision of what it wants to be, and pursues that vision singularly."

The problem with this is that if an RPG has a narrow focus that is pursued singularly then the audience for that game is correspondingly small. The more focused anything is the smaller the target group since there will ALWAYS be aspects that one player/DM likes while another hates them. The result is that if the focus is narrowed so much sales plummet since the game loses its mass appeal. The mass appeal, in part, comes from a flexible system that has elements that appeal to a wide variety of people and is easily accessible. Different groups can then pick and choose the rules, settings and adventures that they want to make use of - never mind third party and home brew content.

In the case of 5e, Tolkienesque settings (with dwarves, elves, humans, orcs etc) are readily accessible and the increased presence in the popular media in part due to the movies increased the visibility of the genre - combine this with recognizable classes (wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue etc) and Vancian magic and you have a game system that is easily accessible and flexible enough to match almost anyone's expectations for mid/high fantasy. Splitting D&D into a dozen different RPGs (explorer, social interaction, combat sim OR science fiction, low magic, medium magic, high magic, modern, alternate reality) misses the point that D&D is inherently both broad and flexible and the emphasis in any campaign is likely to vary a lot. Any D&D will likely have all three pillars in a mixture that varies by session. Even published content already contains firearms and laser weapons while still being high fantasy settings.

The problem with breaking D&D into a set of discrete games aimed at specific play styles is that it misses the fundamental flexibility and open ended nature of any D&D world - which is part of the fun and appeal of the game system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem with breaking D&D into a set of discrete games aimed at specific play styles is that it misses the fundamental flexibility and open ended nature of any D&D world - which is part of the fun and appeal of the game system.

Hard agree.

And not just any world--I often have multiple play styles with different groups in the same setting. And even multiple play styles between different sessions of the same group.

My current campaign has had sections where we did multiple social-only sessions in a row. And some where we barely talked to anybody and just killed things. And others where exploration (either macro or micro) were important. And a most are strongly mixed, and mixed in unpredictable ways.

Heck, I had a group who went into a fight, heard me say something I thought was a throw-away vocalization by an enemy and decided to pull back and stop fighting and start negotiating. Which turned out to work well. Took that session in a completely different direction than I'd planned.

[False God]

Don't really see the point. Niche games do niche better than D&D, and everyone is going to go into "SPACE! A D&D RPG!" expecting D&D mechanics except with lasers and spaceships tacked on. So why not just make a supplement that includes lasers and spaceships and people who want to play that can do so, and people who don't, well, won't.

[Ettina]

I know many are clutching their pearls about the changes to racial stats. But here’s the thing - you’ve always been able to ignore that either way. You’ve always been able to let the players play what they want. We were doing it 30+ years ago and we still can.

Except that the lack of official stats for newer races made with Tasha's rules is a pain in the ass to any DM who wants to allow that race but doesn't want to allow custom racial ASIs for everything.

It's as if they published the races half-finished, and people just shrug and say "you can finish it up with homebrew if you want".

[loki_ragnarock]

Also this. D&D's goal is to be D&D, and it only emulates D&D.

3.X tried very hard to pretend it was/could be an universal system, and it didn't work out.

I don't know, BESM d20 came pretty close. Turns out trying to encapsulate every genre of anime nets you a system that can produce most genres of game, too. An odd duck that waddled straight into my heart.


As an aside, I heard a rumor about D&D being used for Power Rangers and My Little Pony a while ago. Anybody heard anything else about that? Did that wind up falling through or somehow not being what the rumors indicated?