Quote from: Benoist;549725f it being "meh" would end up being its undoing in the end.

I think that's a symptom, not a cause.  A combination of PDF publishing and open licenses have created a environment where people can create competitors to the IP mostly for free and distribute them in a form that never wears out.

Prior to the open license mistake, D&D had (unplanned) obsolescence built-in by virtue of the fact that eventually you wouldn't be able to buy any more copies of the older edition books, and your originals would be tatty and falling apart.  If you wanted to keep playing, you'd lief as not just pick up the latest edition and roll with it.

The open license has created competition for the brand, and PDF publishing means those competing products will remain for sale long after the initial physical print run would have sold out or been pulped, had they been printed books.  People who would once have bought D&D Whatever-Edition-Is-On-Sale-This-Week and grumbled and houseruled it back to what they really liked now have the option of not doing so.

tl;dr: it's not the rules, it's the competition.

I think the very first step is understanding that, no matter what, you're going to lose a certain (let's say "extremist") demographic of every single previous-edition fandom.  So the key is how do you manage to obtain the maximum possible number of every fandom demographic, and also appeal to new gamers?

Note also that this "maximum possible" will not be the same percentage of each fandom; each choice could make you gain more of one fandom and lose more of another; so the choices need to be those where the gain in one fandom outstrips potential loss in the other.  And in the end, retaining the largest amount of a single fandom will not really matter if the end-product game is one that won't also appeal to new gamers; meaning that the best possible result for 'retention' might also not be the one to go with. Its tricky.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;549670So I'm thinking that the outcome where everyone looks at the game, maybe pillages this or that idea from the core book, and then just goes "meh, I'd never run that as a whole instead of [edition X]" is a real possibility at this point, and this would make 5e a commercial failure akin to 4th on the short term, just after initial sales of core books.

What do you guys think?

I think I've been saying that for years now.

WotC divided and radicalized their fanbase. The idea that they can bring all the radicals together again and make them play nice in a single system is absurd. The concept of patching over the fundamental rift they've created by releasing the game in "modules" so radical that, if they actually did what they claim they're going to do, you wouldn't be able to play an adventure designed for one set of modules while running a different set of modules just institutionalizes the absurdity.

As I've said before: The 3.5/PF players they're trying to draw back into the fold are inherently satisfied with the game they're playing (that's why they're still playing it). The only way WotC can win them back is to deliver a game that's fundamentally like the game they're already playing but so much better that they feel a need to upgrade away from the time, expertise, and money they've invested in 3.5/PF.

But delivering a game fundamentally like 3.5/PF would be anathema to 4E players.

Quote from: daniel_ream;549773Prior to the open license mistake,

The open license wasn't the mistake. Walking away from the classic gameplay of D&D was the mistake.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;550208The open license wasn't the mistake. Walking away from the classic gameplay of D&D was the mistake.

This.  Big time.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;550208As I've said before: The 3.5/PF players they're trying to draw back into the fold are inherently satisfied with the game they're playing (that's why they're still playing it). The only way WotC can win them back is to deliver a game that's fundamentally like the game they're already playing but so much better that they feel a need to upgrade away from the time, expertise, and money they've invested in 3.5/PF.

Each edition of D&D has a set specific complaints and quirks that repeatedly get pointed to, even by people who otherwise enjoy and play that edition.  In the case of 3.5, the complaint I heard again and again, and based on my own experience I agree, is that it's difficult and time consuming to GM.  Another key complain comes from critics on character build engineering, which revolves largely around feats.  Others complained about needing a grid for battles.  Both 3.5 and 4E have flaws that even people who are otherwise fans complain about.

I think the solution would look something like a stripped-down 3.5, retaining skills of some sort but without feats, without the more complex combat elements that made grids necessary, without some of the fiddly complexity, and with simplified monsters and abilities.  Basically, move things in the direction of some of the 3.x-based OSR hybrid versions, keeping a more modern 3.x core but dialing things a bit back toward earlier editions in terms of complexity and tight integration.  Fix the problem's of 3.5 but through simplification, rather than what 4E did.

On top of that, create an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons book that adds ideas and subsystems 3.5 and 4e back in as bolt-on package deals.  A chapter to add feats.  A chapter on grid-based tactical combat with Attacks of Opportunity.  A chapter on character abilities like surges and combat-role based abilities like 4E.  A chapter on more complex monster abilities.  A chapter of using 4E-like encounters.  And perhaps some adjustments to some of the internals to alter the feel and how the game plays toward various editions.   This is where fans of those newer additions could put back parts of those games that they like.  Other people could simply ignore them all if they want.

Rather than integrating them tightly together into one big take-it-or-leave-it package, make the subsystems as atomic as possible so that they can be bolted on or left off and the game will still be functional, which is going back toward how things originally worked.  I do think that's possible.  Yes, each of those bolt-ons and adjustments will change game play and change the way an adventure will play run with or without those options but, to a large degree, that's the point of using them.

This is pretty much what I recommended at the beginning (along with a really stripped down Lite version along the lines of the Microlite20 rules and a Beginners edition akin to the late-1970s and early-1980s beginners boxed sets.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;550208The open license wasn't the mistake. Walking away from the classic gameplay of D&D was the mistake.

If 2 dudes with actual day jobs can make a modular game based on the D20 3x game engine that works as advertised (FantasyCraft) I'm sure it can be done for 5e. Their issue is support and Wotc has that covered, too well in fact.  Which gives rise to a new set of issues.

Otherwise your second statement is the real reason why 4e failed.

But FantasyCraft is shit.

Quote from: B.T.;550259But FantasyCraft is shit.

Naw, you're just shit. Two different things sir.

I am going to have to make another FantasyCraft hate thread now.

Please do, the last one was entertaining.

Quote from: B.T.;550262I am going to have to make another FantasyCraft hate thread now.

Bring it bitch I need a laugh.

Quote from: Benoist;549670What do you guys think?

Nothing has changed for me. From day one, I've said that appeasing fans of every edition is an impossible and foolish task.

0e-2e / 3e / 4e are different games that appeal to different styles of play and thus different players. There is no way 5e can play to all three styles simultaneously.

Our group continues the lackluster 5e playtests, but the most fun we've had recently was playing a DCC demo instead. We are rebooting the campaign with the new draft of rules next month hoping that it gets better.

4e was a failure of marketing, not execution. WotC clearly abandoned the 3e customer base, but did nothing to draw in a new audience. In business, its fine to move on to new customers, but you can only do so with significant advertising. The fact its 2012 and there is no official online gametable is an utter embarrassment.

5e will live or die on marketing to a new generation of gamers. It will sell lots of core books for the first few months, but then players and GMs will quickly realize that they were having more fun playing a game designed to their style. And they will go back to that game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;5503244e was a failure of marketing, not execution. WotC clearly abandoned the 3e customer base, but did nothing to draw in a new audience. In business, its fine to move on to new customers, but you can only do so with significant advertising. The fact its 2012 and there is no official online gametable is an utter embarrassment.

I could be wrong but I think 4E actually got more of a marketing push than 3E.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550346

Quote from: Spinachcat;550324
WotC clearly abandoned the 3e customer base, but did nothing to draw in a new audience. In business, its fine to move on to new customers, but you can only do so with significant advertising. The fact its 2012 and there is no official online gametable is an utter embarrassment.

5e will live or die on marketing to a new generation of gamers. It will sell lots of core books for the first few months, but then players and GMs will quickly realize that they were having more fun playing a game designed to their style. And they will go back to that game.

I could be wrong but I think 4E actually got more of a marketing push than 3E.

That was my impression, too. I also don't think D&D can ever afford to completely abandon it's prior customer base. I just don't think the RPG market is large enough for that kind of move. At least, not without giving up even the meagre success it has had.

I hope all this back and forth and play testing and the resulting bickering doesn't totally fuck up the epic internet meltdown I'm hoping for after this thing is released.

It does occur to me though, that announcing a new edition of D&D in a US Election year is bad intertube etiquette. It's like shitting on top of the toilet seat, really.