I never really do posts like this, but I thought it would be fun to throw my speculative hat into the ring along with every other blogger out there making claims about D&D and what the future holds not only for 4e, but for the brand.
This is all speculation and wild theory, just for fun. I’m not an insider, nor have I ever claimed to be. That said, I do follow with interest a lot of D&D stuff on the web, forums, and twitter. So where do I think D&D is headed?
My gut tells me we are headed towards another edition of the game. An edition very different from 4e, and in fact, much closer to old school D&D. I think we may see this edition in 2014. Let me try to briefly explain why I think this to be the case.
First, a few points:
- Mike Mearls is now in charge of the D&D brand. Mike is an old school D&D lover. He plays AD&D, a lot. He has a lot of respect for the old game.
- D&D will turn 40 years old in 2014. An anniversary is a great time to launch a new edition, don’t you think?
- There is a lot of AD&D being played at the WOTC offices. If you don’t believe me, follow the developers on twitter. They’re always talking about it.
- D&D Minis have been canceled. Say what you will, but those minis and the design of the game probably were made to go hand in hand.
- 4e releases has slowed down for the year. Does that mean a slow down in 4e (non digital) materials for the rest of the edition’s life? We don’t know.
So let me try to make an argument here, using the above points. Mike Mearls plays a lot of AD&D, you just have to read his old personal blog to see this. This doesn’t mean, however, that he doesn’t play 4e. Of course he does, he’s in charge of it. But his love for the older D&D will eventually cross pollinate his design decisions as leader of the brand. Why wouldn’t they?
D&D turns 40 years old in 3 years. Why is that significant? Well, D&D 4e was announced in 2007, and released in 2008. But there was work being done as far back as 2005 on it, based on the 4e preview books that were released before 4e debuted. If an “Ultimate Dungeons & Dragons” edition were to be released just in time for the anniversary, now would be the time to start work on it. “Ultimate” edition, you ask? I’ll get to that in a bit.
AD&D being played in the office can be a very subjective thing, but I’m going to place my bets on that being part of the whole “researching” a new edition thing. Why? Well, if you are going to take D&D back to its roots, you need to understand those roots and have experience with them. Playing D&D on a morning at 9am-10am isn’t being done for fun, that’s work. Of course, again, this is all my opinion and I can be waaayyyyy off base.
The cancellation of D&D Minis is interesting to me. First and foremost, I’m of the believer that the shift in 3.5 to a more minis focused play over 3.0 was to have synergy with the minis line. You can say no till you’re blue in the face, but corporate America loves synergies and profits. And D&D is very much a part of corporate America, no matter how nice and approachable the designers are. They have corporate heads over them just like everyone else. It is what it is. So why keep spending money on minis if they aren’t profitable, and your next edition of the game won’t require them? It makes little sense.
4e releases slowing down leads me to believe that we’re finally witnessing the transition of 4e to an online product, rather than physical media. The errata silliness, the constant rules updates, and the steady stream of DDI cash flow make digital a better model. Plain and simple. Perhaps they think that they can hold players over with board games, organized play and DDI articles in the meantime. If 4e is slowing down, is it to get their best and brightest working on the next D&D? What I call “Ultimate”? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s fun to speculate.
So what do I expect this “Ultimate 40th Anniversary D&D” to look like? I’m seeing a game that combines both old school mechanics, with newer game design theories. I’m seeing a game that can be both grid based, or gridless, depending on your style. I’m seeing less focus on encounters, and more focus on roleplaying and story, while still easily enabling a heavy tactical nature to it for those players that enjoy it. I’m seeing conversion documents for easily translating older AD&D adventures to the “Ultimate” format. Adventures that, of course, will be available for purchase on their site as pdf’s.
WOTC can’t be blind to the fact that there are a large number of people playing old school games, and a large number of people that have left D&D altogether because of the direction that the game has taken in the past few years. The version of D&D I’m speculating on may just be what brings these people back to the fold.
Then there were the two following “Legends and Lore” articles by Mike Mearls:
In an article called “Miniature Madness” Mike wrote about the use of minis through the years, then wrote the following:
The argument in favor of the 3.5/4th Edition approach (4th Edition uses the same design philosophy) is that everyone at the table easily and clearly understands how cover and similar rules work. A player doesn’t need to ask the DM if a creature has cover. He draws the imaginary lines and fires away with the appropriate modifier. This makes things easier for the DM, because he doesn’t have to learn as many rules.
The counter is that the rule is more complex than it needs to be, because it has to create a foolproof method for determining cover without the use of common sense or description. When players can control rules, there’s a natural tendency to find ways to break them. In contrast, with the DM serving as impartial referee, you can write a simple rule that’s easy to learn and easy to apply. You don’t have to worry about strange corner cases because the DM—as part of making the judgment call required to determine cover—can simple cast aside absurd results.
I definitely fall into the second camp as both DM and player. As a player, I’m lazy. I’d rather just ask the DM if there’s cover and be done with it. As a DM, I’d rather learn a simple method that doesn’t require me to draw lines, mess with the grid, or otherwise break out of the action’s flow. Ironically, I like using miniatures, but I much prefer rules as tools rather than rules as arbiters.
So is what Mike saying here is that he prefers the old school approach? That’s how I’m reading it. That’s telling, coming from the guy in charge of the game moving forward. But even more importantly, they added a poll at the end, asking people for their opinion on the grid and minis:
Your Turn to Weigh In
Now we’ve come to the part of the column where I turn things over to you. At the end of the day, do you want the grid to answer questions or do you want the DM to make a call based on the rules? Does the 3.0 or 3.5/4 approach work better for you? Does my opinion paint me as an idiot or a genius, or something in the middle?
The 3rd Edition of D&D had rules for cover that required the DM to apply a rule to a situation using his or her judgment and common sense. The 3.5 update (and 4th Edition) created a hard and fast rule for determining cover that removed the DM’s judgment.
I don’t think you take polls if you intend to do nothing with the data. Just my opinion. I may be off base here, but I get the feeling that Mike is looking at old school D&D a lot more today than in 2005-06. Why? Well, again, my opinion is that it’s a new edition being worked on.
The other article I want to point to was Mike’s recent love letter to players of all editions of D&D:
When we look at the past, we see how we played the game and learn where it started. As we move forward from D&D’s beginning, we see how the game changed, why it changed, and how we changed in response. When we understand the sum of those 38 years of changes, we can understand the present. We can see the big picture, the tale that extends from 1973 (the year Gary signed the foreword to the Original Edition) to today. A cycle emerges, as each version of the game represents a shift from one gaming generation to the next. What I’d like to do in this column is inspect that cycle, take it apart, and use it to look to the future.
What I got out of the article was basically an olive branch being extended to all D&D players, regardless of what version of the game they play, and regardless of what company makes it. Would WOTC want these players back? You bet your butt they would.
So to close this out, I’ll restate my prediction: Dungeons & Dragons Ultimate Edition, released in 2014. It will incorporate rules for both abstract, and tactical combat, it will be heavily influenced by early D&D, and it will be made to hopefully appeal to old school players, as well as current players of the game. It will be announced in 2013, and is currently in development. It will bring back the sale of older pdf’s to the market, as it will be made to easily use that material with some easy conversion work by the players.
Am I completely off base? Probably, yeah. But it’s fun to speculate. I can’t wait to read your comments.
🙂
www. Newbie DM .com 
Wolfie
February 28, 2011
You forgot the part about how half the people will love it and half the people will complain how it totally ruins everything that D&D has ever stood for.
Rolling20s
February 28, 2011
You bring up a lot of interesting points. I have to say, a lot of the signs you are looking at seem accurate. What’s funny is that the product you describe in your Ultimate Edition seems a lot like Pathfinder to me. Now, I know that Pathfinder is very different than old-school D&D, but to some people it’s more true to the source than 4e is.
If that’s the direction that WotC are going (back to an old-school approach), I will be very interested to see what it yields. I play Pathfinder because it’s more like the D&D I grew to love. 4e if a great game, but not what I wanted on a regular basis. If WotC can bring back that old-school feel and pair it with modern design philosophies, then for my part, Pathfinder will have a contender for my group’s gaming time.
John Doom
February 28, 2011
As a reluctant DM, there are a few things that I really think works for 4e that actually brought me into the DM’ing fray. The first is the simplicity of the setup for the DM. Since I don’t have a lot of time to do prep, I like how simple 4e makes my job as a DM. Secondly, my players will lie, cheat and steal anything that isn’t nailed down in the game. I like the grid and minis to ensure they haven’t moved 500 yards in a round so they can get an attack on someone they weren’t even near, only to have moved back to the original position when the monster attempts to retaliate. (a lot of the move rules are broken outside of the grid system in my experience.)
If “Ultimate D&D” is what you say it will be; I will happily play again but leave DMing for those with the true time investment required to setup the AD&D type game.
Again; thanks for the article and the great blog! Keep it up!
John
Glimm the Gnome
February 28, 2011
2014 is actually further out than my guess of announcement in summer 2012 and release in 2013. I think the introduction of the Unearthed Arcana articles to D&DI is another big point that work has started on a new edition. The articles are a way for developers to test new ideas that push the boundaries of the current edition’s rules which is similar to the books that have filled the last couple years of previous D&D editions such as the Book of Nine Swords and Tome of Magic.
Hythian
February 28, 2011
I have been wondering about this too. Everytime I check the release schedule it seems like their are fewer ‘crunchy’ books with mechanics listed (now down to just Heroes of Shadow and a Nevinter Valley Monster Vault I think), but not many changes to the line-up of ‘flavor’ books with setting info or adventures (that are somewhat more ‘edition neutral’ than, say, an Arcane Power 2 would be).
Given the dearth of releases I actually expect the new edition to be announced as soon as the next D & D Experience come Jan/Feb 2012. August 2011’s GenCon is unlikely given that they will still be pushing this years release schedule (and the Neverwinter tie-in marketings like the forthcoming video game in Q4 this year).
As for a return to the style of old, that does seem likely. Among my gaming circle we’ve talked abotu the Essentials classes feeling like an attempt to re-work the 4E classes to have more of a 2/3E ‘feel’ to them, with mixed results.
It isn’t too much of a leap to look at those, and all of the recent talk about older editions, and wonder what a 5E of D&D would be like if some of those stylistic tics were taken a bit further and the classes got a bit more specialized again.
symatt
February 28, 2011
I agree that a system has to appeal to as many people as possible, its the way to make money and that’s what WoTC are in it for in the end.
To consider an AD&D and 4e mash-up, to me is Not what i am looking for in a game. To complicate something is to hinder. That’s just me I like easy rules as to manyrules go in one side and out the other, I just can not recall all and everything and to be honest I do not want to have to do that to enjoy a game.
Now that said I’m all up for a new direction, I’ve had fun and still have fun with 4e but WoTC seem to have lost the will to continue.
So, I’m ready for more and of the same. bring It on Is what I say.
deadorcs
February 28, 2011
Interesting speculation. I think you’ve hit upon some interesting ideas, but it seems much like conspiracy theory.
It seems to me that WotC made it pretty clear that miniatures were a loved aspect of the game, but were simply too expensive to produce given the rising cost of materials (petroleum for plastics). If the next edition has changes that reduce or limit the need for miniatures, it might be driven by this. I continue to assert, though, that D&D started as a game designed for miniatures. Way back in 1981, we always had some kind of miniature representation of our characters on the table, even if it was just to outline a “battle order”. I don’t think miniature use in the game is really going to change that much.
I think that WotC will have lots of interesting things to offer for D&D come the 40th anniversary. They may even release an “old-school” version of the game. I don’t think it will be a core release, though. I think it will be a “special edition”. I think trying to celebrate a big anniversary AND release a brand new edition (with all the support that entails) would be too expensive to pull off.
I think your closest prediction is the move to an online environment. WotC is spending a LOT of money on digital efforts, and (despite nerd grousing) is trying to do it correctly this time. Having seen the VT, it’s already a great tool, and if WotC were in a fit of haste, they could probably release it. However, it’s really not ready, and they’re taking their time. So, I do think that as the next years progress, we’ll see the possibility of being able to play D&D without ever having to roll dice or even buy a book. Not placing a judgment on that, but I think that’s the direction the game is going.
Oh well, that’s my rambling response. I know I won’t be placing any wagers any time soon, though. Anything can and does happen. Great Post!
DeadOrcs
Ethan
February 28, 2011
I foresee the concise and modular organization of 4e merging with the rules set from D&D 3.5 and d20 Modern.
mbeacom
February 28, 2011
This is, by FAR, the best case I’ve seen made for what’s going on at WotC right now. No aspersions were cast, no judgement made. Just good solid analysis and observation.
I’ll add that, as I read the rules for 4E for the first time and saw how the powers were designed, I thought it was pretty obvious that the rules were designed to help sell more minis, dungeon tiles, and other accessories that related to their use. It only makes sense that you can make more money if your game has higher costs related to its consumption. It bothered me at first, but as I fell in love with 4E, I stopped caring. Then, as I realized how much MORE I was gleefully spending on 4E than I had on past editions it started to bother me again.
Anyway, I don’t know if I can say I “agree” with everything you’ve speculated exactly so, but I would certainly say it ALL sounds reasonable. And, taking it as a generic whole, makes perfect sense.
I might make a distinction that I don’t think they cancelled the mini line because they’re working on a version that doesn’t require them so much as they’re working on a version that doesn’t require them because they found they can’t make money on them even when the edition DOES require them. Subtle, yes, but noteworthy.
Anyway, as always, a great article with lots of awesome things to think about.
I’ll go on the record and say, “If you are correct, and we get an Ultimate Edition in 2014 that makes older conversions easier, contains rules for play with and withOUT minis/grids, I will be ABSOLUTELY THRILLED!”.
Hate me (internet people) if you want but thats how I feel.
Jeff
February 28, 2011
Great article. I love it.
It’s nice and logical. I have also noticed the tweets of the wotc group playing the older versions of the game.
Our current group is getting bogged down in the mechanics of the mid levels of 4e. I think we are going to try some other things, but my DM has stated that he’s not going to play any 5e.
I will have to try and talk him out of it!
I’m hoping you are off on the date, and that it is earlier. Other than that, I think you are right on target.
mbeacom
February 28, 2011
Comments in relation to some other comments entered while I typed mine.
@Rolling 20s
“What’s funny is that the product you describe in your Ultimate Edition seems a lot like Pathfinder to me.”
I didn’t get that at all, quite the opposite in fact. A mashup of AD&D and 4E would likely askew all the rules complexity that bogged down 2nd and 3rd editions and PF. I already see 4E as much closer to the vision of 1E than 3.5 was.
If you really want to see what 1E+d20 would look like, try Castles and Crusades, its a beautiful and elegant take on 1E using the d20 OGL.
I think the thing Newbie refers to would be an effort to reboot D&D so that we don’t have to go down the path of forced complexity that lead us to 3.5. Not to go back TO that. All while taking into account the modern design intent of 4E. I think it would make a great potentially great game but not one that would look like Pathfinder.
@John Doom
“If “Ultimate D&D” is what you say it will be; I will happily play again but leave DMing for those with the true time investment required to setup the AD&D type game.”
My prep time for 1E and 4E are pretty similar. If they mash them up, or rather, if they design 5E using 1E as the ultimate inspiration, I think its safe to say that prep will be even easier than 4E is now, particularly if you’re a DM who is willing to “wing it” which was much easier with 1E.
@DeadOrcs, I’m with you on the mini cancellation. I think they were being honest. But I think newbie is right in that their cancellation is impacting (if not caused by) future design decisions.
Sentack
February 28, 2011
I know a lot of people who will claim Wizards is working on a new edition as a money grab.
I hate that comment because, while it’s not completely false but the reason why it’s not false is not for any reason they will often draw. It’s partly true because Wizards is a for-profit company. Should they have the resources, they should want to create new products. New editions are a great revenue source, if well supported. But I will admit, I rather they just add more to 4e. Still, a new even simpler system? Yes please. But I still like my tactical combat.
That all being said, I hate to drop 4e, specially when I feel like Essentials did a great thing for it but I’ve discovered I don’t like feats, I don’t like skills as they work now, and I find feature creep to be a constant problem.
Maybe I just want a much slimmer system, I might be able to do that with 4e but not in my current game. Eventually, I could.
callin
February 28, 2011
I’m not sure D&D would survive another edition. Every new edition brings in less people and alienates more.
3E had run its course and it was time to move on. With the large number of 3rd party publishers involved in 3E virtually every angle of D&D had been covered; there was no where else to go except a new edition that changed the status quo. 4E has not even remotely reached that level yet. A new edition at this point would be nothing but a blatant grab for more money, which would alienate even more people.
Going old-school will not help 5E and WotC. OSR players want to play their old-school not 5E. They already have what they want, so why should they invest in a game they don’t need and a company they despise because “it failed them”.
As for WotC releasing fewer books, I think this has less to do with a ramp up to 5E and more to do with the fact they realized that some of the upcoming books were crap and doomed to fail. Sure they would have appealed to some of the people, but not too enough.
I see 2014 releasing a 4E version meant to tie in the old school editions, make 4E more backwards compatible.
I also see 4E becoming more digital, with a base subscription and then special downloads you can make that add to your personal base of books you have access to, ie you “buy” PH5 online and after buying it you have access to it on the character builder. DSL is all the rage for video games these days so I can see WotC trying something similar. I also don’t think it would work, but I can see them trying it.
greywulf
February 28, 2011
I’d love them to release something for the 40th Anniversary, but I doubt it will be 5th Edition D&D. A retrosepctive White Box Special Edition, perhaps. I’d like that.
I think 5e will come later. They’re not going to make the same mistake they made with 4e and release it far too soon and too buggy. That cost them far too dearly.
Brian Patterson
February 28, 2011
Great post as always.
I can see where you are coming from with many of your points. I believe that we’ll see another edition of the game announced around the anniversary and I agree that with Mike Mearls at the helm it will have a more old school feel. I do not believe this to be a bad thing. A little bit of 2e and 3e dropped into the collective D&D gumbo could be fantastic if placed in the right hands (which I think Mearls and crew are).
I’ll be straight here, I love 4e D&D. Despite a few hiccups, it is my favorite edition of the game but that’s not to say we could not stand to see another edition in the future. In fact, I think we (and WotC) NEED another edition of D&D. Let’s be honest, 4e alienated some players and brought in a few as well. Many of the books came too soon and hurt their overall sales but in the end the product was strong. Say what you will about Essentials (and I’m not starting a fight here) but it was hit and miss with a lot of folks. I love the idea of a new starter boxed set but I do not believe you needed a pseudo new edition of the game to create one. Especially after players and DM spent plenty of money over the year buying new player’s handbooks and monster manuals.
Now a bit into 2011 I have a feeling that D&D proper (meaning 4e) is on the ropes a little bit. The gaming industry is flush with many quality games to play. With Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, the Dragon Age RPG and others D&D is not the best, biggest option anymore and I think this year will be a year of introspection and planning for the WotC R&D crew as they look ahead to the future of D&D. Will it be tougher to capture or reclaim players? Yes it will but I have faith in the minds behind the game (I said the game not the corporation).
While I do not hope for a return to THACO, I do hope the next edition takes a few queues from the golden-age of gaming by way of campaigns and adventures mixed with modern production values and a strong online presence. Either way, I think we all love D&D and look forward to what comes next.
metaDM
February 28, 2011
I think there is definitely something to your speculation. You didn’t mention Steve Winter’s recent call for submissions where he is looking for adventure ideas that push boundaries. I don’t see why you can’t have it both ways. Multiple versions of the combat rules can exist side by side. Your group can decide what combat rules they would like to use. The statblocks for older editions are so small you could probable even print tactical and old school statblocks and still keep the encounter in the standard 2 page format.
Icosahedrophilia
February 28, 2011
With regard to miniatures and the
cancellationsuspension of regularly recurring releases for the D&D Miniatures line, I agree with DeadOrcs that (1) earlier editions were also designed with minis in mind, and (2) WotC shelved D&D Miniatures (for now) because they weren’t turning sufficient profit on those products.However, I would also add that, despite the suspension of plastic miniature production, WotC products otherwise show no sign whatsoever of a decreasing emphasis on tactical positioning. Yes, they’ve stopped producing wave after wave of increasingly-poorly-painted and increasingly-poorly-selling randomly-packaged plastic miniatures, after a few experiments to try to boost sales. WotC has not, however, shelved Dungeon Tiles. 30% of the titles in the Essentials line were mega-packs of Dungeon Tiles; the more specialized periodic releases are also slated to continue, with Caverns of Icewind Dale (arctic tiles) released in February and The Witchlight Fens (swamp tiles) coming up in June (and I thought I heard something about more urban interiors coming later in the year at a recorded DDXP new product seminar, but I could be misremembering). Another 30% of the Essentials line—the red box, the Dungeon Master’s Kit, and the Monster Vault—included poster maps and, as Exhibit A in “WotC’s not abandoning minis as a concept“—scads of monster tokens. The 2011 catalog includes three boxed sets that include poster maps and monster/villain tokens: Shadowfell, Madness at Gardmore Abbey, and Monster Vault: Threats of the Nentir Vale. The question is not, “So why keep spending money on minis if they aren’t profitable, and your next edition of the game won’t require them?” The question is, “So why keep spending money on plastic minis if they aren’t profitable, and you can achieve the same in-game function and drive up the price point of half or more of your products by bundling punch-out cardboard tokens instead?”
To me, the sudden onslaught of monster tokens shows that the D&D design trajectory continues along the path of an emphasis on tactical positioning and rich graphical representation thereof on the tabletop. Minis haven’t been so much canceled as replaced by tokens, the latter offering better profit margins (and much, much shorter turnaround time) for WotC (and, by extension, Hasbro—whose board game manufacturing prowess makes it possible for WotC to offer Dungeon Tiles and monster tokens at a reasonable price point in the first place).
mbeacom
February 28, 2011
Icosahedrophilia raises some very legitimate points. However, I would say that those points might simply prove that WotC isn’t completely abandoning 4E even if they ARE planning a focal shift in 5E. What I’m saying is that they don’t prove much either way.
Then again, nor do most of the points we speculate about. Even if Newbie is right, it still behooves WotC to get as much profit out of the last couple of years of 4E support as possible. Tokens and maps are a great way to do that, plus many of us have been asking for it for quite some time.
It’s also been noted by smarter folk than I that most of their initiatives lately have leveraged mediums that are not so easily pirated and/or resold. Hardcover books are about the easiest format to pirate and appear on ebay in droves at ultra low price points (a member of my game group just bought AV2 on ebay for $10 shipped in NM condition). Tiles and Tokens are not very useful in a digital format so pirates are less likely to bother with them. And they get damaged or lost much more easily than minis so it would be hard to find complete sets on ebay. In many cases, new WotC produced minis have to compete with used minis on ebay (mage knight, robo tech etc are very cheap) that perform just as well as new in most cases.
But yes, I’m in agreement that hasbro has a vested interest in selling more cardboard. That makes great sense and I’m surprised I haven’t seen that position laid out more frequently.
Frank "Darth Jerod" Foulis
February 28, 2011
I think there will be a new version of D&D, for the anniversary? I do not know, it makes sense but I doubt it since what? 2024 will be the 50th?
If they did do a new edition I was a bit shocked to see your thoughts on Roleplaying emphasis. I dont know I must be really old school because I thought that was part of the the DM and Players jobs to bring the game to life beyond the rolling the dice.
I believe at some point Mini’s will come back into play but I also think they will not pass up the opportunity to continue with the tokens.
I think they should be looking at what Fantasy Flight and Paizo are doing for their gaming lines and adapting. Fantasy Flight IMO is probably the best right now as a board game manufacturer and Paizo is making lots of add-ons for Pathfinder that I am not hearing screaming coming from the fan base.
Colmarr
February 28, 2011
I have to agree that some of the more speculative offerings recently certainly do seem to suggest that a new edition may be in the offing sooner or later. The fact that it’s Mearls at the helm further seems to suggest that that new edition will trend back to earlier editions rather than further away into new styles.
I’m not sure that I’m overly concerned about any of that. I won’t go to a new system that increases the workload on the DM, and I love 4e’s structure and design, but I’m not a fanboy and I wouldn’t reject a new edition that I liked simply because it was new.
So long as Newbie’s prediction about release date isn’t overly generous, I’ll be happy. I don’t think 5 years is too short a lifespan for an edition. Now, if we see 5e in 2012, I will not be a happy camper.
mxyzplk
February 28, 2011
Great analysis and I think it’s right on the money. I rejected 4e and stayed Pathfinder but really would prefer a lot of the “3.5e-ism” to be removed as well – really, post 3e is where things stopped getting better, and the “rules not rulings” focus of the game was a lot of it.
I’m not an OSRer because those old versions are often wonky as hell but I’d certainly welcome the ability to not have to pore over 500 pages of rules to play a game. Besides the OSR, things like Microlite20 and E6 are all people having that same inclination.
And it can’t be missing their notice how much success Paizo is having. What’s their big seller? Adventures. What caused 3e to explode? Third party adventures. What do we remember and value about 1e – “weapon vs armor type modifiers?” No, durr, it’s the classic adventures. Make the rules light and DM friendly and then make stuff where they can be used!
I’m glad to see the minis/battlemat focus drop back. I’m sure they’re selling tokens, but people really think that’s a serious money play? No one’s going to buy cardboard tokens for baggie-of-crack prices; we all have printers you know.
I love me the Pathfinder, but a 5e that is more like a cleaned up 1e that returns the DM to the driver’s seat and lets you construct realistic fantasy worlds and immerse into something other than a bastardized version of the legal profession… I’d play that!
Bernd Pressler
March 1, 2011
Meh,
for me I can only say: I hope your predictions are not right.
I have made my experiences with earlier editions of D&D, even AD&D and while giving more power to the GM is something I don’t mind, there are other things typically connected to old-school (even up to D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder) games, that really bug me.
One is a lack of balancing inside and out of combat. Just compare teh skill-side of an old Rogue to that of a fighter. Or compare the influence of a wizard to that of a rogue,especially as the game progresses toward high-level.
I have tried it, and honestly, I have no idea how, as a DM, to adjust to that.
Another one is the one-hit-kill options.
The last one is the possibilities in character development. Because, honestly in older D&D versions it technically made no difference, if you played an elf, a human or a halfling (maybe halfling the most, because its impacts with smaller weapons, was rather big, again effectively limiting your development possibilities). Sure one got a little low light vision here (or even darkvision), others got some nice bonus to attributes or some skills, but overall the impact was that you’d be 5-10% better in some ways. The game as it is in 4e allows for a much greater character customizations and the chance you’ll hurt yourself (not literally) was a lot lower.
I can’t imagine how you could blend the old and the new ways, and from my experience I have also seen a lot of DMs which can not really help to make the game fun for everyone at the table. I mean, more freedom doesn’t have to mean less balancing, but I have never seen it realized without that connection.
Well. We will see.
Ace42
March 1, 2011
Anything that makes ANY of 4E obsolete will seriously damage the brand.
Not because of “version wars” or me thinking 4E is the bee’s knees, but simply because I’ve got hundreds of £££s of books I’ve been collecting over the last year and a half, I picked up Eberron Campaign Guide for my new Campaign last week; and if the product’s already obsolete, I’ll feel freaking ripped off that I’ve spent a fortune on materials that will be totally useless when I could’ve run my campaign with a fraction of that.
I’d rather see 4E shored up and fixed than thrown on the scrap heap, and I’d certainly find it impossible to justify the cost of buying up a new edition.
Richard R.
March 1, 2011
@Ace42,
Newbie is talking about this happening in 3 years time. Assuming a release at or near GenCon 2014, its more than 3 years off. Thats plenty of time to run a campaign in every published setting without feeling ripped off. Sure 6 years can feel short for an edition, but nobodies money will have been wasted on 6 years of game play. And besides, like they always say, if you love 4E, keep playing it with the books you have. The release of a new edition doesn’t obsolete any of the older editions. Look how many people still play 3.5 and pathfinder to see that.
CJR
March 1, 2011
Thanks for this post; I think it’s quite prescient. It’s worth pointing out that some of the things you expect or want to see in an “Ultimate D&D” game have already been done with Castles and Crusades. C&C has the old school feel with updated mechanics. The mechanics are light, allowing less focus on encounters and more on roleplaying. They’re also modular, allowing them to be easily built upon if one wants a more tactical system. With fairly simple conversions it’s compatible with 1E and 3xE. And C&C requires even less prep time for DMs than 4e does. If D&D does go in the direction you’re suggesting, it might model the new version on what C&C did.
Josh
March 1, 2011
I concur that this is an excellent analysis and speculation, and I actually have to agree based on how my own gaming group (much like newbieDM’s group) have moved back towards pen & paper games and away from 4e tactical combat only games…
the one thing I never understood (and feel was a huge deterent to 4e being a bigger success) was that despite all the attempts to tie the miniatures into the game (the tiles, the rules, the tactical combat, the packaging of the heroes boxed sets) they never made it easy for people to get the miniatures that they needed…
on one hand they said “find a box of kobolds, rats, goblins, spiders, and oh yeah, all your PCs” and then they basically made you go to Ebay to do it…
I understand the production issues, the timing of the minis vs the paper publications, but you’d think somebody at WotC would have realized that the time frame mis-alignment and lack of ease of entering the game without the minis would be a problem.
Anywho, I am intrigued and will keep watching the blogs for more hints as to where this might be going. – Kudos, Josh
froth
March 1, 2011
if they put out a new edition in 2012 i will never buy another product from them as long as i live
JoJa
March 1, 2011
Newbie,
As a recent convert to Dragon Age, I was wondering if you felt the folks at WotC were watching Pramas and Co. at all, and how that might be affecting a return-to-our-roots motive for an Ultimate Edition. I mean, its obvious that Pathfinder’s success has to be the largest factor for any type of turning back the clock that Wizards might try to do. (Aside from, as you said, Mearls’ love for earlier versions of the game).
It just seems to me that there’s also been a recent surge of interest in the Dragon Age game and mechanics (if not more-so the underlying premise of a rules light, combat-second game engine), and it would be interesting to speculate how the folks at WotC view the Dragon Age game as a possible competitor or contender at all in addition to their concerns about Pathfinder.
I don’t mean to pit the games against each other, (and I don’t think D&D will ever give up the d20 mechanic) but I find the DA game captures the feel of old school gaming while retaining modern gaming sensibilities, something you seem to be saying WotC is looking for in the next edition of D&D. Think they could draw any inspiration from Dragon Age?
I don’t think it could hurt.
Disemvowel
March 1, 2011
You might just be on to something there. This has definitely affected people like myself, who do not want to play 4ed, nor do we enjoy it. And I eventually got to the point that rules and minis were absurd;y complicated. Then I discovered Dragon Age RPG. I would never go back to D&D or even PFRPG now. I simply cannot. They try to much to give the verisimilitude of ‘real’ life combat with monsters. Too much. Gaming was never about the rules.
Cody
March 1, 2011
I think a lot of your points make a lot of sense and I will have to through my hat in with you in believing a new edition is in the works. While 4e is not a bad system at all (I actually think it’s pretty simple if you remove the powers), I’ve never been a big fan of it. So, a 5e where the rules are more simple and focus more on roleplaying than tactical combat would be something I’d really like to see.
I also don’t think your timing is off by that much either. 3e/3.5 had a life span of about 8 years, (having been released in 2000 and officially ended with 4e’s release in 2008), a 2014 release would give it a 6 year life span. That’s only 2 years shorter than 3e/3.5. Since Wizards is owned by Hasbro, it would make more sense for them to release a new edition for the game so they but a new breath of life into the game and keep this cash cow alive.
Now, I would love if Wizards looked at the Dragon Age RPG when working on 5e. While I love Pathfinder, Dragon Age is easily becoming one of my favorite systems. It’s really simple, but you can still think tactically.
Bernd Pressler
March 2, 2011
Hm.
The problem is not only the money spent on 4e books, but what makes 4e really well usable, for me, that is the digital support.
And that will go away with a fifth edition. (Maybe that edition will also have a digital support, I can’t imagine the wizards just wanting to scrap all they have, but if 5e is really more oldschool, I can’t imagine the benefit there being that high. Anyway the point is rather: I don’t think they’ll keep supporting the software and that will probably one of the things, that might kill 4e for me.)
Bernd Pressler
March 2, 2011
Of course it doesn’t have to end up badly. If the Essentials line in 4e is a showcase of what 5e might become, I am game. Totally.
Manuel Diaz
March 2, 2011
Well if you keep reading Mearls’ articles, achange is a comin.
Tiorn
March 4, 2011
I think you’re pretty well right on the money with your analysis and I’ll tell you why: Mearls’ use of the word ‘cycle’ in the 2nd article quote. That implies to me that he’s looking at bringing the game system ‘full circle’ and back to many of its roots. That’s not throwing out 4e in any way, shape, or form. That’s learning the lessons from the different versions and keeping what works and retooling what doesn’t. This might not lead to a full blown new 5e version of the game, but it will definitely lead to a seriously well thought out retooling of 4e at the very least.
boccobsblog
March 4, 2011
Great points, great point. I would like to add, in response to: “I’m of the believer that the shift in 3.5 to a more minis focused play over 3.0 was to have synergy with the minis line.”
D&D started as an evolution to a minis war game, and mini have always been a huge part of the game, but the rules in 2e really didn’t support this as much.
But, you may be right, once a corp. takes control of anything, it’s all about the money.
Glad to see a Newbie post. Keep up the amazing work on the site.
bss
March 4, 2011
Personally, having been a fan of Mike Mearls’ since Iron Heroes, I have to wonder if this talk of looking to the past and cycles and so on will come in a form similar to Iron Heroes — same ruleset (3.x, in IH’s case) but with a very different feel in campaign setting and character classes.
I also believe that Essentials was to 4e what Iron Heroes was to 3.x. I don’t know if Mearls’ promotion drove Essentials, but it’d make sense if that was the case.
In my ideal world, looking to the past is not a new edition but a furthering of Essentials, or an Iron Heroes-esque campaign setting, or so on. In short, still 4e, just with a different flavor. Those are my rose-colored two cents worth of mixed metaphors.
Upper_Krust
March 5, 2011
Hi there, interesting article. Hoping none of what you say comes to fruition though. I would agree that theres a strong likelihood that something will happen in 2014, but personally I don’t see any benefit in either WotC doing a 5th Edition or some return to AD&D. Been playing D&D for 25 years now and while I loved AD&D in particular, mechanically its nowhere near as interesting or as fun as 4th Edition.
Has the 4E release schedule dried up. Yes. But the reason for that is because WotC are releasing rule books and supplements ten times faster than the AD&D product releases back in the 80’s. There are only a finite number of supplements/rulebooks you can release before you begin tapping niches of the market. The majority of D&D products back then were adventures, seemingly with one released every month. I’m amazed WotC haven’t focused more on that route…maybe they don’t sell well enough, who knows.
Has the miniatures line been cancelled. Yes. But the reason for this, as far as I know, is the spiralling oil prices. So it makes sense to cancel it if it isn’t capable of turning a profit.
Personally I think we’ll see an online model at some point from WotC, a continuation of the board games (Ravenloft, Ashardalon) which seem pretty good and a nice introduction to the game by beginners, and, fingers crossed, an augmented reality version of the game in the near future.
Ace42
March 5, 2011
Has the miniatures line been cancelled. Yes. But the reason for this, as far as I know, is the spiralling oil prices.
The miniatures product line was always going to be a hard one to promote though: Heroes come in such a variety of combinations that most players would rather buy an individual one they can craft specifically to their expectations rather than have to buy a box of off-the-peg ones which are statistically unlikely to be an exact match to what they want in terms of both race, gender, and class.
For DMs who require a massive assortment of creatures in different shapes and sizes, it rapidly becomes prohibitively expensive, as there’s a good chance a new DM is going to require an entirely new set of monsters for each new encounter they set up in a published adventure.
It’s no surprise that tokens are such a popular alternative when they are a much more cost-effective way of going about it, when anyone with a printer and a simple art package can generate some relatively easily themselves to augment a starting set.
Thats plenty of time to run a campaign in every published setting without feeling ripped off. Sure 6 years can feel short for an edition, but nobodies money will have been wasted on 6 years of game play.
Assuming everyone started playing at the start of the version; players coming to it now will have half of that. And one year per campaign is a bit tight given the rate my group play at. And there’s a lot of supplements DMs like me will have picked up, but never having gotten around to using at all – for example I’ve barely had a chance to use Manual of the Planes in my previous campaign, let alone the additional supplements with the Plane Above / Below / Underdark, etc.
Richard R.
March 5, 2011
“Assuming everyone started playing at the start of the version; players coming to it now will have half of that.”
This isn’t really a valid argument since no matter how long or short an editions life, there will always be customers just entering into it. If the edition lasts 10 years, do the people who pick it up in year 9 really have a gripe that it ended too soon? In their eyes, sure, but legitimately? Not really.
Ace42
March 6, 2011
This isn’t really a valid argument since no matter how long or short an editions life, there will always be customers just entering into it.
That assumes an even distribution of customer uptake; whereas at its most simplistic you’d expect the average distribution curve to be bell shaped, with the majority of people picking it up in the middle of the product’s lifespan. Tail-enders and early adopters would both be a statistical minority.
The reality is of course neither of these – with the uptake being more contingent on events and marketing; but as Essentials hasn’t been out that long, and a new edition would render “4th Edition Lite” as obsolete as original 4E, the point still stands that 3 years is not a lot of time left before it’s off to the junk store and ebay with the old manuals.
Richard R.
March 6, 2011
Essentials is just more options for 4E. If the edition lasts 6 years, its’ enough. Theres no rule that an edition of any game has to last a specific amount of time.
Look at something like a video game console. The barrier to entry is vastly higher in $$ and they generally get replaced every 5-6 years. I think joe consumer is pretty comfortable with a 5-6 year life cycle on things. The only people who might feel short changed are VERY late adopters and possibly the ultra core consumers who are very heavily invested in buying all the books. Consumers who come on with the advent of Essentials are likely neither since Essentials was designed to appeal to people who were not like to spend a lot to get into the hobby to begin with.
But like I said, it doesn’t matter how long a cycle is, those adopters may inevitably feel short changed.
Upper_Krust
March 7, 2011
@Ace42
As regards miniatures, I agree with you. Personally though I always thought they missed a trick by not selling adventures in tandem with boxed sets of miniatures.
So each adventure they released would have an accompanying set of minatures and if you buy the boxed set of minatures (maybe $50) you get the adventure for free…thus adding an incentive.
Hawke
March 8, 2011
Upper_Krust, that’s a great idea on how to handle miniatures.
I don’t necessarily think the cancellation of minis has to do with a new edition, though. I think the tokens were successful in Red Box and Gamma World and the reality of the increasing costs crept in. I can see a business model someday working for them when some of the 3D printing costs come down, heck I eventually hope it comes down enough that you can just purchase 3D models, customize a bit, and print minis yourself.
The one thing I really hope WotC does is embrace the eBook. Imagine how much cooler it would be to have DDI with errata and features available right there on your kindle? I have to say that when they offered pdf versions of 4E books [i]I legally purchased every single book[/i] and since they dropped pdf support, I think Dark Sun and Gamma World are all I’ve purchased. I can’t be the only one, but I travel a lot for work and there’s a certain easy feeling about carrying around my library with me… I’m much less included to be able to flip between my notes, monster books, a published adventure, and a setting guide on a cross country plane.
Ace42
March 9, 2011
Look at something like a video game console. The barrier to entry is vastly higher in $$ and they generally get replaced every 5-6 years.
Yes, but customers accept that because every 5-6 years technology moves on and people want the prettiest fastest most technically sophisticated games they can get their hands on. Unless there is a massive breakthrough in the paper industry in the next 3 years, it is hard to use that argument to justify a new edition of D&D.
Richard R.
March 9, 2011
” Unless there is a massive breakthrough in the paper industry in the next 3 years, it is hard to use that argument to justify a new edition of D&D.”
Until you realize the massive amount of overlap in the 2 customer bases. And, until you realize that everything is going digital now. The world moves a lot faster than it did 30 years ago when 10 year cycles were acceptable. New games come and go in rapid succession. D&D will likely want to use modern elements of game design that we see in games like WoW or other MMOs that come and go during D&Ds edition timeframe. Games and our understanding of them has come a long way, even since 4E was designed back in 06 and 07. To stay relevant like this, it may be necessary to cycle sooner. I’m not saying I love it. I’m just saying it may be a practical necessity, and that the consumer will be used to it based on what modern product life cycles look like.
Matt F
March 12, 2011
Well, as a new D&D player and DM I can say that I will be happy either way. My current group all played D&D Basic back in early high school (middle school for the US’ers) but I never progressed to AD&D as there wasn’t enough people around.
Having recently gotten well into 4E I did a lot of research and the verdict was: There will always be a group of people (especially in nerdy spectrums) who will scream “You ruined my childhood/memories” when something isn’t exactly what they want. I stand accused with the new Star Wars films, but I think we can all agree on that!
I would say as a newbie DM and a group of friends coming from a Euro board gaming background, 4E is a great way to get back into D&D. We have only really just started our Dark Sun campaign but the guys are loving it. I can see, however, that a few of them would prefer to have a more story/roleplay focus rather than the current combat focus, so perhaps the new editions will cater to them.
As for mini’s/tiles etc and claims of money grabbing all I can say is, whether it is TSR or WOTC, these people need to make money. It is a business as well as a hobby and in order to employ staff and create new products you need to make money. Personally, we use a mix of tokens and Warhammer/Reaper minis as they are awesome and a combination of tiles and home made 3D scenery as a bunch of us come from tabletop wargaming backgrounds.
Soooo, in a nutshell, the game is what you make if it. If it is not your style, then other games certainly cater for you, but if you are going to dismiss something because it is not what you have been used to for the last 5 years, then . . . well, stick with what you know although it will probably dwindle and die out without support.
Scott Anderson
March 14, 2011
The change from 3.5 to 4e was a major overhaul. I saw this change happen with other games that I have played for many years. The difference between 2nd and 3rd edition Warhammer 40,oo (40K) is a good example. The 3rd edition of 40K represented a tremendous shift in the mechanics of the game. Since then 40K has undergone several other edition shifts, but the core of what was created in the 3rd edition has remained constant. I think that 4e is the same way. While 3.0 and 3.5 had many new rules, they were basically the same old AD&D with some tweaks. These tweaks began to take form in the Skill and Powers books published in the late 90s for AD&D. 4e is such a radical change to the game that it would be asinine of them to make a 5th edition with totally new rules. I think that the powers and encounters version of D&D is here to stay. It will be tweaked, but the core will remain the same for the next several editions; if those ever come to fruition.
The ID DM
March 14, 2011
I’ve been playing 4e for almost two years after a major break (15+ years) from D&D. I’m enjoying the system, and hope it is supported into the future.
I’ve been DMing the same group (more or less) for about a year now and we’re approaching Level 10. We can only get together every other week (at best), so we’ll complete one campaign in 4e in 2012 or 2013.
I’m not closed off to a new system in the future, but I’d like to continue with 4e for now. Our groups are having fun with it.
Mandis
March 25, 2011
Honestly? I think we are in the middle of a 4.5 edition right now. While the Essentials products were sold as a simpler, more intro-friendly 4th ed., it seems that the Essentials format is now the norm, and the older 4th ed. is being left by the wayside. I’m sure that the powers that be have a few good reasons for this; I just wish they’d own up to it.
4th ed. did a few things right, at the cost of a few others. As for the bad, it very much feels like it was designed with the selling of accessories in mind, with the new encounter card stuff being a blatant and sad showing of that. While I like minis (it gets rid of confusion on who is where and has cover/concealment/backstab on who) and using boards and tiles, making it mandatory to the system was sure to alienate many players.
As for the good, it made some classes have something to DO. Warrior types don’t just swing a sword X times with a “usually hit 33%, may hit 33%, usually miss 33% scheme. Sure, you COULD use disarm/trip/sunder, but very few games I played in did. If you started breaking weapons, so did your DM, and the DM has INFINITE weapons. Healers can heal at range, heal in combat, and more importantly, heal WHILE in combat. Mages, while screamed about for losing their insta-kill spells and big die pools, actually do MORE damage on average in my experience, as they don’t have to beat spell resist, saving throw, immunity, then resistance to do damage anymore.
But the trend towards a new edition is coming, and I agree that this time its a Bad Thing. 3.5 D&D was a complete system, for all its flaws and merits. Pathfinder even moreso, especially for someone who wants that older feel. 4th ed. was on its way towards being the same; all it really needed was a Divine/Arcane/Psionic/Primal Power 2 to give options to the classes that are a bit underrepresented and it would have been pretty solid. Instead, WotC decided to jump the shark and give the players something that a vocal minority asked for, forcing it on all players while telling everyone that its is compatible with old 4th ed. and refusing to answer questions on the fate of the older-style game.
I guess I am jaded; I have seen grand old game brands die. D&D seems to be caught between its popularity allowing for a little leeway and its desire to make a new money stream out of a historically static product. It IS possible, but they are currently failing on all points. Encounter cards? Dumbing-down a simplified system? Refusing to honestly speak to its constituents? All signs of a game company on the brink. Add in the crisis they are having with their paid accounts on their site (no “meat” in their online articles, pre-Beta quality electronic tools replacing the functional old ones, and refusal to mention the problems that loom on everyone’s minds), and I see a new edition in a year or so. And it will be the last one.
LE SIGH.
Flyer
April 3, 2011
I personally really don’t care if WoTC made D&D 20th edition, I quit buying D&D after 4e anyhow and would like to dump all the 4e crap I have. I went back to playing what I grew up with DMing, 1e AD&D in the form of OSRIC, I also have a complete collection of AD&D 1st & 2nd editions as well. 3rd edition never hit me well and I thought 4e would be cool but all the shinny books did was hide a lousy rules set. 1e is the way to go for me.
Jay K.
May 31, 2011
What are the chances of WotC spinning of the D&D team, merging with Paizo, and coming out with 5e, a new but back to basics D&D? Would that bring in most of the fold, or would everyone revolt?
jhunton
June 7, 2011
I to have seen the light see you at gecon 2011 sat
James Smith
July 1, 2011
Maybe. I think you’ve raised some valid points and make as strong a case for the picture you’ve painted as anyone else has for their prognostications.
As someone who games in the OSR playground, I think the most WotC can hope for, when it comes to my gaming dollars, would be to make a game I’d be interested in playing occasionally, or using to yoink ideas from, etc., like, say, Goodman’s DCC.
A lot of Old Schoolers really, really like the fact that our game is in the hobbyists hands, now. I wouldn’t want to tie my gaming to the doings of a corporation, anymore.
I’m not sure how Pathfinder players feel, but I have the notion that they’re really, really loyal to Paizo and quite happy with their situation, as well.
I don’t think WotC is going to be able to create the “ultimate edition” that will bring all us “lapsed customers” back into the fold. They would be better off working for their current customer base and making the best 4e game and products they can.
My gaming needs are already met. I have several versions of “old school D&D” I can use. I have publishers and individuals creating more “for purchase,” OSR products than I can keep up with. A ton of free material being produced, literally on a daily basis, hundreds of blogs and several forums, where I can network, communicate with others and make new friends. And I have players. The Pathfinder folk seem to be set as well.
I don’t want to see WotC abandon their current customer base. What I would really, really hate to see, is WotC abandoning RPG’s and turning D&D into a boardgame brand, which is another road that some think the designers are going to take the game.
TheKraken
January 9, 2012
Well Newbie, Looks like you were a hell of a lot closer than anyone guessed.