The Gaming Den

So, people are starting to talk about a potential 6th edition

I don't hate 5e. Is it great? No, but while 3.X and Pathfinder appeal to the crunch fiend in me that likes to tinker with shit, they aren't perfect either. But really, WotC is owned by a toy company, and the execs are focused on profit and used to action figure and doll lines where it doesn't matter if a kid has five Batman figures, they'll immediately want the new one you dangle in front of them. So I wouldn't be surprised in Hasbro was grumbling at WotC to start working on a new edition.

Of course, 5e fans are divided on this, with one even saying the company page that posted a link to the above article on facebook lost a customer for stirring the pot. I think it's completely uninteresting to talk about whether and when there'll be a new edition (honestly, looking at 3rd-5th edition, it is actually about time, trend-wise), but considerably more interesting to talk about what we think a new edition should be like.

Personally, I would kind of like a sort of in-between point of 3.5 and 5th. 5th had some nice things, like classes being built with "specs" that you picked from (yes, like a goddamned MMO. My past self is ashamed of me) and doing away with "lesser, greater; I-IX" spell variations to just say "if you cast this spell with a higher spell slot, this happens." I also don't hate the proficiency bonus thing. I think there should be more customization, and I think 3.5's more codified skills were better than 5th's MTP skills, but a proficiency bonus in place of skill points works pretty well. I just think characters need, like, three proficiencies they get to pick agnostic to class and background. Hell, maybe five, and say "you can choose any skill, tool or language for these."

But, I like the tinker-ability of 3.5 and Pathfinder. Including the codified skills, but also the greater number of feats (both per character and overall), even if I prefer Pf's "one every odd level" allotment, and both have a lot of pointless or misbalanced feats. And I like the vast number of archetypes of Pathfinder, but this of course makes balance very, very difficult. I also think that D&D needs a system that lets DMs tinker with monsters, which 5th, to my knowledge, doesn't, and 3.5 didn't have a good, comprehensive system for.

But that's just my thoughts.

I think there was broad agreement that it was time for a new edition at the end of 3rd edition. There was a lot of material for the edition, so it was hard to explore in a new direction, and a lot of changes from 2nd to 3rd had been experimented with and evaluated.

Things like customizing a character with feats was hugely popular, but having so much material that could break the game in so many ways, wasn't. I think a lot of people were looking for a curated/streamlined 3rd edition - you'd have the character options you wanted, but making them would be easier. Characters would get more feats with fewer feat chains and no need to repeat the same feat selection (Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting) - especially if they came with significantly less marginal utility.

Obviously martial/caster parity remained a major issue. Giving people ways to access magic at high levels (even if it was through rituals or something) so a martial character could get TO the adventure would have been good.

Obviously, 4th edition didn't address any of those and it failed. Spectacularly.

But I don't think that there's any need to release a 5th edition. The edition is selling well enough that resetting things seems like a gamble. They certainly haven't explored the play space fully. The number of options in 5th edition remains relatively limited. Hot-fixes (like allowing Feats + stat bonuses) makes the game more playable, so we're kinda in a 2nd edition place - virtually nobody plays the game AS WRITTEN, but nothing that's in the core rules is so objectionable or problematic that people are demanding a new edition.

I don't think it's so much a need for a new edition, I think Hasbro execs make their decisions based on the toy industry they're used to, where you roll out a new series of action figures at least once a year. I could definitely see 5e hanging around a while longer, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see a new edition announced in the next year or so.

I thought they'd go the Hasbro Board Game Route, where the rules to Monopoly don't change but if DOOM is popular you get DOOM HELL plots to buy

I don't know. D&D has gone squigy. I'm almost positive that slapping the D&D name on non-RPG stuff, and RPG peripherals, and doing various partnerships like Rick and Morty and Stranger Things, is bringing in more money than actually selling rules books.

But also.... if they stopped printing rules books at all, and just did these various D&D board games and Owlbear plushies and Mimic dice pouches and licensing the brand name out for Netflix series to name check it... I don't think it'd work. I think Hasbro is stuck in the position where in order to cash in on the name and the cachet of D&D, they have to keep producing books, because just putting the name on shit that isn't actually a tabletop rpg book, won't keep it current as far as the buying public is concerned.

Also... I think it will be hard for them to keep that currency with one edition. I would almost put money on a new edition being announced by 2024, when 5th will be ten years old. And there's no way there won't be a new edition by 2034. But, given the complete absence of numbers, all we can look at is trends, and the trend suggests we're about due for a new edition. There were 3 years between OD&D and AD&D, 12 between AD&D and 2AD&D (with 2 versions of AD&D in that interim), and then 11 years between 2AD&D and 3e. After 3e, things picked up, with 8 years before 4e, and 7 years before 5e. I suppose the introduction of 5e was hastened by Pathfinder being a notable competitor to 4e, and 4e's sales and reception being somewhat lacklustre, despite its fanatics. 5e seems to occupy a different enough niche, it's anecdotally very good at bringing in new players.
Although I think we all know that has more to do with the things happening around 5e, like Critical Role, The Adventure Zone, Acquisitions Incorporated, and various indirect references in TV shows, such as Gravity Falls' Dungeons, Dungeons and More Dungeons episode, My Little Pony having characters play Ogres and Oubliettes, and literal product placement in Stranger Things.
I think there's only so long they can produce a single edition, even if they constantly have the books in print. By the late 90s, the art of 2nd edition was looking incredibly dated to the preteens and teens that are D&D's main demographic (imo). There's no way they could sell 2nd edition to new players today, just because of how aesthetics have evolved. Now, technically, they could keep ahead of that by commissioning new art for the books whenever the existing art starts looking dated. But I really doubt they'd do that.

In the past it's been pretty clear that D&D doesn't get reported to Hasbro as an individual property - it's just part of 'Wizards of the Coast'. In the Q1 2020 earnings report (available from this page or this direct link D&D is mentioned only twice, but not as a property that they're particularly focused on.

Example Quote

Hasbro Quarterly Earnings wrote: Widespread growth in HASBRO GAMING including DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and Classic Games like JENGA, CONNECT 4, THE GAME OF LIFE and OPERATION.

Example Quote regarding the Gaming Division

Hasbro Quarterly Earnings wrote:Hasbro’s total gaming category, including all gaming revenue, most notably MAGIC: THE GATHERING and MONOPOLY which are included in Franchise Brands in the table above, was $340M for Q1 2020, up 40% vs. $243M for Q1 2019. Hasbro believes its gaming portfolio is a
competitive differentiator and views it in its entirety

I sincerely doubt that the instruction is as detailed as 'release a new edition of D&D' - it's probably more like 'Wizard's of the Coast is expected to earn $15 million more in 2020 in the non-franchise brands category. Go figure out how'.

Yeah, a couple remarks on the idea that Hasbro executives only see the world through the lens of selling another Batman toy:

One: It is the Year of Our Lord MMXX, and video games have been cock-slapping traditional toy manufacturers with ever-growing speed and accuracy since the release of the Nintendo in the early eighties. This is not even a linear trend, because now children can ask for smartphones on any year that there isn't a new console to buy. So, there is not a single living toy executive who hasn't spent his entire career with an acute, innate understanding of the growing fact that there are more niches to (man)child leisure products than action figures with a tie-in cartoon. There aren't even significant shareholders who haven't clued in on that. There are guys who still get to run the cartoon-to-toy mill, but if they open their mouths at a board meeting to say some shit about how the whole business works that way, then everyone else in the room is just making a mental note of who retires next.

Two: Wizards of the Coast is the Hasbro holding to have most recently boasted a "hottest toy this Christmas Season!" by virtue of co-authoring the Pokemon CCG prior to their acquisition by Hasbro. More recently, WOTC earned about half a billion dollars of Hasbro's 4.71b$ net profit last year, just on the back of MTG alone. Putting aside the fact that this double-digit percentage of total company worth is something that a corporate superior will only fuck with by taking his life in his own hands... If they did want to micro-manage, then they would learn very quickly that that the incredible things that Magic does to move product are: controlling the nexus of player interaction to promote formats that are based in buying recent products and even using them as disposable play pieces, re-implementing its digital branch of the franchise, and gently making the rules ever-more comprehensive in such a way that the game maintains strict continuity going all the way back to its first implementation a quarter-century ago. Though their focus and all their profits are tied into the formats that use the most recent cards, WOTC has never ever zeroed-out previous editions of MTG, and they have maintained that fact as an ironclad commitment, which is thus a core feature of their brand aesthetic. This has business play: even the crustiest old-schooler in the toy biz appreciates how a game (like Monopoly) enjoys market prestige when it can claim to be timeless and consistent. So if some Wharton grad thinks he's going to be the next nerd-whisperer, he would be asking for more products every year, materials that they could sell as a necessity to participate in weekly pickup games at the local game store, and more videogames that they can discontinue support on without pissing off the paper consumers. But the core of the edition? He would want that to just keep evolving under the influence of errata so that last year's materials were always applicable. He'd want that to be part of the company line, to veil the fact that they were indeed incentivizing a mill of continual repurchasing, up to and including new prints of the core rulebooks with all the updates included.

So the thing a hypothetical corporate overlord is likely to demand, in my reckoning, is not going to be sixth edition; it's going to be 5.1.

EDIT: All of that said, the D&D branch has always had an element of weird nepotistic mediocrity, with production that conforms either to proforma completion of series they've already started, or really just whatever shit they feel like doing. The impetus for a new edition is certainly there but I move that it's going to have a lot more to do with the fact that an arch-nerd at WOTC itself is going to desire one. Possibly one made in his own image.

Fair points, I sit reinformed

That article is such an incoherent mess... that it is evident it is written by a 5E fan.

My understanding is that an edition's health is largely driven by core book sales. Supplements are gravy on top, but the potatoes is new core book sales. You'd expect a new edition when core book sales drop off. There's no evidence I can see that PHB sales are slowing significantly (coming in at 38, 21, and 40 on Amazon's bestseller list for years 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively, currently at #71 in 2020 but that's pre-holidays). Before that the PHB cracked the list at #92 in 2016, but never even made the cut its first or second year. The last four years have been the strongest years for 5e's PHB, at least according to Amazon. Until that trend completely reverses, I wouldn't expect a new edition to actually be greenlit.

Doesn't mean people aren't thinking about it, but it's just not on the horizon right now.

Stubbazubba wrote:My understanding is that an edition's health is largely driven by core book sales. Supplements are gravy on top, but the potatoes is new core book sales. You'd expect a new edition when core book sales drop off. There's no evidence I can see that PHB sales are slowing significantly (coming in at 38, 21, and 40 on Amazon's bestseller list for years 2019, 2018, and 2017, respectively, currently at #71 in 2020 but that's pre-holidays). Before that the PHB cracked the list at #92 in 2016, but never even made the cut its first or second year. The last four years have been the strongest years for 5e's PHB, at least according to Amazon. Until that trend completely reverses, I wouldn't expect a new edition to actually be greenlit.

Amazon stats are extremely questionable and subject to a massive amount of both category manipulation, sponsorship, and other chicanery. Numbers of actual units sold would be meaningful, comparative Amazon rankings are extremely dubious.

And I wouldn't be so sure about the overwhelming importance of Core books in the 2020 publishing environment. The amount of money it costs to produce and market a production value gaming book has positively collapsed since the days of 2e or 3e. Not only does digital production technology make books cheaper to make, but there's no longer any need to actually put the more marginal titles in stores at all. It is quite common now for niche publishers and vanity gaming presses to put out books online that look significantly better than anything produced by TSR or White Wolf circa 1995-2000.

WotC could make D&D spew books out tomorrow if they wanted too. Paizo did it after all. They simply have chosen not too. They've even managed to let the novel line effectively perish which is bizarre (WotC could probably find skilled writers who would pay them for the privilege of writing D&D novels).

Now, are back-end sourcebooks, novels, and Dragon-style additional content marginal, sure. And there's a real design-based argument that not flooding the edition with endless options is beneficial from a choice-paralysis and balance perspective. But WotC could absolutely push D&D harder if they wanted too and could probably make at least somewhat more money that way. Novels, in particular, offer at least the possibility of a breakout hit beyond the fandom that brings in huge revenue and maybe even someday leads to a TV series.

Mechalich wrote:Amazon stats are extremely questionable and subject to a massive amount of both category manipulation, sponsorship, and other chicanery. Numbers of actual units sold would be meaningful, comparative Amazon rankings are extremely dubious.

That's why I only cited the annual best seller list of all books. Obviously it's still subject to relative ebbs and flows, this could indicate drastically different amounts of sales, and Amazon's best seller list is the result of their own proprietary algorithm, yadda yadda, but relative to other books sold on Amazon.com, the PHB has done better since 2017 than it did before that. Obviously that doesn't account for FLGS sales and lots of other things, but it nevertheless is evidence for the premise that 5e core book sales have grown since launch, not decreased, which was my point: these are imperfect data, yes, but probably not so imperfect that reality is precisely the opposite of what they indicate.

I'm still surprised that they don't bite the ball gag and produce an AD&D with a MtG-flavored default setting.

Master of Magic came out 26 years ago. Heroes of M&M IV came out in 2002. You can graft the color-wheel onto ye default fantasy setting very easily, and while Hasbro has been resistant, this strikes me as crazy - https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/1 ... older-as-a .

Prak wrote:I don't know. D&D has gone squigy. I'm almost positive that slapping the D&D name on non-RPG stuff, and RPG peripherals, and doing various partnerships like Rick and Morty and Stranger Things, is bringing in more money than actually selling rules books.

It is. And that's why their current 5E strategy, while not good for people who want a great RPG to play, seems pretty logical from a business POV.

They don't primarily make money on books sold anymore - they make it on the concept of "D&D" being a pop-culture thing that causes video games and other media to be made about it. For that purpose, they don't need people to become dedicated fans who will buy dozens of books, they just need:
1) Lots of people to play it at least once or twice.
2) Most of those people not to get so pissed off that they don't like it as an IP.

Hence the cautious-ness about giving PCs strong abilities - it might make the players enjoy the game more, but it might also piss off those who get overshadowed or GMs that have their plot unexpected bypassed. And many people will still enjoy the game enough - meaning enough that in a couple years they see a D&D video game, remember fondly their time at table (which they stopped after a few sessions, but that's ok), and buy said game.

Hence also the "D&D is whatever you want it to be, including contradictory things, and anyway the GM can fix it all at the table" attitude. Committing to one choice would make it a better game for people who like that choice, but it'd drive off those who didn't. Halfway suited is still suited enough for people to play it several times, and that's enough.

So I think they're going to hold off on 6E for as long as possible, and with their slow rate of content release that could be longer than most editions. All that releasing a new edition does is potentially cause controversy and edition wars that drive some people away, in exchange for something they don't care much about (a chance to print more books).

And while as I write this I realize that I sound kind of bitter, I'm not sure it's actually a bad thing. Getting a bunch of people into the hobby, some of who will stick and start playing other games as well is pretty beneficial. It does mean that a game of "D&D" is less likely to be the kind I want to play, but that's been the case since 4E.

Besides, it's not like a book-driven approach is necessarily going to produce a good game either. PF2 did dedicate hard to a particular style - it's just not a style I have any interest to play, and if I had to pick between that and 5E I'd go for 5E - at least it's quicker and the silly tricks are a bit better.

what's the fucking point of 6E. they have no new ideas

Cervantes wrote:what's the fucking point of 6E. they have no new ideas

The same point as PF2e: it's time to sell a new round of core books to all their established customers.

I nominate Catacombs for D&D 6E.

Finally get rid of the damn D20!

Ice9 wrote: Hence the cautious-ness about giving PCs strong abilities - it might make the players enjoy the game more, but it might also piss off those who get overshadowed or GMs that have their plot unexpected bypassed. And many people will still enjoy the game enough - meaning enough that in a couple years they see a D&D video game, remember fondly their time at table (which they stopped after a few sessions, but that's ok), and buy said game.

There's been surprisingly little activity in the Video Game space for D&D though. There hasn't been a real new D&D video game since Sword Coast Legends in 2015 (which rapidly went defunct). Siege of Dragonspear and Enhanced editions of Torment and Neverwinter Nights don't count, and neither do the handful of mobile games.

Baldur's Gate III will be the first big D&D 5e RPG, and it's not even banking on the edition, but on the strength of Baldur's Gate as an IP seperate from D&D.

There's been an amazing run of D&D-like isometric RPGs, with even freaking Pathfinder managing to squeeze out a decent BG clone (Kingmaker is really annoying in a lot of ways, but is still pretty good overall), while the actual brand has done nothing. It's kind of bizarre.

And when they try, it looks like this.

Stubbazubba wrote:And when they try, it looks like this.

That is astonishingly bad. I'm kind of amazed a publisher released that, I've seen better advertisements for exploitative mobile games.

For a video that focuses on the PC's faces a lot, the faces sure are fucking ugly.

Ahhh, yes, everyone's favorite, fantasy Snorricam simulator.

Mechalich wrote:Baldur's Gate III will be the first big D&D 5e RPG, and it's not even banking on the edition, but on the strength of Baldur's Gate as an IP seperate from D&D.

It's by Lairan and aside from the ruleset presumably being 5E, the underlying mechanics of the game (as in the physics engine and stuff) are basically going to be "modified D:OS2". They even showed off "lifting and throwing objects" (killing an enemy with a thrown boot), so I fully expect the path to true power will be finding ways to get really good lifting ability and dropping heavy objects on everything.

There's been an amazing run of D&D-like isometric RPGs

Realms Beyond have released their playable "engine beta" (combat, dialogue, "how quest progression works" and some stuff like that, IIRC, not a beta of the actual campaign) to the higher tiers of their backers, and it's looking to be on track for completion. It uses the 3.X ruleset, with its own "prestige class choices internal to the class" zero-multiclassing system, which sounds pretty much ideal. And a toolkit so you can make your own modules/campaigns/whatever. (Edit: and is turn-based, ie the correct choice)

Koumei wrote:

Mechalich wrote:Baldur's Gate III will be the first big D&D 5e RPG, and it's not even banking on the edition, but on the strength of Baldur's Gate as an IP seperate from D&D.

It's by Lairan and aside from the ruleset presumably being 5E, the underlying mechanics of the game (as in the physics engine and stuff) are basically going to be "modified D:OS2". They even showed off "lifting and throwing objects" (killing an enemy with a thrown boot), so I fully expect the path to true power will be finding ways to get really good lifting ability and dropping heavy objects on everything.

There's been an amazing run of D&D-like isometric RPGs

Realms Beyond have released their playable "engine beta" (combat, dialogue, "how quest progression works" and some stuff like that, IIRC, not a beta of the actual campaign) to the higher tiers of their backers, and it's looking to be on track for completion. It uses the 3.X ruleset, with its own "prestige class choices internal to the class" zero-multiclassing system, which sounds pretty much ideal. And a toolkit so you can make your own modules/campaigns/whatever. (Edit: and is turn-based, ie the correct choice)

Are there any entertaining videos or articles that highlight how wacky/fun DO2 'physics' interactions can get?