Normally I’m the type of guy who will let things play out rather than rush to condemn. But the recent announcement of 5th Edition over at the Wizards of the Coast website made me throw that approach out the window.
I’m generally a “live and let live” kind of guy, but I also like to call out idiocy when it rears its ugly head. All over the web people are talking about what the announcement means. The main question I keep coming back to is simple: Did D&D really need a new edition?
My answer is no. And this isn’t some reactionary knee-jerk response. Wizards has managed to screw up D&D — or succumb to edition churn — at an ever-alarming rate. Take your pick. In fact, it might be both. This is simply the latest chapter.
 |
| "I come in brown AND I "squirt." |
Some will say, “How can you know it’s going to be bad before you see it?” Sorry, but I didn’t have to reserve judgment to know that Justin Bieber, the Microsoft Kin, Google Buzz and Wave a ave, and the Microsoft Zune were going to be craptastic. Some things are just born to suck.
First, some history is in order for those not in the know. Wizards of the Coast is not the originator of the game. Wizards is a subsidiary of Hasbro that subsumed TSR, thereby acquiring the rights to D&D.
The history of D&D is a sordid one stretching back to its roots in the 1970s. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are credited with jointly creating the game, but a sealed settlement and both men being deceased means we may never know the full details of what actually went down. Enter the Blumes, and later Lorraine Williams, and you have a situation where the main creative driver of the game never really had control — or had it for exceedingly short periods of time.
1st Edition succeeded in spite of the efforts of those fighting against Gary (as near as I and others can figure). TSR went belly-up in the ’90s through mismanagement (again, largely Lorraine Williams promising to “show how real companies are run”). But I digress. Wizards snatched it up, only to be bought by Hasbro in turn. There you have it: a game of IP hot potato where the name itself became more important than the content.
And there is one of the main reasons Wizards of the Coast is churning out yet another edition of D&D. (For those counting: 3.0 in 2000, 3.5 shortly thereafter, and the miserable failure that is 4e in 2008.) The IP is simply too valuable to ignore, and the best way to exploit it is a new edition. There, I said it.
My suspicion is that this endless edition churn is about money, plain and simple. First off, I have no issue with a company wanting to make money — people have families to support, I get that. But call it what it is.
It’s no different than the Iraq War. Had Bush Jr. just said the real reason we went in was to get rid of Saddam for trying to whack his father, I’d have been fine with it. Instead we got weapons of mass destruction. Wizards is in the same boat: call it like it is, guys.
4e went out the gates destroying everything that came before it Attila the Hun style — and they did it gleefully. The only problem with scorched-earth tactics is that you ravage the countryside… and then you get a peasant revolt for good measure. That revolt’s name was Pathfinder. As I wrote about last year, the Pathfinder rift vs. 4e was the biggest shift since the 1st/2nd edition transition. The difference is that the move to 2e was a minor tremor compared to the earthquake of customers jumping ship to a competitor.
You created the madness that led to your own fractured customer base.
Edition churn is nothing new. D&D never reached truly self-sustaining numbers even in its heyday, so the only way for publishers to stay afloat is new editions. I’ve talked about this before at Dragonsfoot — the game was always a rather wobbly business model, and it has repeated itself nearly every iteration. In my opinion, the model is not sustainable and requires a reboot every so often to survive.
So now we get to the crux of all this: 5th Edition D&D, which is supposed to be the big tent that brings everyone back in to play. Do they really think we’re that dumb? That their olive-branch “D&D détente” is anything more than a PR move?
Had they really been interested in offering a D&D for all editions all along, they would have done so. Instead they took the approach of trying to force customers to the new edition by cutting off support for the old, reasoning that with no official material we’d come crawling back anyway.
Except that didn’t happen. The peasants banded together, formed their own communities, wrote their own material, and said “thanks, we’ll go it alone.”
The problem only became dire once the money spigot turned off and Wizards was forced to look around for new (old) customers. Prior to the 4e debacle they were doing just fine and wrote us off as lost causes. As I wrote last time, they had already lost the Pathfinder crowd. Those people weren’t coming back, and the industry couldn’t attract enough brand-new players to make up the difference.
So somewhere in the bowels of Wizards someone had a “come to Jesus” moment. Hypothetical Marketing Employee: “I know, let’s release a new edition that promises an old-school feel! Even better, we’ll market it at all those folks we discarded years ago. I’m sure they’ll buy whatever we shovel out. Better yet, they’ll be so grateful!”
Yeah… good luck with that, WotC.
Given my background and interest in computer history, there is one recent company that Wizards of the Coast is doing their best imitation of: Quark. The parallels between QuarkXPress losing the desktop publishing wars to Adobe InDesign are eerily similar. For a good read on the subject, check this article from 2005. It talks about Vista, but look past that and focus on Quark’s history: they made every customer-related mistake in the book and invented a few new ones for good measure. Worse, they didn’t realize it until far too late and alienated a ton of people in the process.
Sound familiar?
Wizards should have read up on this, because they followed the same failed strategy to their folly. Basically, put Wizards in place of Quark, and Paizo with Pathfinder in place of Adobe, and you have the same story in the making. Or as I like to say: “Same circus, different clowns.”
Next up, I keep hearing about the “big tent” approach for 5th Edition D&D. Big tents don’t work, because by their very nature they are a compromise. And compromises, by definition, mean no one walks away from the table truly happy.
Some have countered with “Well, what’s the alternative?” I postulate that maybe there isn’t one. The genie is out of the bottle. It came out in 1985 and isn’t being stuffed back in anytime soon. There is far too much damage to repair and far too much baggage.
And on top of all that, I’m still not convinced a new edition needed to be created in the first place.
On the subject of style of play, I keep hearing that 5th Edition will have a “retro feel.” Well, no kidding? What else are they going to say? Until I see it with my own eyes, color me skeptical. Are they going to admit it plays more like World of Warcraft than traditional D&D?
And if we really need a D&D version that has that old-school feel, then just pick up a copy of Castles & Crusades. No matter what the d-bags and naysayers like to paint it as, it delivers that old-school feel.
Again: is a new edition of D&D needed? Again, no.
Want retro with some new rules? Here it is. 
I should hasten to add, as I’ve stated on Dragonsfoot, that I have no beef with how people want to get their D&D/role-playing entertainment. Go scratch your gaming itch however you want. Unlike some of the ass-hats in the OSR community (some of whom are now quietly deleting their flame-bait, frothing neckbeard incendiary bombs on various sites), I won’t tell a newer gamer that they’re “wrong” for liking what they like. I’ve had that hurled at me for endorsing 2nd Edition, and I’m not passing it on to others.
I’m a big proponent of newer gamers playing what they will look back on fondly years later as their “golden age of gaming.” My game is not their game, and I’m fine with that.
But that leads to the overall point: Why even do this?
By its nature, a modular approach is going to mean that even if you somehow got everyone to stop playing their current edition and move to 5th, they’re still only going to buy the parts that recreate the game they actually want. It also limits who will buy any given add-on. Or, put another way, this is what TSR did with all the campaign settings back in the ’90s that helped lead to its demise.
Wizards will (whether they know it or not) put everyone into separate buckets. It was Bill Slavicsek who said: “It’s raining money outside and you want to catch as much of it as you can. You can either make a really big bucket or waste your time and attention by creating a lot of really small buckets — either way, you’re never going to make more rain.”
In this case, Wizards is hoping to get some people who haven’t spent money on them in years to do so. Call me foolish, but while this is similar to the 1st/2nd Edition split, it’s far worse. It’s like they forgot the whole episode that led to the decline of 2nd Edition. At least 1st and 2nd are nearly compatible.
And that is about the only area where Wizards has a shot with me personally: stuff that I could use with my existing 1st/2nd Edition material for adventures. I’m highly unlikely to buy the core rules. Maybe that is their intention, but either way it’s unlikely that all players will belly up to the same table.
 | |
| "Still need some help lugging this! Where's Nodwick? |
Tangentially related to all this is the matter of style, look, and feel. To me this has never been a major issue the way it is for some. I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the manga dragonborn/tiefling goth assassin/warforged “over-sized weaponry, armor, and more gear than a U.S. Marine” aesthetic (see left), but it’s not enough to make me refuse to buy something on that alone.
Grognards need to get over the fact that nudity was going to be excised from the game, as were its more violent elements, in any edition that came after 1st. 1st Edition was created during the free-wheeling 1970s. The conservative 1980s were a reactionary phase, and thus the more toned-down feel of 2nd Edition was very much a product of the times. In short, don’t expect it to look like it did in First Edition.
I must confess that Bill Willingham was my favorite TSR artist back in the day for either First or Second Edition, but I don’t expect he’s getting hired back anytime soon.
In closing, a version of D&D designed to appeal to all players of all editions is likely going to satisfy none of them. I hear talk of a modular approach — a core game with optional parts you can add? What, you mean like people have been doing since RPGs began?
While I may end up being wrong about this, I don’t think that will be the case. And if I’m to shift my opinion on this and open my wallet, then Wizards of the Coast had better be bending over backwards to make up for the treatment we (I’ve) received as customers since 2000.
Until they do, I’ve got this, mixed with First Edition — and Wizards can’t do a thing to stop me.
