Here comes 5e.

[Benoist]

Look, I’ve never bought the argument that I should be content with the fact that I already have D&D in the form I enjoy playing. Shared experience is important in this hobby. I would love for more people to share the D&D that I love, rather than having to wall myself off into an ever-smaller community because I REALLY can’t relate to 3e and 4e fans.

I don't disagree with this, but I think we're fooling ourselves if we believe WotC is going to deliver a game that will enable this kind of shared experience. Plus, we have the tools necessary to increase the size and vibrancy of our community already -- games like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry. I'm not sure we need "Dungeons & Dragons" anymore.

I think your take is pessimist. This is very well what might happen, in which case we have our community and games already. But WotC MIGHT do it somewhat right, right enough to build bridges between the play styles, including ours, instead of burning them with the new edition. It is worth a TRY. I refuse the line of thought that just makes us not part of the hobby at large. We are. The problem is that up until now, nobody gave a fuck whether we were or not. But WotC FAILED with this line of thought. And now, they're trying to find a way to rebuild the bridges.

Nothing's going to replace the editions I like, and I'm still going to play AD&D in the years to come. But AD&D isn't the only role playing game, or the only version of D&D for that matter, that I play. I sure would like to have one with which I can play and relate and share some stuff and network with other people and playstyles. It'd be exciting. Nobody knows where that'd lead us. So I want to try and see what happens.

Just staying where we stand mumbling that WotC doesn't get it isn't to go anywhere. Actually being willing to participate and seeing where that goes might. And what's more? That does not threaten OSRIC or S&W or LL in any way, shape or form. I believe it will make them stronger and more widely known over time. Why? Because gamers like to try new things. They might play "D&D Next" and wonder "Hey, that version of the rules we're playing with the DM is pretty cool. It's a bit like AD&D but not exactly you say? How so? What part? Cool! I've never played it! I wonder what it's like? Could we play it next week? Rules online you say. Awesome. Let's do this then."

It's win-win honestly.

[Lilaxe]

Mike Mearls quote via EN World:

"We plan to continue offering people access to tools like the D&D Character Builder and the D&D Monster Builder to support 4th edition. We're also exploring ideas for conversion tools so that some of the 4th edition characters and content will be playable with the next edition." - Mike Mearls.

Judging from that some,, I don't think a whole lot of 4e is going to make it into 5.

I'm actually expecting something that looks a lot like C&C. With a few interchangeable parts, options, etc.

And if you are correct, then WotC are just pulling a reverse of what they did in 2008... throwing 4e players under the bus in favor of another group of fans; which shoots his kumbaya, big-umbrella edition talk in the foot.

Id say it was a big turnaround for WOTC to say they will also support an older edition and a new edition - so they arnt throwing them under the bus as they did with 2E vs 3E or 3E vs 4E where all support for prior editions stopped.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I refuse the line of thought that just makes us not part of the hobby at large. We are.

I don't see anyone saying we aren't part of the hobby. I see people saying we aren't WotC customers and don't need to be. If the success of our part of the hobby depended on being WotC customers, the OSR would not have happened and OS games would have died out in 2000. I see people saying that we don't have to care whether WotC succeeds or fails, we'll get along just fine either way; and I think that sentiment is absolutely true.

[T. Foster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y

This explains their starting point.

Looking for the perfect D&Ds.

Everybody should watch this video (even though it's long, and even though Malcolm Gladwell has funny looking hair): the parallels to D&D (and the mistakes that TSR/WotC have made over the years, and are possibly in the process of making right now) are obvious, as is the path forward that can be drawn from it. My hope is that the current regime at WotC realizes this and isn't going to either continue to try and sell either only the one product they think everybody should like (1E, 3E, 4E) or only the one "consensus" product that everyone will rate 60/100 but nobody will love (2E, C&C) but will instead offer up different flavors that suit different needs and tastes (a 1E flavor, a 3E flavor, and a 4E flavor*). There's no reason they can't do this, especially if they re-focus on a strategy that emphasizes evergreen core-type products over the splat treadmill.

*assuming that there is an actual real-world constituency for such a thing outside of the WotC development department c. 2007 and the "we'll buy anything with the official logo on it" contingent, of course; we know there are large 1E and 3E constituencies, WotC's market researchers will presumably have to determine how much of a 4E constituency actually exists, what its size is relative to the others, what its level of obstinacy is (again, we know that there are plenty of 1E and 3E fans who won't play any version of D&D that doesn't match their preferred one, that their system/flavor loyalty outweighs their brand loyalty - we don't know if there are 4E fans who feel the same) and whether it's significant enough to be worth serving

[James Maliszewski]

I refuse the line of thought that just makes us not part of the hobby at large. The problem is that up until now, nobody gave a fuck whether we were or not.

I guess where I differ is that I don't really care whether we're part of the hobby at large or not. I'm not sure why that matters. Seriously. I'm not being wilfully obtuse here. I just don't get this concern at all.

[James Maliszewski]

I refuse the line of thought that just makes us not part of the hobby at large. We are.

I don't see anyone saying we aren't part of the hobby. I see people saying we aren't WotC customers and don't need to be. If the success of our part of the hobby depended on being WotC customers, the OSR would not have happened and OS games would have died out in 2000. I see people saying that we don't have to care whether WotC succeeds or fails, we'll get along just fine either way; and I think that sentiment is absolutely true.

Yes. This says how I feel much better than I did. Thank you.

[Benoist]

I refuse the line of thought that just makes us not part of the hobby at large. We are.

I don't see anyone saying we aren't part of the hobby.

"Makes us". I did not say that someone was saying we weren't. But just saying "WotC isn't getting it and we can just stay there and not care" is a sure recipe for not being part of the hobby at large.

[Mudguard]

I'm sure they'd like to tap into the massive Asian market of WOW gamers...

As for me, I have a good mate who always seems to like the latest edition so if it's vaguely good at least I may able to enjoy a game with him.

[geezerdm]

I refuse the line of thought that just makes us not part of the hobby at large. The problem is that up until now, nobody gave a fuck whether we were or not.

I guess where I differ is that I don't really care whether we're part of the hobby at large or not. I'm not sure why that matters. Seriously. I'm not being wilfully obtuse here. I just don't get this concern at all.

We have something to contribute to the hobby at large. Of late, some outside our circles are beginning to acknowledge and even respect that.

And visiting places like EN World and the WotC forums, I see more and more players of later editions, talking about older games and doing things like running AD&D or Retro-Clones on the side.

And awareness of what we're doing is starting to really spread.

What we're doing is relevant, to the hobby at large.

So, do we want to be relevant to the hobby at large?

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I refuse the line of thought that just makes us not part of the hobby at large. We are.

I don't see anyone saying we aren't part of the hobby.

"Makes us". I did not say that someone was saying we weren't. But just saying "WotC isn't getting it and we can just stay there and not care" is a sure recipe for not being part of the hobby at large.

I don't see it that way. In fact, I think if WotC is going to keep getting it wrong the way they have for the past 4 years, it might be better for the hobby if they finally sank into oblivion and made more room for some of the games and publishers that are getting it right. Yes, D&D has always been the flagship game for the hobby, but I don't buy that the hobby needs the brand name D&D to survive. It may need a flagship game, but I'm not sure that game can't be the Pathfinder or S&W or any other non-WotC RPG that is poised to fill the introductory D&D gap; especially if the people behind those games know things about the importance of taking care of customers and building their brand that WotC apparently doesn't.

:edit to add:

I think I understand what you are saying, that it's a good thing if WotC and the rest of the RPG hobby in general is finally "getting it" and recognizing that the OSR has some valuable insights about the game that they should be paying attention to. I agree with that. But I think if you leave WotC out of that equation and they end up failing, the trend in the greater hobby is still going to continue, because I don't think Wotc is the de facto leader of the RPG hobby anymore. That ship sailed in 2008 when they fired around half of the D&D playing community as customers.

[geezerdm]

I think that some of the people who still maintain that the hobby is doomed if "D&D" fails, are doing so because they want WotC and RPG's to fail.

[Geoffrey]

I wonder if the name "Dungeons & Dragons" has as much recognition as I've always thought. Yesterday I showed my two recently published books to my 16-year-old niece, and I told her they were Dungeons & Dragons books.

She had never heard of Dungeons & Dragons.

[Benoist]

I think that some of the people who still maintain that the hobby is doomed if "D&D" fails, are doing so because they want WotC and RPG's to fail.

I'm certainly not believing that, personally. If WotC and/or D&D fails, there will still be a hobby for a long time to come, that's for sure. My own gaming certainly isn't threatened by that prospect.

[James Maliszewski]

I wonder if the name "Dungeons & Dragons" has as much recognition as I've always thought. Yesterday I showed my two recently published books to my 16-year-old niece, and I told her they were Dungeons & Dragons books.

She had never heard of Dungeons & Dragons.

I don't think your experience is uncommon. Though "Dungeons & Dragons" is still a widely recognized "brand" among people of a certain age -- basically anyone who was a kid or teenager by the '80s -- I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them don't know what D&D is or think it's "some kind of computer game like World of Warcraft" (an actual quote by the way). People younger than that, though, probably have only a dim awareness of the name, if that.

[James Maliszewski]

So, do we want to be relevant to the hobby at large?

I'm still not sure what it is that we're doing that's "relevant" or indeed what "relevant" would mean in this context. Do you mean we've got some insights into the history of the hobby and other ways of playing RPGs than as analog video games? Or do you mean something else?