Shelf Life

I suppose playing 5E for extended campaigns isn't a thing. As I heard, most games start at level 5 and end at level 14, and only last 6 weeks - according to the studies by Wizards.

Contrast this with a game I ran with my brother that used the same system and characters for 20 years.

5E games and even campaigns seem disposable in comparison. Yes, you can tell epic, sweeping, long-lasting stories with 5E, and many do - but the average experience of 5E feels more like a Fortnite match. Something you do many times in rapid succession, starting with nothing and building up to the match end.

This also explains why 5E is so "hot," as the cycle time and churn are probably ten to a hundred times higher than the OSR. You get ten groups playing OSR games, and those ten games could last 5 years. Ten groups playing 5E could play eighty games in the same time, and the noise and interest on social media will be much higher just because the same things are happening again and again in a shorter cycle. Wizards should open-source 5E and let the OSR run the classic experiences.

Because the classic experiences are not where the next billion-dollar gaming company is coming from.

I am betting One D&D - if Wizards is wise - will push that six-week cycle time down tighter. They need to get the 5-14 level run down to one week of game time. That may seem insane to us old-school gamers, but this aligns with that "fast engagement and satisfaction" goal that their billion-dollar tech-company-wannabe parent company wants.

Look at Magic the Gathering; the cycle time of that game is about an hour to play and finish one game. Even a week seems like forever. The more like Magic the Gathering D&D becomes, the more successful it will be to Wall Street. For us old-school gamers, these ideas are horrifying, but the MtG model is superior and brings in 10 times the profits.

For One D&D, I would start characters at level 5 - the average starting level most games use - and give players a level a day. The levels come with a choice of magic items and powers based on class. Maybe even make "level up packs" randomized boosters with limited rarity. Maybe only have three levels of play, and as you progress, the number of cards or each rank your character can possess increases.

Oh yes, I am going hardcore, "but this will ruin the game" evil tech executive here, but this is the sort of thinking that gets rewarded heavily in billion-dollar companies.

Don't believe me?

Open your eyes.

Why One D&D will "fail" will have nothing to do with players or how many people will love the game. It will be in the hands of a group of designers who felt they had to hold onto backward compatibility and legacy design concepts and did not innovate to make the most profits. These words are pure evil, and I hate saying them, but that does not make them any less accurate.

Someone will come along and design the game I described and create the next Magic the Gathering, but it will be more like D&D, and it will become the market leader. The data is there, how people play the game currently; it is just waiting for someone to come along and build a game that fits that playstyle better than what they are giving us in 5E or even what they are trying to do in One D&D.

Honestly, 5E, at this point, should be left alone, given to the OSR, and this new game should be their priority. The old way of playing will hold them back. Controlling PDFs and digital distribution of books is nothing, even compared to the scale of selling Fortnite skins or Madden card packs. Leave that PDF model to the OSR.

Magic the Gathering killed AD&D 2e and TSR with it, just because it was "an easier way to play D&D." Back when I saw the collapse, this is what all the Magic players said, even though honestly it isn't true - but they felt that way, and that was all that mattered when they made gaming purchases.

One D&D trying to rebuild a 10-year-old experience is a huge mistake.

They should be building the next generation of games.

And they will be playing catch-up for the next 10 years by tying their hands with this edition. Even the 3d virtual tabletop is a waste of time and resources since that entire model is outdated and supports the old way of playing. Do you know the time and money it will take to get a VTT off of a declining PC platform and onto phones and tablets - which is where 90% of the gaming money is made? If One D&D can't be played on a phone as the primary platform, I would say cancel the project if I were at Hasbro.

Or someone else will come along and make "the D&D that can be played on a phone," and you will be playing catch up to them too. And since you have your hands tied with a VTT platform that works best on PCs, your market will just switch to their phones and forget your game. This is the world of tech and gaming; you don't have that long before someone comes along and replaces you with a better mousetrap.

And that company will be the one buying yours and making the next D&D.

Seriously. Your priorities are way different at that level. I know this is "evil speech," but once you step foot in 500-foot-tall towers of Manhattan glass and steel, you will begin to understand the forces at work here. I feel One D&D feels like a catastrophic failure of leadership and allowing a group of nostalgic designers to run one of the hottest brands in the world.

The lure of nostalgia is for customers only.

Gaming companies, in an age of cell phones and big tech, need to be forward-looking.

...

I almost did not put this one out.

I hated everything I said here.

But it is the truth, and sometimes that hurts.

I love D&D and the old ways. I love my books, even my 5E books. I don't want any of this to happen.

But I have wisdom, and sometimes having that means you need to say things that aren't popular or people like hearing.