We are currently in 5e, and working on Dnd One (essentially 6e)

What I am wondering is this: Will there eventually come a time when there are no additional archetypes, no additional backgrounds, no additional spells, no additional creatures (in the broad sense, obviously unique named characters/creatures would still be there), no additional rule modifications, none of it…

a time when the only additional content is campaigns?

What do you guys think?

I'd be happy if D&D lasted forever, but I dunno why 2 people said it would.

Realistically, I'd be very pleasantly surprised if it lasted 50+ years, and completely shocked  if it made it past 100. But ya never know... As long as there are enough nerds out there, it might last longer than the life of an Ancient Gold Dragon.

I mean, eventually there will be a new edition. Game design evolves, tastes evolve. Sooner or later, those will changes will add up to the point that it will need to be a new edition, or it will stop being played.

And I agree with Silvva, this is not going to be 6e. Even calling it 5.5 would be a stretch, imo. At least, based on what we’ve seen in the UA where they’ve really backed off of big changes. Of course, the D&D next playtests were pretty different from 5e, could be they’ll surprise us. I think that’s very, very unlikely, but the chance isn’t zero. It might be less than 1, but not 0.

Anyway, back on topic, no, so long as they're still selling something recognisable as D&D, there'll be player content. It's a cashflow and the under monetised area of the player base. If they stopped...they'd deserve to go under.

They’ll keep selling stuff to get some more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As long as the product earns money it will continue to be published. It may change ownership but it would continue. 

Quote from BoringBard >>

I'd be happy if D&D lasted forever, but I dunno why 2 people said it would.

Realistically, I'd be very pleasantly surprised if it lasted 50+ years, and completely shocked  if it made it past 100. But ya never know... As long as there are enough nerds out there, it might last longer than the life of an Ancient Gold Dragon.

There are quite a few games that are still played today that we can trace back for centuries and even millennia, so I don't think expecting it to last at least another century is unreasonable. The first version of Monopoly dates back over a century, and is still played regularly. I also think that that the game will keep adding player-facing content throughout that period even as editions change and they pare it back and then add new features in.

No game remains static, and the longer they last the more likely they are to change.

Chess has been played for ages. I think dnd will be the same, the creators will continue to create if they continue to sell their overpriced books and money gauge.

Quote from Xalthu >>

I mean, eventually there will be a new edition. Game design evolves, tastes evolve. Sooner or later, those will changes will add up to the point that it will need to be a new edition, or it will stop being played.

And I agree with Silvva, this is not going to be 6e. Even calling it 5.5 would be a stretch, imo. At least, based on what we’ve seen in the UA where they’ve really backed off of big changes. Of course, the D&D next playtests were pretty different from 5e, could be they’ll surprise us. I think that’s very, very unlikely, but the chance isn’t zero. It might be less than 1, but not 0.

I thought OP was asking about whether or not D&D will end, but now I think they're asking whether or not there will ever be a permanent edition where only adventures are added. To which I could say with surety, no

On the topic of claiming that calling 1D&D something other than 5.5e, what should we call it then? It's dumb that there'll be more communication issues with people not understanding what is meany by 5e, and if releasing new rulebooks for everything - even if the changes aren't drastic enough to make D&D unrecognizable - it's still at least partially a new edition and 5.5e makes the most sense as a label to me due to that.

You can't compare D&D and chess. There are many reasons why chess survived and the billion and one other games didn't. D&D has doesn't fit the same mould as chess and has more in common with the other games 

To be frank, the way technology is going, TTRPGs will cease to have a niche soon. They'll be played as a nostalgic pastime, but new players will not be coming in on any scale comparable to now. Instead, think VTTs on steroids.

The main thing that keeps TTRPGs going is that computers aren't able to adapt on the fly like a human can. They really struggle, particularly in the past. It used to be the case that if the programmer hadn't thought of what you wanted to do and prepared for it, you couldn't do it. Humans with flexibility of pen and paper can. That's why TTRPGs flourished alongside CRPGs. The problem that TTRPGs face is that that's changing, and rapidly. AI may still suck, but even over the last year, it's made huge strides. Give it decades...and you won't be able to tell the difference between AI and humans.

The other problem is that TTRPGs can't really compete with board games either. They lack the simplicity and straightforward rules. They're trapped in an ever shrinking niche.

D&D will evolve. It will adapt. However, it will change to the point when we have to start applying the thought experiment of the Ship of Theseus. Sooner or later, Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens. Sooner or later, D&D won't be what we're playing now.

When? We're already seeing the shift. Like BoringBard, I'd be shocked if D&D as we currently know it, as a TTRPG, is actively having material published for it. 

D&D has had many evolutions over the years, but at this stage it has evolved into what I would call an uncommitted design.  Meaning that the rules do not target any sort of specific playstyle, in fact it avoids doing that very actively.  In all previous editions of D&D there was a purpose to the design, a playstyle built into the mechanic.  1st edition period was the time of Dungeon Survival, 2nd edition was the era of narrative-focused gameplay, 3rd edition focused on simulationism and 4th edition was about tactical combat.  Each one of these evolutions was a product of its time, responding to some aspect or direction either the hobby or gaming, in general, was steering the ship.

5e essentially took all the previous editions of the game and tried to create a mechanic that includes every playstyle of previous editions, which I would argue it completely failed to do in every measurable way, but by the act of not committing itself to any specific playstyle, it sort of created one of its own. 

At this stage, in the world of role-playing, 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons is kind of a white elephant RPG, in a way completely unique with its own distinct identity that is undeniably popular, a cultural phenomenon.

Even though we have years of precedence when it comes to D&D evolutions and editions, I actually don't believe there will be any sort of new evolution in the future.  

At this stage I would guess that D&D will simply release updated core rules every few years with adjustments to the parameters of the game, but as far as this sort of unique, generic core design I don't think will ever change unless there is some major shift in gaming that actually challenges the business and the 5e playstyle falls out of favor with its core fan base.  In a sense, it's like the Iphone of RPG's at this point.  There will always be alternatives to 5e D&D, but those alternatives will not be new versions of D&D.  Sticking to 5e when 6e comes out won't be a thing, no one is going to look back at 5e with nostalgia as they do with other past versions, they are going to throw their 5e rulebooks in the trash when the new ones come out in the same way you toss out your old broken Iphone even though the new one is just a marginally improved version of the old one.

I suppose at some point it might happen that the game will evolve into something, but Wizards of the Coast has no reason to lead anymore, at this point they are running a money generator not a game design studio.  Its up to the rest of the RPG hobby to design the next evolution and compete with the core 5e game.  In essence, it's the game to beat until someone does, nothing new will happen.  As long as 5e and its updated versions sell, there won't be any major leaps that would require an actual new edition.

For the 40th Anniversary of the game Paranoia, Mongoose put out what it's calling The Perfect Edition.  It's sort of joke, especially since it was released alongside a, not a companion but an Accomplice Book filled with options to restore rules from prior editions into the present edition, streamline stuff in the present edition, etc.  In TTRPG "Perfect Editions" are really not things.

D&D will never be "locked in" when there is "nothing new." Things people liked in past editions may show up again (say Psionics, as a actual character class with a system distinct from magic instead of a few subclasses here and there that gesture toward psychic powers).  Things will be taken away or revamped.  Player tastes and what they want in their game will change or broaden and D&D will accommodate.  More importantly, the leads of the design team will eventually change and no one who works in a creative space like D&D or TTRPG more broadly wants to spend a significant part of their career copy pasting their predecessors rules.  

D&D isn't chess, a finite game with a system that can be perfected to entertain the game's goal.  D&D is an operating system for imaginative play.  They'll always be another version.

I never said chess was dnd. I was just saying chess has been played for ages so other things can be as well. I am well aware there is a difference between chess and dnd.

Quote from DragonRiderHN >>

Will there eventually come a time when there are no additional archetypes, no additional backgrounds, no additional spells, no additional creatures (in the broad sense, obviously unique named characters/creatures would still be there), no additional rule modifications, none of it…

... a time when the only additional content is campaigns?

 
First off, Facts: yes, there will indeed come a time such as this. The human race will be extinct. Entropy is inevitable. That is what you asked, but not your intent nor your context, but nevertheless, being me, I had to.

Next: I am so tempted to play cassandra and note the cultural power of AI generation to reinforce a static system, in much the same way that VTTs and even DDB reinforce a static system, but I simply do not believe that.  I mean, those things do that, but I don't see it as the collapse and end of D&D anytime soon. Hell, of late, politics is more likely to end D&D than the shift in technological impact.

in a different thread, someone asked a question about video game development, and I held off on answering this post so that I wouldn't do what I did there...

D&D is well known, popular, and takes advantage of very specific things that are a major component of human cultural norms in the present time. D&D wouldn't have succeeded in an earlier era (such as the ones we rely on a form of nostalgia to base our campaigns in, for the most part), and it continues to grow in viability and potential durability on a daily basis.

Citing games such as Chess, Checkers, Tag, "Cops & Robbers/Cowboys & Indians", Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Go, and other products of their particular times that appealed to a basic core need of the human condition (and yes, I did pick all those games in particular for a reason) is a critical point here -- While some look to the "simplicity" of them, it is important to note that at the time all of them were introduced, their rules were not considered simple. That simplicity comes from a place of familiarity that is generally not even something most folks are aware of, as it builds generationally.

Will it have periods of more players and fewer players? yes. Fashion is fickle, and that is more true of social fashions than couture. Right now, people are in a period of seeking escapism (video games, films, even printed books are having a resurgence in the areas of escapism) for larger scale reasons, and there are always going to be people who seek that out.

Will there be a 6e and a 7e, or will they just keep "revising" the current version as they are doing at present (a decade after release, and in conjunction with a culturally important anniversary)?

Yes, absolutely.  I occasionally chide some folks for saying "6e" and even 5.5e. What they are producing is still 5e. Revised, fixed up, with a few new toys, but ultimately still the same thing but tweaked because folks have whined or begged or groused for the last 10 years, lol. I don't think the team has figured out what exactly they are going to call it -- Revised 5th Edition, or 2024 Edition, or whatever -- unimportant. It is 5e with fixes and tweaks, and if you don't believe me go read the darn UA foru and see how many people are upset that the changes they made for the most part are very, very mior to classes.

Are they adding new stuff in? Yes, absolutely. Core books are Core Books; They sell better than optionals like Tasha's or Xanathar's.  People fight, people lose friends, people are passionate about things, and part of what they are doing here is updating stuff and sorta coalescing things down into the "best of".

6e will come. But, like every other major full version, there will be some big changes to things. Stuff won't work. try playing a 2e class in a 5e game.

When? I figure 2030 to 2035, depending on how the general cultural sense is at the time  -- not the D&D players, but the folks who aren't D&D players.

As OSR, I think, mentioned above, as well, there is likely going to need to be a big change in mechanics -- something that gives a good reason and is overwhelmingly popular. My example would be the introduction of Proficiencies, that first hit the game in the Oriental Adventures 1e book. Or early attempts at an Anti-Paladin. That has, historically, always come from outside the main game development team as an Idea, but then is taken and figured out and introduced into the game. 

But if folks start to feel less of a general sense of existential dread in their daily lives, then D&D will change then, as well. highly powered characters will fall out of favor, and more "realis" will creep back in. Monsters, archetypes, classes, subclass, ability scores, the works -- all of it is able to be changed. Hell, maybe they opt to include additional dice types, or perhaps they choose to erase sub classes, or maybe they shift to a "special abilities as feats and everyone gets to choose a feat" style thing that starts with several basic classes that have unique abilities no one else has, but allows players to make things very customized for their character.

Hell, maybe they just say screw it and go to a straight skill set style.

IF there was a serious existential threat to D&D, it would be cooperative, multiplayer video games with a highly immersive basis. Augmented or virtual, yeah, maybe, down the road, but there is a lot of work that must be done to achieve that level of fidelity. The general public is already trained on them -- how many newer DMs always dive into a VTT based set up, and then remember that DDB is going to have a 3D one. AI based Dungeon Masters trained on folks who (were paid to) teach it how to do things through thousands of scenarios like entire "rules" forum here.

Look ma, no books, digital dice, too bad your personal creativity won't be enabled in building a world, but who knows, maybe they will have tools for that at some point.

Will the game grow stale?

Never. I have run Tomb of Horrors since the 80's, and I can genuinely say that no session of it ever turns out the same, even when you are playing with the same exact players who have already been through it a dozen times.

I only DM. I do not play. If being a DM was taken away from me, I'd stop playing the game.If there was anything that I stress about when it comes to the future of D&D, that's it. No Ship of Theseus arguments will ever work now, because the game has moved well beyond the territory where that argument will work. You can, and the game has, changed how everything works. But the things you can't screw with are still the same -- players make characters and dive into a world of the imagination, under the guidance of a DM.

Really hard to screw up a game of pretend as old as cave paintings.

Quote from DragonRiderHN >>

What I am wondering is this: Will there eventually come a time when there are no additional archetypes, no additional backgrounds, no additional spells, no additional creatures (in the broad sense, obviously unique named characters/creatures would still be there), no additional rule modifications...

I like to wish for the human creative capacity to be infinite. More mathematically minded people than I would be able to demonstrate proofs that ensure language is unbounded, and insofar as that is the case, perhaps there is no limit to creation. Yet, I can imagine a time when we have exhausted archetypes, backgrounds, spells in the Vancian mold, creatures that fit into stat-block notation, so I might have voted yes if it were not for that niggling final point. The space for additional rules modifications will be truly infinite on three counts--one, that play is emergent; two, that the rules exist in a dialectic; three, that not everyone wants the same thing out of the game. Any one of these feature might be enough to ensure unending variation, but all three are a part of play, and together they mean we'll only ever have iterations of the game that express dominant trends.

When I say that play is emergent, what I mean is that no rules set which human DMs are interested in learning is so comprehensive as to address all possibilities a priori. A computer program might one day be written that could address more situations than BG3. Almost certainly one will be. And in the further future it might well be possible to write adaptive programs that can address novel moments, but to me it seems there won't be an end to novel moments. The rule set that doesn't face the problem of novelty is based on perfect knowledge of both the position and the velocity of every particle. Which is to say it can't exist. So long as the problem of novelty remains, human DMs will have to invent solutions, and while those solutions may be as convergent as the novel situations which give rise to them, there will also always be outliers.

When I say that play exists in a dialectic, I want to recall the observation that gaming systems prioritize one or more of three qualities: simulation, narrative, or gameplay. When rules systems cover combat in depth, they create space for gameplay, and D&D exists in that space. Other systems exist in other spaces, but if we generalize we'd have to observe that D&D has been influenced since its inception into adding more content to facilitate narrative development, and that it has a love-hate relationship with simulation. We could observe that more recently, D&D has also been influenced (I'd say for the worse) by MMO gameplay. I can't think of a reason why influence would ever end, meaning that there will always be a way to create a new edition that enhances a quality which was not prioritized in the last edition, and a reason to do so for as long as other games exert influence.

When I say that not everyone wants the same thing from the game, I mean to entail personal preference for any of the qualities mentioned above. However, I want to take it a step further and observe that as a social activity, the game admits a lot of motivations long before we even get to preferred playstyle. Powergamers play the game, and they want the rules to give them ways to outplay other players. Storytellers play the game, and the want the rules to get out of the way so that they can tell their stories. Bored people play the game, and they want the rules to be simple so that they can move quickly away from boredom or complex because the rules themselves are how they alleviate boredom. So long as there's variety in the intentions of people who play the game, there will be a reason to vary the rules to fit those intentions.

The rules of the game are trying to hit a moving target. The target the rules have to hit will always be in motion so long as people are different from each other, so long as rules emphasize or de-emphasize parts of play, so long as novel situations arise. Perhaps most importantly, as other posters have pointed out, there's money to be made out of transitioning to a new edition. Whoever owns the rights to D&D will have an incentive to iterate so long as money is valued. While I'd like to take a cue from Gene Roddenberry in imagining a world where other values predominate, that world seems far off at present.

P.S. Sorry. I don't know why, but that came out as a five paragraph essay...

Quote from DragonRiderHN >>

We are currently in 5e, and working on Dnd One (essentially 6e)

What I am wondering is this: Will there eventually come a time when there are no additional archetypes, no additional backgrounds, no additional spells, no additional creatures (in the broad sense, obviously unique named characters/creatures would still be there), no additional rule modifications, none of it…

a time when the only additional content is campaigns?

What do you guys think?

 Sadly, no. Pretty much through the past 50 years D&D has expended the lists in all areas. Though few players (and zero shareholders in hasbro) will admit, there is already far too much product out there for any person to consume in a lifetime. And the bulk of the customer base seems very intent on "I not only want new toys, but I want toys that are way more powerful than my old toys", hence the OP builds that increasingly occur.

In a perfect world, hasbro would make money by simply balancing (and that does mean nerfing, even removing) existing spells, backgrounds, builds etc, before adding anything new, and revenue would be generated by creating NEW content in original modules, not rehashing old ones. And a module CAN be a sandbox, or very sandbox like. Imagine hasbro hiring talented map/dungeon designers, who can then produce content that ranges from a 5 room dungeon that can be completed in one session, to a 50 page module that takes a year of sessions. And no, Spelljammer and Planescape modules don't count. Nor does Dragonlance, nor anything else dredged up from 40 or 50 years ago. And neither does a module that has a barista in it.

With the new video game coming out, how many iterations of a 5 room dungeon that can be completed in a 4 hour session would hasbro sell, if it was really good? ESPECIALLY if it can be done solo, or in a tiny group, and with an AI DM? You and your pal decide on the spur of the moment to play, and pay 5 bucks for a micro-module on the VTT that can be done in one session, and you are your buddy each run 2 chars.

Now, frankly, I would never play D&D that way, but millions do and would (BG3 is exhibit A, as indeed millions think that is what D&D is). And given Hasbro is charging hard into micro-transactions, this would be a natural fit.

Decades of data has shown that the majority of players homebrew rather than play campaigns made by someone else (including both Wizards/TSR-published campaigns and third party campaigns).  That number has remained fairly static for as long as data has been collected on how players play the game and is unlikely to really change all that much.

What does this mean?  Campaigns cannot really be the basis for sales.  If Wizards were to go to a campaign-only sales model, they would be moving to a model which over half their customers do not use.   

So long as the game continues to be produced, they will have to keep releasing products designed for folks running homebrew campaigns.  That means new subclasses and species that players can insert into their campaign worlds. New items and spells.  New content other than the minority-centric campaign modules. They need things to entice home brewers to keep purchasing, otherwise their customer base will leave them.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Decades of data has shown that the majority of players homebrew rather than play campaigns made by someone else (including both Wizards/TSR-published campaigns and third party campaigns).  That number has remained fairly static for as long as data has been collected on how players play the game and is unlikely to really change all that much.

 Citation needed.

If following the intent 5e to be lasting, it all falls to what they are doing right now to adjust the framework of what is working to allow more things to work with it.

After all these new core books come out, it's time for them to see what else entirely new that is not limited by 2014 rules will allow and build on top of it all.

Keep in mind that WoTC tested many extreme things to get a feel of the community at the time, which will guide them into new content without much resistance. Heck, with all the comments and feedback they are getting, they could easily make more classes, subclasses, and mechanics.