Ryan Dancey - D&D in a Death Spiral

[danbala]

Originally Posted by xechnao

I would rather compare PHB2 to 3.5 PHB instead of "complete warrior".

I feel like these chart games we are having here are a bit stupid (my dad is stronger than yours or something like that)

There is some logic to it. The question is whether 4e is a "failure." The only definition we have of success is 3.0/3.5 (no one would call that edition a commercial failure). So it seems like our best way to guess at the "sucess" of 4e is to compare it to 3e.

Wasn't there a 3e PHB2? Did that make the best sellers list? Did any 3e books besides the core books make the list? If not, that would be strong evidence that the 4e strategy of serial core books is working.

(I acknowledge that there are other possible explanations such as 3e having more robust competition if non-fiction books in general were selling more in the past or for similar reasons).

[f33b]

Originally Posted by Puggins

The obvious conclusion then would be that many roleplaying books have made the list in the past, right? After all, if the PHB2 didn't sell that well and managed to only beat "Who Moved My Cheese," then a 3.5e book like "The Complete Warrior" or "Draconomicon," both of which sparked an entire series, should have at least made the list, right?

Let's take a look. Here's an archive for the list:

New York Times Best Seller List

The Complete Warrior was released in November of 2003. It was the first major supplement for 3.5e and is widely considered to be extremely successful- as evidenced by the conintuation of the Complete Series for the next five years.

I'm betting you can already guess where it is on the list.

1. This means nothing without sales data on the titles you reference.
2. The archived lists only contain the top 15, so not even the PHB2 would appear in the archives.

[Agamon]

Originally Posted by occam

Appreciating (and agreeing with) this comment is, I think, the first positive thing I've ever taken away from reading that book.

Or even this thread.

[Kask]

Originally Posted by danbala

Wasn't there a 3e PHB2? Did that make the best sellers list?

Again, not apples to apples. In 4.0 they split up what would normally be in a 1st PHB & made 2 PHBs. Neat mktg ploy though. Better would be to compare PHB, MM & DMG sales after one year for both editions.

[Thanlis]

Originally Posted by f33b

1. This means nothing without sales data on the titles you reference.
2. The archived lists only contain the top 15, so not even the PHB2 would appear in the archives.

Here's some fun data on the various PHBs and the USA Today bestseller list.

3.0 PHB: three weeks in the top 150, peaked at #45.
3.5 PHB: two weeks in the top 150, peaked at #57.
4.0 PHB: four weeks in the top 150, peaked at #47.
4.0 PHB2: one week in the top 150, peaked at #28.

Oh, hey, MM and DMG!

MM 3.0: 2 weeks, peaked at 58.
MM 3.5: 1 week, peaked at 112.
MM 4.0: 1 week, peaked at 143.

DMG 3.0: 2 weeks, peaked at 58.
DMG 3.5: 1 week, peaked at 92.
DMG 4.0: 1 week, peaked at 128.

And:

4.0 Core Gift Set: 2 weeks, peaked at 57.

Figure some number of DMs just bought the core set, which might explain why the 4.0 PHB did better but the MM and DMG did worse. Or it could be something else entirely.

However, no matter how the books are performing relative to the best-seller list, we can't draw conclusions about absolute numbers. So it's still possible that absolute numbers are down. On the other hand, if relative numbers are up, that'd mean D&D as a brand is outperforming book sales as a whole. Which is good. Good enough? Don't ask me, I don't have the raw numbers to look at.

[darjr]

Are there any numbers for the raw sales of books for each time frame? That would go some way to make the comparison more concrete.

[Puggins]

Originally Posted by f33b

1. This means nothing without sales data on the titles you reference.
2. The archived lists only contain the top 15, so not even the PHB2 would appear in the archives.

1) It would mean nothing if I claimed that PHB2 outsold any 3.5e supplement. But I didn't. I was refuting Rodrigo's casual claim that making the top 15 in non-fiction is not at all remarkable. That no 3.5e supplement made it implies that the top 15 is a bit harder to crack than he would imply.

2) Since PHB2 is #14 in the non-fiction list, it will indeed appear in the archives.


And no, I don't recall any 3.5e supplement cracking the top 15 in non-fiction. But hey, I could be wrong. Anyone know which was the most popular 3.5e supplement?

[Mournblade94]

Originally Posted by kenmarable

I have my doubts as well... well, at least taking into account that Green Ronin and Paizo aren't even remotely the same size as each other!

Now, comparing Paizo to late TSR, maybe. I don't have any numbers, but my gut feeling is that Paizo is still smaller than TSR, but at least in the same league. Green Ronin is very small. At it's height I doubt they had more than 5 or 6 full time employees - which, I have to say, looking at the quality of products they have is a real testament to how great and hard working they are.

Yeah probably not true. I probably should have said same league. In any case I think Paizo will grow with the fractured D&D market. Paizo certainly has talent hired that is as good as when WOTC started taking over TSR.

Green Ronin has some of the highest quality bound books on the market. THat is why I included them (I haven't researched company size really) I think their binding quality at least outshines mongoose. Even the WFRP is not as well bound as Green Ronin books.

[lutecius]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

So while some people seem to hope and pray for the demise of 4e, it really requires some convoluted logic and reinterpretation of data and events to come to the conclusion that 4e is dying.

4e being successful is good for everyone in the RPG business and our hobby- I really don't understand the hatred and conspiracy theories some people seem to keep pumping out and are obsessed with. We all win when the gaming industry is strong, and we all lose when its not.

I read that a lot from posters on both "sides" but... how so?

I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me?

The better it sells, the more it will influence other games and the longer i'll have to wait for a new edition (possibly one I do like.)
4e isn't "the gaming industry" and if it fails and nothing takes its place (which I doubt) I'm still not losing anything.

Originally Posted by jgsugden

If D&D has a slow death wherein interest in the game falls off slowly, I think it will have a *negative* impact on *all* other table top RPGs. As D&D dies off, a majority of people would probably not be switching to other RPGs, but would instead be leaving the market. This would reduce the viability of brick and mortar game stores, reducing channels of exposure for other RPGs.

The end of flgs would be sad but wouldn't necessarily mean the end of rpgs. The internet gives more exposure to obscure games than brick and mortar ever did and Amazon sales have often been touted as proof of 4e's success. Actually, e-commerce is far more likely to put local stores out of business than dnd's failure.

[Ace]

Now as to the WOTC thing. The suits weren't too smart. It makes WOTC look like the RIAA and organization 1st up against the wall -- you know the rest. It will stop people from putting up watermarked PDF's on Scribd or something but so what? OCR software is everywhere

As for the sales drops -- 6 reasons

#1 and the big one

The US and most of the world are in a depression. A lot of the main market is broker than usual. The unemployment rate among young people, 4e's main market is scary.Even those with jobs are cutting back.

The rest in no particular order

#2 A good chunk of the market is fragmented. Sure people play 4e but lots still play 3x, 2x, and older editions and have no intention of "upgrading" . I suspect more than a few 4e players have gone rero-clone too

#3 Yes piracy, kinda. Books are functionally free now Most marginal buyers don't need to buy. In the past they'd bum a buddies book and if it really clicked might buy it. Now the download it and unless they use it all the time there is no reason to buy

#4 Smaller Market. Its not a lazy Saturday in 1981, There are a lot more things to do now. Tons of choices that didn't exist then, many of whom provide the sam experience as mediocre gaming. Poeple play TTRPG's because they want to play TTRPG's not because they are bored and have nothing better to do. Even when they want to game they can play all sorts of things free and legal. The Runequest and Traveller and D20 SRD's are enough for hundreds of hours of gaming. Throw in free stuff like Pathfinder and the OGL wiki and you'd never need buy a book.

#5 Its not that much fun for some people. This is entirely subjective and you can love it and be right and I can dislike it and be right but I suspect many gamers see little value in the 4e rules set.The fluff is great but the game is well its -- heck I'll say it. Its a mini wargame with RPG elements. OK I know that 1e was too but it was all we had (till I switched to Runequest) Compared to 3x (especially my modestly houseruled version) 4e is a strait jacket

#6 Saturation. Lots of people bought tons of 3e and are full up.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by lutecius

I read that a lot from posters on both "sides" but... how so?

I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me?

The better it sells, the more it will influence other games and the longer i'll have to wait for a new edition (possibly one I do like.)
4e isn't "the gaming industry" and if it fails and nothing takes its place (which I doubt) I'm still not losing anything.

Other folks have answered this before (and probably more eloquently than me), but I'll give it a shot.

D&D always has been the most recognizable brand name in RPGs, regardless of which company has had the rights to it. It has always had the greatest amount of resources available to it, the name recognition, and market penetration. When someone thinks of RPGs, most likely D&D is the first thing that enters their heads.

If D&D were to fail, most gamers wouldn't know there are alternatives out there, and certainly far fewer new gamers would be attracted to the hobby. We have to face the fact that those of us who frequent message boards are not "typical" gamers- we're the fanatics, the ones who follow the trends and development of RPGs. Most people who play tabletop RPGs never even visit a forum site. D&D is the "gateway game" for many folks by name recognition alone, who eventually branch out and try other systems they may or may not stick with in the long term. If 4e D&D fails, for all intents and purposes, tabletop RPGs are dead in the public eye, and as a result, fewer people will be buying the RPGs of other publishers. Most will probably just quit gaming. As sales dwindle, other RPG companies will begin to fold, as they cannot maintain their razor-thin profit margins, and fairly soon there simply wouldn't be anyone able to produce RPGs as a viable business. In addition, tabletop RPGs already have to fight with MMOs for a segment of the player base (especially younger players), so if D&D were suddenly to be gone, most people who didn't know other RPGs were available would most likely switch to MMO play, which frankly is faster to get into and you can play according to YOUR schedule and whims, and is much flashier than tabletop RPGs. The few people who come to gaming via MMOs are probably told that "D&D is the precursor to MMOs", and check it out due to curiousity to see where their favorite online games roots came from.

So without D&D, Paizo, Green Ronin, FFG, and many other publishers are simply DEAD (the possible exception being White Wolf). Even without competition from D&D, the other companies I mentioned simply don't have the resources to flood the market with enough product to really make a difference, and tabletop gaming would most likely die a slow, lingering death over about a 5-10 year period.

Personally, I disliked 3.0 and 3.5, but I knew a lot of people enjoyed it, and I didn't wish for its demise like some people do for 4e today. Instead I branched out and discovered new games during its run that I enjoyed more (WHFRP2, Savage Worlds, nWoD), and I'm better off for it, as are the companies whose products I purchased. 4e has returned D&D to a game my group and I enjoy, and fans of 3.x still have tons of published materials from its run, as well as Pathfinder to explore. What doesn't make sense to me is why quite a few people rant and rave about having D&D cater to their exact whims, when there are other games that DO cater to them already in existence, but which they refuse to investigate further. That smacks of some people trying to dictate how everbody else should play, and that they are trying to determine what is "badwrongfun" for everyone. What is good for one person's specific concept of what D&D should be isn't always the best thing for the long-term health of the hobby.

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Originally Posted by Puggins

1) I was refuting Rodrigo's casual claim that making the top 15 in non-fiction is not at all remarkable. That no 3.5e supplement made it implies that the top 15 is a bit harder to crack than he would imply.

2) Since PHB2 is #14 in the non-fiction list, it will indeed appear in the archives.


And no, I don't recall any 3.5e supplement cracking the top 15 in non-fiction. But hey, I could be wrong. Anyone know which was the most popular 3.5e supplement?

You've refuted nothing. You've taken a single data point and extrapolated an unverifiable conclusion.

How many other relatively recent D&D books were there? More books divides the market, making it harder for any individual title to score big numbers even if the aggregate sales were spectacular.

What percentage of sales were online vs brick and mortar? It's trivial to pre-order a book online, which inflates early sales numbers.

What time of year was it released? Seasonal variations are pretty noticeable. Complete Warrior was an early December release; that might have meant increased sales (if people were buying it to give for Christmas), it might have deflated sales (people had less disposable income to spend on themselves), or it might have delayed sales (spending your Borders gift certificate you got from grandma).

In other words, making any sort of assertion about the health of 4e based on a blip on a list is an exercise in wish-fullfilment.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Puggins

I'm betting you can already guess where it is on the list.

Probably hiding out on the WSJ list.

Since PHB2 is #14 in the non-fiction list, it will indeed appear in the archives.

A book that ranks #14 on the WSJ list can be found in the archives of the NYT best-seller list?

[Beginning of the End]

Originally Posted by lutecius

I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me?

Because D&D remains the #1 primary gateway product into the industry. The more successful D&D is at drawing new people into the hobby, the more people will gravitate to different games (including games that you like).

This is why it's a pity that there hasn't been a true introductory version of D&D available in nearly 20 years.

D&D's mainstream penetration has been declining ever since they stopped producing a mainstream gateway product. The corrective measure for fixing this seems self-obvious to me, but WotC just keeps up TSR's folly of churning out pay-to-preview products while identifying a 900-page set of $100 rulebooks as the true entry point for the game.

Originally Posted by Gothmog

So without D&D, Paizo, Green Ronin, FFG, and many other publishers are simply DEAD...

None of those publishers actually produce D&D-compatible material any more. So your thesis seems a trifle questionable.

What doesn't make sense to me is why quite a few people rant and rave about having D&D cater to their exact whims, when there are other games that DO cater to them already in existence, but which they refuse to investigate further.

Personally I just miss having the D&D trademark on a game that actually plays like D&D. But that's neither here nor there.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by Beginning of the End

None of those publishers actually produce D&D-compatible material any more. So your thesis seems a trifle questionable.

While its true that none of them currently support D&D compatible games anymore, they still indirectly depend on the success of D&D. None of those companies produce games that could be considered introductory games, or that are visible enough that they allow for immediate name recognition with people (with the possible exception of Warhammer and Dark Heresy for FFG). Those companies depend on customers who are already familiar with the roleplaying hobby to be their customers. If the pool of gamers shrinks when D&D is gone, then those companies customer base also shrinks. Since they depend on sales with a much narrower margin for survival than WotC, it wouldn't be long before they were dead in the water too. Hopefully it will never come to that (and I don't even remotely think it will)- I don't want to see anyone making games for a living losing their jobs, dreams, and financial well-being.

[haakon1]

Originally Posted by D'karr

Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

Not if it's digital . . .

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by lutecius

I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me?

Because it draws people into gaming at all; thus providing more potential players for your edition-x game down the road.

3e, for all its many other failings, was great for that. The release of 3e rebooted gaming's visibility and drew lots and lots of new players in. I've been merrily poaching them for my old-school games ever since.

The better it sells, the more it will influence other games ...

::shrug:: Fine. Over time, people will strip out the good ideas that 4e presents (and there are a few, if you look carefully), meld them into their own games, and let the rest of 4e fall by the wayside.

Lan-"one must forage where one can"-efan

[Raduin711]

[quote=Beginning of the End;4747793]
This is why it's a pity that there hasn't been a true introductory version of D&D available in nearly 20 years.

[quote]

Hate to say it, but... D&D miniatures?

[Ariosto]

I literally don't know about the merits of D&D today as a "gateway" -- and I don't think anyone else does either. A lot of what I see suggests that it might mainly be dependent on a shrinking market the very brand loyalty of which makes it a demographic less likely than others to branch out to other games. Moreover, its dominance may be a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of retailers who don't give other games shelf space.

My FLGS has a lot of shelf space devoted to long-unsold 3E products. I don't think they're likely to be any more desirable to 4E players, and such a track record might make one wary. World of Darkness now gets more shelf space than D&D, and Rifts is roughly on par.

It's not so easy to sell what you don't have, and the variety on offer there is much less than what it once was. There may be a "feedback loop" going on that leaves both WotC and specialist retailers with a skewed perspective.

If the status quo falls, that might actually clear the way for a more vibrant market to emerge.

Again, I literally do not know!

[Tetsubo]

Removed by Admin. Threadcrapping and trying to incite edition wars get you suspended. ~ PCat