D&D 5E Given WotC plans with the RPG will 5e always be the #1 seller?

[BryonD]

Thanks for the clarification

 

[doctorhook]

What's interesting is that with the roll out of 5e they're able to take their time with having minimal D&D income, having virtually ceased 4e production for a while, and spend their time with the extended playtest marketing. That speaks to Hasbro not having a hand in the mix, and a certain amount of trust with their business plan for 5e.

I agree with your conclusion, but I'm curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting Hasbro would have WotC abandon D&D in order to save money? It's completely possible I've misread you.

Hasbro is far too big and too smart to allow any of its properties to be abandoned without a great reason. 4E may have burned a lot of bridges, but even that didn't taint the brand so badly that Hasbro would let WotC fold up D&D for good-- if they thought it was worthless, they would have sold it. All said and done, we don't really have any idea what D&D's budget was over the past couple years, even though its revenue was clearly reduced. (5E may well have been heavily subsidized by M:tG.)

The rest of the industry excluding Paizo. I don't know what Paizo earned in 2013 - but in 2012 they earned $11.2 million. Which is a pretty big target to aim at.

Paizo is certainly booming these days, but they're still swimming in the same evaporating puddle that WotC did. All those Pathfinder books I see on the shelf in big box bookstores are as much a sign of Paizo's prosperity as they are an albatross around its neck.

 

[Shemeska]

I agree with your conclusion, but I'm curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting Hasbro would have WotC abandon D&D in order to save money? It's completely possible I've misread you.

I didn't intend to suggest that, no.

 

[doctorhook]

I didn't intend to suggest that, no.

Alright, fair enough!

 

[pemerton]

5e is /not/, even in it's Basic form, a simple or easy-to-learn system for the new-to-RPGs player.

<snip>

5e is as arcane as 3.x - and only barely saved from being as counter-intuitive as AD&D by sticking with d20 core mechanics. For every improvement in clarity/consistency that makes the game simpler or easier to understand (like 'vantage) there's several steps back (like Vancian, saving throws, inconsistent class advancement), not to mention unchallenged D&Disms like armor making you 'miss,' that have always made new players scratch their heads a bit.

It's not easy to learn or simple, it's just familiar and not all out yet.

It's a TTRPG--how simple do you really expect it to be? Compared to the spectrum of similar games, 5E (especially in its Basic form) is clearly on the "easier and simpler to learn" end of the spectrum, especially compared to Pathfinder, 5E's only significant competitor.

'Simpler than Pathfinder' is not much of a bar to clear. And the question isn't whether D&D can compete with other RPGs on simplicity (it doesn't really need to), it's whether D&D is simple/easy-to-learn enough to retain new players better than it has in the past.

While I wouldn't say 5e is simple to learn, I wouldn't put it near 3e or AD&D in its..."arcanity?"...3e had a relatively simple core, but with oodles of exceptions, traps, and corner-cases. AD&D practically defines an arcane ruleset. 5e...nowhere close to that. That said, no edition of D&D even approaches the ease with which new players can pick up a game like Fate

I don't have a good handle on 5e's simplicity relative to 3E. In some ways it looks simpler than 4e, although by mid-levels I think casters will face more complex decision-situations (between memorised scalable spells plus slots available) than their counterparts would in 4e.

By overall standards I agree that it's not that simpler. Of classic RPGs, RQ and even a stripped-back RM are simpler. Of "modern" RPGs, Fate and similar descriptor-based games are clearly simpler, and in many ways more inuitive as well. The key thing about a descriptor-based game is to make it true that my PC is good at X, in in situation ABC, all I have to do is add a descriptor that says so. Whereas in a build-based game like 5e, mere flavour text on its own is not enough. It's the need to link mechanics to desired outcomes that is the pathway to complexity.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And as the popularity of 4E wained, DDI remained remarkable resilient.
And as 5E was announced, DDI remained remarkable resilient.
And as 5E becomes the new shiny that is right upon us, DDI remains remarkable resilient.
And, as DDI remains remarkable resilient and even with 4E effectively gone it still brings in as muc revenue ($6 mill).

Well, it'd explain why they haven't just shut it down to 'force' people to migrate to 5e.

What makes you think the popularity of 4e waned? It's sales just went down because WotC stopped putting out books for it. People still play it - a lot of people, I'd guess, since there are groups with just one DDI subscriber, and not everyone who plays liked the on-line tools that much - new players have continued to be added to the hobby by it, for that matter. It's only a matter of time, though, in the face of absolutely no support, before they at least start buying 5e stuff, as well, if not finally migrate.

OTOH, subscription income streams like DDI do tend to be 'remarkably resilient,' because people often just plain forget to cancel them.

 

[Rygar]

Yes Tony, THAT IS MY POINT. He's arguing HASBRO is exercising creative control over D&D. Not WOTC, Hasbro. D&D doesn't even rank a mention in quarterly reports beyond movie news. It's totally not on Hasbro's radar. At most, if Hasbro ever mentions WOTC, it's purely for CCG news. WOTC truly has total autonomy over D&D. They are considered highly influential within Hasbro, and Hasbro doesn't interfere with day to day operations for small scale product lines such as D&D. At all.

If you disagree with my position, then show me one shred of evidence supporting Black Ranger's claim that Hasbro exercises creative control over the D&D product line of WOTC's.

Refer to my post linking to Ryan D's retrospective on 4th edition. How can WOTC have total autonomy over D&D if they required the approval of Hasbro's senior management for the project plan for 4th edition? It is not possible to be fully autonomous when you require approval. The definition of autonomous means you don't need approval, so clearly WOTC is not autonomous.

 

[Mistwell]

Refer to my post linking to Ryan D's retrospective on 4th edition. How can WOTC have total autonomy over D&D if they required the approval of Hasbro's senior management for the project plan for 4th edition? It is not possible to be fully autonomous when you require approval. The definition of autonomous means you don't need approval, so clearly WOTC is not autonomous.

Rygar I don't know if you're being disingenuous, or if you forgot, or if you just never read that part (r maybe that part was cut from the one you read). But Dancy says later that, after those events he's discussing, senior management was replaced, and the guys at WOTC who had made those commitments had also left, and CCGs were stuffed in the same WOTC umbrella as D&D, and the whole issue went away. He said they don't have a blank check or anything, but the pressure is off the D&D team from that time when it was on that he was discussing.

D&D is not on anyones radar at Hasbro. If you have proof otherwise, then provide it.

 

[doctorhook]

Refer to my post linking to Ryan D's retrospective on 4th edition. How can WOTC have total autonomy over D&D if they required the approval of Hasbro's senior management for the project plan for 4th edition? It is not possible to be fully autonomous when you require approval. The definition of autonomous means you don't need approval, so clearly WOTC is not autonomous.

You're speaking in absolutes. WotC is not fully autonomous from Hasbro, but it is functionally autonomous. It's possible for WotC to be beholden to its parent company and still retain its autonomy for all intents and purposes.

 

[Maggan]

How can WOTC have total autonomy over D&D if they required the approval of Hasbro's senior management for the project plan for 4th edition?

Maybe they wanted more funds? That would fit. Having autonomy (at whatever level) doesn't mean that you never ask for assistance anywhere else.

It could go like this*:

WotC: Hey we need more money!
Hasbro: Why?
WotC: We're releasing a new version of D&D.
Hasbro: What?
WotC: (sigh) that satanic game, you know?
Hasbro: Ah, yes. I saw the movie.
WotC: Darn!
Hasbro: Ok, so you need money. Do you have a plan?
WotC: Sure, let's go through this powerpoint.
Hasbro: That was ... elucidating. I still don't get who wins this game ... but you seem to have a well thought out plan. And a great shirt! Here's half of what you're asking for. Just make sure you make those revenue targets!
WotC: Sure thing! We'll just cancel some magazines, then it will be clear sailing for the rest of the trip! Cheers, thnx.
Hasbro: Oh yeah, please send in those Parker Brothers, they're waiting outside. Hmmmm ... I wonder what they do ...?

Cheers!

/Maggan

*A dramatised version, not to be taken as a 100% realistic and proven representation of actual events.