D&D 5E Speculating about the future of the D&D industry/community in a post-5E world

[Halivar]

Two things about this: first, I honestly don't care all that much, and second, I don't believe it for a second. I'm sure the staff at both companies get on great (because they're actual adults), but the fight for market share is real, and as gamers we should be happy about that.

There are a number of things companies do when in a competitive fight for market share, and WotC isn't doing them. First and foremost, non-competes on your employees. So no, I do not believe for a second there is a great Paizo vs WotC struggle, except the one we imagine (or desperately want to as a proxy for our own edition warring).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or, you know, we're tired of the super crunchy version of D&D that is Pathfinder. Don't underestimate the power of system fatigue. It is is hard game to run, especially the way the APs are written -- important info is buried in the text. This is on purpose (I know because I asked) because Paizo knows many of their customers enjoy reading the APs and don't necessarily play them.

People who don't run the game are still a valid market, of course, but a complex one to target. The real area of potential conflict is where people do run the game, and are, as you say, tired of PF's complexity. The thing is, are those people willing to give up Paizo's tightly-themed, largely well-designed, extremely numerous APs for the single WotC AP for 5E (which isn't even an actual AP yet), when WotC have a long history of crummy/questionable APs, just in order to get lighter rules?

My guess is no, for the most part.

Especially as there are those among the PF community who actually like the crunch.

So this leaves 5E in a tricky place. They can't guarantee to get PF people back, because the pull of APs is very strong. They can't guarantee to get 4E people back because, well, they're not supporting a lot of the stuff people liked about 4E. They can't guarantee to get 3.XE/PF people back, if those people like crunch, because 5E is, superficially at least, anti-crunch. They can't guarantee to get OSR people back, because 5E is much more complex than most OSR games.

So... definitely a tricky one. I suspect good marketing will mean a stronger initial release than 4E (and 4E wasn't terrible at release), but it will then be up to WotC to hold on to those customers, and I don't think that's going to happen unless they get certain things in place.

As noted though, maybe the actual game is only the small part of the D&D brand, so maybe they can fail to get back PF/OSR/4E customers, for the most part, but still do great through branded stuff.

 

[wedgeski]

There are a number of things companies do when in a competitive fight for market share, and WotC isn't doing them. First and foremost, non-competes on your employees. So no, I do not believe for a second there is a great Paizo vs WotC struggle, except the one we imagine (or desperately want to as a proxy for our own edition warring).

This is getting circular. Yes, I think that WotC looks enviously at Paizo's slice of the market and wants it. No, I can't explain why they don't bring out the big marketing guns and go for it. Whatever the reason(s), I do not for one second think it's because they don't care.

For the sake of saying it, I despise edition warring and couldn't care less who is "winning" in the marketplace. But these questions are interesting and only getting more so as 5E ramps up.

 

[Reynard]

I think it depends a lot on what WotC's strategy is going to be going forward. Are they going to farm out the hard work of adventures -- it seems so with Kobold doing their initial "AP" -- and going to rely on core book sales? Are they going to ride the supplement train? That's possible, but might well backfire -- it would be very hard to compete with Pathfinder in the crunch-heavy segment of the market. If all WotC is really interested in is keeping D&D alive in order to act as a foundation for the brand -- which I think is a great strategy and we are long overdue for a D&D cartoon series -- then licensing seems valid and likely.

 

[77IM]

Last week, the D&D Starter Set was listed as a new product in Paizo's "This Week at Paizo" email. Even with Amazon undercutting them, I still expected to see it listed in the email again this week, in the section "Top Selling Products from Other Companies," but it wasn't. In fact, every single product listed in all four "Top Selling" lists was Pathfinder or PFRPG -- except for #10 on one list was Gygax Magazine.

Somehow I find that lack of diversity ominous. It's probably great for Paizo's financials in the short term but I wonder if they're getting too entrenched. And it's bad for the industry too -- I used to view "This Week at Paizo" as a way too keep up-to-date on new RPG releases, but now am considering unsubscribing.

 

[Hussar]

This is getting circular. Yes, I think that WotC looks enviously at Paizo's slice of the market and wants it. No, I can't explain why they don't bring out the big marketing guns and go for it. Whatever the reason(s), I do not for one second think it's because they don't care.

For the sake of saying it, I despise edition warring and couldn't care less who is "winning" in the marketplace. But these questions are interesting and only getting more so as 5E ramps up.

Or, the idea of market share is extremely skewed.

Remember, Paizo only took top spot after WOTC basically gave up and stopped producing new books. And WOTC, even without producing a single new product, still stayed in second place for a heck of a long time.

I think there is a GIANT gap between first place and second place, that was left empty when WOTC stopped selling anything. It's not that Paizo is a big fish, it's that a market without D&D is a very, very small pond.

My prediction is that WOTC is going to shoot up to first place and so long as they keep producing product, they won't be budged from it again. Thing is, even if that's true, it may not really impact Paizo at all. It's not that everyone stopped buying WOTC stuff and started buying Paizo stuff. It's that people stopped buying AT ALL.

 

[Tuft]

This is getting circular. Yes, I think that WotC looks enviously at Paizo's slice of the market and wants it. No, I can't explain why they don't bring out the big marketing guns and go for it. Whatever the reason(s), I do not for one second think it's because they don't care.

For the sake of saying it, I despise edition warring and couldn't care less who is "winning" in the marketplace. But these questions are interesting and only getting more so as 5E ramps up.

My theory is that they did go to Hasbro and ask for a big chunk of marketing money. That was what that big 4E presentation to Hasbro (that has been the subject of many of posts here) was all about. You know, the dream that the big 4E redesign would bring about popular computer games, and then big Brand-Name Hollywood Movies, such as Battleship or Hungry Hungry Hippos... (See http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Saome-History )

That's the money that allowed them to splurge on "edgy" web animations that were (I think) supposed to go viral. You know, the (in)famous "The sexy big-horned tiefling vs the silly nerdy gnome" or "All critique comes from trolls, and we fling dragon poop on them".

Since the expected success failed to materialise, and the marketing turned out to be very divisive and not taken well by a large chunk of the expected audience...

Well, I think the D&D part of WoTC has a hard time to go back to Hasbro and ask for a big chunk of marketing money again for 5E, when the previous attempt failed to pay off. Note that nothing as technically sophisticated as those animations has ever appeared since...

 

[Halivar]

Well, I think the D&D part of WoTC has a hard time to go back to Hasbro and ask for a big chunk of marketing money again for 5E, when the previous attempt failed to pay off. Note that nothing as technically sophisticated as those animations has ever appeared since...

Err... it had all the technical sophistication of web animations people put out all the time for funsies. I doubt they spent a significant amount on it.

 

[Hussar]

Err... it had all the technical sophistication of web animations people put out all the time for funsies. I doubt they spent a significant amount on it.

But he does have a point. There is a whole lot less being spent on marketing this time around than last.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But he does have a point. There is a whole lot less being spent on marketing this time around than last.

Not sure that's true.

There's less being spent on THAT KIND of marketing - i.e. gimmick-y, RPG-nerd-oriented, insider-oriented marketing.

But it seems to me that with all the releases of info to various broader-nerd/geek-oriented publications and even the upswing in coverage in mainstream stuff (which has got to be down to WotC in part, esp. given interviews/comment are often involved), there must be some serious marketing behind that. That shiz doesn't "just happen", not for WotC any more than anyone else, and it's not free, either.