D&D 5E A Board Game style Release Schedule

[Jester David]

Being blunt WoTC has screwed the pooch. We have had 3 and 4 year edition cycles and each new edition has been a new game in effect. Basic, 1E and 2E were all very similar up to the point you could run a BECMI adventure in AD&D without needing to convert much or even using the stats as printed.

I was one of the ones who askled for less glut but there is a differnece between less glut and almost nothing. HotDQ sucked being blunt, LMoP was good but I bought a 3pp adventure book as there is no Dungeon or Dragon either for the 1st time in decades with a new edition launch. Dragon was there for every edition since 1E and Dungeon was there for 2E,3E, and 4E. Would not really bother me if WioTC sold the IP or even mothballed it.

Do we *need* more adventures though? It's pretty easy to convert old adventures, meaning there's literally hundreds -if not thousands- of adventures available with many digitally available at DnD Classics.

As for the magazines... I imagine if there was a licence partner willing to take over the mags, WotC would happily outsource. But no one wants to touch magazines these days.
(And we are getting weekly articles, which is almost a magazine in terms of content. To say nothing of the forthcoming Elemental Evil PDF.)

I am torn. I expect the D&D team itself would like to release a little more content but really no longer has the staff. They've been laid off to the point of inconsequence or redundancy.
I'm certain more content is coming. The game has only *really* been fully out for a couple months. As the surveys suggested, most people are hovering around level 6. We don't *need* new content until the PHB is exhausted for most groups. and that could be years. I'm okay waiting until GenCon for some content.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think this is very much true.

But just as I though their plan to vastly expand the fan base with 4E was doomed, I think this plan is also flawed.

They *could* make more money on one smash hit movie that D&D will make in a decade. So the chance is there. T Shirts, action figures, etc, etc,... And I am ALL on board with marketing that approach.



But, IMO, if they don't keep the RPG strong and running (even just in a little niche market) their opportunity for success on these other things goes down.

We do have some historical evidence to work with. First, we know that a lot of product reduces return on investment over time. We also know that edition changes can fracture the player base, causing harm to the brand. Both of these suggest that the old models are flawed.

We also can look at board games and see that you can still have expansion content to a game without undercutting base sales.

So the answer seems to be about finding the right balance. What is the optimal set of products for D&D? And I do suggest that there is an optimal max number of non-periodicals. A number where new people slowly collecting the entire set has a greater ROI than new products. I just don't know that number.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Do we *need* more adventures though? It's pretty easy to convert old adventures, meaning there's literally hundreds -if not thousands- of adventures available with many digitally available at DnD Classics.

Yes. I don't want to have to convert. I want better production values than they had a couple decades ago. And I don't want my players to be familiar with the adventure. New adventures of the size and quality of The Lost Mine of Phandelver would be a boon for any game.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't mind converting adventures (did it anyway for my homebrew world) but you other ideas are spot on.

 

[BryonD]

We do have some historical evidence to work with. First, we know that a lot of product reduces return on investment over time. We also know that edition changes can fracture the player base, causing harm to the brand. Both of these suggest that the old models are flawed.

Flawed compared to what? I don't see that edition change *must* fracture the fan base. Recall that much was made out of the 4E drive to bring in vast numbers of new fans and the direct assessment that some loss of existing fans was OK because of all the fans that would appear. That certainly fractured the fan base. But that does not mean that all new editions must have the same result.

We also don't know that "a lot of product reduces return on investment over time". The history of RPGs shows that a lot of product can be shown aligned with reduction in return on investment over time. BUT... The history of RPGs shows that little product can be tied reduced return on investment over time. There is no clear correlation whatsoever.

The "second golden age" under the D20/OGL banner may very well be the high water mark. It is ok to be unsatisfied that this is "high enough". But "best possible" not being high enough and the circumstances surrounding "best possible" being a cause of decline are two different matters.

We also can look at board games and see that you can still have expansion content to a game without undercutting base sales.

yep. If you are selling board games. Does this apply to RPGs? (I think a lot more "no" than "yes".)

So the answer seems to be about finding the right balance. What is the optimal set of products for D&D? And I do suggest that there is an optimal max number of non-periodicals. A number where new people slowly collecting the entire set has a greater ROI than new products. I just don't know that number.

Of course not. We should avoid the right balance and by all means be as far from optimal as possible.

Seriously? Do you also love your mother and like apple pie?
I'm teasing. But you do realize you have not actually said anything here, right?

 

[BryonD]

They're very comparable.

Catan hasn't released a new edition. It's continually among the best selling games. And it continues to make money. All without releasing monthly or even annual content or a revision.

Now, I'm not saying D&D IS Catan, just that treating D&D accessory products like board games treat expansion might be a valid strategy, and similar to WotC's planned released schedule.

I don't see how that makes the least bit of sense. The experience of playing board games is quite different.

And, if we just assume you are right for the sake of argument, how many games came out in 1995?
Who says that D&D will be like Catan and not any of those other games?

 

[BryonD]

Perhaps they think it will make for a stronger product long term, or even better sales long term. WotC releases a book a month, I will pick and choose what I buy, if they release one every 4-6 months, I am much more likely to buy all of them.

Again, the quote I replied to stated a flat return. If you could (reliably) increase total return,I would be right there with you. But for flat return, my question still stands.

It also makes it easier for each book to be playtested more, balanced better, higher quality, etc.

In theory. But that doesn't mean it will be true in fact.

Please tell me what it is they are playtesting right now so that it will be "balanced better" and of "higher quality"?

I don't want a lot of crunch continually released, it makes me less enthused about the game in general. Others feel the opposite, they need to pick which group to cater to the most....

Noted.
Steak places don't seem to have a hard time choosing whether to market to vegetarians.
I'm not sure successfully not selling to people who don't want to buy is quite the same as successfully selling to people who do.

But, again, that is beside the point. As other have stated, (and I agree) the real goal is brand value, not RPG sales. But if popularity wanes, brand value will follow. (D&D has deep roots. No claim it will just collapse)
I think lack of product will push things that direction.
Yet again, what is on the horizon? I'm not complaining that it isn't the D20 glut all over. The circumstance (as currently presented by WotC) seems an extreme lack of pipeline.

 

[DaveDash]

True. But I could have just as easily said video games. Video games, both MMO and regular, also have a slower expansion cycles. The number of video games with multiple large exoansions is rare.

Expansions in video games and board games tend to be major releases with lots of new options that changes how the game is played, not just adding a few more options for the game.

It'd be good to think of D&D similarly: big expansions that you're not expected to use more than one or two at the same time.

Not any more. A lot of video games now are the 'base' and get continuous content updates over longer periods of time, either paid through in game currency, or smaller DLC packs. These are affordable and released on a regular basis, to keep fans engaged, however if you're invested you can also purchase all the more cosmetic stuff.
Crusader Kings 2 has something like 20-30 DLC packs for it. People love it, and the publishers continue to update it.

Pazio gets it, WoTC/Hasbro do not. The "big expansion" model is obsolete. Entire consumer sentiment is moving away from paying full price for slower release of content to faster, "free", and subscription based consumption. I'd be very worried about any business that still relied on that older antique model.

Let's not forget that D&D is competing against these mediums as well for peoples time. I love D&D 5e but people will eventually follow the path of least resistance.

 

[DaveDash]

Do we *need* more adventures though? It's pretty easy to convert old adventures, meaning there's literally hundreds -if not thousands- of adventures available with many digitally available at DnD Classics.

You yourself have said in another thread that once you start getting high level it's not that easy to convert content.

A lot of older stuff is also not digital tools compatible. Playing over roll20 is hugely popular, and it's a significant amount of work bringing this content into the digital age, regardless of level or edition.v4th Edition was WAY better in this regard, releasing player maps etc, but it's harder to convert.

 

[Sailor Moon]

The thing that will help D&D gain customers is to make D&D feel like it's supported and right now it doesn't.

I have said this over and over and I will continue to say this. You can have a healthy schedule that will make customers feel like the game is actually being supported without the glut.

I also find the glut argument to be extremely weak because of the success of Pathfinder. You don't even have to go to that level and still be successful. Communication is a place that Wizards always fails at. They are too worried about rubbing people the wrong way but I find that to be a weak argument as well. You aren't going to please everyone, but you will run off a large piece of your fanbase by keeping them in the dark. I'm sorry but no news is better than news doesn't apply in this situation.