D&D 5E Does WotC suck at selling games?

[Morrus]

Are those the conclusions we need to draw here?

They appear to be the conclusions you need to draw. Not me, I'm afraid. I'm not really seeing the problems you are.

Because they DID manage to get four products out there: Starter Set, PHB, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and Basic Rules (Player and Monster).

And they still have more to finish.

They chose those products, they chose that focus, they chose their release schedule.

Yup, they chose the non-problematic release schedule. Again, I'm not seeing the problem with it that you do. It's all going according to plan. Just not your plan - well, just not at the speed of your plan. Slow plans work too.

Hey, maybe you're right and they're wrong. Hell if I know! I'm not seeing it myself, but I guess we'll find out in due course!

 

[Umbran]

Honestly, I think that is the heart of the complaint. If those things were available right now, then WotC could be taking advantage of the current increase in awareness and leveraging it into new players and new DMs.

Likely so. That would mean making content equivalent to a PHB, DMG, MM, and a library of adventures, and requiring it *all* before release of any. That doesn't sound like a good plan, to me.

 

[arjomanes]

Because they DID manage to get four products out there: Starter Set, PHB, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and Basic Rules (Player and Monster). They chose those products, they chose that focus, they chose their release schedule. They licensed that Starter Set from a third party, too. So it didn't eat up their resources. So why THAT Starter Set?

They've done a great job. The Starter Set is great, the Players Handbook is great, the new adventure module is great. Looks like the Monster Manual will be great. And I'm sure the DMG will be great.

I think your criticisms are not only premature, but very weak. You're assuming there's a wave of new players who will be put off by the Starter Set. I don't see anything to support that idea. I think the Starter Set does a great job of laying out the basics of the game and teaching how to run and play an introductory adventure. Then those players that had a good time can pick up the Players Handbook and Monster Manual for more character options and monsters than the Starter Set provides. And then the DMG will teach more DMing skills.

Of course new DMs will run into some of the problems all new DMs ever have worked through, and maybe the Dungeon Master's Guide will help guide those young Dungeon Masters. We can't say because we haven't seen it yet, but you don't need to be an expert DM to have fun running the Starter Set or the Tiamat adventure. I'm pretty sure the new generation of DMs will be just as capable of the previous ones in running an adventure.

We can all improve on our DMing skills, but that doesn't mean that WotC sucks, or that they aren't doing an awesome job right now. Mike Mearls has an opinion on the value of a choose your own adventure style tutorial that no doubt differs from yours. Just like DCC has their character funnel process, and other designers have experimented with different tools. The Starter Set has a very simple to understand introduction to playing the game, and gets right into the adventure. I think they're doing everything right, and I even agree with their release schedule.

 

[Morrus]

I'm curious about the Adventurer's League. That seems like the ideal player-acquisition method (it has a DM there to explain stuff to you, all the materials provided). I can't see how it could reach new people though. I guess someone in the store looking and something else (comics, toys, boardgames) could be interested.

 

[arjomanes]

I'm curious about the Adventurer's League. That seems like the ideal player-acquisition method (it has a DM there to explain stuff to you, all the materials provided). I can't see how it could reach new people though. I guess someone in the store looking and something else (comics, toys, boardgames) could be interested.

I think it's perfect for all those Magic players.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I've been playing in the 5th Edition encounters since they started in August, and have even DMed one session myself. My totally anecdotal experience is that everyone showing up for encounters in the store at which I play are either lapsed players, or players coming from a different edition or game. (As well as people already on the 5e bandwagon.)

There hasn't been anyone new to RPGs playing at that store.

 

[Wrathamon]

I think it's perfect for all those Magic players.

I have yet to ever convert any of the magic players to play D&D. When they are at the store to play magic they want to play magic.


I think the Adventurer's League is too hardcore to be honest. It is intimidating to new players. Signing up, log sheets, tracking, bunch of other rules that are their to balance character progression, etc. It is obviously setup to attract the Living Campaign players back from 3rd edition or the Society players. I felt 4e did a much better job at public play for new players. It was simple and easy. Show up and play. I feel they need that again or at least have that type of public player option available and have that transition to the more structured league if players want to get that involved. I do think that for those players that like that living campaign, Adventure's League has a lot going for it so far.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So the premise is that WOTC needs to do more to engage with people who haven't played TTRPGs before and convince them to DM. The chicken-and-egg problem here is that this is like asking someone who's never seen a movie to become a director. I could see the value of a very "on the rails" starter adventure - I heard good things about the pathfinder starter kit - but honestly those adventures take away a lot of the fun of DMing. You're taking that person who's never seen a movie and saying, "Here's a script and a shooting schedule; you make sure everybody shows up on time and hits their mark." Sure, you learn some of the essentials, but is it actually fun enough to make you want to come back and DM again?

 

[arjomanes]

I have yet to ever convert any of the magic players to play D&D. When they are at the store to play magic they want to play magic.


I think the Adventurer's League is too hardcore to be honest. It is intimidating to new players. Signing up, log sheets, tracking, bunch of other rules that are their to balance character progression, etc. It is obviously setup to attract the Living Campaign players back from 3rd edition or the Society players. I felt 4e did a much better job at public play for new players. It was simple and easy. Show up and play. I feel they need that again or at least have that type of public player option available and have that transition to the more structured league if players want to get that involved. I do think that for those players that like that living campaign, Adventure's League has a lot going for it so far.

You may be right, but I think that's the idea behind it: get new players to try out D&D. Maybe a more casual approach would work better?

And I wasn't thinking anyone would choose to play D&D instead of Magic when they went in to play, but they no doubt see the games going on and I'm sure some get interested as a result.

 

[Astrosicebear]

The two primary reasons players become DMs.

1. Great DMs
2. Horrible DMs