D&D 5E Light release schedule: More harm than good?

[Hussar]

The rise of the OSR came later. Although Castles & Crusades was released shortly after 3.0e was released, the OSR didn't gain any real traction until the release of OSRIC (the first true retroclone), which was in 2006 - at the height of 3.5e.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...dule-More-harm-than-good/page25#ixzz3RUG4y9aB

I'm not sure I'd agree that 2006 was the height of 3.5. By that point, virtually no one was producing 3pp - we had Goodman games, Green Ronin with a couple of modules, and some odds and sods, but, outside of Paizo with Dungeon and Dragon (which weren't actually 3pp), the field was pretty empty. 4e had been in development for about a year by that point and would be announced in 2007 (Good grief, has it really been almost eight years already?). Even on the forums at that time there was a fair bit of chatter about possibilities of a new edition because 3e was seen as pretty much played out.

I think there's a lot of magic 8 ball style guesswork going on when we start talking about sales and whatnot. Sure, the core 3 sell well, but, we know that later books don't. The question is, in my mind, how much don't they sell? What is the ratio to core books? Does a supplement get 50% of the sales level of a core book? 20%? 10? 5? I certainly don't know, but, I do admit that my gut feeling is that it's probably less than 5%. Sure, the player books (Complete whatever class) might sell better than the fifth Forgotten Realms supplement, but, that's a pretty low bar. How much is the drop off after core sales?

Because if the drop off really is 95%, then that would very much explain why we don't see supplements coming out for 5e. What's the point of cannibalising your profits? At some point, you have to ask if it's worth it to produce the book. If the ROI is so small, then why not just put your money in the bank and take vacations?

 

[Shasarak]

Here's the ENWorld thread. I don't know if anyone quotes the whole thing, but at least some parts are there.

I found this bit:

See, I'm going to let you in on a little secret, which might make you mad: 3.5 was planned from the beginning.

Even before 3.0 went to the printer, the business team overseeing D&D was talking about 3.5. Not surprisingly, most of the designers -- particularly the actual 3.0 team (Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, and I) thought this was a poor idea. Also not surprisingly, our concerns were not enough to affect the plan. The idea, they assured us, was to make a revised edition that was nothing but a cleanup of any errata that might have been found after the book's release, a clarification of issues that seemed to confuse large numbers of players, and, most likely, all new art. It was slated to come out in 2004 or 2005, to give a boost to sales at a point where -- judging historically from the sales trends of previous editions -- they probably would be slumping a bit. It wasn't to replace everyone's books, and it wouldn't raise any compatibility or conversion issues.

 

[delericho]

I'm not sure I'd agree that 2006 was the height of 3.5...

Okay, whether it was the 'height' or not is debateable. Either way, it's a very long time after 3.0e, which was the assertion I was debating.

I think there's a lot of magic 8 ball style guesswork going on when we start talking about sales and whatnot. Sure, the core 3 sell well, but, we know that later books don't. The question is, in my mind, how much don't they sell?

Yeah, we don't know.

Sure, the player books (Complete whatever class) might sell better...

My theory is that that's a whole lot less true of 4e than was the case previously, simply because it quickly became apparent that "Martial Power" and the like were almost entirely filled with new powers, and all the new powers appeared in DDI almost right away.

But, suggesting that one number I don't know is probably smaller than another number I don't know isn't terribly useful.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is that without any of those numbers we're just whistling in the dark.

 

[delericho]

The problem is that without any of those numbers we're just whistling in the dark.

True.

The one number I was able to find was that the "Psionics Handbook" from 3.0e apparently sold out a 70k print run, and was one of very, very few D&D supplements (in the WotC era) to get a second run. But even that figure was from an unsourced Google groups conversation from way back, so take it with a pinch of salt.

(Oh, and there's also this post, which gives some PHB numbers - of particular note, probably, is the 300k figure for the 3.0e PHB at about the same time. And this post suggests total sales for the 3.0e PHB as being between 700k and 800k across its lifetime.)

If we accept those numbers, that suggests that your very best supplements for an edition are likely to get sales about 10% of those of your core rulebook (~70k vs ~700k).

But since the sources for these are not all clear, take that with a big pinch of salt.

 

[Hussar]

True.

The one number I was able to find was that the "Psionics Handbook" from 3.0e apparently sold out a 70k print run, and was one of very, very few D&D supplements (in the WotC era) to get a second run. But even that figure was from an unsourced Google groups conversation from way back, so take it with a pinch of salt.

(Oh, and there's also this post, which gives some PHB numbers - of particular note, probably, is the 300k figure for the 3.0e PHB at about the same time. And this post suggests total sales for the 3.0e PHB as being between 700k and 800k across its lifetime.)

If we accept those numbers, that suggests that your very best supplements for an edition are likely to get sales about 10% of those of your core rulebook (~70k vs ~700k).

But since the sources for these are not all clear, take that with a big pinch of salt.

I'd largely agree with that. And, that might go some way towards explaining the light release schedule. If you know, from past history, that supplements really don't sell that much - probably close to that 1-5% range of what the PHB's sell, rather than 10%, it does get to the point of why bother? Like you say, virtually none of the supplements get a second printing so, at what point do you simply not bother with supplements?

And, as far as TSR era stuff goes, certainly by 2nd Edition you likely won't see too many second printings on supplements. Maybe in the hey day of the fad days in 1e, but, outside of that, I doubt most books got a second run.

Funny thing is, if you go back to 1e and look at what's actually there, from TSR, there isn't a whole lot of material there.

 

[delericho]

I'd largely agree with that. And, that might go some way towards explaining the light release schedule. If you know, from past history, that supplements really don't sell that much - probably close to that 1-5% range of what the PHB's sell

I'd be inclined to agree that 10% is probably only for the very best selling items, and most will be considerably lower. I also wonder if the figure is actually 10% of PHB sales, or if the limit is actually fixed - if the PHB sold 2 million copies, would "Psionics Handbook" (or its equivalent) sell 200k, or 70k?

Like you say, virtually none of the supplements get a second printing so, at what point do you simply not bother with supplements?

A very good question.

And yet, there is also some evidence that a game that doesn't have something coming on the horizon is considered 'dead' and thus loses fan interest. On the face of it, that makes limited sense - my 2nd Ed books are no less functional despite the game having been finished 15+ years ago - but there it is.

I don't have an answer to that conundrum. At one time I thought the DDI subscription model might provide the answer, in that the print line could be the Core Rulebooks only with the DDI providing that hit of regular material to maintain interest (with the trade-off that you don't get the big hit from releasing a key supplement versus the advantage of getting a regular injection of funds). However with them effectively having abandoned DDI for 5e, I guess that's not the plan.

 

[aramis erak]

One might simply think that the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 were fairly minor things (excepting perhaps the rebuilding of the two classes). No core mechanics were really changed in the upgrade, simply application of the mechanics. Besides which, the changing of a few mechanics does not of itself a failure make.

And I think this is the heart of the disagreement. 3e was wildly successful, in almost every meaningful way: commercially, culturally, popularity, and even mechanically. That is, the d20 mechanics which were first released under the OGL were sound enough to be able to be altered, tweaked, homeruled, and even retrofitted for completely different genres, all with a decent amount of success (cf. True20, d20 Call of Cthulhu, d20 Modern, Arcana Evolved, Deadlands d20, Silver Age Sentinels d20, Mutants and Masterminds, World of Darkness d20, Pathfinder, Pure Steam, DragonStar, DragonMech et. al.). Some who prefer other mechanics actually find the success of the d20 engine rather frustrating because it was and is so wildly successful in popularity. The only problem with 3e was how the success was handled by the creators of 3e and the OGL (cf. above reference to golden goose). You might not like the mechanics, but I really have a hard time empathizing with the viewpoint that they were in any significant way a failure.

To try and use another illustration, you sound as if you are arguing that the team who won three straight championships in a row was a failure because they switched out a player or two before going on to win three more championships and the owners thereafter decided to sell the team and buy another one.

Edit: There is also this; by your standards there has never been a successful RPG in the history of the industry, which strikes me as a rather ludicrous proposition.

That license flexibility was a bad idea. Releasing 3E under the OGL was the setup that lead to almost eliminating the FLGS market. It is what is called a proximate cause - without it, the damage to the industry would not have happened. Mind you, open licenses predate the wizards OGL...

And while the OSR took off wildly with 3.5, there were half a dozen retroclones out by 2002. Most of them twisting d20 to look like Moldvay. None of them really commercial other than C&C, but the groundswell had begun early. OSRIC was a massive effort - the initial release was years after the project began.

 

[Wicht]

That license flexibility was a bad idea. Releasing 3E under the OGL was the setup that lead to almost eliminating the FLGS market. It is what is called a proximate cause - without it, the damage to the industry would not have happened.

I'm not sure that you can actually prove any of your negatives.

One might counter that 3e, and the OGL, was what breathed a bit new life into the Local RPG Game Store Market, but that 3e alone was never going to be able to support the same market. One might also further counter that while there was a lull in the RPG sales at one point, it was the OGL which allowed for the slack to eventually be picked up by Paizo. However, in point of fact, a store which lives or dies by RPG sales is in real trouble. Diversity and flexibility are, imo, key to success as a game store. That, and Magic the Gathering, a game which single-handedly helps support the entire gaming industry from RPGs to Board Games by keeping game stores in cash flow.

 

[Sailor Moon]

So basically, what's good for the customer may not be for the business.