D&D 5E Monte Cook Leaves WotC - No Longer working on D&D Next [updated]

[Umbran]

Again, I have to ask what the point of all of that is? Winning some sort of pissing contest about whose edition is the bestest? Trying to prove that everybody hates 4E and as a result 5E should have as little 4E in it as possible?

Given the warnings earlier in the thread, I should think you'd want to take more care to not make things personal.

Look, folks, don't cast aspersions of unsavory motives on other users. It doesn't make the other guy go away, and it doesn't disprove their point. All it does is demonstrate that you're willing to sling mud. Not exactly a win for you.

 

[Iosue]

Again, I have to ask what the point of all of that is? Winning some sort of pissing contest about whose edition is the bestest? Trying to prove that everybody hates 4E and as a result 5E should have as little 4E in it as possible?

I think the point was that 4e was not doing as badly as some readings of the sales figures might indicate, so that while WotC might have been upset at losing some market share to Paizo, it didn't necessarily follow that the game was doing badly.

Unfortunately, I think RedBadge messed up the linking, so you don't actually go to his posts when you click the link. This may be more effective:

Pathfinder outselling D&D

Pathfinder outselling D&D

Pathfinder outselling D&D

Pathfinder outselling D&D

Paizo Announcement and Prognostication

Paizo Announcement and Prognostication

What *is* D&D

What *is* D&D

What *is* D&D

 

[Hal G]

*sigh* I miss THAC0.

 

[fuzzyhobbit]

It is not clear what sales are like for any RPG. When I wrote an article about D&D Next, there was some indication that Pathfinder has been outselling D&D for the last 4 quarters.
(“Dungeons & Dragons Next” Creators Look to Simplicity, Open Development to Regain Lost Gamers | Kevin Ohannessian)

A little bit of research shows that Hasbro's Games and Puzzle category has had declines in revenue for the last few years (Hasbro Reports Revenue and Earnings Per Share Growth for 2011 (NYSE:HAS) | Hasbro Reports Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2010 Financial Results (NYSE:HAS)). At the same time, the CEO praised Magic and sited revenue for Magic was up (TheStarkingtonPost.com) which leads me to believe D&D revenue is down (though board games may be down as well).

When you add Hasbro game revenue being down for two years, industry analysts saying Pathfinder has been outselling D&D for the last 4 or 5 quarters, it does seem to indicate that D&D is losing marketshare. At least, this the best we can do with Wizards not sharing sales numbers or revenue numbers.

 

[Umbran]

At the same time, the CEO praised Magic and sited revenue for Magic was up (TheStarkingtonPost.com) which leads me to believe D&D revenue is down (though board games may be down as well).

In the past, D&D has often not even deserved mention in Hasbro quarterly reports, even when it seemed pretty clear it was selling well. So, failure to mention it now does not seem particularly indicative, to me.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

These sales analyses and trying to compare D&D and PF seem pretty futile to me. It's very much an Apples and Oranges situation - yes, they're both fantasy RPGs competing in the same market - however, they're doing so in completely different environments.

Pathfinder is being marketed by a small company, who answer to noone but themselves, while D&D is being marketed by a multinational megacorporation that only cares about whether or not the line is meeting their targets. If their positions were reversed, do any of you really believe that PF would be able to hit the same lofty, and it has been suggested, unreachable goals? I really don't think it would.

If PF were making 50-million-plus in sales (that is one of the magic numbers that's been bandied about), I think Eric and co would be doing backflips down Main Street.

The RPG industry as a whole is probably bigger than that, but good luck capturing that much in sales to a single line. Maybe in better economic times The One Brand (whichever one that ends up being) could pull it off. Maybe. I think D&D could have been that brand, and I think it still can be. Only time will tell on that one.

At the end of the day, I don't *care* which game sells better. What I *do* care about is that the game I prefer remains available and in development. Under the current regime at Hasborg, that is in jeopardy. If D&D becomes extinct, and more specifically, the ideas of the current edition along with it, the RPG industry will move on, but ultimately, *I* lose. And really, if D&D as a brand goes away, we all do.

 

[Remus Lupin]

The more I mull this over, the more I think that, aside from any issues of whether they can actually pull off their goal to make an edition that appeals to everyone (which I think is utterly quixotic) WotC is going to have to overcome the inertia of whatever players are already playing.

In 2000, 2e was a spent force and people were looking for something new. 3e was similar enough to keep people invested in the brand while different enough to freshen it up. This helped to overcome the inertia of the current system and a lot of people made the switchover.

But WotC keeps going back to that well and they find themselves increasingly unable to overcome the inertia of the current system. So, players put up with the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 because they see it as basically the same system (even though the revisions were too substantial to make it easy to meld 3.0 and 3.5 as they had originally promised, and even though it came out relatively soon after 3.0).

For players like me, 4e was too soon again after 3.5 and too different from the preceding systems to overcome the inertia. I would have kept playing 3.x even if Pathfinder hadn't emerged on the scene. What Pathfinder did was enable me to better maintain my inertia by giving me new material and very high quality stuff to spend my money on. The failure to overcome the inertia of a substantial portion of the fan base was a fatal flaw in the transition from 3e to 4e.

And now we're transitioning again, and too soon for many players of either of the other editions. When a current edition is maintaining its vitality (like both 3e and 4e and unlike the last days of 2e), then even if it's not making its profit margin, its very difficult to make the case for a new edition, since, as many people have noted, it will fragment the player base. The issue is not only timeframe but how invested players still are in their preferred edition.

So it's highly likely that 5e, whatever it attempts to do, will fail to overcome the inertia of either the 3e or 4e communities. Add in those committed to the retro-clones and their own inertia and WotC has painted itself into a massive corner.

As a 3e player, I feel like I'm in a better position to maintain my inertia than the 4e community might be because of the OGL and Pathfinder. The limitations on the 4e licence will make it harder for 4e players to continue to maintain their inertia after the game goes out of print (though many will undoubtedly do so).

So regardless of Monte's involvement, I'm going to be very intrigued to discover if WotC is able to produce something that can accomplish its design goals, satisfy players of current systems, and ultimately overcome the inertia of the current system for enough players to make it worthwhile to put aside their current investments in characters, products, and stories to try something new.

 

[Hussar]

I might actually agree with this.

I take as given that the next edition must more closely resemble 3e/Pathfinder no matter how much we might wish it could be otherwise. As I've hopefully made clear, I say this not because I think 4e is "bad" and 3e "good," but simply because of the empirical evidence from the marketplace as best I am able to observe it.
/snip

What empirical evidence?

Can you answer, in anything resembling a round number the following questions:

1. How many current D&D players are there in the United States, North America or the World? Of all editions.

2. How many current players are playing any given edition?

3. How has this number changed in the last three, six or twelve months?

Now, since I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you cannot answer these questions in anything resembling a number, how can you possibly claim to have anything remotely resembling "empirical" evidence?

 

[Bedrockgames]

At the end of the day, I don't *care* which game sells better. What I *do* care about is that the game I prefer remains available and in development. Under the current regime at Hasborg, that is in jeopardy. If D&D becomes extinct, and more specifically, the ideas of the current edition along with it, the RPG industry will move on, but ultimately, *I* lose. And really, if D&D as a brand goes away, we all do.

i think this is a key point. And it is something that hit me when 4e came out (which I simpy couldn't get into). The thing people on both sides need to grasp is there are other games out there that probably do exactly what you are fighting tooth and nail to have in D&D. What matters ultimately is RPGs, not D&D. In a way D&D could be counter productive to the hobby...because it reflects to the world what the hobby is all about. But if you look at other games being made, some of them really catching on the community, you see RPGs are once again about more than elves or orcs or mechanics unique to dungeons and dragons. When I first started playing we certainly played D&D but we also spent countless hours playing Teanage Mutant Ninja Turles, TORG, Gamma World, Star Wars, and Cthulu. Maybe if D&D tanks these other possibilities will fill in some the space it once occupied.

Don't get me wrong I do like fantasy rpgs and D&D in particular, but it just seems a lot of new people I meet in the hobby have no idea there is more (and has been more) to gaming than pathfinder, d20 or 4e. A lot of us didn't even start out on D&D. My first rpg was the role play version of battle tech (cant remember the name). Didn't play D&D till at least a year later.

 

[talok55]

Again, I have to ask what the point of all of that is? Winning some sort of pissing contest about whose edition is the bestest? Trying to prove that everybody hates 4E and as a result 5E should have as little 4E in it as possible?

No one is trying to point out that 4E is "hated". Just pointing out that it is not popular enough to give Hasbro the sales numbers they need to continue to support it. If 4E was the most popular, best selling edition of D&D ever, we wouldn't be having this conversation about a new edition right now. 4E split the RPG market, and since Pathfinder hit the scene, 4E's market share has eroded even further, so that the number of people liking 4E enough to spend money on it is no longer viable relative to Hasbros' expectations. Hasbro is not sabotaging 4E deliberately to shorten it's life span. They are making a new edition to make the brand viable, not just because they feel like it.