D&D 5E Perfect example of the kind of interaction that I wish Wizards had with it's community.

[Wicht]

I get it though. We're nerds. As such the majority of us have a serious problem with the whole 'social interaction' thing and don't understand, despite our generally particularly high intelligence, how to communicate in and effective manner.

And here we have a classic example of the self-validating post.

 

[Wicht]

You for sure aren't wrong. Unfortunately D&D is in the unenviable position of being a valuable brand in a dying medium.

And your evidence for this demise is?

 

[doctorhook]

And your evidence for this demise is?

I've actually thobuught better of it since, and I think "dying" is a strong word. "Diminishing" is more accurate, because in terms of proportional market share, it's true. Books are getting more expensive because demand for dead tree products is dropping. The market for TTRPGs has changed significantly due to increasingly immersive CRPGs.

TTRPGs aren't going to disappear, and I think we're evidence of that. That said, to me it looks pretty clear that the market for RPG books has been contracting for most of the past decade. If there's a stable business model for TTRPGs in the future, I don't believe we've seen it yet. (WotC has obviously abandoned the splatbook treadmill strategy, and I'm not convinced that the volume of splat Paizo keeps cranking out is sustainable either.)

 

[Wicht]

"Diminishing" is more accurate, because in terms of proportional market share, it's true.

I'm not sure that a "proportional" market share is the best indicator... If my business doubles, but my competitor triples, I may have decreased proportionally, but I still grew, which is the opposite of dying. I do think that Board Games are growing much faster than Role Playing Games, but all the indicators I hear say that RPGs have still been growing steadily the last few years.

I will say that I thought you were actually referring to printed material as the "medium" which is dying.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not sure that a "proportional" market share is the best indicator... If my business doubles, but my competitor triples, I may have decreased proportionally, but I still grew, which is the opposite of dying.

Yeah. Success isn't measured as the failure of others. I run a web business, but I'm not failing just because I'm not bigger than Google. As long as my business is profitable, and meeting my goals, it is a success.

 

[Kramodlog]

Um... they're cards, and the randomized packs makes them collectible. But AFAIK "Fortune Cards" isn't a game - the cards are an optional peripheral for D&D, not a game in themselves.

That being the case, they're not a CCG - they only fulfill two of the three necessary criteria.

Being pedantic doesn't mean WotC didn't lie about what the cards were.

 

[delericho]

Being pedantic doesn't mean WotC didn't lie about what the cards were.

It isn't pedantry to point out that it's not a lie to say Fortune Cards weren't a CCG if they were, in fact, not a CCG.

If you're now claiming that there was some other lie, feel free to cite it.

 

[Kramodlog]

It isn't pedantry to point out that it's not a lie to say Fortune Cards weren't a CCG if they were, in fact, not a CCG.

If you're now claiming that there was some other lie, feel free to cite it.

The point is that they were ment to be collected even if WotC said they weren't. They lied. That you focus on the game part means you can't really adress the crux of the question, the collecting part that WotC denied. It is pedantry.

 

[Shasarak]

The point is that they were ment to be collected even if WotC said they weren't. They lied. That you focus on the game part means you can't really adress the crux of the question, the collecting part that WotC denied. It is pedantry.

Did they really say they were not collectable? Even though they were sold in randomised boosters with rare, uncommon and common distribution?

Luckily for me they were completely optional.

 

[Kramodlog]

Did they really say they were not collectable? Even though they were sold in randomised boosters with rare, uncommon and common distribution?

Yup. WotC's "problems" with communcations aren't new, sadly.

Luckily for me they were completely optional.

They represented a new twist to D&D. It made it competitive to a certain degree. Suddenly, some players could buy them and perform a bit better than other players who invested less in them or just didn't invest in them at all. In home games that can be adressed easily, but in stores, that is another dynamic. Remember how people were jealous of the cleric or wizard during 3.x's reign? Yeah, now people could pay to be better than you. It isn't just the rules that are "broken". Sort of weird considering how all the classes were the same in the name of balance.

Anyway, it was a terrible attempt at a money grab and it is a good thing they are gone.