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

[Bedrockgames]

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?

I agree empirical data is hard to come by on these debates (and often both sides play with two different sets of facts). But the common wisdom appears to be 4e failed, was overshadowed by pathfinder and that is why we saw so many firings and a new edition announcement 3-4 years into 4e (depending on how you count). I realize some argue there is more to the story than that or they try to equate 3.5 with a new edition and therefore say 5e is on schedule, but I personally don't find these convincing and at this point in the debate i think the person trying to call 4e a huge success needs to be the one furnishing proofl

Just from my own experience I have never seen an edition war this intense or protracted, nor have I seen my local gaming community as divided over an edition as they are over 4e. For years now store owners have told me pathfinder was outselling D&D and that the player base was split. A few years ago D&D being challenged by another game (even a retroclone of a previous edition) was unthinkable. The last time I remember something like this wa swhen white wolf was biting at the heels of 2E in the 90s. So i am pretty well convinced this is more than 4e simply failing to meet an unreaistic corporate exepctation and all about 4e being the cause of D&D losing ground to other alternatives.

 

[Hussar]

I agree empirical data is hard to come by on these debates (and often both sides play with two different sets of facts). But the common wisdom appears to be 4e failed, was overshadowed by pathfinder and that is why we saw so many firings and a new edition announcement 3-4 years into 4e (depending on how you count). I realize some argue there is more to the story than that or they try to equate 3.5 with a new edition and therefore say 5e is on schedule, but I personally don't find these convincing and at this point in the debate i think the person trying to call 4e a huge success needs to be the one furnishing proofl

Just from my own experience I have never seen an edition war this intense or protracted, nor have I seen my local gaming community as divided over an edition as they are over 4e. For years now store owners have told me pathfinder was outselling D&D and that the player base was split. A few years ago D&D being challenged by another game (even a retroclone of a previous edition) was unthinkable. The last time I remember something like this wa swhen white wolf was biting at the heels of 2E in the 90s. So i am pretty well convinced this is more than 4e simply failing to meet an unreaistic corporate exepctation and all about 4e being the cause of D&D losing ground to other alternatives.

No Bedrockgames, that's not the "common wisdom". That's simply the voice of those who figure that 4e is bad dancing on what they believe to be WOTC's grave.

Hey, people can believe what they want. That's fine. But, what blows my mind is people making these pronouncements about the viability of 4e without the slightest shred of real information. If you poll En World right now, you will get EXACTLY the same split you got three years ago. 4e will have about 50-60% of the players, with the remaining split between 3e, Pathfinder and retroclones. This hasn't changed.

If 4e was failing, why is the DDI growing by one HUNDRED percent per year? I joined the DDI in September. It had 50 k subs then. It has over 70 k subs now. It will likely, if the pace continues, hit 100 k subs by sometime next fall.

How is that even remotely a failure? How can it be increasing that fast if no one is playing it. Are a bunch of non-4e players subscribing to the DDI? Why?

The trick is, 4e could have 100% of the playerbase and STILL be a failure, because 100% of the playerbase still isn't that magic 50 million number. They needed to GROW the playerbase to meet that. That didn't happen. So, by that metric, sure, 4e is a failure. But, by any other metric it certainly isn't.

It utterly blows my mind that a game that sells out its first three print runs in the first few months of publication, has garnered a steady revenue stream that D&D has NEVER seen, and is still being played by over half the D&D gaming population, is still touted as a failure.

Hey, you all could be right. You very well might be. But to base your entire position on something that is utterly unprovable is just so bizarre. Then again, it does save actually having to come up with real criticisms. "Oh, we have to dump this 4e stuff because 4e is a failure"! Just so much easier than actually making any real attempt at constructive criticism.

I mean, would you ever base any real opinion on any real world issue on this little information? Think of any real issue out there. Anything that we're not allowed to talk about on En World. Anything at all. Do you really base your opinion on things that are 100% unproven, untested and entirely hearsay? Really?

 

[Remus Lupin]

I mean, would you ever base any real opinion on any real world issue on this little information? Think of any real issue out there. Anything that we're not allowed to talk about on En World. Anything at all. Do you really base your opinion on things that are 100% unproven, untested and entirely hearsay? Really?

Hussar, you don't watch American news much, do you?

I'm happy to concede that we don't have much data to go on. I think the argument is that we can infer that 4e is less successful than Wizards had hoped/Hasbro demanded on the basis of their behavior. That may be little enough to go on, but this has never stopped speculation before.

There may be other factors at play of which we aren't aware. But I suppose in the end it's fait accompli. There will be a new edition. It will attempt to bridge the gaps between editions. It may in the end look more like 3rd edition or more like 4th, or it may be a different animal altogether.

Based on rumors I've heard from play testers, there's not much there to attract me in any event, but I care about the future of the hobby, and D&D is a central pillar in the RPG hobby, so I want it to succeed even if it's not in the form of my preferred edition. Hoping that it's a game I desire to play based on what I currently know I enjoy isn't attempting to dance on WotC's grave.

 

[Iosue]

The trick is, 4e could have 100% of the playerbase and STILL be a failure, because 100% of the playerbase still isn't that magic 50 million number. They needed to GROW the playerbase to meet that. That didn't happen. So, by that metric, sure, 4e is a failure. But, by any other metric it certainly isn't.

We don't even have to consider the $50 million. By Dancey's own account the people who pitched that plan left and the people who replaced them were not held to that goal. The fact is, WotC is a business and they want to make money. A lot of money. They sure as hell don't want to lay off people at Christmas. So every bit of revenue counts.

Say Pathfinder has 40% of the market. 30%. Heck, even 20%. That's 20% of the market playing D&D, but none of that revenue going to WotC. So they're going to want to get it.

Say Pathfinder has 50% of the market. Or 60%. Heck, even 70%. WotC wants that revenue, but they also want that other 50, 40, or 30%. They want as wide a cross-section of RPG gamers playing D&D as they can possibly get. And not because of specific sales goals. But because of general principle.

4e was a noble experiment, and successful in many ways. But the market split. There's no need to quibble over percentage points. The fact that the market split itself is impetus enough for WotC to try and bring it back together. (I think we can mostly agree that Essentials was a preliminary attempt at this.)

WotC doesn't want just the revenue it gets from 4e. They don't want to trade that revenue for the Pathfinder revenue, even if the Pathfinder revenue is bigger. They want the vast majority of 4e players playing their game. They want the vast majority of 3.x/Pathfinder players playing their game. Hell, they want the TSR-D&D holdouts and retro-clone players playing their game. They want maximum payoff. Every WotC edition has been about getting the maximum payoff. 4e doesn't have to get passed by Pathfinder in revenue for WotC to go to a new edition. It simply has to be obvious that it's not creating maximum payoff.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Something that I haven't seen mentioned here is the fact that we have gotten to a place in the world of D&D and editions that we have never been before.

When a new edition comes out there are always hold outs no matter what. Now while there are hold outs, the game continues to roll on as it wades through the mud to eventually get somewhere.

4th edition has caused a legitimate company to come out and take on the previous edition and churn out a best seller. Vast amounts of gamers have said no to 4th edition and stuck with it. If the no crowd wasn't so large then Paizo would never have taken a chance with Pathfinder. The arguments are still as hot as they were the day 4th edition came out. All of this has also caused Wizards to actually cut the edition early to make room for another.

Some of the die hard 4th edition fans that are in denial really need to stop and take a look at what has been going on and the ripple that it has caused. This is not an age of just a few holdouts and while we don't have exact numbers, all it takes is a look around to see that it must have been a lot.

Now with the return of Monte I got really excited, for the first time since 3rd edition, and had high hopes for the next edition but now that has been shattered. I will of course take a look at the new edition but my hopes for it are actually zero which means, if it fails I won't be surprised and if it succeeds I will be happy. I'm not setting myself up for a disappointment like I got with 4th edition.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

We don't even have to consider the $50 million. By Dancey's own account the people who pitched that plan left and the people who replaced them were not held to that goal. The fact is, WotC is a business and they want to make money. A lot of money. They sure as hell don't want to lay off people at Christmas. So every bit of revenue counts.

Say Pathfinder has 40% of the market. 30%. Heck, even 20%. That's 20% of the market playing D&D, but none of that revenue going to WotC. So they're going to want to get it.

Say Pathfinder has 50% of the market. Or 60%. Heck, even 70%. WotC wants that revenue, but they also want that other 50, 40, or 30%. They want as wide a cross-section of RPG gamers playing D&D as they can possibly get. And not because of specific sales goals. But because of general principle.

4e was a noble experiment, and successful in many ways. But the market split. There's no need to quibble over percentage points. The fact that the market split itself is impetus enough for WotC to try and bring it back together. (I think we can mostly agree that Essentials was a preliminary attempt at this.)

WotC doesn't want just the revenue it gets from 4e. They don't want to trade that revenue for the Pathfinder revenue, even if the Pathfinder revenue is bigger. They want the vast majority of 4e players playing their game. They want the vast majority of 3.x/Pathfinder players playing their game. Hell, they want the TSR-D&D holdouts and retro-clone players playing their game. They want maximum payoff. Every WotC edition has been about getting the maximum payoff. 4e doesn't have to get passed by Pathfinder in revenue for WotC to go to a new edition. It simply has to be obvious that it's not creating maximum payoff.

My friends.......Welcome to the world of "Capitalism".

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Something I just thought of.....

Of course this is just a speculation but I wouldn't doubt if the suits at Hasbro saw D&D as just another game next to board and card games.

If they are then that's a big problem because D&D and RPGs in general are a beast all their own.

Hopefully they will get the picture after they found out a lot of people voted what they wanted with their wallets.

 

[Iosue]

Something I just thought of.....

Of course this is just a speculation but I wouldn't doubt if the suits at Hasbro saw D&D as just another game next to board and card games.

If they are then that's a big problem because D&D and RPGs in general are a beast all their own.

Hopefully they will get the picture after they found out a lot of people voted what they wanted with their wallets.

My guess is that the suits at Hasbro see D&D as a line in a quarterly financial report that has REVENUE - EXPENSES = PROFIT. And I daresay that bottom line will include not just the TTRPG, but novel sales, board game sales, and no doubt with the return of the digital rights, video game sales.

Also, I strongly suspect that given that we have a new edition despite the $50 million mark and 4e's inability to reach that, that Hasbro is probably fairly pleased with the projections for D&D. The board games are popular and making money, the digital rights are back, Drizz't keeps topping bestseller lists, and no doubt the D&D team sold them on the idea I mentioned above ("design an edition so we can get money from as many players as we possibly can").

 

[ForeverSlayer]

My guess is that the suits at Hasbro see D&D as a line in a quarterly financial report that has REVENUE - EXPENSES = PROFIT. And I daresay that bottom line will include not just the TTRPG, but novel sales, board game sales, and no doubt with the return of the digital rights, video game sales.

Also, I strongly suspect that given that we have a new edition despite the $50 million mark and 4e's inability to reach that, that Hasbro is probably fairly pleased with the projections for D&D. The board games are popular and making money, the digital rights are back, Drizz't keeps topping bestseller lists, and no doubt the D&D team sold them on the idea I mentioned above ("design an edition so we can get money from as many players as we possibly can").

Can't argue with that.

Good games before profit I say!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Something that I haven't seen mentioned here is the fact that we have gotten to a place in the world of D&D and editions that we have never been before.

When a new edition comes out there are always hold outs no matter what. Now while there are hold outs, the game continues to roll on as it wades through the mud to eventually get somewhere.

4th edition has caused a legitimate company to come out and take on the previous edition and churn out a best seller. Vast amounts of gamers have said no to 4th edition and stuck with it. If the no crowd wasn't so large then Paizo would never have taken a chance with Pathfinder. The arguments are still as hot as they were the day 4th edition came out. All of this has also caused Wizards to actually cut the edition early to make room for another.

Some of the die hard 4th edition fans that are in denial really need to stop and take a look at what has been going on and the ripple that it has caused. This is not an age of just a few holdouts and while we don't have exact numbers, all it takes is a look around to see that it must have been a lot.

Now with the return of Monte I got really excited, for the first time since 3rd edition, and had high hopes for the next edition but now that has been shattered. I will of course take a look at the new edition but my hopes for it are actually zero which means, if it fails I won't be surprised and if it succeeds I will be happy. I'm not setting myself up for a disappointment like I got with 4th edition.

Who is to say that discarding 4E and its fans entirely and going back to 3.5E isn't equally suicidal? 4E is over, and 5E is coming, but it doesn't mean that 4E needs to be purged so that things can go back to how they should be, and that isn't what 5E is advertising.