The Theory of Tens. A Knee Jerk Hypothesis

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I suspect the real thing to look at for WotC is: How many people are buying our current books.

Most people probably buy the new core rules. But even among the devoted fanboys, not all later supplements are bought. They get to specific, or the old books have hardly seen enough use yet.

So what can be done about it? Produce a new edition. Even if you still love the previous edition and have stuff unexplored there, this new edition may come with entirely new and interesting concepts. They are a breath of fresh air, and there is a perceived good reason to buy them even if your previous edition isn't "finished yet" for you.

3E may have had a unique situation - it did it after a really long running edition where not much new came out for. So it was much more likely to find people that "had done it at all" (at least the parts they were genuinely interested in). 3.5, 4E and Next are not in this situation. So I wouldn't be surprised if Next is also replaced by a new edition 4-8 years after release.

 

[drothgery]

So I wouldn't be surprised if Next is also replaced by a new edition 4-8 years after release.

Wizards has never kept a tabletop RPG in print for five years without a new edition.

 

[B.T.]

Everything I've heard about 3e's numbers suggests the number of players shot up at that point and did not go down. 3e was the once-in-a-generation gaming spike.

Any idea why this is? I'd say it's probably because it was published by WotC and Magic was much bigger back then, so you had customers playing CCGs who were introduced to D&D.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Wizards has never kept a tabletop RPG in print for five years without a new edition.

True; so the edition that is successful for 38 years?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Any idea why this is? I'd say it's probably because it was published by WotC and Magic was much bigger back then, so you had customers playing CCGs who were introduced to D&D.

To me, two big reasons. The first is that D&D was dying out as a published entity. 2e had been staggering for a while, TSR failed as a business, and the player base was probably diminishing. There was a lot of hunger for a new edition.

The second is that there was a culture shift. There did not used to be comic book movies every year, nor did you used to see people reading fantasy novels on the subway. For a variety of reasons, the rise of the Internet foremost among them, "nerd" culture suddenly became acceptable. This meant that a previously fringe-y activity like D&D became more socially acceptable.

Of course the other reason is that was really good. While its flaws subsequently became apparent, even 3.0 was/is an excellent system, one with great customizability and widespread appeal.

 

[Jester David]

Any idea why this is? I'd say it's probably because it was published by WotC and Magic was much bigger back then, so you had customers playing CCGs who were introduced to D&D.

The theory postulated by Joseph Goodman in the early days of 4e was that D&D had generational highs. 1e was huge but 2e fell flat. 3e was huge and 4e started strong but fell quickly.
The idea was, the new editions (1e & 3e) came out when a new generation was just hearing about D&D and coming of age. It hadn't been in the public eye of late so there were kids of many ages coming into the game all at once. So when the new edition is announced and in the news and in stores it gets them excited and the play.

There are some other factors at work.
3e also had the nostalgia surge; after an edition of sitting out on the game or only playing 1e, there were many players curious about the new edition and willing to give it a try.
3e was also coming at a boom time for the economy and the gaming industry. Game stores and comic stores were flush from cash from the booming CCG market, with MtG going strong and Pokemon being huge. With the extra cash they could afford to bring in more products and expand their gaming selections, which happened to be d20 with D&D at the forefront. As there were so many d20 products - all of which required the 3e core rulebook - there was a wide variety of playstyles and game types supported.
Plus, as there was a boom, there were many more people going into gaming stores and seeing the products. So it was win-win.

Now, almost a decade and a half after 3e, it's still a little soon for the generational spike, as 3e came out 20-odd years after 1e. Plus, WotC has cut into the population of new players with 3.5e and 4e coming so close together. So there's unlikely to be the same number of uninitiated players to be introduced to the game. And it lacks the "D&D is back!" vibe 3e had after the decline in the late TSR days.
Likewise, the economy hasn't been "boom" in quite a while and, while MtG is doing well, it seems to have a fairly set fanbase with some players rotating in and out every few years and the Pokemon craze has dropped in fervour.

Still, 5e is really milking the nostalgia vibe, trying to be the all-in-one retroclone. So hopefully that will make-up some of the numbers from a lower percentage of new players. But, if WotC's marketing department actually steps-up and does their job (for a change) they should be able to draw some curious fans away from video games and into D&D.

 

[Jester David]

Wizards has never kept a tabletop RPG in print for five years without a new edition.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

* 3e was needed. Very much needed.

* 3.5e spawned out of the idea of a reprinting of the core rulebooks with errata and rule clarifications. Not a bad idea, but no one reigned in the developers and it grew into a revision. Oops.

*4e was prompted by Hasbro trying to set a minimum bar on profits.

*4e Essentials was prompted by the perceived difficulty of 4e in appealing to new (and some old) players. Again, the developers were not reigned in and the design became something very different.

*5e was prompted by dwindling sales for 4e and the divisiveness of that edition.

There's no reason WotC couldn't have an edition that lasts longer than 3e or 3.5e or 4e. It's actually in the best interests of the company as multi-year length developments for a new edition are expensive and it's better to keep selling copies of the same book than revision after revision and new edition after new edition.

The management just needs to crack down on unnecessary revisions and keep the quality of the line high.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The management just needs to crack down on unnecessary revisions and keep the quality of the line high.

...nice...I like the way you think...I'm gonna be keeping my eye on you ...*in the voice of Sam (R.I.P.)/Back to School*

 

[Libramarian]

I pretty much have developed a general hatred of the designers working on D&D.

They're having a blast getting paid to write a fantasy heartbreaker, knowing they're guaranteed to have a huge audience for their work because they're legally able to put Dungeons & Dragons on the front, while I have to sit and wait to see how they'll be mangling my favorite game this time.

They're basically ransoming this IP to me with the condition that I try out their new game. If they have any pride in their profession at all then they should put out something new.

Right now they're the game designer equivalent of kids putting on a grade school play. We're the parents obligated to be there, glancing at the clock every few minutes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the core of the OP's premise: that ever ed (and, indeed, half-ed) saw fans of the prior reject it, is quite obviously true. Every ed faced criticism, every ed has someone playing it now.

I'm not so sure about the 'tipping point.' For one thing, the biggest losses probably weren't to new eds. The biggest losses, I'd guess, were when D&D stopped being a fad, late in the 80s, and when it kinda petered out under bad management and strong competition for new players from CCGs and LARPS in the 90s. Of course, those losses were players that left D&D and never came back, or were prime target market it never captured in the first place. (As an aside, I think the primary 'real' target of both Red-Box Essentials and 5e was and is these long-lost fans.)

But the big thing was the OGL. Going open-source saved D&D, turning d20 into a core system (like Chaosium Basic RP, or Hero or GURPS or FUDGE or Interlock or Fuzion and others). That was nothing new, obviously, FUDGE and Fuzion were even open-source and preceded 3.0 by years. What was new as that d20 was open-source with some of the cachet of D&D, the semi-mythical 'first' RPG. Would-be (and actual) competitors leaped on the d20 bandwagon, becoming de-facto partners promoting d20, and D&D, buoyed by that, returned to preeminence. As soon as WotC tried to bury the OGL, those partners became competitors again, and D&D was vulnerable - or, in hindsight, doomed.

One thing WotC has been silent on is whether 5e will be a d20 game with an SRD and OGL that'll let other companies make a buck off it without having to sacrifice their first born, or if it's going to more or less go it alone...