D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

Again, it has a correlation for either: 1) interest in the game, or 2) actual ownership of the game.

If the game is not out yet, obviously it's interest in the game.

But interest doesn't correlate to market share or even popularity, especially since people could be talking negatively about the game and it would still register as a higher number on these charts.

But, I think the Pathfinder data, and some of the other data we have on sales from some of the other lesser-selling games, matches pretty well to this chart when you compare them.

Right now Pathfinder is the best selling game, and it's also the highest ranking game as far as games for sale now.

Yes, and that's easily provable but when you get into lower ranked games I don't think it's anywhere as near clear cut as that.


There is obviously a strong correlation between how well a game is selling, and how much people are talking about it. I *think* there is also a strong correlation between how well a game is likely to initially sell, and how much people are talking about it prior to it's release, given some polling data we have an comparison to prior polling data just before the release of another game.

I don't think you can assume this correlation, especially like I said when you get into games that sell magnitudes less than Pathfinder and D&D... at least not at the level where you can give exact numbers for market share based on it.

It's not causation, it's not 100%, but I think it's a fair approximation. If you have serious doubts, you can simply enter an error factor into it, and you will see for most rationale error factors the rough comparison still holds.

Never said it was causation and I know it's not 100% However where we differ is in how accurate it is for smaller games or things like the OSR. So yes I have serious doubts, and I don't think the rough comparison would hold for smaller games but again, I could be wrong.


EDIT: The other thing I don't get is if RPG players who post on forums are not a representative sample of the larger group of RPG'ers... how can tracking what games they are talking about provide us with insight into the market as a whole?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

You didn't prove what you think you proved.

That it's unreliable for determining market share of the games in it's list... yeah I did.

But wait you have proof that it does correlate to the point where we can give numbers or exact ranks in market share and popularity by the numbers in the chart like... oh yeah... none so far.

EDIT: I've shown two cases where it doesn't correlate so far... what have you presented?
 
Last edited:

In reply to the original post.

I agree for the most part, I DM for three different groups of players atm- which is mad because 5 years ago I had one group; I seem to be having a good run of persuading ex-players and noobs alike to give it a go. I'm mid 40's my players are all younger than me, two groups are mid-20's to 40, and the third group is made up from some of the players kids- aged 4-14.

We play 4e, although I've been been on board and have played/DM'ed through every addition of D&D, 2-3 of the other players have been playing D&D since 2nd or 3rd ed. We all have disposable incomes to spend on the game.

We've played the playtest, until it was voted out by all groups, the last one (the most mature, by which I mean oldest) about 6 months ago- no more. We gave feedback along the way- a lot at the start, until we got fed up of saying the same things. The comments around the table about 5e were never good, but they went down hill very quickly the more we saw of it, the caves of chaos didn't help- an iconic scenario (back in the day- at least for me) just appeared incredibly simplistic and well... a bit dull in comparison to our own game. I know as the DM I'm as much to blame for this but- gangs of insert monster name, followed by gangs more of the same, and then some more etc.

The most heard comment other than "I don't get it", or else, "I don't like it", was- "this isn't D&D", or a very close equivalent.

Obviously this made me chuckle at the time, but then think about things later, for 9 of my 12 core players 4e is the only D&D, or indeed RPG they've ever played, (aside from computer games), 5e is not like 4e- for my guys and so to them 5e is not D&D.

They (and in particular the kids) like poster maps, and the tactical stuff- they even love counting squares et al; and I get that we can do this with 5e but they didn't think it was the same, and nor do I. Don't get me wrong the theater of the mind is still alive and well, but my guys play D&D a bit like it's a board game (that's 4e for you)- and they like that.

Sometimes I would go so far as to say that they need that- they need the board and the tactical stuff (it should be noted that all of my players watch lots of films, and yet read very few books- in comparison), this power has this set effect- move x squares and... I think this is partially because they don't have the RPG background/history thing, but also because they love the visuals thing- which 4e with its tactical board game play has always been about.

The 3 other core players (and me) have discussed at length trying Pathfinder, and perhaps going back for a game of 3/3.5e- we've got tons of old stuff we'd love to play. But so far 4e gets the vote every time.

In the last two and a half years the three groups have got through 33 4e scenarios- from single session one-shots, to sprawling adventures that last 10 or more sessions, and we have plans (oh boy do we have plans), we still haven't got around to playing Dark Sun, or Eberron, we have managed to play a few sessions of Gamma World (it was voted 'too silly'). We have 100s of 4e scenarios left to play- I bought everything, I have every copy of Dungeon mag etc.

The point being, for these guys is 4e is D&D, 5e- or Next just doesn't cut it, I'm actually the one pushing to try Pathfinder, or else something different- the playtest alas left the players cold, it's not even on the list for consideration.

Last bit- 5e, I'm fairly certain, will be the first edition of D&D I'll not be buying, and at I time when I'm playing more D&D than I've ever played before (well, apart from when I was about 14-15 when we played every other day). I really, really want to spend my money on 5e, or indeed anything that Wizards put out with the D&D logo on it- I've been that guy since I got my first paper round- I bought everything.

That makes me (a bit) sad, not angry, or irate; ideally I'd like to be able to just smoothly transition our 4e campaigns into 5e, as I did with 2e to 3e, and 3e to etc.

I'm just not excited by it, not really interested, and for the first time ever (save for the odd pang) I'm really not that bothered.

Apologies if this sounded a bit down, I want to reassure you our particular brand of D&D (regardless of the edition) is rip-roaringly funny and frantic, and still incredibly more-ish for us.
 

Lets talk about this because it was a bone of contention between me and neonchameleon in another thread where he claimed FATE was the 2nd most popular roleplaying game next to the D&D games (Of course citing this chart as proof). First I'm curious... how do we compare the sales of these games? Because in September of 2013 both Numenera and 13thAGE ranked over FATE. I also think there is an inordinate number of discussions centered around FATE because there are alot of people trying to understand alot of it's jargon (aspects, invokes, compels, etc.) and concepts (Approaches vs. Stats for FAE)... but I could be wrong... so tell me what sales figures do we use to check these rankings?

Well things with Kickstarters give you a basis for comparison as you know the numbers they sell in the Kickstarter usually. All three of those had kickstarters I believe. I've never played FATE, but apparently they sold a metric crapload (that's the technical term for it) in their kickstarter. And so did Numenera and 13th Age. Those three rank 211, 127, and 114, so it's all pretty close (by comparison, D&D Next has 3025, and Pathfinder 1907). The error rate gets a bit more sensitive as you get down to the lower numbers so my guess is all three of those products sold roughly as well as each other in terms of quantity. I think the profit issue is a different story - the FATE kickstarter sold a ton of draft documents for $1 or $10, while Numenera took in a lot more money per book.

It's definitely not a perfect comparison. But, I think it is a decent rough measure.

For D&D Next I think it's a good sign that roughly the same number of people say in polls they intend to buy the core books, as those who said they intend to buy the 4e core books before it came out (and 4e had strong initial sales), and also D&D Next is being talked about more than any other RPG right now by a fair margin. I think those are two signs the game will enjoy strong initial sales. The Magic 8-Ball is quite cloudy on the issue of whether it can sustain such sales, as obviously 4e failed to do so. I just think the idea that 5e is in trouble, as suggested by this thread, is not well supported.
 

The lists aren't exclusive. Almost all the games in the superhero category track on the main RPG (Icons might be folded into Fate) - but the main list doesn't include the big D&Ds because they would swamp it.

Which is a little confusing. The presence of some but not all games in two categories reduces the percentages of each entry in the Hot Roleplaying Games. Removing 13th Age, M&M alone would add 11% points to be redistributed among the rest of the entries.

It seems to me the best way would be to have an all inclusive list along with several specialised 'genre' lists.

thotd
 

Lets talk about this because it was a bone of contention between me and neonchameleon in another thread where he claimed FATE was the 2nd most popular roleplaying game next to the D&D games (Of course citing this chart as proof). First I'm curious... how do we compare the sales of these games? Because in September of 2013 both Numenera and 13thAGE ranked over FATE. I also think there is an inordinate number of discussions centered around FATE because there are alot of people trying to understand alot of it's jargon (aspects, invokes, compels, etc.) and concepts (Approaches vs. Stats for FAE)... but I could be wrong... so tell me what sales figures do we use to check these rankings?

If you hover over a game you get a number. I think that this represents the number of RSS feed items.

For the Hot RPG List you get the following numbers:
* Fate - 211.1
* World of Darkness - 142.8
Etc

For the DnD, Editions and Variations you get:
* DND Next - 3025.3
* Pathfinder - 1908.5
Etc

For the Superheros List you get:
M&M - 28.9
Etc

So what you can say is that for the period in question, Fate is generating the most RSS feed items of all the Non-DnD derivative games among the sites surveyed. Whether that justifies the claim that "FATE was the 2nd most popular roleplaying game next to the D&D games" depend on the definition of "popular" and the strength of the correlation between internet chatter and you definition.

thotd
 

Which is a little confusing. The presence of some but not all games in two categories reduces the percentages of each entry in the Hot Roleplaying Games. Removing 13th Age, M&M alone would add 11% points to be redistributed among the rest of the entries.

It seems to me the best way would be to have an all inclusive list along with several specialised 'genre' lists.

thotd

Hover over the name, it will give you the actual score.
 

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] & [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

Basically, based on differing assumption each of you have come to different conclusions as to the strength of the correlation between the data provided and market share and/or sales. Which essentially means that the arguement boils down to "I think you are wrong. No, I think that you are wrong."

Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree and move on.

thotd
 

@Mistwell & @Imaro

Basically, based on differing assumption each of you have come to different conclusions as to the strength of the correlation between the data provided and market share and/or sales. Which essentially means that the arguement boils down to "I think you are wrong. No, I think that you are wrong."

Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree and move on.

thotd

Yeah I agree...
 

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] & [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

Basically, based on differing assumption each of you have come to different conclusions as to the strength of the correlation between the data provided and market share and/or sales. Which essentially means that the arguement boils down to "I think you are wrong. No, I think that you are wrong."

Isn't Mistwell a lawyer? Don't all lawyer arguments boil down to the same thing? :D
 

Remove ads

Top