• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E D&D Next not planning to compete against Pathfinder, Splatbook Hints

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
This is interesting news with some ramifications that I think we can suss out of what Mearls is saying here. First, a repeat of the text (from the News front page):

At PAX East a panel took place entitled "What Is Happening to Tabletop Roleplaying Games?" It featured Ryan Dancey (CEO of Goblinworks which is producing the Pathfinder MMO, architect of the Open Gaming License, and one of the people who spearheaaded D&D 3E), Luke Peterschmidt (CEO of Fun to 11), Derek Lloyd (owner of the game store 'Battleground Games and Hobbies'), Luke Crane (Tabletop Games Specialist at Kickstarter and RPG designer of Burning Wheel, Mouseguard and more), Matt McElroy (Marketing Director at DriveThruRPG/OneBookshelf and Onyx Path which currently handles WoD products) and Mike Mearls (senior manager of D&D Next).

It's well worth listening to the whole recording if you have an hour to spare, as it contains plenty of interesting summations of RPG publishing over the decades, plus a lot of discussion about how great Kickstarter is and why it's the latest of a series of industry expansions which included the advent of desktop pubishing, the Open Gaming License and d20 System License, and now Kickstarter. It also touches on the various times the RPG industry has almost died (from what Dancey says, the rise of World of Warcraft seriously hit the industry, and later surveys while he was at CCP working on Eve Online indicated that a lot of people playing these MMOs had once played tabletop RPGs but now played MMOs instead, not in addition to).

Ryan Dancey also goes into the various surveys from ICv2 over the last few years (those ones which have put Pathfinder as the world's leading RPG since 2010 or so, although he acknowledges that this isn't a great way of determining sales - they call a number of retailers and simply ask what their top five selling RPG products are within a given month; no numbers, just a ranking), which leads to an interesting exchange between him and Mike Mearls.

[pf]x[/pf]Dancey: ...some of those games we talk about being mid-market kind of games, they're on this list. Some of the games that are coming out of Kickstarter are on this list... you know, FATE is on this list, Exalted is on this list.. and then we've got this classic duel between Pathfinder and D&D. I wish I could stand up here today and say, like, you know, any given game you ask me and I can tell you how much it's sold, sales, I have no idea, it's impossible to tell. Y'know anecdotally I can tell you that most of the games on this chart, with the exception of Pathfinder and D&D, they're probably not selling more than 20,000 units of whatever their core product is, and some of them are probably selling less than 10. It's hard to say, especially with games that might have a lot of supplements and add-on products, what the total volume is for any one of these games. And ICv2 lumps them all under one category so every sale of Mutants & Masterminds is in that one line, not just the core books.

But here's the thing I want you to see... some of these games are the classic games, the games that we've seen, y'know, for four decades, and some of these games are relatively brand new games that no one's ever seen before, and they change. So the thing that was really interesting to me is that if we had looked at this data from the 90s - and I have data that's kind of similar to this that was collected by an out-of-print magazine called Comics & Games Retailer - and if you just looked at the top five games form like 1990 to 1995 they were essentially the same five games every month, month after month after month. It was very, very predictable. The frothiness, the rate at which these games change and appear on these lists and go away is new. And certainly the fact that D&D is not the number one game on this list is definitely new, that has never happened before in decades. So, there are some weird things going on in this market. We don't have any quantitative data, I can't put a number on it, but we have this kind of qualitative sense that there has been change, that it's easier to get success but it's harder to keep that success.

Mearls: Oh, I think what's interesting about this graph if you were to take the word "sales" off - I can't see the graph [something]... there's actually [something] well who's releasing the most supplements this actually maps almost perfectly to that measure. And I think the big change we're seeing is in the 90s there was a sort of expected tempo of .. for a tabletop roleplaying game you expected every month that you played Mage or Werewolf or D&D or some of the D&D settings, every month there's a new book. And what we're seeing now is that's not really, no longer the case for a wide variety of reasons. Really, outside .. I realise there's only one or two companies that are still able to do that ... we're not seeing the book-a-month pubishing pattern that we saw ten years ago. And I think that's one of the real big disruptions, where, you know, and there's a lot of questions and is that a good thing for the industry, is it a bad thing for the industry, and what does it actually mean for the ongoing tabletop hobby.

Dancey: And I think, one of the things you mentioned to me before the panel, too, Mike, was that this is really myopic, it's really only going to talk about retail sales, it's not capturing book trade, it's not capturing online, it's not capturing Kickstarter, it's a really myopic slice of the data.


The conversation continues amongst the panel about Kickstarter and the way companies use it to produce sequential different products rather than extended product lines - new games, not expansions.

Dancey: Yeah. Ok, so here's our last topic, which I suspect a fairly significant number of people in this room would like to hear Mike talk about.

(A short sequence of show-of-hand questions establishes that of the people there in the room about an equal number have played Pathfinder and D&D in the last month).

Dancey: OK, so here's my giant spiel. I do not work for Paizo Publishing. I'm not a member of the Paizo Publishing staff, and I'm not here to represent Pathfinder. I'm just moderating this panel. So, Mike is now going to debate an empty chair [laughter]... so, and, prior to this panel I sent the slides round to everybody and I said 'Hey Mike, this is kinda how I see, like, the next three years of life in the, at the top of the chart. Two big, muscular sluggers are gonna duke it out and when that's done one of those guys is gonna be laying on the mat'. And Mike said 'I dont' see it that way', so Mike, why don't you say what you told me about your theory.

[dnd]x[/dnd]Mearls: Yeah, so this knida goes back to what I was talking about earlier about the change and about how we look at the ongoing support for D&D and how I think this ins actually interacting with tabletop games in general. So I kinda have this theory I developed, I call it the Car Wars theory. So back in 1987 when I was 12 I bought Car Wars, it was the game I bought that month, and it had a vehicle design system. And I spent hours and hours and hours building new Car Wars vehicles and drawing maps and just playing with all the things around the game but very rarely able to actually play the game, because in order for me to play the game I had to get my parents to drive me to a friend's house and then get that friend to actually want to play Car Wars and then teach him all the rules and all that other stuff, right? And in addition to having Car Wars, and D&D and other stuff, I had my Nintendo and I had my Apple, too. And I bought new video games at about the same rate, maybe once a month if I did chores or I had a little part time job, I'd get maybe one new game a month.

What has changed now is that a game like Car Wars can work very well if I'm not getting a new constant stream of games. Because I have all this time wherer I want to be gaming but I can't play a game, so I'll do all the stuff that exists around the game. But now thanks to, like, this phone... [something] smartphones, tablets, Steam, uh, XBox Live, PSN, I can buy games whenever I want. I mean, I was at the airport yesterday and I was bored so I bought Ten Million for my iPhone and I just started playing. Because I have other games on my phone, but I thought, nah, I'm sick of the games I have, I'm just gonna buy a new one. That would have been perfect time, back in the 80s, to like work on my D&D campaign, or read that month's D&D expansion, or work on new designs for my, uh, for for Car Wars. But what's happening is we have so many new games coming in that the amount of time that one game can take up without having you actually play that game, like World of Warcraft where you just log in and play, or you do things like in the auction house, thta's part of play, right, trying to get resources, you're selling stuff for actual money that's helping you play the game.

I believe that's what's really happening to tabletop roleplaying, is that it used to be a hobby of not playing the game you want to play. And there are so many games now that you can play to fill all those hours of gaming, you can actually game now, and that what's happening is that RPGs needed that time, we, a GM or DM needed that time to create the adventure or create a campaign, a player needed that time to create a character, allocate skill ranks and come up with a background, and come up, you know, write out your three-page essay on who your character was before the campaign. That time is getting devoured, that time essentially I think is gone, that you could play stuff that lets you then eventually play a game or you can just play a game. And people are just playing games now.

And what we're really doing with D&D Next is we're really looking at thriving and surviving in that type of market. If you've playtested the game, you see we've run much simpler with the mechanics, things move much faster when you play... one of our very early things was was to say, look, I was playing Mass Effect 1 or 2 at the time. I can complete a mission in Mass Effect in about an hour and a half. So why can't I complete an adventure in D&D in that time? Why does it take me 4, 8, 12 hours just to get from page one of the adventure to the end? I mean, yeah, you can have huge epic adventures but I can't do it in less than four hours.

Dancey: You didn't want to have 20 minutes of fun packed in 4 hours.

Mearls: Exactly, exactly, yeah. And so it's looking at the train and saying, well, things have changed, and tabletop roleplaying in a lot of ways hasn't changed with the times. We've been doing the same thing, the same way, that we were doing back in the 80s. I mean, the game mechanics have been refined but really until indie games [something] no one had taken a look at the core essence of what makes a tabletop roleplaying game tick and taken it apart and rebuilt it. And so in a lot of ways with D&D, and you know Ryan has the slide, that's really not how we see it at all because for me that boxing match, it isn't D&D against any tabletop roleplaying game, it's D&D versus the entire changing face of entertainment, of how a tabletop roleplaying game... that's the best thing you can do with your friends. But what about when you're home alone, or when you're online, or when you're waiting in line at the airport and you just want something on your smartphone. The big question for, specifically for D&D is, if you're a D&D fan, what can we do to fill that time in a way that's engaging and fun for you? To take those settings and characters and worlds, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, or whatever, and bring those to life for you in a way that we haven't been able to before. Because in the past it's always been.. we have a new setting, we have Eberron, we're gonna do the 300-page book, and it's gonna be for the TRPG and that's where it' gonna begin, and that's where it's gonna end. All of our back-catalogue and settings, if we're not publishing it for the RPG line, are we doing anything with them, probably not, that's it, all we do is the TRPG. And so for us, it's really been looking at the entertainment, not just tabletop roleplaying, but entertainment as a whole, everything that people do now to engage themselves in stories, thinking where can D&D thrive within that terrain? And what can we do, starting with the tabletop roleplaying game, to make it more acessible, to get that new generation of players in. And even the current generation who are strapped for time and have a million other options, what can we do to live within that environment?


The too-long-didn't-read version of that, I think (and this is my own interpretation of what Mike Mearls was saying) is that much of the stuff we used to enjoy around an RPG we don't do any more, and we do other entertainment-related things with that time instead. So D&D (as in its settings and characters) is focusing on doing those other entertainment things rather than just being a tabletop roleplaying game - the goal, obviously being that "D&D" as a brand flourishes. And, further, that that means it doesn't matter to them what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder, because D&D doesn't need to be the top-selling tabletop RPG (not that I'm saying it won't be - I expect it will be again come next year, though time will tell) as long as D&D as an overall entertainment property is doing a whole bunch of things.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Thread re-opened (Thank You [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] !)

Will post some interesting ramifications here, shortly.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I had a longer post earlier but I lost it. Anyway, here are some ramifications, as I see them:

1) WOTC does not plan to focus on competing on the RPG book market. It's too small a slice of the overall D&D Brand pie they are looking at, and they don't care if they are #1, 2, 3, whatever on the RPG book sales chart as long as the overall brand revenue is good;

2) Supplements are, in WOTC's view, the reason companies now rank well or poorly on the RPG Book charts for any given period ("who's releasing the most supplements this actually maps almost perfectly to that measure"). This, along with some other changes, has caused the sales charts to fluctuate in ways they didn't in prior decades ("The frothiness, the rate at which these games change and appear on these lists and go away is new."). So if you publish monthly supplements you rank well, and if you don't then you might blip high one month and then disappear the next month, but this doesn't necessarily track to overall yearly performance for a company or a brand or even a game anymore like it used to;

3) In addition, they no longer think the RPG Book charts really accurately measure RPG Book sales well anyway ("this is really myopic, it's really only going to talk about retail sales, it's not capturing book trade, it's not capturing online, it's not capturing Kickstarter, it's a really myopic slice of the data"). Some highly selling books could not appear on charts, because their primary sales channels are not measured by the charts;

4) The combination of these factors (above) tells me WOTC no longer places as high a value on supplements as they have for prior editions. Supplements were useful for ranking on monthly or quarterly book charts, but they are not a good measure for overall RPG sales for that year, they are not a good measure for overall brand sales, they might not even be a good measure of RPG book sales for that snapshot of time, and it might not even be healthy for the industry in general ("there's a lot of questions and is that a good thing for the industry, is it a bad thing for the industry, and what does it actually mean for the ongoing tabletop hobby");

5) Since WOTC now views the competition and focus to be the entertainment brand itself, and the overall revenue for the brand is a much higher priority than RPG book sales, this also tells me they may well view D&D Next as an evergreen RPG product. They might now be fine with publishing mostly the core books, for a decade or two or even more, rather than an every-5-year edition treadmill. As long as they get slow, steady, sales from the RPG books line, with the core books being the key product and likely adventures and settings added to that mix as slow but steady line, I suspect they will be fine carrying the line for a long time. That is, provided the overall D&D brand remains healthy in terms of revenue. This is similar to the Marvel model for their comic books - slow steady sales are fine for that company for their books, provided the overall Marvel brand remains healthy, even despite the fact that those comic books used to sell much much higher numbers a decade ago.

6) The converse is also present - WOTC could sell massive amounts of RPG books, but if they view the overall D&D brand as seriously lacking in total sales, they could consider D&D a failure even if the RPG book sales were (relative to other RPG book sales) a big success as far as that smaller market is concerned.
 

darjr

I crit!
Interesting.

I hope your assessment is spot on. I think it's a good one. What would it be like if they could nurture an edition of D&D for a decade or more?
 

Enkhidu

Explorer
Assuming you are right, Misty, it looks like tabletop D&D will be considered the loss leader for the brand. A logical next step would be that we'll end up seeing some pretty serious pushes on toys, movies, and videogames after Next is released.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
4) The combination of these factors (above) tells me WOTC no longer places as high a value on supplements as they have for prior editions.

I don't think that's a valid conclusion. Because....

Supplements were useful for ranking on monthly or quarterly book charts, but they are not a good measure for overall RPG sales for that year, they are not a good measure for overall brand sales, they might not even be a good measure of RPG book sales for that snapshot of time, and it might not even be healthy for the industry in general ("there's a lot of questions and is that a good thing for the industry, is it a bad thing for the industry, and what does it actually mean for the ongoing tabletop hobby");

Says to me that they are not worried about *ranking*. Comparing their book sales in a single type of channel over a short time period is simply not a useful thing, in their eyes. This doesn't change the value of the supplements to the company or the brand - it just means they wont be publishing *for the sake of getting ranking*. That sounds like a good thing - publish a supplement because it is good, has keen ideas, and is good for the game, not because being at the top of IcV2 matters.
 

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf
I just worry that they're too late and the fantasy rush is over. The time to realize this was 15 years ago.
 

Blackbrrd

First Post
...
Says to me that they are not worried about *ranking*. Comparing their book sales in a single type of channel over a short time period is simply not a useful thing, in their eyes. This doesn't change the value of the supplements to the company or the brand - it just means they wont be publishing *for the sake of getting ranking*. That sounds like a good thing - publish a supplement because it is good, has keen ideas, and is good for the game, not because being at the top of IcV2 matters.

To me, this sounds like a better conclusion. Mainly because they need to publish something new regularily to get free publicity for their main product, and secondarily because those books will probably sell really well.

Regarding the advantages of fewer items selling better, I am assuming that they will produce higher quality items with less filler material, and also react better to the reception of previous material.

I really hope they focus less on splat books and more on rules extensions that promote various ways of using the 5e. I am much more likely to buy a book on creating and running a city campaign (with a good sample adventure), than if they produced splat book #17 which adds yet another 50 powers/feats/spells for Deva Wizards.

As somebody mentioned in the other thread, in a group you often just have one or two persons actually buying the books, and often, it's the DM. I am betting that WotC is seeing from the sales on dndclassics.com that the adventures, campaign settings and other materials for the DM are selling much better than the splat books.

Splat books might sell better to start with, but the "tail" of sales is probably pretty low and short, while the "tail" for adventures, campaign settings and so on is much longer. I bet they like seeing sales on 30 year old adventures like they are now.
 

Remove ads

Top