D&D 5E Interesting talk with Mike Mearls (a few secrets slip too!)

[Henry]

They seem to be going to the 2e sales model where the core books drive sales of campaign supplements, rather than the 3e model where supplements drove sales of the core books. Which is odd given that TSR nearly went under during the 2e days and WoTC made plenty of cash from 3e. The fact is that a group only needs one box set, usually bought by the GM, but everyone like to have their own rulebooks. I'm hoping they do well, but I think they may have backed the wrong pony.

I think that comparison is a little too oversimplified: TSR died for two main reasons: Not listening to their audience, and overcompensating for market trends. When they did have a success, they overestimated print runs of things; when they went a new direction, they did no market or customer surveys. If they can do this, especially in this app-driven, subscription-based, tie-in world we live in, I think it's a decent plan with a good chance for success, IF they can continue to bring value.

Also, 3ed was a huge success, but sales began to taper off after 2003 or so, according to various pundits like Adkison and Dancey, and listening to some of the FLGS managers who have chimed in on various boards. That plus Hasbro's strategy at the time of only measuring performance by product line than by brand was very troublesome for WotC. If they are doing this, sounds like Hasbro has changed their tune on how they measure success again.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm reminded of the fact that for free-to-play games, 50% of the revenue is collected from just 0.5% of the playerbase. Keeping that 0.5% satisfied with new releases in pretty critical.

He addresses this later in the interview, too, though: fewer, bigger releases, that serve to build anticipation and deliver on multiple customer types simultaneously. You're less dependent on that 0.5% if you reach a bigger % by offering other things they can buy aside from game content.

Plus, there's the OGL axe to grind, right? If they're worried about putting out a lot of product, just open it up to the OGL and let everyone put out product for it, and you won't have to worry much about that 0.5%, because they'll be making stuff for themselves to keep 'em busy between the big noise releases.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I am not surprised to find they are planning on fewer books, considering the amount of classes they are putting in the phb.

I think I bought every phb in 4e, and I am excited that the new edition will not be a huge step backwards in terms of supported concepts.

 

[Joe Liker]

In terms of balance, the fighter is a great example. The really simple fighter has the ability to score far more critical hits than the complex fighter. The critical hit rule is very easy to learn, and scoring more of them is exciting. In play, though, it’s fairly simple to learn and apply that benefit.

In contrast, the complex fighter selects from several different combat maneuvers and spends resources to activate them. It requires tactical cunning to make the most of it.

When you compare the damage they do, they come out even. How they get that damage is what distinguishes them. The experience of playing each fighter is very different, and satisfies different types of players.

(Emphasis mine.)

This doesn't feel right to me. Shouldn't the tactically clever player have at least a tiny bit of an edge over the brute-force mook? I'd be fine if he said the two were mostly commensurate, but when he says, "They come out even," what I hear is, "One guy has to expend a lot more effort than the other to end up in the same place."

Being tactically clever should not be considered a reward in itself. You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

 

[Evenglare]

(Emphasis mine.)

This doesn't feel right to me. Shouldn't the tactically clever player have at least a tiny bit of an edge over the brute-force mook? I'd be fine if he said the two were mostly commensurate, but when he says, "They come out even," what I hear is, "One guy has to expend a lot more effort than the other to end up in the same place."

Being tactically clever should not be considered a reward in itself. You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

Then one choice comes out clearly better and you start relying on system mastery, which is supposedly a huge problem with 3.x.

 

[Jer]

Being tactically clever should not be considered a reward in itself.

Why not?

You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

Why?

It's a role playing game, not a tactical boardgame. If you want to play the role of a tactically-clever Batman like fighter and your buddy wants to play the role of a brute-force Conan-from-the-movies like fighter then why should the game punish him by making his style of character a sub-optimal choice?

 

[TwoSix]

He addresses this later in the interview, too, though: fewer, bigger releases, that serve to build anticipation and deliver on multiple customer types simultaneously. You're less dependent on that 0.5% if you reach a bigger % by offering other things they can buy aside from game content.

Oh, absolutely. I'm thinking a subscription model like DDI, where, say, you get a pdf of Dragon and Dungeon material every month, with interactive crunchy bits for the online tools, as well as an auto-delivery of the two big books they release each year. (Or, spitballing here, vouchers that are redeemable at the local Wizard's Play Network stores for the books).

Plus, there's the OGL axe to grind, right? If they're worried about putting out a lot of product, just open it up to the OGL and let everyone put out product for it, and you won't have to worry much about that 0.5%, because they'll be making stuff for themselves to keep 'em busy between the big noise releases.

Works too. I'm on record that I wished the 4e DDI had more of an App Store quality to it, with 3rd party material being purchasable to go into the character builder. Why not for the 5e tools?

 

[TwoSix]

(Emphasis mine.)

This doesn't feel right to me. Shouldn't the tactically clever player have at least a tiny bit of an edge over the brute-force mook? I'd be fine if he said the two were mostly commensurate, but when he says, "They come out even," what I hear is, "One guy has to expend a lot more effort than the other to end up in the same place."

Being tactically clever should not be considered a reward in itself. You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

To be fair, he probably means they come out even when comparing averages. Builds that are tactically challenging tend to have higher ceilings for damage at the expense of the lower floor.

 

[Lalato]

I'm thinking a subscription model like DDI, where, say, you get a pdf of Dragon and Dungeon material every month, with interactive crunchy bits for the online tools, as well as an auto-delivery of the two big books they release each year.

I don't want Dragon turned into the monthly crunch book. That's what it essentially turned into during 4e (and yes, I'm still a DDI subscriber, mostly for the tools). If Dragon is resurrected make into a magazine that's worth reading. If I never see a new feat in Dragon it will be too soon.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't want Dragon turned into the monthly crunch book. That's what it essentially turned into during 4e (and yes, I'm still a DDI subscriber, mostly for the tools). If Dragon is resurrected make into a magazine that's worth reading. If I never see a new feat in Dragon it will be too soon.

I'm not sure what else goes into Dragon. Long-form journalism?