D&D 5E Given WotC plans with the RPG will 5e always be the #1 seller?

[BryonD]

Sure. But thats the kind of thing that could prove me wrong, a completely unanticipated development.

Thats different then all the "oh they will do well for while, but then it will fall off do to this and that and blah and etc". THAT I am trying to completely disagree with as much as possible as I can by making a prediction that you can check in 3 years, and farther, into the future.

May I ask, how would this prediction compare to your thoughts 3 weeks before 4E came out?

 

[The Black Ranger]

Those that are loyal to Pathfinder will remain with Pathfinder. If they are able to purchase and play both then they will do that, but if they have to decide between the two then they will go with Pathfinder.

D&D will sell well in the beginning because you can't judge a game without buying it and playing it first. Times have changed with regards to RPGs and D&D. I'm hoping WoTc aren't relying on people to just jump their current ship and flock back over to the revised and rebuilt D&D one because that won't happen. People will migrate over, but it won't be this mass migration that will land them back in the #1 spot for years to come, that ship has already sailed.

 

[Rygar]

I've interviewed enough WotC and ex-WotC folks over the last 14 years, and touched upon this subject dozens and dozens of times. We're not talking an opinion of how we think WotC probably operates, but describing how it does operate. No number of degrees will change that. That's how it is, however much you want it to be otherwise.

Even very recently Ryan Dancey laughed at the idea that Hasbro was involved in creatives; and I covered it in my interview with Monte Cook a month or so back. The information is the same every time, and has been for well over a decade. Hasbro has no creative involvement in D&D at all.

I think the issue is what is "Creative involvement"?

If "Creative involvement" is defined as a business person writing material or reviewing it, then sure, there's no involvement. But if creative involvement includes the acceptance/rejection of a direction, then they certainly do, as Ryan D told us when describing 4th edition's pitch.

There's not much difference between "Your product isn't making enough revenue" and "The design of your product isn't selling well enough", which is what happened to create 4th edition. Signing off on a business plan and signing off on a creative direction are equally the same, as the business plan informs the creative direction. 4th edition's business plan clearly affected 4th editions creative design, "Everything is Core" is clearly a business direction meant to increase sales, but affects creative design. "Tactical combat" is clearly informed by the desire to increase revenue via miniature sales, and the randomization of those miniatures was clearly to maximize that revenue stream.

Hasbro does have creative involvement, sure they don't tell them what to write, but giving high level business objectives which necessitate specific design to meet those objectives is indirect creative involvement.

 

[Maggan]

The only thing I will say with regards to that comment was that it was from 2010 and a lot can change in 4 years ...

Ok, fair enough, you didn't like the quote. But you did ask for a link. Maybe you can give me a link back confirming your own stance on the matter? Someone inside WotC saying that Hasbro is actively managing the D&D property, maybe.

EDIT: After all, what Charles Ryan confirmed was at least that WotC at one time didn't operate according to the information given you in your university classes. So maybe it is possible for WotC to deviate from the norm even now? And maybe it is possible for other companies to deviate from the norm?

Cheers!

/Maggan

 

[Maggan]

Hasbro does have creative involvement, sure they don't tell them what to write, but giving high level business objectives which necessitate specific design to meet those objectives is indirect creative involvement.

Sort of like Hasbro saying "make sure D&D makes money. And it has to generate 25%* profit." Which then would necessitate that the designers do a good enough job that such a target is met. But I really would'nt characterise that as "creative involvment". That's more "business involvement", in my opinion.

Maybe you can give an example of how such a creative involvement plays out? Would make it easier to see your point of view.

/Maggan

*25% number pulled from my donkey, to be viewed as an example illustrating an example.

 

[Morrus]

EDIT: After all, what Charles Ryan confirmed was at least that WotC at one time didn't operate according to the information given you in your university classes.

Shocking! Especially given that people at WotC have degrees, too! They'll give 'em out to anybody these days!

 

[TerraDave]

May I ask, how would this prediction compare to your thoughts 3 weeks before 4E came out?

I actually made my 5E prediction--link in previous post--3 months ago. It looks even better know. But again, give it a few more years.

Don't think I did that for 4E. I followed it closely....but no big predictions on its success (though if you find one let me know, I would be curious to see it). I think wiht 4E it was more I like , but, but, but....

The launches where night and day different, as I am sure you recall. 4E had that drama so soon, so soon. I won't rehash it all, but this has clearly gone much more smoothly, which is one reason I am so confident.

 

[Rygar]

Sort of like Hasbro saying "make sure D&D makes money. And it has to generate 25%* profit." Which then would necessitate that the designers do a good enough job that such a target is met. But I really would'nt characterise that as "creative involvment". That's more "business involvement", in my opinion.

Maybe you can give an example of how such a creative involvement plays out? Would make it easier to see your point of view.

/Maggan

*25% number pulled from my donkey, to be viewed as an example illustrating an example.

Certainly!

Lets take the (Obviously extreme, but bear with me, I am going somewhere with this) hypothetical situation where the Magic the Gathering team makes the creative decision to have the next block take place in the plane of "Playboy Mansion", all of the creatures and planeswalkers would be unclothed and the equipment would be toys. Meanwhile, the D&D team decides to release a "Complete guide to urban warfare and interrogation techniques" complete with descriptions of using Delayed Blast Fireball IUD's and well researched sections on how to inflict pain.

Similiarly, lets say that Avalon Hill decides it is going to create a boardgame targeted at some ultra-niche market. Lets say a wargame representation of the storming of Normandy which requires the player to control every single combatant as a seperate game piece with a rulebook that is so in depth it is hundreds of pages long, with a potential market of fewer than 1000 people worldwide.

Would Hasbro allow any of those products to make it to market? I can't imagine they would. They'd exercise their ability to block those products and tell the teams to come up with a different creative direction. Hasbro only stays out of the creative process so long as the teams follow a set of rules, and Hasbro guides the creative process by possessing the ability to veto any given product or constrain the budget to reduce or eliminate the ability to produce some product. As such, any creative decision is made based on the understanding that Hasbro has certain expectations on the content of the product, and the potential penetration of a product.

Hasbro only stays out of the creative process only so long as corporate expectations are followed, if the creative process would yield a product that would be controversial and harmful to the parent company's image, harm the future of the brand, or have a negative profit to expense ratio, I cannot imagine that Hasbro would not immediately become involved. Someone is reporting to them, someone is getting their marching orders from them.

So what I'm trying to say is that there's many ways to be involved in the creative process, and I can't imagine that Hasbro doesn't exercise high level input.

 

[Morrus]

Certainly!

Lets take the (Obviously extreme, but bear with me, I am going somewhere with this) hypothetical situation where the Magic the Gathering team makes the creative decision to have the next block take place in the plane of "Playboy Mansion", all of the creatures and planeswalkers would be unclothed and the equipment would be toys. Meanwhile, the D&D team decides to release a "Complete guide to urban warfare and interrogation techniques" complete with descriptions of using Delayed Blast Fireball IUD's and well researched sections on how to inflict pain.

Similiarly, lets say that Avalon Hill decides it is going to create a boardgame targeted at some ultra-niche market. Lets say a wargame representation of the storming of Normandy which requires the player to control every single combatant as a seperate game piece with a rulebook that is so in depth it is hundreds of pages long, with a potential market of fewer than 1000 people worldwide.

Would Hasbro allow any of those products to make it to market? I can't imagine they would. They'd exercise their ability to block those products and tell the teams to come up with a different creative direction. Hasbro only stays out of the creative process so long as the teams follow a set of rules, and Hasbro guides the creative process by possessing the ability to veto any given product or constrain the budget to reduce or eliminate the ability to produce some product. As such, any creative decision is made based on the understanding that Hasbro has certain expectations on the content of the product, and the potential penetration of a product.

Hasbro only stays out of the creative process only so long as corporate expectations are followed, if the creative process would yield a product that would be controversial and harmful to the parent company's image, harm the future of the brand, or have a negative profit to expense ratio, I cannot imagine that Hasbro would not immediately become involved. Someone is reporting to them, someone is getting their marching orders from them.

So what I'm trying to say is that there's many ways to be involved in the creative process, and I can't imagine that Hasbro doesn't exercise high level input.

You're just making stuff up now. None of this remotely resembles what actually happens.

If your point is that Hasbro had the legal right to exercise creative control, then yes, of course. They have the legal right to do a lot of things, including closing WotC down completely or making them focus the game on ponies.

Sure, yeah.

But none of that happens. Hasbro exercises no creative input into D&D.

We can all imagine weird scenarios where they might start doing so. But they haven't done.

Stating that they *could* is just stating the obvious. Of course they can do what they like. We're talking about what they actually do. Which is pretty much nothing.

 

[BryonD]

The launches where night and day different, as I am sure you recall. 4E had that drama so soon, so soon. I won't rehash it all, but this has clearly gone much more smoothly, which is one reason I am so confident.

Fair enough. I agree that the launch is going smoother. But 4E started off huge despite the lack of smooth launch. It was a couple years later that the problems became impossible to deny. So even a great roll-out won't assure 5E doesn't follow the same path. I like 5E. I don't know if it has the mass appeal to go back to long term dominance or not.