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

[Maggan]

Would Hasbro allow any of those products to make it to market? I can't imagine they would.

Thanks for the examples! It's a lot easier to think about this if I have some sort of image in my head as to what we're talking about.

As for the examples, I don't think even WotC would allow any of those products to make it to market.

So yeah, I agree Hasbro has a veto power over WotC, and that might influence the direction of the WotC properties somewhat. E.g. a "no demons policy" might perceivably be handed down from above. But then again, such a policy would more probably come from wihin WotC (c.f. TSR).

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.

I agree. I think that we differ on our definition of "high level input". I think Hasbro sets goals along the lines of "WotC, you'd better make this much money! And don't **** up our corporate image, but I guess you already understand that, right?".

And that's the extent of it.

Cheers!

/Maggan

 

[doctorhook]

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.

Sure, diehard Pathfinder fans will stick with it, just like diehard fans of any game will stick with that. But what makes you think casual gamers are so hostile towards WotC? I haven't seen that anywhere.

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.

You're not wrong. 5E's launch is definitely less frenzied than 4E's was. I can't tell if it's because it's being hyped less or because the community has tempered its expectations; maybe it was the extended playtest that burned folks out, or the fact that there's so little negative reaction that folks can't nerdrage about it. The overall vibe with 5E's rollout is certainly much more positive, even if it is quieter.

My money is on 5E being the kind of game that really does have room for most kinds of players.

 

[Jake Johnson]

That is an interesting questions. I suspect the answer will be no, especially if Wizards pays better (and I imagine they do). I have no idea was the going rate for commissioned art work or freelance writing is but I have a feeling if WotC wants to pay better having deeper pockets is going to help immensely.

I raised the question because I noticed that some of the writers and artists working on Tyranny of Dragons have previously worked on Pathfinder. Also, one of the reasons given by Necromancer Games for starting their Kickstarter project so early (before the core rules for 5E are out), was to ensure they could lock in the best artists. I suppose the best case scenario would be for there to be more opportunity for industry growth and competition resulting in higher pay overall for the creative folks.

 

[Rygar]

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.

Doesn't ir Morrus?

Consider some of the design facets of 4th edition...

-Everything is Core. By making everything Core, and by releasing a landslide of material, and by locking Dragon which was now part of Core behind DDI, it creates a strong encouragement to sign up for DDI and increase revenue. What drove that decision? Was it because WOTC felt it was better to deviate from their historical "Don't assume anyone has any specific supplement when writing another supplement"? Or was it because Hasbro gave them the target of "Make this much revenue"?

-Tactical combat such that it was very difficult to play the game without maps and miniatures, which WOTC sold in randomized packages. Was this design decision because WOTC felt that people purchasing randomized miniature packs made D&D a better game? Or was it because Hasbro gave them the target of "Make this much revenue"?

-Heavy deviation from the design of previous editions, which Heinsoo termed as "Rebranding" when discussing alignments recently. Was this because WOTC felt it made the game better to radically change the design, or was it because WOTC felt it was better to kill the OGL to regain control of the whole revenue stream in order to meet Hasbro's target?

Ryan Dancey already told us the sales pitch for 4th edition, which was approved by Hasbro, which informed the design of 4th edition, sometimes in very obvious ways. How is it possible to assert that Hasbro has no influence on the design process when it is apparent that the design process of 4th edition was influenced by Hasbro? You don't have to be in the trenches to influence the design, like any order of events, high level direction can have dramatic influence over low level implementation.

Quoting Ryan Dancey here on ENWorld...

Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History#ixzz38hPHxyto

If WOTC has complete creative control, and Hasbro isn't involved, then why did WOTC need to make a big presentation to Hasbro senior management on the 4th edition project plan and receive their approval? WOTC had a creative direction informed by Hasbro's financial requirements that was then presented to senior management, who approved the creative direction and agreed it could meet their requirements. That is input into the creative process.

As such, since there hasn't been any change in corporate structure, we can assume that 5th edition also required Hasbro's approval on the project plan, which is the creative direction.

IMO this is a case where the people in the trenches don't recognize that the creative process was being influenced by high level decisions from Hasbro and assume that since Hasbro didn't dictate implementation of the process they approved then Hasbro wasn't involved in the process, but the moment anything needs to be approved by Hasbro at any level the creative process is influenced because the creative process is now focused on meeting Hasbro's expectations.

From that point we can think of any number of situations in which Hasbro influences the creative process, all we have to do is think of projects in which Hasbro would veto, and we arrive at an influenced creative process because all of those projects are off the table and cannot be implemented no matter how much the developer wants to create it.

 

[Starfox]

You're not wrong. 5E's launch is definitely less frenzied than 4E's was. I can't tell if it's because it's being hyped less or because the community has tempered its expectations; maybe it was the extended playtest that burned folks out, or the fact that there's so little negative reaction that folks can't nerdrage about it. The overall vibe with 5E's rollout is certainly much more positive, even if it is quieter.

Where I am at, the 5E release is pretty much a nonevent. Having been burned by 4E, WotC doesn't have much credit here. Tthis release is a bit more exiting than some n-oname-brand's releases, but not a particularly big thing.

Doesn't ir Morrus?

Consider some of the design facets of 4th edition...

While what you list is a way to please the mother company, I think we have a pretty good idea of how this actually happened. It was a group within WotC who made the plan, and sold it to Hasbro. It wasn't Hasbro that imposed the plan on them. Bot these chains of event show Hasbro has the controlling influence, the difference is just wo is the active party.

 

[Maggan]

[/COLOR]If WOTC has complete creative control, and Hasbro isn't involved, then why did WOTC need to make a big presentation to Hasbro senior management on the 4th edition project plan and receive their approval?

Probably to show that they had a plan. A plan that sounded like it had been thought through. WotC were probably selling their confidence on the plan, not "Damage on a Miss" mechanics. High level stuff, rollout plans, distribution maybe, communicative strategy, stuff like that.

So much in business depends on attitude, on showing that you have confidence in your plan. And any big plan would probably be run past Hasbro, to show initiative and confidence in the strategy.

Not that such a thing is a guarantee for success, as 4e shows.

I think of it like this: if WotC presented the 4e strategy to Hasbro, what would they be able to fit in a 10 page PPT-slide. That's what Hasbro was/is looking for, and that's what they got/are getting.

/Maggan

 

[Grazzt]

I'm afraid I am going to have to step in here and say you are incorrect about your comment. Hasbro most certaintly "DOES" manage it's operations. Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro so even though they are not in the same building and even in the same state, Hasbro will be there to see everything go through the way "they" want it. You don't just go and buy a company and then let it do it's own thing.

In some cases, this may be correct. But most certainly not in all. I have been on both sides of this (an employee of a company that functioned as a subsidiary of a parent and in a parent company that owned several smaller companies). In both cases, the parent did nothing at all to interfere with, influence, or anything else the subs. In the first case, we were either purchased or we purchased companies because they were making tons of $$. In both cases, the parent left the sub(s) to do their own thing.

Company I currently work for; global, generates a lot of $$, produces a product not many others do, and our parent just lets us do our own thing because we are generating $$ for them. And I work in a position that's high enough to see/know if the parent was involved in our day-to-day. They aren't.

 

[Morrus]

Doesn't ir Morrus?

Consider some of the design facets of 4th edition...

-Everything is Core. By making everything Core, and by releasing a landslide of material, and by locking Dragon which was now part of Core behind DDI, it creates a strong encouragement to sign up for DDI and increase revenue. What drove that decision? Was it because WOTC felt it was better to deviate from their historical "Don't assume anyone has any specific supplement when writing another supplement"? Or was it because Hasbro gave them the target of "Make this much revenue"?

-Tactical combat such that it was very difficult to play the game without maps and miniatures, which WOTC sold in randomized packages. Was this design decision because WOTC felt that people purchasing randomized miniature packs made D&D a better game? Or was it because Hasbro gave them the target of "Make this much revenue"?

-Heavy deviation from the design of previous editions, which Heinsoo termed as "Rebranding" when discussing alignments recently. Was this because WOTC felt it made the game better to radically change the design, or was it because WOTC felt it was better to kill the OGL to regain control of the whole revenue stream in order to meet Hasbro's target?

Ryan Dancey already told us the sales pitch for 4th edition, which was approved by Hasbro, which informed the design of 4th edition, sometimes in very obvious ways. How is it possible to assert that Hasbro has no influence on the design process when it is apparent that the design process of 4th edition was influenced by Hasbro? You don't have to be in the trenches to influence the design, like any order of events, high level direction can have dramatic influence over low level implementation.

Quoting Ryan Dancey here on ENWorld...



[/COLOR]If WOTC has complete creative control, and Hasbro isn't involved, then why did WOTC need to make a big presentation to Hasbro senior management on the 4th edition project plan and receive their approval? WOTC had a creative direction informed by Hasbro's financial requirements that was then presented to senior management, who approved the creative direction and agreed it could meet their requirements. That is input into the creative process.

As such, since there hasn't been any change in corporate structure, we can assume that 5th edition also required Hasbro's approval on the project plan, which is the creative direction.

IMO this is a case where the people in the trenches don't recognize that the creative process was being influenced by high level decisions from Hasbro and assume that since Hasbro didn't dictate implementation of the process they approved then Hasbro wasn't involved in the process, but the moment anything needs to be approved by Hasbro at any level the creative process is influenced because the creative process is now focused on meeting Hasbro's expectations.

From that point we can think of any number of situations in which Hasbro influences the creative process, all we have to do is think of projects in which Hasbro would veto, and we arrive at an influenced creative process because all of those projects are off the table and cannot be implemented no matter how much the developer wants to create it.

That's a nice essay, but approving a business plan has nothing to do with creative input.

I understand that getting the last word in on the internet is important, and I'm not invested enough to continually post this. If we've reached that point, then yes, if you like, Hasbro executives write the D&D books. I give in. You don't believe me. That's OK. Just say that and move on. You're wrong, but it's fine.

I'm interviewing Ryan in person in a couple of weeks. I'll ask him what he meant, if you like, and if I remember. I can tell you right now, it doesn't mean Hasbro had any creative input. But, hey.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's my understanding that WotC plans to focus on adventures and diversification once the core rule books are out, and that it intends to make a smaller number of high-quality products, rather than flooding the market with tons of books. This approach sounds great to me. I can buy the books and the adventures, and have plenty of playing material, but not feel like I have to incorporate a zillion new rules into my game. I would also buy supplemental materials, such as apps and novels.

My questions are:

1. What happens if WotC steals a large number of players from other systems, since many of us will pick one?
2. What about the artists and writers who produce all of the material? Are there enough of them to create material for both Pathfinder and 5E?

I also really like their marketing plan. 2e made a lot of really interesting supplements that were primarily fluff (settings), and I could only afford to buy a fraction of the ones that I wanted. By reigning it in to a smaller number of high quality books, I will hopefully be able to buy everything I want. I'm also a fan of exercising restraint in the amount of rules books that come. Having a consistent core that only adds new crunch occasionally and in a well planned and thought out manner means higher quality and and product integrity.

2. It seems to me that there are an enormous number of talented artists and writers out there who would love to get involved in creating RPG materials. If the demand increases, there is no shortage of supply to fill it, as long as they are willing to look outside of the fortunate established few.

I believe that the D&D brand itself can make significant money on other mediums beyond the game itself - which is something alluded too my Mearls himself in recent interviews - so long as the brand itself is critically acclaimed and recognisable. Other mediums - like a TV show, or online games or novels - can also mutually bring in new D&D players that could open up new markets for the game (rather than just cater to an ageing core fan base all the time).

Personally, I do hope we see a general shift towards settings and adventures as support - possibly with some free online adventures too. Crunchy ‘splatbooks’ and the like have traditionally sold better than adventure modules, but often to the detriment of the line as a whole. On the one hand, established fans clamour to buy new rules and ‘options’, but to a newbie it often intimidates against investing in it.

So while you may see a short term spike in sales, it can often create a longterm downwards spiral. It’s a bit like creating too many sequels for a movie franchise.

Yep. The new direction really will fix a lot of things.

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.

It was just last week that I met a couple that primarily play Pathfinder and have no interest in even looking at 5e due to their dislike of 4e. That's the first time I've seen that in person, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of other people like that.

Here's what I see happening in the future:
1. Some people really love Pathfinder for what it is. They loved 3e and they love Pathfinder even more. The rules-heavy intricate crunchiness of character building is delightful to them, and they have no desire to switch to anything new unless it is like Pathfinder, but better. These people will not easily convert to 5e. However, in a few years, after 5e becomes well established, some of them will convert (guess: 25%-55%) due to the need to play with others and the increase of 5e's popularity.
2. Some people just don't like 4e and see WotC = 4e, and have no interest in looking at anything they are making (like the couple I met). The majority of these people (80%+) will get over it in a couple of years once 5e is out and there are enough people playing it that they can't afford to stick their head in the sand and actually have to leaf through a core book. So this is the category of temporary hold-outs.
3. Some people love 4e and feel that 5e is essentially a betrayal (the opposite of group 2). They are less likely to convert (15%-35%) because enough things were changed that are not to their liking, that they will play something else entirely before they will start playing 5e, no matter how many other people are playing 5e.
4. The vast majority of all other D&D players--even those who aren't too sure about 5e at first--aren't nearly as passionate in their opposition as the first 3 groups, and will mostly (50%-80%) convert within the first couple of years. Much of the OSR market is in this category. Of those who do not, a good portion will convert later as 5e's popularity and dominance increases.
5. New players are going to be brought in by the transmedia focus. It may not be as many new players as were brought in via 4e marketing (or it may be more, I'm not qualified to make any sort of predictions in this area). They are going to enjoy 5e and being equivalently loyal to it as people have been throughout most of D&D history. This means they will be subject to capture by other new and exciting RPGs that expand their horizons (such as the way White Wolf stole a lot of AD&D players in the early 90s--some of which have never looked back at D&D since).

In a few years, most fans of D&D of any sort are going to be playing 5e. It won't be exclusive for everyone, as some will play multiple editions and some will also play non-D&D style games, but it will maintain its dominance for the foreseeable future, which is going to be a while as this edition is going to last longer than any edition since AD&D. (I acknowledge a small possibility of a significant enough revision in 4-6 years that some will want to call it 5.5e, and I'm not including that in my prediction of the length of this edition's run.)

 

[DaveMage]

Here's what I see happening in the future:
1. Some people really love Pathfinder for what it is. They loved 3e and they love Pathfinder even more. The rules-heavy intricate crunchiness of character building is delightful to them, and they have no desire to switch to anything new unless it is like Pathfinder, but better. These people will not easily convert to 5e. However, in a few years, after 5e becomes well established, some of them will convert (guess: 25%-55%) due to the need to play with others and the increase of 5e's popularity.
2. Some people just don't like 4e and see WotC = 4e, and have no interest in looking at anything they are making (like the couple I met). The majority of these people (80%+) will get over it in a couple of years once 5e is out and there are enough people playing it that they can't afford to stick their head in the sand and actually have to leaf through a core book. So this is the category of temporary hold-outs.
3. Some people love 4e and feel that 5e is essentially a betrayal (the opposite of group 2). They are less likely to convert (15%-35%) because enough things were changed that are not to their liking, that they will play something else entirely before they will start playing 5e, no matter how many other people are playing 5e.
4. The vast majority of all other D&D players--even those who aren't too sure about 5e at first--aren't nearly as passionate in their opposition as the first 3 groups, and will mostly (50%-80%) convert within the first couple of years. Much of the OSR market is in this category. Of those who do not, a good portion will convert later as 5e's popularity and dominance increases.
5. New players are going to be brought in by the transmedia focus. It may not be as many new players as were brought in via 4e marketing (or it may be more, I'm not qualified to make any sort of predictions in this area). They are going to enjoy 5e and being equivalently loyal to it as people have been throughout most of D&D history. This means they will be subject to capture by other new and exciting RPGs that expand their horizons (such as the way White Wolf stole a lot of AD&D players in the early 90s--some of which have never looked back at D&D since).

In a few years, most fans of D&D of any sort are going to be playing 5e. It won't be exclusive for everyone, as some will play multiple editions and some will also play non-D&D style games, but it will maintain its dominance for the foreseeable future, which is going to be a while as this edition is going to last longer than any edition since AD&D. (I acknowledge a small possibility of a significant enough revision in 4-6 years that some will want to call it 5.5e, and I'm not including that in my prediction of the length of this edition's run.)

Mistwell?