I agree with your conclusion, but I'm curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting Hasbro would have WotC abandon D&D in order to save money? It's completely possible I've misread you.What's interesting is that with the roll out of 5e they're able to take their time with having minimal D&D income, having virtually ceased 4e production for a while, and spend their time with the extended playtest marketing. That speaks to Hasbro not having a hand in the mix, and a certain amount of trust with their business plan for 5e.
Paizo is certainly booming these days, but they're still swimming in the same evaporating puddle that WotC did. All those Pathfinder books I see on the shelf in big box bookstores are as much a sign of Paizo's prosperity as they are an albatross around its neck.The rest of the industry excluding Paizo. I don't know what Paizo earned in 2013 - but in 2012 they earned $11.2 million. Which is a pretty big target to aim at.
I agree with your conclusion, but I'm curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting Hasbro would have WotC abandon D&D in order to save money? It's completely possible I've misread you.
Alright, fair enough!I didn't intend to suggest that, no.
5e is /not/, even in it's Basic form, a simple or easy-to-learn system for the new-to-RPGs player.
<snip>
5e is as arcane as 3.x - and only barely saved from being as counter-intuitive as AD&D by sticking with d20 core mechanics. For every improvement in clarity/consistency that makes the game simpler or easier to understand (like 'vantage) there's several steps back (like Vancian, saving throws, inconsistent class advancement), not to mention unchallenged D&Disms like armor making you 'miss,' that have always made new players scratch their heads a bit.
It's not easy to learn or simple, it's just familiar and not all out yet.
It's a TTRPG--how simple do you really expect it to be? Compared to the spectrum of similar games, 5E (especially in its Basic form) is clearly on the "easier and simpler to learn" end of the spectrum, especially compared to Pathfinder, 5E's only significant competitor.
'Simpler than Pathfinder' is not much of a bar to clear. And the question isn't whether D&D can compete with other RPGs on simplicity (it doesn't really need to), it's whether D&D is simple/easy-to-learn enough to retain new players better than it has in the past.
I don't have a good handle on 5e's simplicity relative to 3E. In some ways it looks simpler than 4e, although by mid-levels I think casters will face more complex decision-situations (between memorised scalable spells plus slots available) than their counterparts would in 4e.While I wouldn't say 5e is simple to learn, I wouldn't put it near 3e or AD&D in its..."arcanity?"...3e had a relatively simple core, but with oodles of exceptions, traps, and corner-cases. AD&D practically defines an arcane ruleset. 5e...nowhere close to that. That said, no edition of D&D even approaches the ease with which new players can pick up a game like Fate
Well, it'd explain why they haven't just shut it down to 'force' people to migrate to 5e.And as the popularity of 4E wained, DDI remained remarkable resilient.
And as 5E was announced, DDI remained remarkable resilient.
And as 5E becomes the new shiny that is right upon us, DDI remains remarkable resilient.
And, as DDI remains remarkable resilient and even with 4E effectively gone it still brings in as muc revenue ($6 mill).
Yes Tony, THAT IS MY POINT. He's arguing HASBRO is exercising creative control over D&D. Not WOTC, Hasbro. D&D doesn't even rank a mention in quarterly reports beyond movie news. It's totally not on Hasbro's radar. At most, if Hasbro ever mentions WOTC, it's purely for CCG news. WOTC truly has total autonomy over D&D. They are considered highly influential within Hasbro, and Hasbro doesn't interfere with day to day operations for small scale product lines such as D&D. At all.
If you disagree with my position, then show me one shred of evidence supporting Black Ranger's claim that Hasbro exercises creative control over the D&D product line of WOTC's.
Refer to my post linking to Ryan D's retrospective on 4th edition. How can WOTC have total autonomy over D&D if they required the approval of Hasbro's senior management for the project plan for 4th edition? It is not possible to be fully autonomous when you require approval. The definition of autonomous means you don't need approval, so clearly WOTC is not autonomous.
You're speaking in absolutes. WotC is not fully autonomous from Hasbro, but it is functionally autonomous. It's possible for WotC to be beholden to its parent company and still retain its autonomy for all intents and purposes.Refer to my post linking to Ryan D's retrospective on 4th edition. How can WOTC have total autonomy over D&D if they required the approval of Hasbro's senior management for the project plan for 4th edition? It is not possible to be fully autonomous when you require approval. The definition of autonomous means you don't need approval, so clearly WOTC is not autonomous.
How can WOTC have total autonomy over D&D if they required the approval of Hasbro's senior management for the project plan for 4th edition?