D&D 5E A viable game and the vicious edition cycle

[Mercurius]

Over the last decade and a half as I've watched three major editions of D&D come out, with two sub-editions, I have seen a similar dynamic voiced by many people: Wanting a viable, vital game that isn't rebooted every few years but, at the same time, not wanting excessive bloat. I'm just not sure we can have it both ways.

A viable, vital game is based upon money flow. Editions of D&D go through the same cycle, no matter which edition: the game comes out, everyone is psyched (or horrified), there's a bubble of popularity and the supplements start churning out. Then, at some point, the law of diminishing returns takes effect - the company is making less and less money on sales of the core books, and not making enough on the supplements to make up for it. This is often when a revision occurs. But that just delays the inevitable. The company tries to right the ship by churning out ever-more product and gets a full-on case of bloat. Then, at some point, a re-boot is decided upon and there's a calm before the storm before a new edition arrives and the cycle starts all over again.

Now I've seen time and time again people complain about bloat. But many of the same folks complain about new editions coming out too soon. Can we see how the two are related? A company cannot float on sales of the core rulebooks and two or three supplements a year - they need product.

Now here's the question: Is there a viable alternative that can both lengthen the edition cycle, keep the game vital and fresh, and not lead to excessive supplementation (bloat)?

In the era of Insider subscriptions, at least part of the solution may be virtual. But let's talk in terms of the core line. One thought that comes to mind is diversifying the game so that there are a variety of sub-brands under the D&D umbrella. One way to do this is via campaign settings, although of course 2E did this and while it was creatively successful, we all know what happened with 2E. Another idea is focusing less on supplements and more on adventures and settings, which are more clearly optional. I think part of bloatedness is the feeling that "everything is core," or that some player is going to show up with The Complete Guide to Katana-Wielding Drow Ninjas and get upset when the DM grimaces and shakes his head. So if you focus on product that isn't offering ever-more rules, but more stories, then it doesn't feel like bloat (this is not to say that some supplements aren't a good thing, they are, but not to the extent of the last few editions).

Any ideas, comments, etc?

 

[Morrus]

The adventure path model seems to have worked well for Pathfinder. Admittedly, people do talk about bloat there, too, but it certainly seems to be working well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One way to do this is via campaign settings, although of course 2E did this and while it was creatively successful, we all know what happened with 2E.

Generally liked what you had to say, but I'll quibble with one thing here: Yes, 2e produced a lot of settings - and it was successful in doing so, it sold a lot of setting books and there are still fans out their pining for the return of their favorite 2e setting! Admittedly, settings were bigger in the 90s than they are now, but it's still a viable way to sell books that don't have to bloat the game for everyone.

But 2e didn't go belly-up because it was big on settings. Rather, TSR bet heavily on selling novels, a CCG, and a collectible dice game - all of which went very badly for it. They got in financial trouble and were bought out by WotC. 2e's setting focus wasn't - as far as mere outsiders can tell based on what's been reported - what got them in trouble.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

As I understand it, they are looking to primarily monetize the D&D brand outside of game book sales. This includes game content such as adventures, as well as ancillary products such a maps and miniatures and subscription-based content. But it also includes movies, books, comics, toys, video games, board games, etc. Evidently, Hasbro and WotC have a financial plan and timeframe that they are happy with.

From a business model, the purpose of the core rules is to serve as an entry point to all of these additional products and to further popularize the brand. As such, they are looking to create a broad-appeal, non-divisive, "Big Tent D&D" edition to attract as many players as possible.

I don't know how viable their strategy is, since I'm not an expert in such things. I wouldn't touch the game publishing biz with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Agamon]

The adventure path model seems to have worked well for Pathfinder. Admittedly, people do talk about bloat there, too, but it certainly seems to be working well.

If adventure paths are the reason that 5e can stay evergreen, I'd go from wishing they'd die in a fire to thinking they're pretty cool. Not to use, of course, but generally speaking.

 

[variant]

Generally liked what you had to say, but I'll quibble with one thing here: Yes, 2e produced a lot of settings - and it was successful in doing so, it sold a lot of setting books and there are still fans out their pining for the return of their favorite 2e setting! Admittedly, settings were bigger in the 90s than they are now, but it's still a viable way to sell books that don't have to bloat the game for everyone.

But 2e didn't go belly-up because it was big on settings. Rather, TSR bet heavily on selling novels, a CCG, and a collectible dice game - all of which went very badly for it. They got in financial trouble and were bought out by WotC. 2e's setting focus wasn't - as far as mere outsiders can tell based on what's been reported - what got them in trouble.

TSR was way overextended. They didn't just produce some campaign settings, they produced campaign settings and a dozen accessories for each one of them. They didn't just produce a CCG, they produced two CCGs that competed with each other. They turned Dragonlance into its own RPG to compete with D&D. The whole thing was a mess.

 

[Zhaleskra]

A system I talk about a lot, World Tree, has had no official updates in 13-14 years. A few years ago there was talk of a Bestiary and rules for playing non-Primes, but as I was not part of those selected, I don't know much about it.

Recently the authors' son has become old enough to be interested, and there is talk of an expansion sourcebook.

Back to D&D: TSR had too many settings doing too many things at that same time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

6th edition will be released in the summer of 2020.

 

[Andor]

A system I talk about a lot, World Tree, has had no official updates in 13-14 years. A few years ago there was talk of a Bestiary and rules for playing non-Primes, but as I was not part of those selected, I don't know much about it.

Recently the authors' son has become old enough to be interested, and there is talk of an expansion sourcebook.

Back to D&D: TSR had too many settings doing too many things at that same time.

Huh. I thought I was the only person who used World Tree as a go-to reference.

And as much as I love it there are some key differences between World Tree and D&D.

More than two people talk about D&D.
People are actually trying to make a living off of D&D.
-Which mean they need a constant flow of sales.
-- Which means they can either have squads of RPG ninjas periodically break into everyones house and burn their books thus forceing re-purchasing of the core books, or
--They must produce more products to sell to generate more income so they can keep, you know, eating.
-WorldTree hijacked another very successful game engine, and doesn't really have to worry about char-ops boards.

You know, I should really rebuy a copy of WorldTree, I loaned mine out years ago and never got it back.

 

[TerraDave]

I do think there is a plan:

to sale a lot of PHBs. To make a lot of money from that. And to keep selling them.

Mearls has hinted at this, a lot. That their is a steady stream of new players to tap. That you want to support the game, but not overwhelm it. Over the years, others have noted time and time again is what really sales is the RPGs main core book.

So you make a really good one. Charge a lot for it. And do enough around it to keep it viable, but that does not overwhelm new players or undermine or outdate the core book.