D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[Tovec]

[MENTION=81511]Mercurious[/MENTION] I think most of my would-be responses to your reply were covered in the mean time, mostly by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]

I want to add that the reason I quoted Hussar and not you is that I understood your original intent, so I waited until the thread was skewing towards the supposed "golden age" that you firmly believe is at our doorstep. I think it is too early to judged one way or another. As was said, it might be a success (by many points of view and metrics, not just financial) or it may be a quick flash in the pan before fading (perhaps even more quickly than 4e). I don't know. I couldn't begin to predict something like that. As I've repeatedly said, I was quite happy with 4e until I actually read it - you know, saw the actual books. So, I don't trust anyone's opinion of how good 5e is until I can see and judge it for me.

Now, as for legacy, any future cross-media plans will greatly depend on the 'brand' of DnD more than the game. This (to me) means that the success of the game only matters to the extent of giving them money to pursue those plans. Even then, WotC isn't a movie studio and so they'll likely farm it out. Either way, the brand, worlds, or whatever term is used to define marketable content of DnD is the key. The problem is that I don't see that they are working on them. They're giving certain underused aspects greater visibility - Ravenloft is now a regular part of cosmology - but so far they haven't been fleshed out to any detail. This might change, but past experience has said that at best we'll get some world books, which I don't think really helps as far as a movie goes. Maybe Tyranny of the Dragons will be a good step in that direction, I don't know, I have no experience with it nor many other APs (they're just not my bag). All I have seen so far is that they're rehashing a great deal, going backwards and trying to find a middle ground when possible. That is good appeasing a playerbase, not so great for advancing the cosmology.

The player/consumer side of brand recognition is also concerning to me. From what I have seen the game is fine. (I haven't had access to enough to really tell what my hot button issues will be. I've had some big problems with the game since the first playtest and those haven't changed but some have become less prominent.) However, the issue isn't getting me to play. It is getting new people into the game. As someone else said, they need a kid friendly game. I disagree with 'kid friendly,' but I agree with the sentiment. In order to grow the player-base I don't think the game is quite where it needs to be. Again, 'the game' I'm talking about isn't even out yet. Perhaps the DMG will have those tools built in. I don't know. Maybe it will take a later splatbook to deliver such things. Either way, while I do see a lot of older players coming back to the game, I'm not seeing any "I've never played DnD but 5e made me buy" type comments. If I had then I might agree with 'golden age' comments. At this point I don't think it is enough to get a larger slice of the pie - the hobby needs more pie entirely and I don't see 5e doing that based on the Basic rules, the playtests, or any discussions I've heard from WotC. That is why I think it is a fair bit premature to look to the next wave of this, [hyperbolic] the most successful edition of the game thus far [/hyperbolic].

 

[Tony Vargas]

As I said up-thread, I'm not just talking about initial (or even only long-term) financial success, but creative and community success which should but doesn't always translate into financial success. As far as I can tell, 5E is showing signs of being a stronger success in the community than 4E was at the same point. A part of this, even the lion's share, is the PR and marketing screw-ups you mention, but I think it is also aspects of the game itself - that it is more palatable to a wider range of D&D players, especially the long-time people that were turned off by the "Warcrafty" qualities of 4E.

That'd be re-hashing the edition war territory.

Suffice it to say that, while 5e is not selling any better than 4e and 3e did - it does not face many exogenous challenges that 4e did; and also, so far, doesn't have the benefit of the OGL that 3e did.

On balance, it should have it pretty easy. I suppose, at the outside, you could say that 5e has sacrificed any possibility of 'creative success' - of advancing the game in any way - in return for whatever 'success in the community' that can be claimed from the appeasement of edition warriors and consolidation of the fanbase around a game that seeks to be inoffensive rather than innovative.

The reason I put so much emphasis on this "in-community" success is that even if D&D isn't the raging financial success WotC hopes it will be, a strong core community will keep the game alive and even thriving, if on a smaller scale. In other words, if the "core few hundred thousand" are happy, the game will be fine.

That is probably what WotC is counting on. That D&D, no longer under any pressure to wildly out-perform financially, can consolidate it's old fan-base and avoid any negative controversy this time around. Perhaps they'll make another bid to make the game more modern and accessible, later, but atm, all they can do is hope for non-TTRPG aspects of the franchise to take off.

Actually, I think you have it backwards. When I talk about the "Golden Age" of D&D I'm talking late 70s to mid-80s, beginning with the publication of AD&D starting in 1977 to ~1985, when Gygax was kicked out and the satanism and "MADD" stuff was peaking. In other words, all that stuff you mention ended up ending the Golden Age, not causing it. Perhaps at first it brought D&D more attention, but it had more of a negative effect than positive.

The satanism thing was already rolling when I started in 1980.

Yet I think the recent popularity of Marvel was almost entirely brought on by the quality and success of the movies. The first X-Men movie showed that you could actually make a great comic book movie (other than Batman, the Keaton ones being pretty good, as well as the first couple campy-by-fun Superman movies).

I honestly don't think so. The characters had a toe-hold in the mainstream long before the movies. The success of the movies, OTOH, owed a lot to CGI technology finally being enough to bring live-action superhero antics to the screen.

That could work for D&D, which centers much more on the frequent use of flashy magic than most other franchises in the same genre. But, it'd still need to be a lot more recognizeable to the mainstream to get that kind of movie /made/.

Given that I have absolutely no interest in video games, and even actively dislike them, that sounds like my worst nightmare! But it does seem like a missed opportunity that WotC hasn't really been able to capitalize on the brand in the video game market. But again, video games and tabletop RPGs compete with each other if only for "hobby time."

If they compete, RPGs have lost, big time. The video game industry is bigger than Hollywood. The RPG industry is smaller than a single feature film.

Aside from core rulebooks, obviously the old "splat attack" approach doesn't really work on account of diminishing returns. But Paizo seems to have found a way around that by focusing on adventures, with a steady stream of setting books and a few high quality hardcover splats.

The 'splat attack' worked great for a long time. Modules, perforce, sell only to DMs, and players necessarily outnumber DMs, so selling adventures rather than splats is a losing proposition. OTOH, the splat-attack leads to rapid power inflation and ruins the game on a balance/playability level, so it's also a losing proposition, in the long run, forcing re-boots of the franchise.

There's just no way to 'win' without growing the market rather than selling to the same, slowly-shrinking fan-base who snaps up core books and quickly loses interests in supplements. But, that fan-base rages against anything that might make the game more accessible as "not D&D." A catch-22.

But, now that I think about it, all that re-enforces the idea that D&D's hope is in other media - movies, video games, whatever - is actually a pretty solid one. WotC need only appease it's base so that it won't actively turn against it, again, and it's free to try to grow the franchise in areas where there is opportunity to do so.

 

[Haffrung]

I'm skeptical. The 3.x and 4E splats didn't come out of nowhere; they came out of the fact there's a lot more players then DMs, and selling a Complete * to one out of every 8 players made more money then selling a similar book to one out of every 2 DMs. They made splats because that's how the game was profitable. If they stop making books that every player has to have (that is, inundate the game), then they have to make a lot more money some other way.

The 5E developers have repeatedly commented that for too long D&D catered to hardcore gamers. Their strategy with 5E is to widen the player base. To appeal to the rapidly growing market of casual gamers playing stuff like Descent and Dominion. Focusing on splat books flies in the face of this strategy. It's grist for the mill for hardcore players and char op enthusiasts. But it makes the game harder and more confusing to play and run. So the approach with this edition is to get more people playing the game, even if it means fewer books sold. That keeps the D&D license alive and in the public eye, which can be exploited by other products.

There are also signs that WotC intends to put much more effort into publishing adventure and setting books. Paizo has shown a company doesn't need to rely on splat books to be successful.

It may work, and it may not. But I believe WotC genuinely believe that the best hope for the future of tabletop RPG as a commercial product is broadening the customer base, rather than selling lots of stuff to the small and shrinking hardcore.

Actually, I think you have it backwards. When I talk about the "Golden Age" of D&D I'm talking late 70s to mid-80s, beginning with the publication of AD&D starting in 1977 to ~1985, when Gygax was kicked out and the satanism and "MADD" stuff was peaking. In other words, all that stuff you mention ended up ending the Golden Age, not causing it. Perhaps at first it brought D&D more attention, but it had more of a negative effect than positive.

Agreed. The only reason D&D even made it onto the radar of a bunch of middle-aged evangelicals is because it was already a booming pop culture phenomenon.

But I think the main reason that boom occurred was simply the newness and novelty of it. It was a fad, and it is very, very unlikely that we'll ever see the numbers rise to the legendary 20 million again. I think the best-case scenario is that we see a bump up to the 5-10 million range, which is similar to the hey-day of 3.X - perhaps a bit more if WotC can stretch the brand into movies and video games.

I doubt we'll see D&D played by 30-40 kids in every junior high school in North America ever again. Not in a world with console games and MMORPGs. But it can certainly revive to levels exceeding what we've seen in the last 10-15 years.

 

[Haffrung]

Modules, perforce, sell only to DMs, and players necessarily outnumber DMs, so selling adventures rather than splats is a losing proposition.

That's news to Paizo.

There's just no way to 'win' without growing the market rather than selling to the same, slowly-shrinking fan-base who snaps up core books and quickly loses interests in supplements. But, that fan-base rages against anything that might make the game more accessible as "not D&D." A catch-22.

Only if you think the things that appeal to long-time players actively repel newcomers. I don't believe 4E was very accessible to casual gamers. There's a lot to learn to make a character, and a lot more to learn to operate that character in combat. Not to mention the minis, dungeon tiles, etc. 5E is both more traditional, and more accessible.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I'm skeptical. The 3.x and 4E splats didn't come out of nowhere; they came out of the fact there's a lot more players then DMs, and selling a Complete * to one out of every 8 players made more money then selling a similar book to one out of every 2 DMs. They made splats because that's how the game was profitable. If they stop making books that every player has to have (that is, inundate the game), then they have to make a lot more money some other way.

I also don't see A much a difference between "customize" and "complicate", unless the first is putting it in DM hands (which would be less profitable). More options complicate things.

The thing is, profits from a splatbook are peanuts to a corporation like Hasbro. In theory, they shouldn't mind making less money on book sales if they think they can make up for it by growing the value of the iP Anne thus making more money off movie rights, toys, etc.

 

[prosfilaes]

To appeal to the rapidly growing market of casual gamers playing stuff like Descent and Dominion.

Dominion, which has seven expansions, several as which are as expensive as the original? A complete set is about $260 (not including all the collectors' junk). When translated over to RPGs, it's the same thing; a base book with hopes the buyers will pile on the extras that "make the game harder and more confusing to play and run."

There are also signs that WotC intends to put much more effort into publishing adventure and setting books. Paizo has shown a company doesn't need to rely on splat books to be successful.

Paizo has produced 5 large hardbacks--Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Advanced Race Guide and now Advanced Class Guide--that fill the same role as splat books, plus monthly Player's Companions. Rely on, maybe not, but I think it's hard to say that Paizo hasn't made their fair share of players' expansions. I don't know that WotC can or will follow the AP route that Paizo uses to supplement it.

It may work, and it may not. But I believe WotC genuinely believe that the best hope for the future of tabletop RPG as a commercial product is broadening the customer base, rather than selling lots of stuff to the small and shrinking hardcore.

To quote Designers and Dragons: The '80s* "TSR put out a new introduction to D&D every year from 1991 to 1996". This is not new, but it's also very hard and expensive. Ultimately, few people have learned RPGs without being introduced, so you need that hardcore to bring new people in.

* https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evilhat/designers-and-dragons Yes, you need a copy. Everyone on the planet needs a copy, but especially anyone who wants to talk about the history of D&D needs a copy.

 

[prosfilaes]

That's news to Paizo.

Not entirely. Paizo doesn't produce many pure adventures. Their adventure paths are a replacement for Dragon and Dungeon; they're 64 pages of adventure, and 32 pages of monster, fiction and setting material.

 

[Zardnaar]

As I said up-thread, I'm not just talking about initial (or even only long-term) financial success, but creative and community success which should but doesn't always translate into financial success. As far as I can tell, 5E is showing signs of being a stronger success in the community than 4E was at the same point. A part of this, even the lion's share, is the PR and marketing screw-ups you mention, but I think it is also aspects of the game itself - that it is more palatable to a wider range of D&D players, especially the long-time people that were turned off by the "Warcrafty" qualities of 4E.

The reason I put so much emphasis on this "in-community" success is that even if D&D isn't the raging financial success WotC hopes it will be, a strong core community will keep the game alive and even thriving, if on a smaller scale. In other words, if the "core few hundred thousand" are happy, the game will be fine.



Actually, I think you have it backwards. When I talk about the "Golden Age" of D&D I'm talking late 70s to mid-80s, beginning with the publication of AD&D starting in 1977 to ~1985, when Gygax was kicked out and the satanism and "MADD" stuff was peaking. In other words, all that stuff you mention ended up ending the Golden Age, not causing it. Perhaps at first it brought D&D more attention, but it had more of a negative effect than positive.

Anyhow, couple the controversies with the rise of the real Satan, the video game , and the boom of the early 80s was doomed to be just a moment in time.

But I think the main reason that boom occurred was simply the newness and novelty of it. It was a fad, and it is very, very unlikely that we'll ever see the numbers rise to the legendary 20 million again. I think the best-case scenario is that we see a bump up to the 5-10 million range, which is similar to the hey-day of 3.X - perhaps a bit more if WotC can stretch the brand into movies and video games.



Yet I think the recent popularity of Marvel was almost entirely brought on by the quality and success of the movies. The first X-Men movie showed that you could actually make a great comic book movie (other than Batman, the Keaton ones being pretty good, as well as the first couple campy-by-fun Superman movies). Spiderman and X-Men 2 took it up a notch further, and then the whole thing exploded with Iron Man(despite a brief hiccup with the Fantastic Four movies).

So I don't think it is rocket science or even requires some mastermind strategy. What it does require are good film-makers and screenwriters to take it on and make good movies. What a D&D movie would require is some nerdy but good film-maker like JJ Abramsto lead the project, not people like Ed Greenwood, RA Salvatore or Tracy Hickman.Those guys can consult, but let the movie people make the movies (George R.R. Martin is a rare instance of someone who knows both worlds, film-making and novel writing).



Given that I have absolutely no interest in video games, and even actively dislike them, that sounds like my worst nightmare! But it does seem like a missed opportunity that WotC hasn't really been able to capitalize on the brand in the video game market. But again, video games and tabletop RPGs compete with each other if only for "hobby time."



This is interesting because, in a way, the DMG is completely optional for 5E, but it also very crucial, especially for the long-time fans. I know that of all the core three it is the book I'm most looking forward to but, presumably, the least necessary to actually play the game.




Yet, all interesting questions. Now I know this may ruffle some feathers, but one thing I'd like to see WotC do is somehow create a context in which producing new core rulebooks every 3-4 years is OK and accepted and even expected. Let the game be a living game. As much as it ruffled feathers in 2003, people overall embraced 3.5. I don't see why WotC couldn't institutionalize a revision every few years, without it completely remaking the game. So we have 5E in 2014, why not "5.2" in 2018, "5.4" in 2021, and "5.8" in 2025 before "6E: The Singularity Edition" arrives in 2030?

I jest, but the point is I think WotC could capitalize on revised versions of the core rulebooks without making all previous books incompatible.

Aside from core rulebooks, obviously the old "splat attack" approach doesn't really work on account of diminishing returns. But Paizo seems to have found a way around that by focusing on adventures, with a steady stream of setting books and a few high quality hardcover splats. But I think part of their success is that they limit the hardcovers to, hat, one per season? This makes them seem less like filler and more like quality products (although it sounds like people are already complaining of bloat).

But yeah, it should be interesting to see what WotC does after the initial roll-out.

20 million was 1983, I think the peak was 82 with 27 million or so. They assumed the growth rates would continue but they had a 30% decline in the following year which was the 1st big screw up at TSR as they had 300 D&D staff.

Ryan Dancey gave the figure of 25-30 million a year circa 2006, Pazio hit 12 million in 2012 with an annual growth rate in excess of 30%. 3rd edition (3.0) was the silver age of D&D as if you adjust the 20-27 million figure the golden age of D&D was close to 40-50 million in sales in today's currency.

The golden age was also 2 editions, 1st ed and B/x and we have a reasonable idea for the print run sizes. Adventures made a lot of money, Keep on the Borderlands sold over a million copies. 3rd edition may be the most popular single version of D&D in terms of core books sold with 500k 3.0 sold, 250-350k 3.5 and Pathfinder has sold 250k according to Eric Mona. Over 14 years 3.x has sold over a million PHB type books. It is the D&D that has been in print the longest via PF and has been the best supported D&D ever in terms of content.

4E started off well but apparently only sold in the 50-100k range but atm that is only scuttlebut.

I don't think 5E will still be going in 14 years or sell a million PHB so at best I think we are looking at a D&D Bronze Age. 2nd ed sold something like 100k in its 1st year. I could be wrong of course.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's news to Paizo.

Heh. Selling to a fraction of the market is selling to a fraction of the market. Doesn't mean a small company can't be successful doing so, just that, with the resources to cater to the whole market, they could be more successful. And, it's not like Paizo's thick 'ulitmate' books weren't aimed square at players, either. So, no, I don't think it's news to them. Nor to WotC.

Rather, I think the news is that demand is flagging as the target market ages.

Only if you think the things that appeal to long-time players actively repel newcomers. I don't believe 4E was very accessible to casual gamers.

Your belief is at odds both with the system itself, and with my experience introducing new players to both versions of AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, 4e & Essentials. 4e was /much/ easier for new players to learn. It was often perplexing to longtime or returning players, as a result, but for new players it was quite accessible. It was more successful at retaining new players than I've ever seen. Quite impressive, really.

The things that appeal to long-time players - counter-intuitive sacred cows like Vancian casting, armor that deflects hits, clerical healing, dungeon-crawling, and a host of others - do, indeed, make it hard for new players to 'get' the game. Conversely, hated 4e-isms, like common class structures, clearly/consistently-presented powers, balanced classes, high hps & non-magical healing, and workable encounter guidelines make the game much easier to run (even for new DMs), more likely to deliver positive first-play experiences and much easier for new players to assimilate.

There's a lot to learn to make a character, and a lot more to learn to operate that character in combat. Not to mention the minis, dungeon tiles, etc. 5E is both more traditional, and more accessible.

More traditional is the opposite of more accessible. It may /seem/ like the traditional game is 'simple,' if you played it for 10 or 20 years. But that's a jaundiced viewpoint. D&D is really quite counter-intuitive and complicated, even in it's more "rules-lite" forms. 5e is no different, and really depends on an experienced/skilled DM to shield new players from the oddities and complexities of the system, initially. Omitting concrete things like maps & minis actually makes it /harder/ on new players.

 

[Siberys]

I'm not even sure it can be called a success - almost everything I've read has been lukewarm. Along the lines of "this is alright, but I prefer X," where X is 4e, of PF, or Savage Worlds, or Fate, or Something-Else-I-Found-In-The-Last-Two-And-A-Half-Years. Ditto in my game shop.

I concede that might be observational bias, but... :/ Like Pemerton said, I'm still in Wait And See mode.