D&D 5E (More) ruminations on the future of D&D

[Neonchameleon]

A lot of other people strongly preferred other games.
It failed.

These two things appear connected.

This is *NOT* circular.

By those standards the biggest failure in D&D history was 3.0. Off the shelves and replaced two and half years after it was first published. The second biggest failure was Mike Mearls' own 4e Essentials.

D&D 4e was a failure based on the $50 million/year target. A couple of months ago DDI alone was still earning about $6 million/year or around half of Paizo's annual turnover.

I doubt someone would use the term 'disassociated mechanics' on their own. But sorry, it is a real thing. A long-time player of mine puts it more in terms of "the powers are cool and everything, but I prefer just to say what my characters does in the game world, and not be looking at my character sheet all the time to decide what to do."

One problem is that that isn't Disassociated Mechanics. Disassociated Mechanics, as originally defined, are a failure of imagination that people can't interpret the mechanics and turn them into fiction.

The "I want to act then have the mechanics follow that rather than set up then use the OODA cycle for my character" is a different complaint. And one I have a lot of sympathy with.

 

[BryonD]

By those standards the biggest failure in D&D history was 3.0. Off the shelves and replaced two and half years after it was first published. The second biggest failure was Mike Mearls' own 4e Essentials.

That seems a pretty radical interpretation of the three short sentences you quoted. But, ok.
But by the standard you set, one version of 3E (3.0) has been replaced and overwhelmed by other editions of 3E. (3.5, then PF). I would very readily agree that both 3.5 and PF improved 3.0.
So, *3.0* was a "failure" only in the context of failing to live up to the the potential of the 3E system itself.

4E's decline is traced to the core system.

D&D 4e was a failure based on the $50 million/year target. A couple of months ago DDI alone was still earning about $6 million/year or around half of Paizo's annual turnover.

This presumptive conclusion has been shown to be wishful thinking.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This presumptive conclusion has been shown to be wishful thinking.

[Citation Needed]

 

[evilbob]

One other thing that might be interesting is how much Pathfinder outsold D&D 4.0. PF is still a pretty strong brand in gaming stores and they are still diversifying further with card games and a movie. WotC is and always has been the 500 lb gorilla but with 4.0 they gave up their market and will still need to get it back.

I also wonder if younger kids, as a group, have the required patience and focus to really get into D&D.

This is an interesting thought. I think one of the potential turn-offs for D&D is that it takes hours to make a character and hours to play. Gaming / video watching / instant messaging can be done in minutes, and that's what kids seem to enjoy. WotC is obviously aware and the "quick start" rules and premade characters are a great way to speed some stuff up, along with a streamlined ruleset and all. But that doesn't change the core fact that you still need hours to play, lots of coordination of schedules, and at least one person is going to have to invest dozens of hours to understand how to play well enough to help others. Obviously people do it, but there is a lot more competition for your time now.

Going as digital as possible is a good step as well (starting with PDFs). I'd bet more youtube videos of famous people (famous to young people) playing D&D would have a bigger impact that any marketing campaign. I agree movies that didn't suck so bad you hate to even mention them would help. TV shows are a possibility but only if they were on Netflix or something similar as I don't know if kids actually watch TV anymore (other than using their TV to stream Netflix).

Another thing to consider is the price. It's $150 to get started in this game, although the Starter Set and free Basic rules are a huge reduction to that. But no 12 year old is going to throw down $150 on books - especially since they need to beg for the latest phone that all their friends already have, and it costs twice as much.

Angling it as a "return to imagination" is a great idea, although that's a plug for parents, not kids. Kids will hate that (just like they hate anything else their parents like).

Great questions though, good food for thought.

 

[Imaro]

D&D 4e was a failure based on the $50 million/year target. A couple of months ago DDI alone was still earning about $6 million/year or around half of Paizo's annual turnover.

[Citation Needed]

 

[Neonchameleon]

[Citation Needed]

The first comes from Ryan Dancey on these boards. The second is public information based on the number of DDI subscribers at that time at $5.95 per month (i.e. the lowest possible income). There are still 73,397 members as of today and it's long been established that when a member cancels their subscription they are automatically removed from DDI. Which means that it's almost a live count of DDI income. Which means that despite there being literally no new content, at current rates DDI is still making WotC in excess of $5 million/year

 

[Imaro]

The first comes from Ryan Dancey on these boards. The second is public information based on the number of DDI subscribers at that time at $5.95 per month (i.e. the lowest possible income). There are still 73,397 members as of today and it's long been established that when a member cancels their subscription they are automatically removed from DDI. Which means that it's almost a live count of DDI income. Which means that despite there being literally no new content, at current rates DDI is still making WotC in excess of $5 million/year

No, there have been people who recently dropped DDI and yet weren't pulled from membership... there are posters on this site who claimed they recently tested it and it kept them in the group even after they dropped DDI... so no, I don't think your numbers are accurate.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No, there have been people who recently dropped DDI and yet weren't pulled from membership... there are posters on this site who claimed they recently tested it and it kept them in the group even after they dropped DDI... so no, I don't think your numbers are accurate.

Link? (Google site search gets me nothing). Because that's a change if so - and did it happen before or after WotC archived their D&D site?

 

[Echohawk]

No, there have been people who recently dropped DDI and yet weren't pulled from membership... there are posters on this site who claimed they recently tested it and it kept them in the group even after they dropped DDI... so no, I don't think your numbers are accurate.

The numbers did track subscribers cancelling their subscriptions right up until WotC transitioned unexpectedly to a new community system¹, which was in September 2013². At that point cancelling a DDI subscription stopped having any affect on the community numbers.

I think we can probably say that there were a minimum of 73k DDI subscribers a year ago. But I don't think we have any information to judge the current number of subscribers (minimum or maximum).

Citations:
¹My usually okay but far from flawless memory.
²http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340602-Wizards-Transitioning-to-a-new-community-site-9-9

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah right. So they broke a perfectly working system. Silly WotC.