D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[BryonD]

Yes. In reply to a post of yours, I quoted and linked to a blog by a store owner talking about this.

There is some reason to think that increasing the rate of output alienates some actual fans, and also creates a barrier to entry for new customers (hence new fans).

Does the negative response from some fans show that WotC is miscalculating here? I'm not sure.

No. I agree that this is real.
But the question becomes what is for the better overall?

Does alienating fans who don't want to buy stuff really do much harm?
Is it somehow better to not produce something and not sell it to both Player A and Player B? Or is it better to make something and sell it to Player A but not Player B?

The issue of some people wanting very low or even zero subsequent releases is completely fair.
I'm sure you will also agree that is the issue of some people wanting a steady supply of new stuff is also fair.

I don't think it is controversial that some have each preference and most are in between.

But what is the case for how low production makes the game more popular three years from now?
What is the historic example to demonstrate this?

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Depends. It certainly has the inside track.
I want it to happen.

But if they really overdo the slow play AND Paizo reacts well (don't assume they won't be smart) then anything could happen.
I'm certainly not ready to bet against 5E yet. But it depends.

Well, we're talking about the future here - nothing is a foregone conclusion! WotC could absolutely botch it, and Paizo could weather criticism beautifully and respond to it beautifully such that Pathfinder becomes the undisputed pen and paper RPG king and D&D is but a distant afterthought.

But personally, I see WotC's current release schedule working in their favor, and Pathfinder's working against them, at least for the time being. I believe it was Mistwell who in another thread pointed out that it may be smarter to sell 75,000 copies of one book every six months than 10,000 copies per monthly book.

We don't have the numbers to know whether that actually is the case, but Wizards does, and I don't see them putting out less product just for the heck of it. D&D might yet tank, but I'm not convinced the current strategy is a poor one, and I'm glad to see the status quo being turned on its head.

 

[Manchu]

My read on the ICv2 ranks is, 5E is selling to a much wider audience than 3E/Pathfinder or 4E. I think people like us, the type of people who post on the EnWorld forum, mean a great deal more to Paizo than to WotC. We're also the demographic most likely to want more more more D&D stuff. And even among us, there is some degree of ambivalence based on experience with bloat past.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But what is the case for how low production makes the game more popular three years from now?

The case I make - because, from my perspective, games shouldn't actively /try/ to be bad - is that games like D&D, games that you add to be adding new rules/elements/sub-systems (a 'list-based' system), rather than 'building' or modeling new material with existing rules ('effect-based' systems), tend to become more complex, less playable, and more prone to dysfunction and excessive system mastery the more you add to them. A slow pace of additions to such a game gives the fanbase time to assimilate the new material, and the designers a chance to errata it if needed - or, in the 5e paradigm, gives DMs a chance to experiment with and house-rule it to suit the level of imbalance and dysfunction they want in their campaigns.

More cogently, maybe a slow pace of releases just gives fans a chance to become comfortable with the current edition?

What is the historic example to demonstrate this?

AD&D? It had a slow pace of releases (~ a book a year, for quite a few years), changed very little over more than 10 years - and, today, 5e is a response to folks wanting D&D to go back to being more like it.

 

[BryonD]

But personally, I see WotC's current release schedule working in their favor,

Would you please provide a link to this schedule?

and Pathfinder's working against them, at least for the time being.

Is it? Or is the age of the game simply working against them with their rate of production possibly optimized? Declining over time doesn't mean it isn't optimized. I'm not saying it is optimized. I'm just saying we don't know.

I believe it was Mistwell who in another thread pointed out that it may be smarter to sell 75,000 copies of one book every six months than 10,000 copies per monthly book.

Well duh, that's called math. It would take a pretty extreme discount rate for that NPV not to win out big. But do those numbers have anything to do with reality?

We don't have the numbers to know whether that actually is the case, but Wizards does, and I don't see them putting out less product just for the heck of it. D&D might yet tank, but I'm not convinced the current strategy is a poor one, and I'm glad to see the status quo being turned on its head.

Wizards has Paizo's numbers?

I'm sure they have a strategy. (And I'm sure it includes things not one of us has considered)
I'll readily admit that their plan could completely make sense for them.


But if the goal is to keep D&D #1 long term, I'm skeptical the plan (as publicly presented) will work.

WotC has clearly dropped the ball before. We should give them some credit. We should also have some justified uncertainty.

 

[MoonSong]

The edition war had everyone grasping at sparse data to try to 'prove' that the game should only be played their way. Right now, Byran and the other h4ters can celebrate being validated by 5e reversing most of the improvements made by 4e, but fewer of the improvements made by 3.x/d20.

This is only me, but IMO 5e already did away with the biggest boon of 3.x, which is: every concept is equal (of course I'm not talking about power), there is no one-true-way to represent concepts, there are many roads to each concept and each one is as valid as the other. Freedom of concept, no bounds and no restrictions.

...admittedly, I'm caricaturing the editions outrageously and the idea of "winning" an RPG is dubious, but my point is that each of the games rewards different approaches. I enjoyed being a rules lawyer in 3e, enjoyed being a tactician in 4e, and now I'm thoroughly enjoying being a thespian in 5e.

Not to rain on your parade, but if you are doing interesting things for the mechanical benefit, you are not a real thespian.

 

[BryonD]

My read on the ICv2 ranks is, 5E is selling to a much wider audience than 3E/Pathfinder or 4E. I think people like us, the type of people who post on the EnWorld forum, mean a great deal more to Paizo than to WotC.

Absolutely true.

We're also the demographic most likely to want more more more D&D stuff. And even among us, there is some degree of ambivalence based on experience with bloat past.

Again true. But don't just skip past that first part.

The "new shiny" portion of fanbase are also the most likely to move on to the next thing as well. I don't mean to seel them short. But just keeping them in context of what you are saying.

This same "EnWorld" doesn't count argument was common when 4E was starting to really faulter. Just because ENWorld is very much a distinct subgroup within the niche hobby does not mean it isn't a reasonable barometer of overall mood.

Also, you don't have to jump straight from ZERO splats being advertised directly to BLOAT.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is only me, but IMO 5e already did away with the biggest boon of 3.x, which is: every concept is equal (of course I'm not talking about power), there is no one-true-way to represent concepts, there are many roads to each concept and each one is as valid as the other. Freedom of concept, no bounds and no restrictions.

5e still has 3.x-style multi-classing (even slightly improved in some ways), and multiple ways to get to the same concept:

Holy Warrior?

Paladin!

Fighter/Cleric!

Fighter w/ Acolyte Background!

Cleric w/Soldier Background!



Or is that not what you meant?

 

[BryonD]

Actually, that is factually incorrect. Pathfinder tied 4e the same quarter that Essentials launched and surpassed it in spring of 2011. Source.

Wizards released a number of 4e books for the rest of 2011. In fact, a total of four books were released in 2011 following the end of the second quarter and one in 2012. Source.

If anything, the drop of in production schedule supports the idea that Wizards decided to end the development of any new 4e products when they lost the top spot and only released products that were already in the pipeline from that point forward.

Thanks

I should have followed up on the claim.
But to me it didn't matter.
If it had been selling like hotcakes, they would have kept making more hotcakes.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

Would you please provide a link to this schedule?

Sure thing.

They've not formally announced a second adventure path for 2015 yet but have said they're planning on two a year.

Is it? Or is the age of the game simply working against them with their rate of production possibly optimized? Declining over time doesn't mean it isn't optimized. I'm not saying it is optimized. I'm just saying we don't know.

Optimized for what?

Optimized for number of products to support a game line? Sure.

But what schedule do you go with if you're optimizing for not declining over time? I know if I were promoting big

Well duh, that's called math. It would take a pretty extreme discount rate for that NPV not to win out big. But do those numbers have anything to do with reality?

I don't have Wizards' numbers. The numbers might be the opposite - putting out lots and lots of splatbooks actually does make more sense financially - but if that were the case, why aren't we seeing lots and lots of splatbooks?

Far more likely that lots and lots of splatbooks doesn't make them significantly more money than they figure they can make putting out a few a year.

Wizards has Paizo's numbers?

No, Wizards has Wizards' numbers, and they know exactly how less they make at the end of an edition cycle than at the beginning of one.

Rather than boom --> decline --> fallow period between editions --> next boom, I think this time they're pursuing a "slow and steady wins the race" strategy.

I'm sure they have a strategy. (And I'm sure it includes things not one of us has considered)
I'll readily admit that their plan could completely make sense for them.

But if the goal is to keep D&D #1 long term, I'm skeptical the plan (as publicly presented) will work.

WotC has clearly dropped the ball before. We should give them some credit. We should also have some justified uncertainty.

And I'm skeptical that more products would help. But I don't think the goal is to keep D&D #1 long term.

When it comes to who's selling more copies of which brand's imaginary elf game, I don't think Wizards or Hasbro really does care which one comes on top.

Sure, they'd rather gamers spend their money on their own offering, but really they just want people to show up for a D&D movie or video game, which will make them more money that all of Wizard's and Paizo's hardcovers in a year put together. And in real life, nerd tribalism isn't nearly so much of a thing that Pathfinder players won't go see a Dungeons and Dragons movie, so ultimately Paizo isn't even really viewed as competition in Wizards' eyes.

And yes, WotC has dropped the ball before. That's precisely why I'm so glad they're trying something different this time.