D&D needs to grow as a brand if its going to survive into the future. Covering costs isn't a very good business model for growing and surviving in a declining market.
D&D 5E Crystal Ball: A year in, how do you think 5E will unfold going forward?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
D&D needs to grow as a brand if its going to survive into the future. Covering costs isn't a very good business model for growing and surviving in a declining market.
Corpsetaker
First Post
Who says that D&D is dying?
Covering costs is fine when all you want to do is create a hobby that your customers want. Depends on the kind of business you are running. Do you really think Ahmed at your local newsagent runs his little shop so that he can take his chance on the stockmarket and make millions? All he's worried about is paying his overhead and making a nice wage so he can take care of his family.
Also, what exactly is D&D up against that could cause it to die? Looks to me like D&D and Pathfinder share the market just fine while all the smaller independent companies like Goodman benefit from the two.
TTRPG market is "Dying". Everquest killed it. All those kids that could have jumped on the TTRPG/minis market are now playing MMOs, the rest of us still playing D&D are aging with the game, and apart from our kids there is a trickle of new players coming on board.
In the TTRPG D&D 5e differentiates itself from PF by having a totally different philosophy, and their player base has indicated they don't want splat. They'd be pretty stupid to just turn around and start introducing splat now.
It's much smarter of them to invest their efforts in D&D becoming more than just a TTRPG, which is exactly what they're doing. 2 APs a year is just enough to make it so people finish one, they're ready to buy the next. Meanwhile they can invest the money from core book sales into CRPGS, DLCs, board games, card games, and other things. It probably cost them less to create the Enhanced versions of their oldschool CRPGs (Baldurs gate EE etc) than to create a splat book, and they sold quite well.
HobbitFan
Explorer
The thing is they should be able to pursue a "branding" strategy while also supporting the RPG in more than minimal way.
Given adequate resources, this should be possible.
My take-away is that the D&D team is being asked to do too much with limited budget and limited manpower.
It may be that they aren't doing more becuase they can't.
Given adequate resources, this should be possible.
My take-away is that the D&D team is being asked to do too much with limited budget and limited manpower.
It may be that they aren't doing more becuase they can't.
Nellisir
Hero
Yeah, that's part of what boggles my mind. First adventures are bad, then they aren't. I think putting all your eggs in one basket is bad, but despite the internet pundits. I'm still not convinced that's actually WotC's plan.
HobbitFan
Explorer
Another thing about the focus on hardback adventures only plan. If this is their only focus, why aren't the adventures ALOT better than they are. Tyranny of Dragons adventures had an excuse-they were being written when the rules were still being written and the game in flux. Fair enough.
Why then is Princes of the Apocalypse so uninspired? Its better written and organized than the Tiamat books but there's no real storyline and its basically just a retread of older modules concept-wise.
That is only true if the DM lets it be true. As mentioned above, many DMs (including myself and those I know) use those supplements to help tailor the games we are running. Some options might be used for all campaigns and others may or may not be used depending upon the campaign. The players have no say if they are in use (other than deciding to use a particular class, spell or feat if made available).
A
Even if you don't allow books in your campaigns, it gives players something to do. They can buy books, muck around with builds, read them, and get satisfaction from the system independent of the DM. They may eventually put pressure on their DM to allow them to try out their investments, they may not. The DM may give in, he/she may not.
5e is completely different. There's very little to do really for players, apart from plan what kind of stronghold you will buy with your 500,000gp you'll eventually get.
Perhaps where you are at. I worked at a small community college until a couple of years ago and still take classes there in the evening. I also work at several elementary schools, two charter schools, two home school/school hybrids (edit: I forgot about one). At the college, in one semester, I found about two dozen kids in three departments (multimedia, culinary and computer science) that played D&D, Warhammer, Dark Heresy, and Vampire. There was little overlap between individuals and groups. They were playing with friends from work or whom attended other schools. None of them learned from parents.
At one of the hybrid home school/elementary school (I forget the term they use), there is a weekly game club where they play D&D one afternoon and another rpg another day. Several of the elementary students with whom I work with at regular schools also play. At some of the schools, the afterschool D&D club is run by one of the competitors for the company with whom I contract.
I also know of schools on the east coast that also have gaming clubs at elementary schools and junior high schools (those are run by some game designers and others working in the gaming industry often at their children's schools).
Last edited:
