D&D 5E I don't think Wizards is looking at the whole picture.

[cmad1977]

Boring thread I feel like I've read 5 times in 5 weeks is boring.

 

[darjr]

We really don't. At least, not to the extent and frequency of this, for a niche hobby like this one, on a fan board.

We do need them, however iconoclast actually reason. The good ones actually break those icons. Corpsetalker is making wotc look pretty good. Maybe it's an under cover wotc operative?

 

[Mistwell]

No, I think you need him. If you didn't need him you would just put him on ignore.

Not really. I try to be welcoming and accepting of everyone. If they post, I try to engage them. That doesn't mean I "need" anyone, just that I don't like to ostracize my peers. My intent, for a long time now, has been to try and engage with him to attempt to create something positive from the negative. Maybe that is naive on my part. But I admire his passion for the game, and would dearly like to see it turned to something useful.

 

[Shasarak]

This is a bit of a reflection of the thread that Morrus started in where I would like to focus more on if Wizards is going to be using these surveys to drive their production plan then they need to look at at the whole picture instead of these self fulfilling prophecies.

The main problem is that they need to sell 100,000 copies of whatever they put out which is why we have the "Story" driven paths.

The good news is that, according to Chris, WotC basically lets the DnD team do what they want as long as they keep bringing in those numbers - which is a lot easier then the old days of 50 million per year.

The bad news is that the percentage of percentage players just have to hope for the best.

 

[mflayermonk]

Not really. I try to be welcoming and accepting of everyone. If they post, I try to engage them. That doesn't mean I "need" anyone, just that I don't like to ostracize my peers. My intent, for a long time now, has been to try and engage with him to attempt to create something positive from the negative. Maybe that is naive on my part. But I admire his passion for the game, and would dearly like to see it turned to something useful.

Great response.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The numbers come from the playtest surveys. They're unlikely to do a survey which would reach more players and have a higher response rate.

Which is kinda sad, as only the most die-hard fans stuck with the playtest, let alone completed all the surveys. The drop-off of interest in the playtest in my area was dramatic. May have been different other places, of course.

But once 5e came out and Encounters went to AL, most of those who'd ignored the playtest went right along with it and adopted 5e.

We also have to assume it was a representational sampling, as otherwise the game we love would have been made on skwed data, and that's sad.

It most certainly has been made on skewed data, and that's why 'we' love it, it's skewed towards /us/. ;P

Two questions: why and how?
How would they introduce new players?

Through AL. Put out a new setting, with new player materials, run the next season of AL exclusively in that setting with those rules. Of course, they're not really new players, but if a new player stuck around for more than one season...

Especially given making a campaign setting product is a hella lotta work and they haven't been able to get an FR one out.

Could be little more than a re-print in the case of settings that don't have all that ongoing-fiction-series change driving them.

True. Thankfully there are a bajillion other fans converting everything if you look hard enough online.

Somehow I don't think someone who wants the officialness of a published setting is going to be too happy with that.

But they have unlimited time?

Compared to any individual fan.

7: Wizards needs to define their interpretation of "homebrew" - I have a Dragonlance game that takes place pre-war of the lance so that could classify as "homebrew". Same goes with any other campaign setting used. This can cover a broad range.

It's up to you to check 'homebrew' vs 'Dragonlance' vs 'Other,' assuming all three are available. It sure seems like 'Other' was.

Let's step back a moment and use Chris Perkins' figures in this exercise. They show that the majority of people homebrew.
9: Rules that people like - This is a big one for me.

The D&D community has shown that it likes tradition, which precludes changing the official rules much (as we've seen). But, perhaps paradoxically, what the individual DM /really/ likes is to change the rules. 5e accommodates that. But as we've seen, that encourages homebrewing more than snapping up scads of setting materials. The whole 'setting-sells' thing was a 90s phenom that hasn't come back, as yet (though it certainly could, and D&D'd've missed the boat just like it did the OSR and boardgaming bandwagons).

10: Just be honest - I know this is the toughest one of all but just be honest. If your goal is to maximize profits buy lowering your overhead just to keep table top D&D afloat to make way for more non table top stuff then just say it.

They pretty nearly have. They've certainly suited their actions to that idea. And, it's not like it's going badly for them.

If I know that it's not about what's best for the game and really what's best for your pockets then I will know and can move on to something else.

And that would be why they don't. This sort of low-overhead slow-release (thus likely to change little for a long time) approach may very well be what is 'best for the game,' but if they admit that, it could trigger another storm of nerdrage and possibly damage the brand ("Why should we option an FR movie if you own fans hate it so much and are actively boycotting you?").

 

[Mirtek]

10: Just be honest - I know this is the toughest one of all but just be honest. If your goal is to maximize profits buy lowering your overhead just to keep table top D&D afloat to make way for more non table top stuff then just say it. If I know that it's not about what's best for the game and really what's best for your pockets then I will know and can move on to something else.

Maybe you should take your own advice to heart.

If you admit to yourself that it's not about what's best for the game and really what's best for your personal preferences (which you seem to be unwilling to accept are not what the majority of D&D customer base prefers), then you will know and can move on to something else

 

[Mistwell]

Which is kinda sad, as only the most die-hard fans participated in the playtest

If that is the case, then D&D is doing extremely well as over 150,000 participated in the playtest. If that's just the small subset of die-hard fans, then dang, how many must play this game total?

It's a heck of a lot more feedback than most surveys for any industry. It's well beyond what's required for a good statistical analysis of the marketplace. There is no evidence that "die-hard" fans vary so much from "non-die-hard fans" that you couldn't adjust your survey results based on knowing respondents were mostly die-hard and come up with some pretty good trend analysis.

 

[aramis erak]

No, I think you need him. If you didn't need him you would just put him on ignore.

Some of us, for various reasons, refuse to use ignore lists, just in case some whinger actually writes something worthwhile.

Most of us seem to wish said whingers would simply do the polite thing and STFU.

And, at what point does the winger cross the line into trolling?

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm glad other people are expressing what I felt about this thread when I first saw it get posted, aside from "here we go again"...I really just couldn't look at this thread without thinking to myself: I see words...but I don't see anything stated of value.

@OP: look man, if 5E ain't your thing, if WOTC policy just don't jive for ya, that's coolio man. Go play something you enjoy from a company you like more. No hard feelings. Maybe come back and post something about how amazingly fun that is and you encourage everyone to try that product!