D&D 5E Hasbro's Goldner - D&D up 50%

[Tony Vargas]

On this front, it's probably easier at the table to give out more items and adjust, than to give out fewer and adjust, because of player reactions.

Giving out fewer items and adjusting, in the classic game was an issue, because some classes depended on items for balance at higher level, but such 'low magic' campaigns were a legitimate thing, I ran one for 10 years, players appreciate the items they do get, or are allowed to make, and their own magical abilities stood out all the more.
In 3e, though, yes, make/buy, and the sheer power of items, and the assumption of them being vital to meet at-level challenges made them more Dr rigour. I think 3e was unique, that way. In 4e & 5e you don't /need/ items to face level-appropriate challenges, even though, in 4e, they're 'expected' (use inherent bonuses and the expectation's moot - heck, you don't need magic, at all, not just magic items, you can do fine without a single caster in the party). In 5e, you might have some player resentment for not giving out items in AL because of the way they're tracked - I've caught the barest flicker of that, IMX - but only in that context.

As far as giving out more and adjusting, well, we know what Monty Haul games were like back in the day...

So we might call that a modest simplification for the DM.

5e puts a LOT on the DMs shoulders, that's the nature of Empowerment, balance, a good thing, but on in balance not simple to DM (4e was, by far, the easiest edition to DM, and it's rarely accused of simplicity).

Apparently a surprisingly important part of this change is the fact that people find it easier to add 1d20+1-7 than 1d20+11-17.

I find that implausible: innumeracy on that level is rare among gamers, and 5e bonuses do get that high with expertise - and 5e damage calculations positively dwarf any editions d20 Bounuses.

No, the important aspect of BA is not overwhelming the d20. That and the rubric of vastly different leveled creatures being able to hit eachother, even if the rapid hp/damage scaling still leaves the result a foregone conclusion.

5e isn't the simplest system ever,

D&D never has been, nor has it much potential to be, if it's to retain its identity and feel - complexity is part of both.
As long as it's the same sort of complexity.

 

[Jester David]

Clearly, 2016 was HUGE dip in sales and things are only up in comparison to that bleak year. Because we all know 5e is doing poorly and is not well received. And WotC is losing sales across the board because they're not releasing real accessories.

Or something...

 

[Hussar]

Nice to see D&D getting all the loving.

One thing I did notice from that front page ICV2 article, CCG sales were about 750 million dollars. TTRPG sales were 45 million. Yeah, we're a rounding error.

But, here's hoping that the growth continues. 50% is a huge leap and, let's be honest, that's not sustainable over any longer period of time. But, let's hope they settle down into a nice healthy 12% growth year on year. Fantastically healthy business that will say around for a LONG LONG time.

 

[see]

Clearly, 2016 was HUGE dip in sales and things are only up in comparison to that bleak year. Because we all know 5e is doing poorly and is not well received. And WotC is losing sales across the board because they're not releasing real accessories.

Which, of course, correlated with the disastrous collapse of sales of books at Amazon to let the 5e PHB sneak on to the top 100 selling books in 2016.

 

[Morrus]

Nice to see D&D getting all the loving.

One thing I did notice from that front page ICV2 article, CCG sales were about 750 million dollars. TTRPG sales were 45 million. Yeah, we're a rounding error.

The entire US tabletop gaming industry, including CCGs and board games, is about one major summer movie or AAA video game.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Newbie player here.

One reason for me to spend money on D&D is the artwork in the books. You can pick up a lot of the stats and data from online sources, but the books (i.e. Players Handbook, Monster Manual) are just cool, and I want to have it in paper. Also, I prefer sitting at the table with a book rather than a laptop. Much less distracting!

One reason for the that the sales aren't up further is the sales of the miniatures. The stupid boxes in which they sell 4 minis, 3 of which I usually don't want make it a really expensive hobby. It would be worth some 20-40 euros for me to get very specific minis, namely the main PCs of the current adventure. Maybe I'd even spend a bit more to get some main NPCs or frequently occurring monsters. But with the current system of the randomly sorted boxes, I should probably spend well over 400 euro just to get the miniatures that I want to have... and that's just a guestimate, and not even a guarantee... so instead I spent zero, and play with bits of paper on beer caps .

The online Youtube content (i.e. Acquisitions Inc. and Critical Role) are also a huge benefit for the game. They inspire and make us and make us want to play more. That obviously eventually leads to spending more money... unfortunately so far only on books.

 

[Imaculata]

I anxiously await all the 5e haters to chime in about how that doesn't prove anything, and 5e is still a step backward, and how the designers are lazy, and ignoring fans, and we're all just apologists for them, yada yada yada

On the whole, people seem pretty positive about 5e edition. I have yet to see any hate towards it. I don't play 5e myself, because I really like 3.5, but I can appreciate a lot of what 5e edition is doing.

This is very different compared to the torrent of hate leveled against 4e edition.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I find that implausible: innumeracy on that level is rare among gamers, and 5e bonuses do get that high with expertise - and 5e damage calculations positively dwarf any editions d20 Bounuses.

You find it implausible that people find it easier to add up smaller numbers than larger ones? I can tell you that I myself do. I'm a Latinist, not a Scientist, so math isn't my strong suit. I'm reasonably sure that this exact reason was confirmed somewhere - that they sought to keep the game's number range low to make it easier to add up, among other reasons like not overwhelming the dice as you say.

Think about the optics of it: at the table, the fighter before was saying, "Okay, I roll 13 and I have +26" versus now (s)he is saying, "Okay, I roll 13 and have +9". One of these things is simpler; not by much, perhaps, and for someone who is great at maths perhaps it isn't, but for many people it is. It's this kind of little thing that I think has made the game much simpler.

In terms of complexity, 5e is much less complex than other systems I've run - for example, Dark Heresy, which was a total misery of a game rules-wise, even as it had lovely flavour and theme.

 

[Imaculata]

The stupid boxes in which they sell 4 minis, 3 of which I usually don't want make it a really expensive hobby. It would be worth some 20-40 euros for me to get very specific minis, namely the main PCs of the current adventure. Maybe I'd even spend a bit more to get some main NPCs or frequently occurring monsters. But with the current system of the randomly sorted boxes, I should probably spend well over 400 euro just to get the miniatures that I want to have...

Its basically one giant disgusting scam, and I feel it needs to be discouraged. The customer should get what he pays for. It shouldn't be a lottery where most of the time you end up with miniatures you don't want nor need.

 

[Remathilis]

Its basically one giant disgusting scam, and I feel it needs to be discouraged. The customer should get what he pays for. It shouldn't be a lottery where most of the time you end up with miniatures you don't want nor need.

Its the same business model CCGs have used successfully for years and I don't see the industry veering away from it too much, save for startups or DIYs like Reaper or Nolzur's unpainted.

Merric used to say: you can have them cheap, non-randomized, or available in a wide selection --pick two.