WotC WotC reported 50% growth over 2020!

[Paul Farquhar]

WotC didn't have to be savvy, it was all luck, it literally fell right into their lap.

 

[Umbran]

You got me.

I am just a random poster on an Internet forum with no blog, YouTube, or twitch channel platform.

Mod Note:

Your lack of social media impact is not license to treat people poorly. Please drop the condescending, dismissive name-calling. Thanks.

 

[Lyxen]

Only CoC has really stood the test of time - largely due to being the first mover in it's market niche.

And also being inherently extremely good as the Basic RPG from Chaosium is an extremely solid and flexible system, and really well tailored for "low fantasy". Just wanted to point out that Runequest (based on the same sysem) is also doing well, 7th edition is really cool, and Glorantha is one of the best settings out there, if admittedly extremely complex and sometimes too much on the weird scale for some players. And it is also really brutal which leads us to...

I think that a lot of the ways new players approach RPG's has been affected more by CRPG's more than we all might be willing to admit. (Fantasy CRPG's are very high power fantasy ...)

This is absolutely obvious to me, including the switch to "easy mode" that is 5e. 4e's design was heavily influenced by CPRG and MMORPG actually. And probably too influenced in the way it restricted the playing field so that a complete ruleset could apply, which is for me why PF1 took the lead, as it was still truly a RPG with strong roots in 3.5, whereas 4e was a hybrid but still not enough of a CRPG to convince people to play without a computer. Also 4e was probably not "easy mode" enough.

By the way, I'm not using "easy mode" in a bad sense here, it's a completely legitimate goal to simply have fun without extreme challenge for survival like early D&D often was, and for those of us who are really more onto the storytelling roleplaying bandwagon, it also means that characters live longer to tell their tale...

 

[DarkCrisis]

MMOs have definitely influenced D&D and the new batch of players.

Reminds me of people saying the new Tomb Raider games are influenced by Uncharted which were influenced by Tomb Raider. the wheel spins

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I again wish there was an analysis somewhere that was as unbiased as possible to say why.

There has to be a reason(s) Pathfinder was a success, where 4e was not, when one was a direct response essentially to the other.

Here's the simplest explanation:

Let's say (hypothetically) there were 10 million people playing and thoroughly enjoying 3.5e D&D at the end of its run. 4e comes out and is completely different than what those 10 million people were expecting. Its not the same game that most have been playing for the last 20-30 years. Some people like it and move forward with it. Others decide they'll just keep playing their old game. There's certainly enough material for it. Just like some people are still playing older editions and retro-clones.

Now, if WotC was the only company producing any new material for D&D at the time, we would just see sales lower than expected while second-hand markets and used bookstores continually sold and re-sold old materials for the holdouts. But 3e birthed the SRD, which gave license to everyone else to produce content for the game system. Paizo did just that, and they didn't need to prove themselves as a new contender. They had been creating 3rd edition content and partnering with WotC for the vast majority of the edition's lifespan.

Paizo did nothing more than embrace the holdouts from the existing market and continued to support the game they wanted with their own personal brand and fixes. If 4e was not able to pull in the majority of that 10 million people who wanted to keep playing D&D, the only other options were to a) keep playing their old editions, or b) play something else. And for the first time, there was option c) play someone else's version of D&D that was close enough!

Let's face it. 4e was never going to win over the majority (more than half) of those 10 million D&D fans. So Pathfinder taking over the top spot was never really a surprise. It was simply a matter of the fans wanting to play what was recognizable and familiar to them. Paizo gave them that. 4e did not.

There's more to it, of course. But this is all that anyone really needs to understand why an off-brand contender was able to (temporarily) take over a name-brand leader.

 

[Jaeger]

It seems rather unfortunate to dismiss the impact computer games has had on D&D, since without it, my current group would not have existed.

I didn't.

In fact I said:

"I think that a lot of the ways new players approach RPG's has been affected more by CRPG's more than we all might be willing to admit. (Fantasy CRPG's are very high power fantasy ...) "

CRPGs have been very influential in modern D&D, from game design, art, and to the gameplay assumptions of new players.

No one would deny that.

but please don't dismiss the voices of those who got on the ship in a different way from what you prefer.

My commentary about Chris Cocks playing the game was solely about whether or not he currently plays D&D.

I stated no preference. And I do not care how people wind up playing RPG's. People arrive at past times and hobbies in different ways. How people eventually get to start playing D&D with an RPG group are just things that happen.

Note my liberal use of the word generally, in much of my commentary about casual players.

There will be outliers, of course. But they are outliers. We have seen booms and down turns in the hobby before. And we know the general trends that these things follow.

only my brother bought the hardcover books.

Which proves my wider point. Just like I was the only one in a group of 5 to buy the books. And both of our groups are outliers.

We are outliers in that we both have long term players to who stay with the group, And players who will engage with the RPG outside of the game session in a hobbyist fashion.

D&D is attracting a huge amount of casual players in this current boom.

This makes for some seriously impressive numbers of people that play D&D.

But there is a general difference, as even our two groups have shown; between the overall number of people that play D&D, and the number of those who actually buy the product that pays WotC's bills.

And one of those groups far and away outnumbers the other.

Wotc does not distinguish or attempt to weigh the responses of those two groups in its surveys that it uses to guide game development.

In my opinion:

I believe that is a mistake that will have long term consequences.

I think that the designers moving 5e to "easy mode", to the degree that they have, will have the long term effect of not retaining/converting as many new players as they think that they will into long term player/hobbyists, because of the increasing removal of challenge in the core D&D gameplay, when the current boom winds down.

 

[Bolares]

.... this thread took a weird turn

 

[BookTenTiger]

I didn't.

In fact I said:


CRPGs have been very influential in modern D&D, from game design, art, and to the gameplay assumptions of new players.

No one would deny that.




My commentary about Chris Cocks playing the game was solely about whether or not he currently plays D&D.

I stated no preference. And I do not care how people wind up playing RPG's. People arrive at past times and hobbies in different ways. How people eventually get to start playing D&D with an RPG group are just things that happen.

Note my liberal use of the word generally, in much of my commentary about casual players.

There will be outliers, of course. But they are outliers. We have seen booms and down turns in the hobby before. And we know the general trends that these things follow.




Which proves my wider point. Just like I was the only one in a group of 5 to buy the books. And both of our groups are outliers.

We are outliers in that we both have long term players to who stay with the group, And players who will engage with the RPG outside of the game session in a hobbyist fashion.

D&D is attracting a huge amount of casual players in this current boom.

This makes for some seriously impressive numbers of people that play D&D.

But there is a general difference, as even our two groups have shown; between the overall number of people that play D&D, and the number of those who actually buy the product that pays WotC's bills.

And one of those groups far and away outnumbers the other.

Wotc does not distinguish or attempt to weigh the responses of those two groups in its surveys that it uses to guide game development.

In my opinion:

I believe that is a mistake that will have long term consequences.

I think that the designers moving 5e to "easy mode", to the degree that they have, will have the long term effect of not retaining/converting as many new players as they think that they will into long term player/hobbyists, because of the increasing removal of challenge in the core D&D gameplay, when the current boom winds down.

But isn't this true about most hobbies and interests?

My mom is really into the San Francisco Giants. She always knows who's on the team, how they're doing, the latest drama.

My mom doesn't buy merch. She doesn't attend games. She doesn't really put much money in the pockets of the Giants or MLB.

I'd argue that 90% of baseball fans are like my mom.

Do you think that'll have "long term consequences" for Major League Baseball?

 

[Scribe]

I'd argue that 90% of baseball fans are like my mom.

Do you think that'll have "long term consequences" for Major League Baseball?

Not if the 10% that arent like your mom are whales and support the finances of MLB.

(Then again, its not really merch that keeps pro sports going is it, its the tv deals -> ads right?)

 

[Jaeger]

Not if the 10% that arent like your mom are whales and support the finances of MLB.

(Then again, its not really merch that keeps pro sports going is it, its the tv deals -> ads right?)

Totally different financial model. An apples to oranges comparison.