D&D 5E restart or rewrite or new?

[Stormonu]

I'm actually very surprised they're suddenly doing so many settings - as noted, one of the big problems faced with TSR was that many if not most people didn't use any published setting and very few used more than one. So they were competing with themselves, turning a potential success into multiple failures. It's a surprise to see WotC doing the same again.

One-and-done versions I think will work, but when they start tying supplements to those, such as modules - that's where the real revenue split starts to occur, when you start getting into content that is only being picked up by a fraction of a fraction of your customers.

Example: Releasing the Strixhaven campaign setting only picks those with interest in that campaign setting. If the following 5E adventure "Through the Wimbly Woods" is just a 5E adventure, you'll have a fair number pick it up, with perhaps a small percentage being those running a Strixhaven campaign. If, however, the adventure was "Through the Wimbly Woods: A Strixhaven Campaign Adventure", you're only going to pick up people who A) are playing Strixhaven and B) are interested in a megadventure. The customer base will be a fraction of what it could be.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm actually very surprised they're suddenly doing so many settings - as noted, one of the big problems faced with TSR was that many if not most people didn't use any published setting and very few used more than one. So they were competing with themselves, turning a potential success into multiple failures. It's a surprise to see WotC doing the same again.

They are attempting to run sales on nostalgia. However nostalgia only gets you so far. Older fans likely already have material and have to be convinced to buy rather than convert their own. The Large Chunk of new fans have to be convinced to like dressed up old stuff or the play updated stuff not designed to run with the new material and modern mindsets.

Now WOTC isn't doing what TSR did. They aren't having setting cannibalizing each other. The settings have audiences. The situation now is them trying to sell old setting to new fans.

 

[edosan]

My feelings on updating the old settings is complicated.

When I first read the 5e PHB there was some bit in the front (sorry, it is not within easy reach) that alluded to all the old stuff coming back which I was totally excited about at the time but I have not liked their implementation. I was hoping more actual settings books than the "half setting, half adventure" mishmashes we got. I wanted a real Waterdeep book, not WDH. I guess someone looked at the sales numbers for SCAG and decided it wasn't worth the trouble but if I could get a real FR setting book, or a real Waterdeep book with 300 pages of info with some well-developed plot hooks and some nifty new art? Heck yeah, I'd be all over those.

But in the current format? No, I can get better fanmade content (from DMs Gulid or just off the Internet) that is closer to what I want so I'm not really that excited about a new book at this point.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm actually very surprised they're suddenly doing so many settings - as noted, one of the big problems faced with TSR was that many if not most people didn't use any published setting and very few used more than one. So they were competing with themselves, turning a potential success into multiple failures. It's a surprise to see WotC doing the same again.

TSR was putting out a large number of books for each setting. WotC seems to be putting out one, maybe two, for each setting, with one book being an adventure. So it's not quite the same.

 

[Jer]

They are attempting to run sales on nostalgia.

I actually don't think so. I think they were trying to run sales on nostalgia in the first part of 5e's lifecycle, but with what they're doing now it feels less "nostalgia driven" and more "revamp an existing IP for a new audience".

The difference between the two approaches is like the difference between Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios - in the comics they are absolutely trying to mine nostalgia to sell the same dwindling audience the stories they want to read. In the films, OTOH, they're taking those properties and figuring out how to change them to make them mass market successes.

Both approaches attempt to mint money from existing properties, but in the former case the target audience is an existing group of customers who will buy it because they've always bought it, and in the latter the target audience is folks who maybe know the property by reputation but have no real attachment to it currently. There are a lot more people in the second group for most older IP, and if you can convince them that Iron Man is actually a cool character they'll spend lots of money on Iron Man stuff, even if he's not the same Iron Man that folks in their 60s have been reading about since they were 10. The same idea holds for Spelljammer (or for that matter, Ravenloft, which definitely feels less to me like "nostalgia grab" and more "here's an older property we aren't doing anything with - let's see if we can get folks interested in it again").

 

[Composer99]

I'm actually very surprised they're suddenly doing so many settings - as noted, one of the big problems faced with TSR was that many if not most people didn't use any published setting and very few used more than one. So they were competing with themselves, turning a potential success into multiple failures. It's a surprise to see WotC doing the same again.

I am pretty confident that the 5e publishing schedule, even as it is increasing compared to early in the edition lifecycle, is a pretty strong case that WotC is definitely not replicating TSR's strategy with respect to settings.

Compare the setting books in AD&D to the books in 5e. Even granting that the AD&D page I've listed merges both editions into one page, I feel confident saying that most of the AD&D stuff happened during the 2e lifecycle, so there's no comparison (as far as I can see).

 

[TwoSix]

I am pretty confident that the 5e publishing schedule, even as it is increasing compared to early in the edition lifecycle, is a pretty strong case that WotC is definitely not replicating TSR's strategy with respect to settings.

Compare the setting books in AD&D to the books in 5e. Even granting that the AD&D page I've listed merges both editions into one page, I feel confident saying that most of the AD&D stuff happened during the 2e lifecycle, so there's no comparison (as far as I can see).

The way I've seen it explained is that WotC is publishing settings, but they aren't publishing setting lines like they did in 2E. They don't put out a setting core and then 10 other modules or books specific to that setting.

Now, they're operating on the assumption that most groups run games from 6-18 months long and then swap over to the next new thing, rather than just being an "Eberron" player or a "Forgotten Realms" player.

 

[Jer]

The way I've seen it explained is that WotC is publishing settings, but they aren't publishing setting lines like they did in 2E. They don't put out a setting core and then 10 other modules or books specific to that setting.

They don't need to anymore - they don't have a business model that requires them to sell X books every month to keep the lights on, and they have DM's Guild and the Adventurer's League both to support the new settings they create. People can get content for the settings, people can create content for those settings and get paid for it, AL generates even more content and brings people into playing the game, and Wizards doesn't have to do anything beyond release the setting book. They don't even have to publish Dragon magazine anymore - all of the stuff that would have gone to Dragon back in the day goes up on DM's Guild. TSR could only have dreamed of having a virtuous cycle working in their favor like that.

(It's astonishing to me to think how much the landscape has changed between the release of 5e and now.)

 

[TwoSix]

They don't need to anymore - they don't have a business model that requires them to sell X books every month to keep the lights on, and they have DM's Guild and the Adventurer's League both to support the new settings they create. People can get content for the settings, people can create content for those settings and get paid for it, AL generates even more content and brings people into playing the game, and Wizards doesn't have to do anything beyond release the setting book. They don't even have to publish Dragon magazine anymore - all of the stuff that would have gone to Dragon back in the day goes up on DM's Guild. TSR could only have dreamed of having a virtuous cycle working in their favor like that.

(It's astonishing to me to think how much the landscape has changed between the release of 5e and now.)

Not to mention the near-limitless amount of free material generated by the community and available online.

WotC just publishes setting books to establish a new type of genre material for the community, than all the other avenues fill in the gaps. It does work extremely well as a publishing model.

 

[Minigiant]

actually don't think so. I think they were trying to run sales on nostalgia in the first part of 5e's lifecycle, but with what they're doing now it feels less "nostalgia driven" and more "revamp an existing IP for a new audience"

Yes. It's 2 types of nostalgia. True nostalgia and the a false nostalgia of name recognition.

I just wish they attempted to create something that matches exactly want they are trying to sell instead of twisting old settings or Magic planes into them. Especially if they are being weak on variants and only offering background tweaks or new feats/subclasses.