D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[Parmandur]

If the claim had been "a lot of people believe (falsely) that 4e classes all have identical mechanics", then I would not have argued. A lot of people do believe that, due in no small part to oft-repeated claims on the Internet like the ones I have been rebutting.

The Classes in the PHB 1 were quite same-y. Identical is a bit much, but the variety factor was lacking.

We'll see how emphatic about backward compatibility they actually are when the anniversary books come out. But in the meantime, they certainly were not worrying about backwards compatibility in 2014 when did not so much avoid compatibility with the edition being replaced as shoot it in the head, cremate the corpse, and salt the ground where it had been standing just to be sure.

I mean, we already have playtests for the 2024 rules ongoing. The shape of things is getting pretty clear.

No need to be so dramatic.

 

[Minigiant]

Anyway, I suspect that you are right that that, as an individual product, would sell very well. However, WotC seem to believe that mixing up player-facing and GM-facing content in each (with the obvious exception of adventures) is better for the health of the gameline and therefore long-term sales than producing books that are entirely player-facing (or almost so), which a book with five new classes in it would inevitably be. Even if the latter type of book would sell better on its own. And I suspect they are probably right about that.

That said, their aversion to new classes in general is rather extreme

Nah.

It's because their GM content doesn't sell well alone and is often criticized.

 

[glass]

The Classes in the PHB 1 were quite same-y. Identical is a bit much, but the variety factor was lacking.

Every class's power set in PHB1 was utterly distinct; I do not believe there was a single shared power (EDIT: and even if this is not literally true, it is very close to it). But by all means do not let facts get in the way of your edition warring.

I mean, we already have playtests for the 2024 rules ongoing. The shape of things is getting pretty clear.

Really, I missed this news. Link?

_
glass.

 

[Maxperson]

I was thinking over the investment aspect that you touched on in a previous post. We know that of all TTRPG published only a small percentage return on investment. So were WotC to broaden their portfolio of 5th products, foreseeably they will have hits and misses.

For me it's important to keep in mind that investment in each project is not a guarantee of profitability, and at the same time, the more projects one has underway the greater ones ongoing expenses are. That implies that successful portfolio management will be a balancing act where one consciously wants to avoid having too many projects underway at any one time. One leaves money on the table - as some put it - in view of the risks of chasing that money.

Product development is always a gamble. Investment can be done at future risk by borrowing the money, or by reducing this year's profits, or by spending some of the accumulated profit from previous periods. Wherever the money comes from, their is a chance of not making a return. It would take more data to figure out, but it's possible WotC are investing the maximum that is reasonable to invest given the size and dynamics of their market.

Regarding the indie market, the numbers look something like this. Of each ten indies going into their own production, about seven will fail to break-even, two will break-even, and one will return on investment. Those three (and most likely that one) will be far better known than the failing seven. This may give the appearance that larger publishers should put more product into market (because of all those indie successes!)... but this is a false appearance. If they did so - if they greatly broadened their portfolios - they would have markedly diminishing returns and see more outright finanical failures. If they indeed put millions behind every one of those additional products, they would bankrupt themselves speedily, thus product quality would also dive (because they would not back them all equally.)

So were I including making as much revenue as possible (no opportunity untaken) in my definition for special, then I would need to understand this tightrope better to judge. It's very possible that WotC have taken an optimal position in regards to investment in new 5th edition products. And it's also possible that in doing so, they take the Nintendo position of aiming to guarantee players of their games higher quality products.

While much of what you just said is true, using the indie market as the litmus isn't the way to go for WotC. They are the literal elephant in the room. What would fail to break even or even result in a loss in an indie market product will be a profit maker for WotC, though perhaps not as much of a profit as they want to achieve on an individual product.

Given the popularity of 5e, I doubt anything they put out would fail to break even, and 95%-100% would make money to some degree. Add to that the research done by WotC and experience of the designers and company, they would very much be able to see which things a 3rd party is putting out would be something that they could take and use in an official product to great effect, even if that 3rd party product was failing to make money.

 

[Parmandur]

Every class's power set in PHB1 was utterly distinct; I do not believe there was a single shared power (EDIT: and even if this is not literally true, it is very close to it). But by all means do not let facts get in the way of your edition warring.

The lack of a shared power is a different issue, which is also a problem. I was speaking of the AEDU formatting, and I did note they weren6identical, just same-y. They achieved "balance" of a sort, at a tradeoff. The proliferation of same-y powers is entirely seperate, though existing int thst framework.

Really, I missed this news. Link?

Look at what is being published, and the UA the past couple of years. The revision is coming on apace.

 

[Parmandur]

Nah.

It's because their GM content doesn't sell well alone and is often criticized.

That's a bit backwards: DMs are the only people who buy books, both per WotC now and as indicated by the AD&D sales data that Ben Riggs surfaced recently. 5E products are aimed at people who buy books, not people who donbuy books, now that the experiments of player focused books fizzled in 3E and 4E.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The Classes in the PHB 1 were quite same-y.

I’m still struggling to see how fighter, warlord, wizard, cleric, and ranger, powers are remotely similar. They do completely different things.

 

[Imaro]

I’m still struggling to see how fighter, warlord, wizard, cleric, and ranger, powers are remotely similar. They do completely different things.

I agree with this, however that said it's the same mental model because (nearly) all classes were structured in the same way. So all had a power you used 1x a day, all had Y powers you used every encounter and then there were powers you used at-will regardless of your class. In other words while the individual powers were different in there effects, the high level model for picking them and how often they could be used were the same. I don't think any other D&D homogenized this for all classes in the way 4e did.

NOTE: I also don't think the way the 4e books were formatted did any favors in this are either... lists of powers and mirrored structure tended to give it an all running together, kinda it's all the same feel. IMO.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I’m still struggling to see how fighter, warlord, wizard, cleric, and ranger, powers are remotely similar. They do completely different things.

it's like how all spells are the same because they have casting times, saves and effects. Clearly.

 

[Minigiant]

That's a bit backwards: DMs are the only people who buy books, both per WotC now and as indicated by the AD&D sales data that Ben Riggs surfaced recently. 5E products are aimed at people who buy books, not people who donbuy books, now that the experiments of player focused books fizzled in 3E and 4E.

The hype behind books are from players. Strixhaven lost hype when the subclasses were cut. TCOE and XGTE are sales driven by player facing stuff.

The problem.of the past was that player facing stuff was in super niche stuff. You had to buy a whole book of a theme you won't touch again.

5e doesn't have the same demo as 1e 2e 3e and 4e.

Don't use the past to speculate the present as present D&D fans act very different from past ones.