D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[FitzTheRuke]

I don't think he's saying there are NO benefits. Instead, he's saying that the pace was already a bit slower than perhaps was necessary, and seems to be slowing even further. To argue "slow is good and slower is better" is, as he says, equivalent to arguing that stopping is best.

How is it "slowing further"? I haven't heard anything to that effect. And IMO your last sentence makes no sense at all. Saying "slow is good" does not mean "slower is better" far or less "stopping is best". That's gotta be some kind of logical fallacy.

 

[darjr]

OK. I think he picked bad phrasing.

What I think he's getting at is that the RPG isn't getting the lions share of the funding. And in his opinion it shows and WotC is doing it intentionally.

I think it's entirely possible that the lions share of the funding is now going to the VTT and DNDBeyond and then maybe the RPG. However I think that's just perception on our side, if Matt has more insider info, which he just might, we can only guess. However it does seem like that's the order of things from out here.

So if that's what he's getting at? I agree. I don't think it should be reflected in more products or even the products he mentions as missing. But I think a united leadership of D&D (which would cost money) and more time to develop ideas and develop products could be useful.

 

[mamba]

I think it's entirely possible that the lions share of the funding is now going to the VTT and DNDBeyond and then maybe the RPG. However I think that's just perception on our side

nah, it is much more than perception, there are several times more people working on the VTT than on all D&D books combined. No idea how many DDB has, but I would be surprised if it were much less than for the books.

 

[FallenRX]

OK. I think he picked bad phrasing.

What I think he's getting at is that the RPG isn't getting the lions share of the funding. And in his opinion it shows and WotC is doing it intentionally.

I think it's entirely possible that the lions share of the funding is now going to the VTT and DNDBeyond and then maybe the RPG. However I think that's just perception on our side, if Matt has more insider info, which he just might, we can only guess. However it does seem like that's the order of things from out here.

So if that's what he's getting at? I agree. I don't think it should be reflected in more products or even the products he mentions as missing. But I think a united leadership of D&D (which would cost money) and more time to develop ideas and develop products could be useful.

HE likely does, a Senior lead designer on 5e published under him, and worked on KnW.

 

[Staffan]

I think it's entirely possible that the lions share of the funding is now going to the VTT and DNDBeyond and then maybe the RPG.

That sounds eminently reasonable, particularly the VTT. Building a good VTT, with lots of graphics and sound assets, is going to take a lot more people than you need to make RPG books.

 

[darjr]

To clarify, I don't think the book side getting more funding should result in the things he points out or notes as missing. But I do think it could use more funding to give the creatives more time to create.

Like what happend with the magic of 5e in the first place.

 

[Parmandur]

OK. I think he picked bad phrasing.

What I think he's getting at is that the RPG isn't getting the lions share of the funding. And in his opinion it shows and WotC is doing it intentionally.

I think it's entirely possible that the lions share of the funding is now going to the VTT and DNDBeyond and then maybe the RPG. However I think that's just perception on our side, if Matt has more insider info, which he just might, we can only guess. However it does seem like that's the order of things from out here.

So if that's what he's getting at? I agree. I don't think it should be reflected in more products or even the products he mentions as missing. But I think a united leadership of D&D (which would cost money) and more time to develop ideas and develop products could be useful.

I think clearly the RPG is not getting most of the money...but a good RPG line is fairly darn cheap to produce, in the grand scheme: look how many indies are doing it! But it is getting more money, because they have more people working on it than theybdidna short time ago.

More money may actually be going to projects like getting D&D into schools, which is better for the game as a hobby than producing a few more splats, IMO.

 

[darjr]

That sounds eminently reasonable, particularly the VTT. Building a good VTT, with lots of graphics and sound assets, is going to take a lot more people than you need to make RPG books.

Yea, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if that's the order of funding. As long as the creative/writer side gets what they need and or deserve.

Though I have to admit creatives (or the writers really) getting the small pile of funding sounds all to familiar now a days.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

OK. I think he picked bad phrasing.

What I think he's getting at is that the RPG isn't getting the lions share of the funding. And in his opinion it shows and WotC is doing it intentionally.

I think it's entirely possible that the lions share of the funding is now going to the VTT and DNDBeyond and then maybe the RPG. However I think that's just perception on our side, if Matt has more insider info, which he just might, we can only guess. However it does seem like that's the order of things from out here.

So if that's what he's getting at? I agree. I don't think it should be reflected in more products or even the products he mentions as missing. But I think a united leadership of D&D (which would cost money) and more time to develop ideas and develop products could be useful.

That all makes sense though - the RPG is doing "fine" with the staff they have (and AFAIK they have increased staff from the lean days) but they're trying to branch out the brand into other areas, VTT, video games, etc. So the newer staff works on the newer stuff. But that doesn't take away from the RPG. It just leaves it as-is.

The only thing he's right about is that the RPG doesn't seem to be INCREASING in output, which is really, really different from "being mothballed". It's business as usual.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How is it "slowing further"? I haven't heard anything to that effect.

It's been nearly two years between major, player-facing publications. Even if we take a fairly expansive definition, between Strixhaven and Glory of the Giants, there was one "player"-related book...full of reprinted races. That's it.

How is that not a slowing of player-facing publication?

And IMO your last sentence makes no sense at all. Saying "slow is good" does not mean "slower is better" far or less "stopping is best". That's gotta be some kind of logical fallacy.

Taking away premises has a tendency to render an argument illogical, yes. This shouldn't be shocking.

The syllogism is exactly as I said it:
Slow is good
Slower is better
Therefore, slowest is best.

And what is the slowest possible publication speed? Zero. Stopping.