D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

Remember, this is straight out of Maro's mouth.

70 (75?) percent of Magic the gathering players, via their own polling/focus groups, DO NOT KNOW what a Planeswalker is.

I will go to my grave dismayed over such a statistic, but I have no reason to believe he is lying.
I see no reason to be dismayed tbh. Most players I’ve ever met have been “buy boosters if we happen to go to the game store and play casually when other players come over” type players.

Personally I’d rather play with them than with players that are nose deep in the lore and the “meta” and whatever.

I think his claim has always been that most MtG players are just random folks playing at home.
Which should surprise no one, bc that’s true for most hobbies.

I was being a bit hyperbolic. What I mean to say is, he’s talking about people who play magic, not, like, magic hobbyists, which is who my mind initially went to.
Isn’t someone who regularly plays magic and spend some amount of money on it every year…a magic hobbyist?

Most hobbyists are casual hobbyists. In any hobby.
My man.

The largest RPG company, with the biggest reach, with the most resourcing, conducted polling/survey/study.

They found, that calling it PHB 2, was factually confusing the market.

You may choose to presume that RPG players are somehow a breed apart from other gamers.

I however, choose to believe they are people, and 'people' are...well people.
The thing that bugs me is…not being savvy to the hobby’s history and such…literally doesn’t indicate anything about intelligence.

Like forget whether wotc should cater to the majority of their fans (they generally should, but not always), it’s really irritating me to see someone constantly make arguments based on the assumption that anyone that isn’t aware of D&D book naming conventions is an idiot.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I see no reason to be dismayed tbh. Most players I’ve ever met have been “buy boosters if we happen to go to the game store and play casually when other players come over” type players.

Well you see because I...

Personally I’d rather play with them than with players that are nose deep in the lore and the “meta” and whatever.


Sad Rain GIF by WE tv
 


Haven't read the whole thread yet, just the OP and initial responses, but I think calling it "mothballed" is a slight misunderstanding of the situation.

As I understand it, the situation is more like this:

1) D&D 4E was not a success in the eyes of WotC, but had been required to be a success, or else D&D was going to get mothballed. WotC invested more in 4E than they had in 3.5E, it seems, particularly in tech (this blew up for complicated reasons, but mismanagement was bigger than murder among them).

2) Somehow, the designers/D&D team at WotC convinced the execs not to mothball D&D, but to "go small" instead. 5E wasn't required to be a success like 4E was, because it was designed to spend a lot less money.

3) 5E was designed as an "apology edition", in attempt to get the maximum number of customers back - not just those lost to 4E, but also those lost along the way, with a focus on elegant and accessible design that was also evocative of earlier editions (sometimes this arguably went too far, c.f. controversies around the Ravenloft campaign and Volo's).

4) 5E was designed to have a slow and limited release schedule, minimizing costs and risks, and maximizing ROI (though not necessarily maximizing profits, which might require heavier investment).

5) 5E got extremely lucky and hit a cultural wave caused by multiple factors (not least a bunch of '80s and '90s kids getting into writing/directing/showrunning, the rise of podcasts and streaming, '80s and '90s nostalgia, and so on), and absolutely ballooned in success, far, far beyond what had been expected by WotC.

6) WotC did not really react to this initially. Indeed, the slow release schedule and so on were maintained, despite big sales. When WotC did react, rather than investing a lot more in D&D itself, they chose to invest in digital, specifically developing the infamous 3D VTT, and actually after starting work on that, purchasing D&D Beyond (something that had been predicted for a couple of years before it happened).

7) A very large amount of money has been poured into digital, but it doesn't look like much more has been poured into D&D generally. The release schedule has recently sped up, but not by very much (despite WotC suggesting it would).

8) The digital strategy appears to be essentially a return to 4E's digital strategy, just with like, 10-20x as many staff (and thus 10-20x+ as much money) involved. There also appears to be some possible internal competition or conflict between Beyond and the 3D VTT, depending on who you believe.

9) WotC has made some other efforts to improve the value of the D&D IP (the D&D movie, various seemingly-failed attempts at TV series, etc.), though ironically the only one which has really totally panned out is BG3, which was started back far into "apology edition, zero investment" times. Again, none of this seems to be focused on D&D itself, just the broader IP.

So what does this mean?

I think it means not that WotC are "mothballing" D&D, but rather, they're simply no more interested in investing in D&D itself, in 2023, than they were in 2014, or rather only a little more, despite D&D 5E succeeding wildly more than they expected. This is also, I think, why 2024 has been very clumsily handled and not very well-directed. WotC as an organisation just doesn't care. They assume it's fine. It's just a way of getting a bit more money out of consumers with what they see essentially as a "brand refresh", rather than any real attempt to improve the game, so they're happy to let the game designers approach it however they want so long as it's cheap, but not willing to invest a ton in market research or whatever.

What WotC likely does care about is the success of Beyond and the 3D VTT, both of which I think they see as having much more long-term earning potential than D&D itself. Cynthia Williams claimed the 3D VTT has 250 people working on it (which is not implausible given the scope and nature of the project). Contrast this with the 30 or so working on D&D itself. If the 3D VTT crashes and burns after release, then we might see a more genuine "mothballing" of D&D, especially if there's any temporally close drop off in D&D sales, because I think it'll be attributed to D&D "running out of steam" or the like.

WotC at that point may just leave 5E alone to toddle along - that's the best case scenario for many people. Or they may genuinely mothball it, and end production of all but a few "evergreen" books and perhaps bits and bobs published digitally on Beyond. Or, if they see the overall D&D IP as valuable but dropping in value (which they might well), they may attempt to sell off the entire IP. If so, and they're successful, I'd strongly expect a videogame company, probably MS (given their extremely close links to Hasbro and WotC top brass) to purchase the IP.
 

More opinion than metric, but looking at the sales curves of 3e, 4e and 5e, that is what I assume

What is your opinion on what the right release schedule is?
For me I think 1 book like Tasha's and Xanathar's a year to year and a half is good. The rest can be adventures, monster books, settings and whatnot. Hell, they don't even have to increase the total release rate if you guys think it's currently good. Just turn 1 adventure or setting into a Xanathar's each year or so.
 

They are making a whole new set of core books while they develop adventures, internally. How is that not investing more than 2014?
They have ramped up substantially the folks working on the pen and paper game. How is that not ramping up more than 2014?
They have begun to sell, themselves, digital bundles with the books. How is that not ramping up more than 2014?

Internally they were calling 5e the "pink slip edition" because it was supposed to be the last edition with a five year plan of evergreen books and then let it just be, like monopoly. Is monopoly mothballed?

They are trying different formats with these new releases, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding (well hopefully). How is that not investing more than 2014?

They've brought much of the development of the books internally vs large swaths of freelancers. How is that not investing more than 2014?
 

And I'm not sure the 3e and 4e release schedules were unsustainable. Did they maximize profit? Probably not. But I haven't heard anyone claim they were losing money on them – only that they weren't making enough money for their corporate overlords.
When you read sources such as Slaying the Dragon, one thing that becomes very clear from interviews with the folks involved is that WotC was very aware of what killed TSR, and remain very wary of making the same mistakes. And though TSR suffered from mismanagement for basically its entire history, the heart of its financial problems has a LOT to do with becoming reliant on an unsustainable publication schedule.

As for "enough money for their corporate overlords": :rolleyes:

Setting aside the cheap pop, trying to grow your product and increase sales is what businesses do, whether a mom and pop store or a big company like Hasbro. If they are doing it unethically, that's bad. But doing it by changing their publication strategy? The horror! Those monsters!
 

If the 3D VTT crashes and burns after release
You raised a number of good points, but I wanted to single this one out: even if the VTT does crash and burn, it won't necessarily be obvious (at least, to casual perusal). Unless it's an absolute dumpster fire in the worst possible way, which doesn't seem likely, it'll probably be more like two or three years of not living up to executive expectations rather than anything else. Much like with 4E's DDI, where even though the issues were visible up front, they weren't so bad that it wasn't able to limp along for a few years.
 

That is one thing they'll need to tread carefully on for Christmas 2024: how would a gift buyer who is largely ignorant to the different D&D books know the difference between the 2014 PHB and the 2024 PHB. At some point, I feel like they need to find something slightly different to call it to avoid confusion.
Here's an idea. They could just call it what it is and label it 5.5e. ;)
 

Remove ads

Top