D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

None of that is investing significantly more than 2014.

I don't understand why you think that it is. To WotC it's just a brand refresh, and creating the new PHB/DMG/MM is likely costing them a similar relative amount to the original 5E ones, which is to say - not very much. They've only got 30 people working on them.

Trying new formats at higher prices indicates experimentation, it doesn't indicate investment. That's pretty simple. If you think it does indicate investment, you'll need to explain how. Historically this sort of experimentation is commonly seen just before a company gets into serious financial trouble. I don't think that will happen with D&D, but it is interesting - I suspect it means there's an exec out there who thinks D&D needs to make more cash, but isn't willing to put more money into D&D, so is having them twiddle with the format.

As for "internally vs freelancers", well, they've had about 30 people on D&D for a long time. They're not making significantly more books than they used to, nor are they making those books have more content - on the contrary for the last few years there's been a trend towards less content per book. So that doesn't indicate any significant investment that I can see.

It may be that WotC is spending, say, 20-30% more on D&D now than in 2014, but D&D has 300%+ more customers than it did in 2014, so I think it's fair to say that's not "significantly more".

Especially in the context of the 3D VTT. Let's assume D&D workers, and 3D VTT people are paid the same, cost the company the same - I doubt this, almost certainly the 3D VTT people are vastly more expensive, but let's pretend. Let's say each costs WotC $100k/year.

D&D has, last I heard, about 30 people on it, that's costing WotC $3m per year. The 3D VTT, according to Cynthia Williams, has 250 people on it. That's costing WotC about $25m per year - over eight times as much. Thus even if D&D had had 30 people on it from day 1, the 3D VTT project is going to cost more than the entire decade of D&D in 2 years of existing. Do you see the gigantic difference in investment and thus internal corporate interest? The 3D VTT is the sort of thing that makes and breaks corporate careers. D&D itself, as a game, is likely not seen that way inside WotC (however foolishly), I would suggest.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's weird to have more than 540 posts to answer no.

It's because the answer isn't entirely no, given what he actually describes in his post. Mothballed is the wrong word for sure, but deliberately limiting investment in whilst other related products get huge investment? For sure.

The comparison someone made to Monopoly was interesting and a little worrying. Monopoly is an awful unplayable game that sells solely through marketing gimmicks at this point. Quite successfully, I'd note - Hasbro are good at picking the marketing tie-ins and gimmicks, but let's hope D&D doesn't ever become that. A dreadful game, frozen in aspic, merely being sold with a new hat on, over and over.

 

[Older Beholder]

I'd certainly spend less money on art.

I think people underestimate the importance of art, particularly when it comes to inspiring/capturing imagination.
You've mentioned that you're not interested in art many times, and yet you're using someones art as your profile pic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Your desires for a faster release schedule is fair, I too miss the days of the TSR firehose . . . so many good products. But that strategy killed TSR.

WotC's decision back in 2014 to keep D&D releases slow and steady was brilliant and a part of the reason for today's unprecedented success for the game.

I feel like there's both a false dichotomy and a questionable premise here.

The false dichotomy is between an extremely slow release schedule, which is primarily the result of limited manpower and resources (WotC literally couldn't put out more books without significantly upstaffing the D&D team or using a ton more contractors), and the "TSR firehose".

It's not one or the other, is it? That's a huge middle ground between the two. You could double the number of D&D books per year and still be nowhere near the "TSR firehose", and indeed, but far, far below WotC's own "firehose" of 3.XE. Especially if we accounted for the fact that WotC used to have other RPGs than D&D, like Star Wars RPG.

Premise-wise:

part of the reason for today's unprecedented success for the game

That's pure [CITATION NEEDED] territory.

It's a totally valid opinion. No can say that's a completely unreasonable belief. But it's not a fact that's supported by any evidence we're aware of. AFAIK, it's just an unsupported but potentially-true belief. It's equally possible, I'd suggest, that it's had absolutely nothing to do with D&D's success, and that D&D might even have been at least more financially successful with more books.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

If the VTT does crash and burn, then they will likely can the project and that is likely the first we will know of it. That said, I do not really see how they can really monetize the brand without the VTT, or at least some popular software platform that everyone wants to be on/play, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think people underestimate the importance of art, particularly when it comes to inspiring/capturing imagination.
You've mentioned that you're not interested in art many times, and yet you're using someones art as your profile pic.

I'd personally concur. This is purely an opinion/anecdote, but over the years I bought countless RPG books because the art was badass. There's no way I'd have bought anywhere near as many Shadowrun or Earthdawn or White Wolf books if they didn't have such cool art. Or RIFTS, god, how copies of books did RIFTS sell solely on the basis of the artwork. Or Planescape or Dark Sun for that matter.

It's notable that when White Wolf lost Joshua Gabriel Timbrook (and who knows what the hell happened to him? Never been able to find out, nor seemingly has anyone else - he came back briefly for V20 but only did some work before vanishing again), and RIFTS lost Kevin Long, both games lost a significant amount of appeal for me.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Ugh. No thank you. That’s a huge rules bloat and turns 5e into 3e. Thousands of feats, a bajillion spells just feeding into all those casters and a bunch of books like Magic of Incarnum that two people actually use.

One crunch book every four or five years is my preference.

 

[Retros_x]

His rather flippant dismissal of the positive effects of a slower release schedule doesn't sit well with me. TSR made boxes, books, tie-ins with Diablo and StarCraft, and tons of other stuff, but that didn't guarantee a vibrant game. I also was of the impression that second edition AD&D collapsed under the weight of all the books and boxes for the game, overwhelming the customers and dividing their spending over too many products, making none of them profitable.

But then again, I might be biased since I enjoy a slow release schedule, so I might very well be wrong, and D&D would flourish if there were tons of more books.

Also his logic is not well thought through. He says that "slower releases are better" is not right because it would mean "by that logic the best product line would be no releases". That kind taking it to the extreme would mean in reverse that "faster releases are better" would mean "the best product line would be every second a new release". Obviously both of these are not true and the optimum lies in the middle. That people think this optimum middle is slower than 3e releases does not mean no releases is the best product line.

It kinda makes me mad that he uses these kinda stupid extreme comparisions that doesn't make really sense.

I also really wonder when people call 5e release schedule glacial. I don't know a single DM who uses all the material of a book before the next one appears. I just recently realized that I pay over hundreds of dollars per year for official 5e books per year, but most of the material doesn't appear in my campaigns or months, even years later after I bought them. I could never imagine that I would benefit more from a faster release schedule.

 

[Maxperson]

Ugh. No thank you. That’s a huge rules bloat and turns 5e into 3e. Thousands of feats, a bajillion spells just feeding into all those casters and a bunch of books like Magic of Incarnum that two people actually use.

That's just a bit hyperbolic I think. My 5e proposal would have resulted in 6-7 crunch books over 10 years. 3e had 36 in 8 years. Not even remotely close to being the same.

One crunch book every four or five years is my preference.

I can't argue against that. Preference is preference and we like what we like.

 

[SakanaSensei]

I'd personally concur. This is purely an opinion/anecdote, but over the years I bought countless RPG books because the art was badass. There's no way I'd have bought anywhere near as many Shadowrun or Earthdawn or White Wolf books if they didn't have such cool art. Or RIFTS, god, how copies of books did RIFTS sell solely on the basis of the artwork. Or Planescape or Dark Sun for that matter.

It's notable that when White Wolf lost Joshua Gabriel Timbrook (and who knows what the hell happened to him? Never been able to find out, nor seemingly has anyone else - he came back briefly for V20 but only did some work before vanishing again), and RIFTS lost Kevin Long, both games lost a significant amount of appeal for me.

Shadowdark and The Monster Overhaul were both purchases that were largely driven by the quality and style of their art, for me. They both happen to be very good, too, of course, but the art is inspiring.