D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What a wonderful world you live in. I think it was different prior to Tasha's, but the current team has shown me no evidence they actually want to make a better game, just one that makes more money.

Just because you don’t like the direction of the game doesn’t mean they don’t want to make a better game. Heck a “better game” should lead to more money, so just from a profit perspective you would think they want to make the game better.

I think the D&D team really loves the game and wants to make it better. They also want to be humble and listen to their fans: from surveys, feedback, and sales. I base that opinion primarily on their interviews, statements, and products. Other than not personally liking what they are making, what do you base your opinion on?

 

[darjr]

Mothballed?!?

There is a YEARBOOK!

 

[darjr]

In the same way a company might pay a groundskeeper less than a software architect, a company might budget less for an RPG development branch and much more for the 3D VTT development branch.

Do I think they could pour more money into the RPG branch, even without making more books? Yea, sure. Is it smart? I dunno. I do think a somewhat bigger budget for the RPG folks is a OK, especially for freelancers, as it seems. But enough to come close to that 3D VTT branch? Or the DnDBeyond branch? No.

I’d certainly love a lavish Monster Manual like Flee Mortals, but is an $80 core Monster Manual viable? I have argued that prices on rpg books should increase.

Or should WotC do that at a substantially smaller ticket price? And if they do would MCDM then be able to do what they did?

 

[Malmuria]

In the same way a company might pay a groundskeeper less than a software architect, a company might budget less for an RPG development branch and much more for the 3D VTT development branch.

Do I think they could pour more money into the RPG branch, even without making more books? Yea, sure. Is it smart? I dunno. I do think a somewhat bigger budget for the RPG folks is a OK, especially for freelancers, as it seems. But enough to come close to that 3D VTT branch? Or the DnDBeyond branch? No.

I’d certainly love a lavish Monster Manual like Flee Mortals, but is an $80 core Monster Manual viable? I have argued that prices on rpg books should increase.

Or should WotC do that at a substantially smaller ticket price? And if they do would MCDM then be able to do what they did?

The real question is whether committing so many resources not only to digital but to a specific idea of what digital looks like--the 3d VTT--is actually a good business move. Clearly they think it is, but maybe they previously thought a heavy release schedule was a good business move, and it wasn't. Their idea is to make dnd a $1B brand and they are taking a significant risk to make that a reality. As with all business risks, if it doesn't pay off in exponential growth, I don't think the result will necessarily be just a return to the status quo that we have now.

 

[darjr]

The real question is whether committing so many resources not only to digital but to a specific idea of what digital looks like--the 3d VTT--is actually a good business move. Clearly they think it is, but maybe they previously thought a heavy release schedule was a good business move, and it wasn't. Their idea is to make dnd a $1B brand and they are taking a significant risk to make that a reality. As with all business risks, if it doesn't pay off in exponential growth, I don't think the result will necessarily be just a return to the status quo that we have now.

Good question. It's certainly not what I would have done, at least in the same way. But BG3 was a similar kind of bet. If not exactly at the same scale internally for WotC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What a wonderful world you live in. I think it was different prior to Tasha's, but the current team has shown me no evidence they actually want to make a better game, just one that makes more money.

That however is a sad world you live in. Looking at people who seem dedicated to make a great game even better and just thinking they want to rob everyone of their money.
And also thinking that everyone who will give them money is too dumb to realoze that.

We know, you prefer 3rd party content. We know you just want more text and less art and just more complex rules.
Not everyone likes that.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Good question. It's certainly not what I would have done, at least in the same way. But BG3 was a similar kind of bet. If not exactly at the same scale internally for WotC.

I wouldn't have done it either - certainly NOT in the way that they have. On the other hand, I absolutely WOULD have put money into BG3. I could have told them that BG3 would be big. I'd have done it years and years earlier (obviously, it would have been a different game back then, but I'd have built UP to the current one!)

 

[mamba]

Good question. It's certainly not what I would have done, at least in the same way. But BG3 was a similar kind of bet. If not exactly at the same scale internally for WotC.

BG3 is a very different bet. We know CRPGs are popular, we know Larian games get good reviews, we know the Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 games established the series and are well regarded. All of this makes it a somewhat limited risk, and to top it all off, it is Larian taking the risk, not WotC, and they are experienced in making these kinds of games.

On the other side we have WotC hiring a huge team to churn out a 3D VTT when those have far less of a track record than CRPGs and WotC has much less of a track record with them than Larian with games. Yet the investment by WotC is probably bigger than Larian’s, despite their poor to nonexistent track record.

On the upside WotC is bigger than Larian, so WotC can survive what would kill Larian, but as an investment, Larian is the safer bet.

WotC stepping into VTTs was inevitable, they did not dip their toe in the water however, but jumped in head first. It certainly can work out, but it is more high risk / high reward than gradually building up to it

 

[Hussar]

BG3 is a very different bet. We know CRPGs are popular, we know Larian games get good reviews, we know the Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 games established the series and are well regarded. All of this makes it a somewhat limited risk, and to top it all off, it is Larian taking the risk, not WotC, and they are experienced in making these kinds of games.

On the other side we have WotC hiring a huge team to churn out a 3D VTT when those have far less of a track record than CRPGs and WotC has much less of a track record with them than Larian with games. Yet the investment by WotC is probably bigger than Larian’s, despite their poor to nonexistent track record.

On the upside WotC is bigger than Larian, so WotC can survive what would kill Larian, but as an investment, Larian is the safer bet.

WotC stepping into VTTs was inevitable, they did not dip their toe in the water however, but jumped in head first. It certainly can work out, but it is more high risk / high reward than gradually building up to it

Well, to be fair, how does one "dip their toes" into a VTT? Just copy what's already out there? I suppose that's an approach, but, since this is WotC, one would hope that their VTT will be a bit more than just what you get with Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds. And, really, the big investment was buying D&D Beyond.

To be fair, you're right. They are diving right in. But, since they are the industry leader, if they came out with some rinky dink VTT that was equal to the ones already on the market, that would hurt the brand wouldn't it? Isn't it fair to say that WOtC is held to a significantly higher standard than pretty much anyone else, simply because they are the big dog?

 

[mamba]

Well, to be fair, how does one "dip their toes" into a VTT?

start with 2d, build a core and build out from there… there are other 3d VTTs, but WotC has 10 times the number of people working on it…

And, really, the big investment was buying D&D Beyond

when all is said and done, the VTT probably will have cost about the same

Also, DDB was a viable business already, they bought the user base, not just technology

To be fair, you're right. They are diving right in. But, since they are the industry leader, if they came out with some rinky dink VTT that was equal to the ones already on the market, that would hurt the brand wouldn't it? Isn't it fair to say that WOtC is held to a significantly higher standard than pretty much anyone else, simply because they are the big dog?

yes and no, the current crop you can easily catch up to with a fraction of the investment WotC is making. There is some middle ground there.

Even if they were just essentially on par, they would draw attention and customers, just like their adventure books sell significantly more without necessarily being significantly better. They can always build from there without the giant upfront investment