Ben Riggs Interview on the Death of the Golden Age

[Dire Bare]

I haven't read the entire interview yet, but had to stop here . . .

Ben Riggs: To give a quick historical example, the 4th Edition team was specifically told, “go and make a game influenced by World of Warcraft. Make a game that would be really easy for World of Warcraft players to go and pick up.” And they did. And it is the worst-selling edition of DND.

It's the only edition I have no numbers for. But every creator told me that that it sold worse than 3.5. And 3.5 sold worse than 3.0. And 3.0 sold worse than Second [Edition]. Second [Edition] sold worse than First [Edition] and there we are. The only edition to sell better than the one that came before it is 5th Edition.

I don't think this is true. At all. If I remember correctly from interviews with WotC folks, EVERY edition of D&D has outsold the previous edition, including 4E. Who are the "creators" who've told him this? WotC staff who would actually know?

Am I remembering incorrectly?

 

[Parmandur]

You would of course see a broader section of the gaming community than do I, but anecdotally I'm not sure I can think of anyone who came to D&D via videogames. I can, however, think of some who went the other way.

I played Bard's Tale, Wasteland, Dragon Wars, Interplay's lord of the Rings, Final Fa tasy...all over a decade before trying D&D. I would consider goijg from video games to TTRPGs to be the normal course of things for anyone born in the mid-80's forward.

 

[mamba]

I don't think this is true. At all. If I remember correctly from interviews with WotC folks, EVERY edition of D&D has outsold the previous edition, including 4E.

I mean, that is definitely wrong. 2e sold less than 1e, 3e sold more than 2e but less than 1e, 3.5 sold less than 3e. 4e probably was the low point.

The ‘sold more than’ might be true for the first 3 or 6 months or whatever, but it is definitely wrong when you look at lifetime sales

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You would of course see a broader section of the gaming community than do I, but anecdotally I'm not sure I can think of anyone who came to D&D via videogames. I can, however, think of some who went the other way.

People go both ways.

If anything, I think that more people are likely to go from BG3 to D&D than from Stranger Things. ST made D&D look like a cool thing to do in the 80's, but the audience that sees that isn't necessarily going to automatically think, "They still make that game - and I want it! And a demographic that watches TV (even a show like ST) isn't as closely related, taste-wise to D&D as a group that plays BG3.

BG3 IS a D&D game, played out as a video game, using (mostly) the current rules. It's not much of a stretch to say, "Hey, let's try the tabletop version of this game, it seems fun!".

YES, many many MANY more people play video games than will ever want to play D&D, but if even a PART of a PER CENT give it a go, that can actually be a LOT of people. (Same as Stranger Things, where a small part of the audience gave D&D a shot - but for D&D, that was a pretty big group of people!)

At any rate, I've actually had people come in and SAY that they are trying out D&D because of how much they like BG3! (This was true of Stranger Things, too, but not for years and years now.)

 

[Dire Bare]

Okay, this I believe, and this is a problem . . .

Ben Riggs: Encounter Party is kind of like Critical Role, but I would say they try and keep the table talk in-character, more than Critical Role does. They have 22 episodes. They are essentially available for free online, and Hasbro has done literally no marketing of them.

I spoke on this past Thursday to the D&D brand manager and head of licensing and marketing, who was “early retired” in December. Her name is Liz Schuh. One of the things she told me was around 4th Edition, their marketing budget got so small that they could no longer market individual products, they could only market the brand.

So, you wouldn't really see ads for individual releases, they would just do what they could to support the D&D brand. That started with 4th Edition and has not substantially changed through 5th Edition despite the success of 5th Edition, therefore, when they spend god knows how many millions of dollars producing their version of Critical Role, where they're flying people out to Los Angeles to record in sound stages, they spend no money marketing it and no money advertising it, and no one knows it's there.

I know for a fact that they have spent no money essentially promoting that product and the people involved in that product certainly noticed that no money was spent marketing their product.

Riggs makes some good observations and solid points throughout this interview, but also makes some leaps of logic that I cannot follow. Overall, his thesis that the "Golden Age of D&D is dead" is flawed. However, WotC/Hasbro is definitely making some serious errors in managing the brand.

But the thing that concerns me the most is this . . .

Ben Riggs: I should say very quickly, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. The world would be a grey and boring place if everyone was like “Riggs is right about everything all the time!”

But there were some rough things said by some people.

Disagree with Riggs all you want, I certainly do. But the folks reacting with anger, derision, and toxicity are a much bigger problem to our community than anything Riggs has ever said or wrote, or whatever happens to the "Golden Age of D&D". Including in this very thread. Grow up people.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Am I remembering incorrectly?

Nah, you're just listening to PR spin. (Nothing wrong with THAT).

The ‘sold more than’ might be true for the first 3 or 6 months or whatever, but it is definitely wrong when you look at lifetime sales

This part is correct. Every version of D&D (other than 5e) were more and more "front-loaded" than the last. 4e even outsold 3e (AFAIK, and definitely at my store!) INITIALLY, but died out quicker.

Lifetime sales is the Key here, and 5e wins handily, with 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e going in that order (again, AFAIK, based on information that appears to be legit - and I didn't believe it at first either!)

 

[Dire Bare]

Nah, you're just listening to PR spin. (Nothing wrong with THAT).

No.

A WotC staffer saying, "All editions of D&D have outsold the previous edition" isn't PR spin. It's either true, or lie. While I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly, I don't think the WotC D&D team is a bunch of liars.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Grow up people.

Who are you talking to? I haven't been in cesspools like Reddit or TwitX, and I wouldn't want to be Riggs in those places, so I absolutely believe him. But you're HERE. I don't see any of that stuff here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No.

A WotC staffer saying, "All editions of D&D have outsold the previous edition" isn't PR spin. It's either true, or lie. While I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly, I don't think the WotC D&D team is a bunch of liars.

No.

It's not "true or a lie". It's TRUE (if you only look at initial sales). They DID outsell each other, as I illustrate above, INITIALLY. But that's not the same as "over their lifetime".

Which number do you look at if you want it to look good for the current edition? The first.

 

[Dire Bare]

Who are you talking to? I haven't been in cesspools like Reddit or TwitX, and I wouldn't want to be Riggs in those places, so I absolutely believe him. But you're HERE. I don't see any of that stuff here.

Twice on Page 1 of this thread. Not calling out names.