D&D General Ray Winninger on 5e’s success, product cadence, the OGL, and more.

[Micah Sweet]

I think there are two levels publishers have to be concerned about 2014 vs 2024 5E rules. There is the reality level, how different are the rulesets from each other really? And then there is the perception level of reality. How are consumers looking at the difference, and how do I as a publisher help clear up confusion rather than add to it?

If I design a product using the 2014 rules . . . it's perfectly compatible with 2024 D&D products. If I design a product using 2024 rules, it's MOSTLY compatible with the older 2014 products, I'd want to add a sidebar on using subclasses and species with the older rules. But overall . . . yeah, it's all compatible!

But, regardless of the reality . . . if my consumers perceive a major difference between the 2014 and 2024 rules, than can affect my sales if I lean one way or the other. So what do I do? How do I design my next product, and how do I address the two different rulesets?

During the 3E era, I remember being surprised at how many folks in the community, both fans and publishers, treated 3.5 almost like an entirely new game. To me, the differences were not significant and I wasn't bothered by the "3.5 update" at all (as a fan, I'm not a publisher). But there was the perception the two versions were incompatible enough to invalidate earlier purchases, and this had an impact on the publishing community.

It's why WotC has tried to muffle language making the two 5E rulesets as significantly different. They are not calling the new rules "5.5" or "revised" or anything really . . . which I think was a mistake, as it obviously punts the ball to the community, and we are all over the place with how we are viewing the new rules and what we are calling them.

To me WotC are the ones generating that feeling of invalidation of earlier purchases, because they printed books design to replace the ones you already have. The differences may not be large, but they numerous and pervasive. Anyone looking at both PHs will see obvious differences from the get-go. You can't hide that, and you shouldn't IMO try.

 

[WinningerR]

No. The initial print run for any product is based on its project sales. You want to print as many as possible to get the cheapest printing cost per copy and the best deal on shipping.

The PHB went to a second printing within a quarter of its release because WotC couldn't print as many PHBs as quickly they wanted, despite engaging multiple printers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly? I think it's because the OSR community already knows that they are a minor splinter group of the overall TTRPG community, so they just feel like that if they have this one thing in common, they should just stick together and work around any issues.

Whereas as we all know... WotC D&D is the giant pool in the TTRPG and a whole lot of people have tied their identities to being "D&D players" and have to remain a part of it. But at the same time, they also would prefer to use game rules they actually like. So the only way to have both those things work out for them is for them to hope/demand that WotC write the D&D rules to match what they think D&D should be. That way they can get both-- be a vibrant member of the D&D community and also play a D&D game they are happy with.

If WotC doesn't write their rules that way? Then the person feels like they have no choice but to not to play, and then they complain that they've been "left behind".

Technically speaking, they have been left behind. It just might be inevitable for different portions of the fanbase, because people want different things.

 

[darjr]

The PHB went to a second printing within a quarter of its release because WotC couldn't print as many PHBs as quickly they wanted, despite engaging multiple printers.

Confirmation of this is wonderful. Thank you!

 

[SlyFlourish]

Yikes, if that is what @mearls is talking about I am glad D&D is not following those strategies! However, I am guessing he was thinking of something different.

I can't speak for him but on the interview Mike did with Stan!, he talked about how Magic has like seven ways to play and Warhammer has even more but there's really only one way to play D&D and yet there could be many more. It's a pretty interesting thought. I think there has been some attempts with things like miniature wargaming products, the board games from a while back, and others – but those don't quite feel the same.

It is interesting that there's only the one version of D&D and yet we do see a fair bit of popularity with Old School D&D and yet it takes an (awesome) independent producer like Kelsey Dionne to come up with Shadowdark. Shadowdark was all over the gaming convention I was just at. Imagine if WOTC had tried to tap that market?

 

[mearls]

The PHB went to a second printing within a quarter of its release because WotC couldn't print as many PHBs as quickly they wanted, despite engaging multiple printers.

So did the 4e PHB.

 

[darjr]

I can't speak for him but on the interview Mike did with Stan!, he talked about how Magic has like seven ways to play and Warhammer has even more but there's really only one way to play D&D and yet there could be many more. It's a pretty interesting thought. I think there has been some attempts with things like miniature wargaming products, the board games from a while back, and others – but those don't quite feel the same.

It is interesting that there's only the one version of D&D and yet we do see a fair bit of popularity with Old School D&D and yet it takes an (awesome) independent producer like Kelsey Dionne to come up with Shadowdark. Shadowdark was all over the gaming convention I was just at. Imagine if WOTC had tried to tap that market?

I mentioned this to Mike before. I think this is wrong. I think D&D is played in many different ways. Just look at the debates about what’s needed fixing and you get an idea that people’s tables vary a lot. I think D&D does best when it is more flexible for different play styles too.

In fact I’d bet many of the issues with the new core books is they are leaning towards a certain play style.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not based on Kickstarter revenue, they're not.

But we're not talking about Kickstarter revenue, are we?

 

[SlyFlourish]

I mentioned this to Mike before. I think this is wrong. I think D&D is played in many different ways. Just look at the debates about what’s needed fixing and you get an idea that people’s tables vary a lot. I think D&D does best when it is more flexible for different play styles too.

In fact I’d bet many of the issues with the new core books is they are leaning towards a certain play style.

That's fair. There are a lot of house rules zipping around. Lots of ways to play. Theater of the Mind, heavily gridded combat, online, offline, small groups, large groups.

I do think the new rules are less flexible for lots of different styles of play even if they did focus on the most common way to play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Technically speaking, they have been left behind. It just might be inevitable for different portions of the fanbase, because people want different things.

Heh heh... yeah, but that's why they keep complaining and going on and on about what should have happened. In the tiniest of hope that WotC changes their mind at some point and turns the game back around to the way they want it.

It's not going to happen of course... but better to hang onto that distant hope than have to admit that Dungeons & Dragons isn't the game they are a part of anymore.