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

[J-H]

100%

If D&D went under right now (and even assuming you only ever play "official D&D" and nothing else) there's still more content out than you'd ever use. Plus, you know, you could make stuff up.

This is true.

It is also a big challenge to monetization. WOTC wants to sell a big campaign book every year? My Baldur's Gate II campaign is around 55 3-hour sessions in, and the party is only level 11 (about halfway through). That's around 3 years of once per week play unless they decide to stop after Irenicus. I know WOTC likes to stop their campaigns at the halfway mark (around level 10-11 instead of letting people get to 20) but still, it takes a long, long time to consume this content unless you're a college student, retired, or in the industry.

I'm sure I have enough downloaded modules and written content on my HDD to run games for the next decade without paying a dime.

And of course that's why they're chasing electronic subscriptions, accessories, and other things. Maybe it's like Star Wars, where more of the profit comes from the toys than from the movies over time?

 

[Imaro]

they shout about the good things and try to sweep the bad under the rug, not really a difficult concept.

I can see how looking for the facts can feel like a negative light to those who want to celebrate D&D’s success, doesn’t make it that though

What actual facts though... there's alot of data interpretation with little to no context provided in the analysis... i.e. speculation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I enjoy their products as well... I mentioned that first.

Sure, but I assume you have a bunch of them already, so not getting more doesn't really affect your play like losing D&DB would.

 

[mamba]

What actual facts though... there's alot of data interpretation with little to no context provided in the analysis... i.e. speculation.

looking for facts does not mean they are easily available. Also, Mike Mearls did mention some facts, the conclusions you draw from them are obviously up to interpretation, but the facts themselves should not be

I’d have to look at their annual reports too, I believe overall D&D was essentially flat while BG3 income spiked, meaning that the game itself probably slowed down some. Not sure the data is sufficiently transparent to definitely say so however.

 

[Imaro]

Sure, but I assume you have a bunch of them already, so not getting more doesn't really affect your play like losing D&DB would.

Again it's a recreation/luxury item. You don't need any of it (the basic rules are free) so having more, at least for me, affects my players just as much as Beyond since the more product produced the more likely I'll find something I want among it.

 

[Imaro]

looking for facts does not mean they are easily available. Also, Mike Mearls did mention some facts, the conclusions you draw from them are obviously up to interpretation, but the facts themselves should not be

Ok... so we dont have actual facts as to whether D&D is doing horrible or great... that being the case i don't think its looking for facts that feels like a negative light... its the interpretation of said facts.

 

[AlViking]

What actual facts though... there's alot of data interpretation with little to no context provided in the analysis... i.e. speculation.

That's been my point as well. You used to be able to get somewhat decent numbers or at least see a general trend through a combination of sales rank on Amazon as well as numbers from other distribution channels. For various reasons we no longer have easy access to those numbers and with dndbeyond along with direct sales I'm not sure there's really any way to know. I wouldn't be surprised if the game is plateauing because it has to at some point but even if the growth stalls or goes slightly negative there are still more people playing today than were 11 years ago. Unless sales completely nosedive we just don't know, even quarterly reports don't mean much because of fluctuations in profits from things like Baldur's Gate III or startup expenses for products like Sigil.

It all reminds me of the parable of the blind men describing the elephant, with the limited information we have we just don't know.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again it's a recreation/luxury item. You don't need any of it (the basic rules are free) so having more, at least for me, affects my players just as much as Beyond since the more product produced the more likely I'll find something I want among it.

I don't really see the logic there, since you can't use material that doesn't exist but you definitely use D&DB on a regular basis (so the latter logically has more impact on play than the former), but ok.

 

[mearls]

I think in terms of predictions, my main worry would be something like the chain that led to 4e. Here's what went down with that:

1. 3e launches in 2000 and sells incredibly well. Star Wars d20, also released that year, is also a huge sales hit.
2. By the end of 2001, sales have trailed off. Work on 3.5 starts in early 2002 or so.
3. 3.5 releases in 2003. The changes to the game are kind of random and rushed, and are designed to make the D&D collectible miniatures line an integral part of the game.
4. The minis sell well, but D&D book sales slump back down after a brief spike. Initial concepts for 4e begin in 2004, driven by a pitch to shift D&D to a digital platform similar to World of Warcraft. The game enters full design in 2005, with a target release of 2008. The game's design is driven by MMO-style play and a reliance on miniatures.
5. Meanwhile, D&D miniatures costs start to go up and sales start to go down. During the same period, many companies launch MMOs to compete with WoW, but none come close to matching its success.
6. D&D 4e launches in 2008, sells great for a 3 to 6 month window, then craters.

Fundamentally, 4e failed because all of the plans around it were based on two things that proved wrong:

• The core game play of WoW was portable to other games. It wasn't.
• D&D miniatures were a sustainable, growing business. They weren't.

When a business becomes shaky or is shrinking, there is pressure to deliver a perfect, long-term plan immediately. That pushes you to overly rely on current trends and extrapolate them forward, rather than engaging in deep R&D to figure out a durable solution.

Part of 5e's success came from rebuilding the team's R&D capabilities. It's easy to forget, but in the years before 5e launched the D&D team won the Origins Award for best board game three years in a row. That patience paid off with 5e.

All of this is to say that what happens next depends on whether 5.5 is hitting its sales mark, and what that prompts Hasbro to do. My biggest worry is that there's a knee jerk reaction toward moving ahead with a radically different game design. If they perceive 5e as a dead end, they'll be under huge pressure to do something completely different.

All we can do is read the tea leaves, but seeing them go back to a product each month starting in July is not a good sign. It feels like something a team is told to do to make up for a budget shortfall. Do you have faith, given the rules issues in the 5.5 rulebooks, that giving the team less time to make mechanics is going to lead to higher quality products?

 

[Imaro]

I don't really see the logic there, since you can't use material that doesn't exist but you definitely use D&DB on a regular basis (so the latter logically has more impact on play than the former), but ok.

Because Beyond is the tool not the game... and the products impact the content of my game... Beyond impacts how my group inte r acts with said content.