WotC Chris Perkins announces Retirement from Dungeons and Dragons

Over on Twitter and Bluesky, Chris Perkins has announced his retirement from Dungeons and Dragons.

Chris Perkins started officially working for Wizards of the Coast in 1997 as an Editor for Dungeon Magazine. Since then, he has functioned as the Editor in Chief of D&D Periodicals, A Senior Producer, and eventually landing as the Senior Story Editor over D&D 5e and Game Architect on D&D 5e 2024.

He also is known for acting as one of the Dungeons Masters for Acquisitions, Incorporated.

Personally, I'll miss the guy's work.

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisperkinsdnd.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3llyvdjkphk2p

 

[EthanSental]

What else would he say? There's plenty of evidence that that take isn't odd at all, and it's kind of the darling topic of the DungeonTuber community right now. If the take's so odd, why are so many people making it?

I'm not saying that I think that they're right; I honestly don't care enough to have investigated to form any kind of opinion. But you can't really say that a common take is an odd take; that is itself an odd take, given the prevalence of people who are interpreting what evidence there is that 5.5 isn't performing very well.

Well considering most are basing it on Mike mearls vague and uninformed sales data comments and running with it, yes an odd take by mearls, and we have Wotc and now Chris Perkins saying it’s selling great. I’d rather believe those with the sales data for now until we see the actual sales data or change in 5.5 future If it’s not selling well.

 

[Desdichado]

Dragonborn might be SRD now, but I'm still suspicious of WotC's stuff unless/until they fulfill their promise re: putting past editions in the Creative Commons (I am not confident they will do so, to be clear.) So given Iomandra was deeply steeped in 4e stuff, yeah, I'm not at all confident Perkins would be able to publish it without massive changes...which, I mean, having to make massive changes would kind of kill the project, I suspect.

Maybe, but publishing it as compatible with 4e would kill the project too, so it needs changes anyway.

 

[Desdichado]

Well considering most are basing it on Mike mearls vague and uninformed sales data comments and running with it, yes an odd take by mearls, and we have Wotc and now Chris Perkins saying it’s selling great. I’d rather believe those with the sales data for now until we see the actual sales data or change in 5.5 future If it’s not selling well.

That's not the only data point that they're referring to. Many of them don't even mention that at all.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That's not the only data point that they're referring to. Many of them don't even mention that at all.

Speaking as someone who sells D&D books for a living, and I don't have Worldwide Data to share, just anecdotal data from my own store and discussion with my local distribution, but... I think that anyone who tries to claim that 2024 books aren't selling well are trying to push an Anti-WotC agenda. I'm not a Hasbro fan, but I can't see any way that there's any truth to it. The 2024 books are selling GREAT by any measure that I can access.

 

[Alzrius]

Speaking as someone who sells D&D books for a living, and I don't have Worldwide Data to share, just anecdotal data from my own store and discussion with my local distribution, but... I think that anyone who tries to claim that 2024 books aren't selling well are trying to push an Anti-WotC agenda. I'm not a Hasbro fan, but I can't see any way that there's any truth to it. The 2024 books are selling GREAT by any measure that I can access.

I'll point out that there is evidence to the contrary, anecdotal though it might be:

• The Bookscan data (covering major book retailers and Amazon) saying that the 2024 PHB only sold a few thousand copies in its first week.
• The new books failing to come close to Tasha's Cauldron of Everything on the USA Today bestseller list.
• D&D not being mentioned in Hasbro's earnings report for 2024.
• Being told that 3.6 million D&D 2024 characters have been made on D&D Beyond, which sounds like a lot until you remember that platform has 19 million users. (It's unclear how many of those are active users, the same way it's not clear if those 3.6 million characters were each made by different users or if some users were making multiple characters.)
• The new books not placing on Amazon's sales rankings (note that they're apparently classified as "toys" instead of "books" now, and I'm not sure if toys have a sales ranking the way books do).

 

[The Soloist]

t... I think that anyone who tries to claim that 2024 books aren't selling well are trying to push an Anti-WotC agenda. I'm not a Hasbro fan, but I can't see any way that there's any truth to it. The 2024 books are selling GREAT by any measure that I can access.

Thank you for that!

I would add, that we do not have the digital numbers for sales via DDBeyond. Many people no longer buy physical books. I wonder that the ratio is, 50/50? or more digital sales than physical ones?

 

[darjr]

Speaking as someone who sells D&D books for a living, and I don't have Worldwide Data to share, just anecdotal data from my own store and discussion with my local distribution, but... I think that anyone who tries to claim that 2024 books aren't selling well are trying to push an Anti-WotC agenda. I'm not a Hasbro fan, but I can't see any way that there's any truth to it. The 2024 books are selling GREAT by any measure that I can access.

I’m hearing and seeing similar things.

 

[MothMayI]

• Being told that 3.6 million D&D 2024 characters have been made on D&D Beyond, which sounds like a lot until you remember that platform has 15 million users. (It's unclear how many of those are active users, the same way it's not clear if those 3.6 million characters were each made by different users or if some users were making multiple characters.)

I'm curious as to what would qualify as a 2024 character in this context. Do they count a character that is incomplete, not fully finished? Does it count any 2024 content on the character as being a "2024 character"? Or does it go off of specific criteria?

I'd also point out that a.) anyone can make a 2024 character, since the Free Rules exist, so it's not a great metric of success, and b.) WotC has made it infuriatingly hard to make a 2014 character instead of a 2024 character, so it's possible some of those characters weren't even meant to be 2024 characters.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm curious as to what would qualify as a 2024 character in this context. Do they count a character that is incomplete, not fully finished? Does it count any 2024 content on the character as being a "2024 character"? Or does it go off of specific criteria?

I'd also point out that a.) anyone can make a 2024 character, since the Free Rules exist, so it's not a great metric of success, and b.) WotC has made it infuriatingly hard to make a 2014 character instead of a 2024 character, so it's possible some of those characters weren't even meant to be 2024 characters.

No idea. I just know that in Jes Lanzillo, WotC's VP of Finance and Product for D&D, revealed in an interview on January 13th that "...over 3.6 million characters have been made on D&DBeyond with the 2024 ruleset, there are over 19 million registered users on D&DBeyond..."

(I've edited my post above to reflect that DDB has 19 million users rather than 15 million.)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'll point out that there is evidence to the contrary, anecdotal though it might be:

• The Bookscan data (covering major book retailers and Amazon) saying that the 2024 PHB only sold a few thousand copies in its first week.

That was reported, but was absolute BS. It wasn't even POSSIBLE for it to be true. It was a very, extremely obvious mistake.

• The new books not placing on Amazon's sales rankings (note that they're apparently classified as "toys" instead of "books" now,and I'm not sure if toys have a sales ranking the way books do).

They don't.

IMO, Your points are even less reliable than my anecdotes. They're cherry-picking lies and impossibilities (and a few confusing, but possibly meaningless facts) to support a negative narrative that just doesn't line up with I see as reality. I'm not saying YOU'RE responsible, but you do seem to be "falling for it", if only far enough to perpetuate it, like you do here.