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

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Didn't those bookscan figures get published before most businesses would even have reported their sales at the end of the month? That is an easy how, as to why...

It was discussed widely when it was first "reported". What you say is ALSO true, but it's very common for books to show up in multiple places on BookScan reports, and if you don't go gather all of them together, you can easily "prove" that BookScan is showing that the book only sold a few units. Again, there's nothing wrong with BookScan. There IS something wrong with someone trying to pretend that they know that the PHB is selling badly by using a BookScan sales report fragment as "evidence".

 

[MothMayI]

I said nothing of the sort.

BookScan releases data that people who understand how to interpret the data can find useful. And we know that the piece that people have been quoting to make sales look bad IS NOT REAL DATA. It's a data fragment. It's an obvious fragment. So holding it up and saying that it means something is the BS, not the data itself. Not BookScan as a whole.

Okay, so the initial claims of the PHB selling poorly were based on incomplete Bookscan data. Does that not mean that someone who knows how to correctly interpret the information can provide an accurate portrayal of sales?

It's also worth noting that initial sales isn't the be-all end-all of whether 2024 5e is successful. It doesn't just need to do well, it needs to do well enough that future content also does well. Especially since they're going all-in on future content being for the 2024 version of the game. In a very real sense, the 2024 books have to do well enough to justify having turned their back on the best-selling D&D ever.

 

[The Soloist]

In a very real sense, the 2024 books have to do well enough to justify having turned their back on the best-selling D&D ever.

When an editor decides to create a new edition, it's because the sales have been declining for some time. If 5e was still going strong, they would not have lifted a finger.

 

[MothMayI]

When an editor decides to create a new edition, it's because the sales have been declining for some time. If 5e was still going strong, they would not have lifted a finger.

D&D's business model is selling more content to build upon the previous releases.

If, say, we have 50% of 5e players swap to 2024, then that 50% of players have to buy as much if not more future releases as previous releases sold to 100% of 5e players to make this business model make sense. Otherwise, even if the core books sell well, future content will underperform.

(I suspect this is the reason for the rush of third-party content on DDB as of late, with WotC realizing they'd be losing a lot of potential sales by only releasing content the majority of their users would not be able to use.)

 

[darjr]

When an editor decides to create a new edition, it's because the sales have been declining for some time. If 5e was still going strong, they would not have lifted a finger.

Sales were going strong. Compared to any other version of D&D, after ten years. It still sold well on Amazon. H*ck the 2014 book has a ranking it it's STILL one of the best selling RPG books on Amazon, with a ranking.

From retailers I hear that the 2014 book was selling very well for them right up until they couldn't get any more. The 2024 books are selling really well in comparison too.

Amazon.ca, which I grant isn't Amazon.com for the US, has the 2024 PHB STIL ranked fairly high. D&D 2024 is selling.

 

[The Soloist]

D&D's business model is selling more content to build upon the previous releases.

If, say, we have 50% of 5e players swap to 2024, then that 50% of players have to buy as much if not more future releases as previous releases sold to 100% of 5e players to make this business model make sense. Otherwise, even if the core books sell well, future content will underperform.

(I suspect this is the reason for the rush of third-party content on DDB as of late, with WotC realizing they'd be losing a lot of potential sales by only releasing content the majority of their users would not be able to use.)

It's not a closed system. New players enter the fray all the time. The 5.5 Starter Set coming out this Fall will take care of that.

Many groups want to finish their current campaigns before switching. In the past, I did that with every edition change. Sometimes it took 6 months.

It's too soon to tell how 5.5 will perform. 5e wasn't a break out success the first years.

 

[Desdichado]

I said nothing of the sort.

BookScan releases data that people who understand how to interpret the data can find useful. And we know that the piece that people have been quoting to make sales look bad IS NOT REAL DATA. It's a data fragment. It's an obvious fragment. So holding it up and saying that it means something is the BS, not the data itself. Not BookScan as a whole.

No, you're wrong. Everyone who's referred to the Bookscan data has been upfront about the limitations of it. Everyone knows that FLGSs don't report to Bookscan. It's simply bookstores and Amazon. That said, it's still useful because you can compare Bookscan data for two different books in the game industry both published by WotC that are sold only a few years apart and make a meaningful comparison. There's no reason to assume that everything else between them isn't holding constant. Therefore, if the new PHB is SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than Tasha's (it is) that actually means something. Your attempts to suggest that it doesn't, because... reasons and D&D Beyond wave your hand, or whatever (I don't actually know what your reasons are other than that you don't believe them and think that the data is useless because there was this one graphic novel that was categorized wrong this one time or something) are the ones that come across has having an agenda to put forward, not the people who refer to the data in their YouTube videos.

 

[darjr]

No, you're wrong. Everyone who's referred to the Bookscan data has been upfront about the limitations of it. Everyone knows that FLGSs don't report to Bookscan. It's simply bookstores and Amazon. That said, it's still useful because you can compare Bookscan data for two different books in the game industry both published by WotC that are sold only a few years apart and make a meaningful comparison. There's no reason to assume that everything else between them isn't holding constant. Therefore, if the new PHB is SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than Tasha's (it is) that actually means something. Your attempts to suggest that it doesn't, because... reasons and D&D Beyond wave your hand, or whatever (I don't actually know what your reasons are other than that you don't believe them and think that the data is useless because there was this one graphic novel that was categorized wrong this one time or something) are the ones that come across has having an agenda to put forward, not the people who refer to the data in their YouTube videos.

no.

Recent bookscan data for the PHB is terribly inaccurate and ridiculously low. Comically so. It just simply didn't pass the smell test that those recent numbers were anywhere accurate.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No, you're wrong.

Am I, though?

Everyone who's referred to the Bookscan data has been upfront about the limitations of it. Everyone knows that FLGSs don't report to Bookscan. It's simply bookstores and Amazon. That said, it's still useful because you can compare Bookscan data for two different books in the game industry both published by WotC that are sold only a few years apart and make a meaningful comparison. There's no reason to assume that everything else between them isn't holding constant. Therefore, if the new PHB is SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than Tasha's (it is) that actually means something. Your attempts to suggest that it doesn't, because... reasons and D&D Beyond wave your hand, or whatever (I don't actually know what your reasons are other than that you don't believe them and think that the data is useless because there was this one graphic novel that was categorized wrong this one time or something) are the ones that come across has having an agenda to put forward, not the people who refer to the data in their YouTube videos.

You're really not listening to me - and you're conflating me with other posters. For example: I've said nothing whatsoever about D&D Beyond. And yet, I've told you that I have DECADES of experience with looking at BookScan reports. The original YouTube video that showed the report that we're talking about (the one that showed only a few thousand copies sold) was used to claim that the books were selling poorly. Sure, they may have stated that the information was limited. BUT THEY STILL USED IT TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS.

I've told you multiple times: I'm not saying that you can't use BookScan to learn things about how things are selling (Why on earth would I have experience with BookScan reports if I didn't think that they were useful?) I'm saying that the specific report that was used in the initial discussion showed such a poor understanding of how to use BookScan to understand anything that it's NOT WORTH LISTENING TO. You can absolutely use BookScan to learn things. I do it all the time. That's my point.

And it's not "one graphic novel one time" as you're trying to suggest. It's how BookScan works! EVERYONE who uses BookScan knows this! There was no reason to hold up such an obviously flawed report and to try to say that it meant anything, other than to try to push that the PHB was a big failure.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

no.

Recent bookscan data for the PHB is terribly inaccurate and ridiculously low. Comically so. It just simply didn't pass the smell test that those recent numbers were anywhere accurate.

I can't believe that I'm being accused of a particular bias here. I'm not saying that I have no biases at all, but I don't when it comes to BookScan. (Nor do I particularly have biases when it comes to WotC. I love D&D, but if it were doing poorly, I'd be happy to say so!) What I have is actual knowledge.