D&D General Former WotC Employee Greg Bilsland Returning to D&D?

[UngainlyTitan]

Well people are still using some of those 4e tools, albeit with a hefty helping of piracy.

Fair enough but nothing to do with whether WoTC will make radical changes to D&DBeyond to accommodate similar changes in the structure of a new edition of D&D.
The utility of the tools to us is not the same as their utility to WoTC management.

 

[darjr]

In terms of sheer possible outcomes in the physical world? Yup, sure, possible.

Just seems unlikely, and every product thst gets added to Beyond (now third party optiona added frequently!) and sells well adds just a bit more difficulty to the business case for radical change for change sake.

I certainly would appreciate a stable version of D&D. I think it gives it a steady state growth instead of the feast or famine. And with how well the PHB sells, yes even the 2024 one, it’s larger than and steadier than any other edition (lumping all of 5e together).

But as seen with the 3D vtt level of investment isn’t the priority. H*ck even Gleemax and the 4e tools showed us that.

I do agree that starting from scratch would be a huge hurdle and I’d think that would be important to WotC/Hasbro.

 

[Parmandur]

I certainly would appreciate a stable version of D&D. I think it gives it a steady state growth instead of the feast or famine. And with how well the PHB sells, yes even the 2024 one, it’s larger than and steadier than any other edition (lumping all of 5e together).

But as seen with the 3D vtt level of investment isn’t the priority. H*ck even Gleemax and the 4e tools showed us that.

I do agree that starting from scratch would be a huge hurdle and I’d think that would be important to WotC/Hasbro.

Certainly wise to never underestimate the human capacity to make mistakes, but I think that the success of the 2024 rules may have given "stable D&D" the sort of "escape velocity" needed to get away from the gravity of potential major rule revisions.

 

[Yaarel]

Certainly wise to never underestimate the human capacity to make mistakes, but I think that the success of the 2024 rules may have given "stable D&D" the sort of "escape velocity" needed to get away from the gravity of potential major rule revisions.

I think the six abilities are still "vulnerable" to improvement.

 

[Nikosandros]

Well, if we look at History, it is a natural evolution. First, we had War Communism, then the NEP followed and later we had the five-years plans.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I just don't think that a 5 year plan is nonsense just because it has room to change and develop and adjust and morph. As long as it still follows some sense of the "broad strokes", it's still an effective plan. Heck, even if it winds up ending nowhere near where it began, it doesn't mean that the plan wasn't worth developing in the first place. Nor that it was actually thrown out. Just that it was flexible.

That seems like a huge change from "They'll follow the existing 5-year plan that the previous employees set up" which seemed to be your previous position, but okay.

I just don't think that what you're describing is a meaningful plan in most actual cases. It's usually a real plan for 1-2 years, and then suddenly 1-3 years in, there's another, different 5-year plan (which is also not being followed in the end lol).

Well, if we look at History, it is a natural evolution. First, we had War Communism, then the NEP followed and later we had the five-years plans.

I was really hoping someone was going to mention this lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But you were arguing that a plan that looked like "Book A. Book B. Book C." was too much of a plan.

Five years of that? Yes that is far, far, far too much of a plan, and further it is, by the accounting of Ray Winninger himself not how WotC operates. According to Winninger, who should know, they very regularly cancelled planned or possible books and added new ones to the line up and so on.

I also don't know why you think I'm "devoting time to defending it".

With respect, it very much continues to look like you are, and that your entire position appears to be "Okay maybe this 'plan' is totally malleable and vague but it will nonetheless keep D&D on track for five years!". Is that not your position? Because to me expecting this plan to not be torn up and thrown away by early 2027 and replaced by different planning just seems completely unrealistic.

"Book A; Book B" is not precise.

If it goes on for five years? Yes it is pretty excessively precise actually. It's kind of ludicrous to make a five-year plan at all in this sort of situation, unless you fully expect to ditch it and re-plan 1-2 years in - and then you still need to ask yourself why you're doing it and how realistic it is.

To me, that's what a 5-year plan IS. It's still a plan.

To me that's some wank (and I don't direct that term at you at all, but at this kind of faux-planning time-wasting) that someone's exit plan required them to do, but that's completely and totally meaningless beyond the next 12-24 months.

Let me ask you a question? Do you honestly believe this "5-year plan" (still very funny to use this term in this context as @Nikosandros alluded to) will still be "in use" in, say 2028 or 2029? Because I just do not for one cold second believe that. It will have been chucked.

Just look at Sigil. Under Williams leadership, that was a massive project which was clearly having significant influence on D&D's future. Now? Pffftt, it's basically a bad demo that got released and will be forgotten shortly. That's a lot less than five years - more like, what 2 and a bit? Which is about how it goes.

It's not like this is a single, complex, time-consuming project they're slowly building up (like building an office block or something). It's just a publishing schedule.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it gives it a steady state growth instead of the feast or famine.

So three questions.

1) Is that actually more profitable to WotC/Hasbro to have "steady state" rather than large bursts of sales from new editions followed by decline?

2) Do you think shareholders agree?

3) Is it even true that it does "achieve steady state growth"? Because I'm not sure there's actually particularly clear evidence for that. "Better than previous editions" sales of the PHB is an extremely low bar, given how much larger the playerbase is now - and the playerbase didn't primarily grow during "steady state", it grew before it. If anything, it seems like playerbase growth may have stalled, given WotC have stopped talking about it (not proof, but suggestive).

 

[darjr]

So three questions.

1) Is that actually more profitable to WotC/Hasbro to have "steady state" rather than large bursts of sales from new editions followed by decline?

2) Do you think shareholders agree?

3) Is it even true that it does "achieve steady state growth"? Because I'm not sure there's actually particularly clear evidence for that. "Better than previous editions" sales of the PHB is an extremely low bar, given how much larger the playerbase is now - and the playerbase didn't primarily grow during "steady state", it grew before it. If anything, it seems like playerbase growth may have stalled, given WotC have stopped talking about it (not proof, but suggestive).

Monopoly steady state sales makes them very happy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

if the development of a product takes around 2 years, you cannot just release the 'next installment' in 6 months, so capitalizing on anything is not that easy

That doesn't track at all. Just because you can't do it in six months, doesn't mean you can't capitalize. That's a completely baseless and non-logical assertion.

You just have to capitalize later - like videogames tend to. Taking 2 years to capitalize is a lot better than taking, say, 5, which is what would take if you have a big hit 2 years into a 5-year plan and insisted on mindlessly following that plan.