D&D 5E (2024) Where Are All The New Books In 2026 (D&Dfans article)

[TiQuinn]

Well, nothing has been said by WotC. That information does constitute something to say, because it is out of the ordinary. We have no real information to inform speculation about why they haven’t said anything, but it is still noteworthy that they haven’t.

Yes, but I also recognize that the speculation in the absence of actual information is still just clickbait, which is ultimately my point.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but I also recognize that the speculation in the absence of actual information is still just clickbait, which is ultimately my point.

That is a pretty broadly damping definition of clickbait. It suggests that all speculation is ultimately crass and cynical and only exists to lure in the easily duped. And that is obviously not true on its face.

I think you are being notably uncharitable here. I just can't figure out why.

So I won't speculate.

 

[TiQuinn]

That is a pretty broadly damping definition of clickbait. It suggests that all speculation is ultimately crass and cynical and only exists to lure in the easily duped. And that is obviously not true on its face.

I think you are being notably uncharitable here. I just can't figure out why.

So I won't speculate.

It’s simply okay to disagree without attributing motives to one’s positions or claim they didn’t read the article…you know @Ruin Explorer - the actual bad behavior in the thread.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but I also recognize that the speculation in the absence of actual information is still just clickbait, which is ultimately my point.

The speculation here is based on evidence.

Evidence: Chris Perkins, Jeremy Crawford, and Jess Lanzio have all left WotC recently, and Dan Ayoub has recently taken over as VP of the franchise.

Speculation: Organizational changes may have delayed production.

Evidence: 2024 core books have not sold as well as WotC hoped (see lots of other sources discussing the specifics).

Speculation: WotC may have been counting on higher profit margins for the revised core books in their 2026 plans, and may have had to revise those plans as a result.

Evidende: Three short D&D Beyond digital products released this year.

Speculation: WotC may be waiting on sales and fan reception to these digital books before deciding whether it’s a strategy that’s worth pursuing with future products.

Evidence: Multiple products this year have faced printing and shipping related delays.

Speculation: WotC may be waiting longer to announce upcoming products than they have in previous years for fear of having to delay them past their initially announced release dates.

The only suggestion this article makes that isn’t based on any evidence is that maybe the 2026 products just aren’t ready yet. Which is kind of the only reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve one of the above points, so it seems to be there to cover the bases and admit that maybe the reason isn’t any of the above.

This is all speculation, yes, but it is pretty reasonable speculation, based on what we do know. And, all of this speculation seems to be of the “there’s probably a good reason they haven’t announced anything yet; any or all of these factors could be involved, no reason to assume this is a bad sign” variety, not the “something must be seriously wrong, everybody panic!” variety.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Ok now I have to ask, did you read the article? Because it seems like you did not.

Sure, I did. I wasn't speaking to the contents of the article. I was speaking of the reason it exists - the impatience we all feel because WotC didn't do their announcements yet.

The article's contents were fine, I agree - they just weren't that interesting to me because they are things I already know and agree with.

The article's main point is to discuss the reasons why WotC wouldn't have done it's usual thing of releasing a schedule,

As @Parmandur has pointed out in threads of this kind - it is NOT WotC's "usual" practice to release a schedule by now. It's just something that they have done for the past few years, so it feels like we are missing it. Before that, they revealed things closer to the dates.

What's impatient or unreasonable about the article exactly?

Did I say there was? There is a reason I said "We" not "the article's writer" when referring to patience. I was agreeing with it.

I have to admit, when I saw the headline, I rolled my eyes, but when I read the article, I was very surprised at how reasonable it was.

I did that journey too. I am glad you liked it, and fine with you defending it, but you seem to be overzealous in your defense.

Out of curiosity, have you read any of the other threads on the subject?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

it is NOT WotC's "usual" practice to release a schedule by now. It's just something that they have done for the past few years

What is your definition of "usual", Fitz?

Because "something someone typically does" is to me, the definition of "usual". And you seem to be saying exactly that WotC typically does this thing you're saying is not usual? Am I going insane?

"They didn't always do it" is fine but that's different from "it's not usual". Like, I "usually" visit a specific restaurant near me about once a week. That restaurant has only existed for like, four years, and I've only visited it for like two and a bit. Does that mean it's not "usual" for me to do it because some years ago, I didn't? You seem to be redefining "usual" as "always" here. I definitely agree WotC didn't always do it. But I don't think makes it not unusual that they've changed from the pattern of the last few years.

Did I say there was?

You strongly implied there was by talking about the need for patience, absolutely. Outright said? No. Hence me asking.

Out of curiosity, have you read any of the other threads on the subject?

On which subject, exactly? This article? WotC not announcing anything? Dark Sun specifically?

but you seem to be overzealous in your defense.

How so exactly?

 

[Parmandur]

What is your definition of "usual", Fitz?

Well, since I was summoned...

From 2014 all the way until October 2021, no 5E product was announced outside of the calendar year that it was released in. In October 2021, Call of the Netherdeep was announced for March 2022, which was a novelty, prior March releases having been announced in January. Then, in August 2022, WotC unveiled the following year's slate, and from then until Forge of the Artificer releasing we have known what is coming next.

So, to answer the question, for the last 4 years, it has been usual to have an idea of what is coming next, but from 2014 to 2021 the usual was to have little to no idea what was coming the next year, aside from reading the UA tea leaves or sorting through some WotC team members vagueposting. So this is a change from recent trends, but overall return to what was the norm for most of 5E.

 

[saviirkad]

It is not.

It's surprisingly well-written, and quite bad behaviour to mischaracterize it so badly. Especially the era of AI-slop articles which literally are algorithm-bait. If it was bait, it'd sensationalistic or controversial. It's neither of those things. If anything, it shuts down more OTT speculation or hand-wringing.

To be fair, while a lot of the more obvious clickbait is "sensationalistic or controversial," it's far from the only standard of clickbait. Another extremely common standard is "in the absence of news, make news about the absence."

There's nothing wrong with this article, per se. I mean it falls into some common traps like presenting some speculations as evidence, but it's fine. It's filling the void.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Another extremely common standard is "in the absence of news, make news about the absence."

I don't think that is a common definition of "clickbait", I'm afraid. Not saying it's an impossible or unreasonable one, but the word "common" has a meaning. Especially with "extremely" attached to it.

I looked it up to see if this was just me having a big blindspot or out-of-touch with how a word is used (it's happened before!) but seemingly no. Every definition of clickbait I can find revolves completely around sensationalism, emotion-driven stuff and intentional vagueness. None of which is present in this article. Indeed, it's surprising by its absence.

And reporting about things that used to happen but didn't is actually... fine? Good even? I think society would be better if there were more calm articles discussing why certain real things aren't happening anymore (rather than sensationalistic ones manufacturing stories like "CRIME IS OUT OF CONTROL!"-type stories when crime is on a steady decline).

I couldn't find any definition which matched yours.

Clickbait - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AlViking]

The speculation here is based on evidence.

I'm not so sure about that.

Evidence: Chris Perkins, Jeremy Crawford, and Jess Lanzio have all left WotC recently, and Dan Ayoub has recently taken over as VP of the franchise.

Speculation: Organizational changes may have delayed production.

The "evidence" is true but we have no idea what impact it's had. Supposedly the dynamic duo worked on a high level outline before they left, I see no evidence the people that took over their roles are not competent to see it through.

Evidence: 2024 core books have not sold as well as WotC hoped (see lots of other sources discussing the specifics).

Speculation: WotC may have been counting on higher profit margins for the revised core books in their 2026 plans, and may have had to revise those plans as a result.

We have no real evidence of sales one way or another and the purported "evidence" has been widely debunked. We just don't have numbers any more for Amazon sales for example (although the starter sets seem to be selling quite well) because of the change of category. We don't know how many sales have switched from physical books to sale on DndBeyond or VTTs. Online purchases require a subscription model which is generally more profitable in the long run.

The only people that know how well the books are selling is people internal to WOTC.

Evidende: Three short D&D Beyond digital products released this year.

Speculation: WotC may be waiting on sales and fan reception to these digital books before deciding whether it’s a strategy that’s worth pursuing with future products.

I honestly don't see any relevance, companies do trial balloons all the time and make decisions based on results.

Evidence: Multiple products this year have faced printing and shipping related delays.

Speculation: WotC may be waiting longer to announce upcoming products than they have in previous years for fear of having to delay them past their initially announced release dates.

This is true for a variety of reasons I'm not going in to, there have been issues with the publishers.

The only suggestion this article makes that isn’t based on any evidence is that maybe the 2026 products just aren’t ready yet. Which is kind of the only reasonable explanation that doesn’t involve one of the above points, so it seems to be there to cover the bases and admit that maybe the reason isn’t any of the above.

This is all speculation, yes, but it is pretty reasonable speculation, based on what we do know. And, all of this speculation seems to be of the “there’s probably a good reason they haven’t announced anything yet; any or all of these factors could be involved, no reason to assume this is a bad sign” variety, not the “something must be seriously wrong, everybody panic!” variety.

But I think @Parmandur has the right of it. The simplest answer is that they've rethought their strategy and are reverting back to what they used to do.