D&D 5E State of D&D

I saw the Starter Set in Waterstones, which made me feel all 1980s. Getting mainstream.

Corpsetaker said:

How do you know it's back on top?

Click to expand...

I don't 'know it' (I'm skeptical by nature - though, it seems painfully obvious) it's just what the actual numbers we do have indicate. They're not complete numbers, but they're what we have to go on. They were good enough numbers for PF boosters when they showed PF beating Essentials in one quarter of 2010, but now that they show D&D trouncing PF quarter after quarter, they're limited value can finally be acknowledged. :shrug:

Don't forget that most of Pathfinder's sales comes from their own website and not rely on stores and sites like Amazon, even though they do sell their products through those.

Click to expand...

Yep, and they don't share those figures, and wouldn't obliged to share accurate figures even if they chose to, so there's no help there.

darjr said:

Where do you get "they are not working to grow"? The very strategy is designed to grow the hobby. And from my point of view its working. And it seems it's working generally.

Click to expand...

I wish someone would explain to me exactly how WotC are "growing the hobby" that differs from what they have been doing for the last 15 years.

Well for one they've shown a commitment to an edition that by design is supposed to last. Part of that is to invest in the longterm of the game instead of the short term splat tread mill.

Shasarak said:

I wish someone would explain to me exactly how WotC are "growing the hobby" that differs from what they have been doing for the last 15 years.

Click to expand...

For one, I'd say it's this very strong commitment to supporting the Adventurers League to a degree we've never seen before. The RPGA, back in the day, was very popular, but, you almost never heard about it. Small snippets in Dragon Magazine, the occasional bit on the website and that was it. Now, AL play is front and centre. The major releases are all tied specifically to AL play. They are pushing AL play every chance they get - and that's apparently the strategy for growing the hobby; create a venue for new players to come and try the game in as many places and as often as possible.

Previously, there was a sense that WotC was just releasing books into the wilds and then moving on to the next book. Now we get things like Chris Perkins doing live play at Con's, massive promotion of AL play, this new Epic Play (or whatever it's called) coming at the next Winter Ex. A lot more exploration of social media communication as well. Twitter, Facebook, the Dragon+ phone app. Plus tying all the different gaming venues - video games, board games and TTRPG into one big package.

Previous D&D board games, for example, had nothing to do with the TTRPG. I can't remember ever seeing a release of a video game like Sword Coast Legends directly with a module release. Now, whether it's successful or not is a different issue entirely. But, I'd say they are trying very hard, right now, to broaden the appeal of the game.

darjr said:

Well for one they've shown a commitment to an edition that by design is supposed to last. Part of that is to invest in the longterm of the game instead of the short term splat tread mill.

Click to expand...

No, I meant what are they doing differently. Not doing something is not actually the same as doing something.

Staffan said:

I think they do have Veggie Boy there, unless he left again. He posted earlier this year that he had taken a contract position as FR Lore Guy - though I guess that won't involve him doing crunch, more keeping track of fluff.

Click to expand...

Outside of standardized play, every game I have played in any edition throughout my life (started about 20 something years ago) has used DM fluff instead of official fluff for pretty much everything except gods. I realize a lot of people like the extra fluff, but unless it is tied to a god, I am quite certain I will never care. In fact, one of my favorite new rules from 5e is to reskin things however you like. I love it that I have that fluffy freedom.

We can all make up our own fluff without consequence, getting the crunch to work takes more of an effort to balance, and therefore many of us like to leave that task to the official publishers. I am disappointed by the lack of official crunch so far, but SCAG has helped.

Shasarak said:

No, I meant what are they doing differently. Not doing something is not actually the same as doing something.

Click to expand...

The play test was something, a huge effort, all while they were really selling nothing new game wise. Also just because they are not saying anything currently doesn't mean they are doing nothing. They are also paying writers for public play, that they haven't done in quite a while. I find the latest adventures really good, that also isn't nothing. The video game seems to have taken a bunch of their time, all of them, that isn't nothing, the new game wasn't a good use of their time, imho, but it is something. Neither are the novels. Not doing splats has meant they could have a lighter staff working on other avenues that, imho, are better at growing the game in tangential ways then another string of splats.

This seems to have given them breathing room to escape the short term profit motive, that in turn means the game could get a chance at a longer life. Which in turn, again imho, is reassuring to many that they are not buying into yet another soon to be previous version. That is growing the hobby.

edit: originally I'd used the word 'forgotten'. That wasn't what I meant, nor does it apply.

Laznabog said:

In fact, one of my favorite new rules from 5e is to reskin things however you like. I love it that I have that fluffy freedom.

Click to expand...

Technically, it's not that new. Sure, in 2e you needed a spell (Sense Shifting) to re-skin magic, and nothing else was really up for grabs that way, but even in 1e there were some weapons that would stand in for eachother (the scimitar also included saber & tulwar - stuff like that). In 3.x it was official that you could describe your character how you liked - so race and gear could be re-fluffed all you wanted. 4e took that to 'powers' (spells, maneuvers, magic items &c), as well - fluff & crunch were virtually independent of eachother, as long as you didn't change a mechanical keyword (so you couldn't change a spell into a maneuver, for instance).
5e's actually back-peddled from that level of re-fluffing, FWIW, there's more places in the rules where fluff and crunch are 'entangled' with eachother. But you can still do it, even as a player, and the DM has unlimited license to mess with the crunch, as well (also not new, but not something that had not been much encouraged in the prior two editions).

We can all make up our own fluff without consequence, getting the crunch to work takes more of an effort to balance, and therefore many of us like to leave that task to the official publishers.

Click to expand...

And the DM, of course - ultimately, how 'balanced' the game is, in play, is on his shoulders.

darjr said:

This seems to have given them breathing room to escape the short term profit motive, that in turn means the game could get a chance at a longer life. Which in turn, again imho, is reassuring to many that they are not buying into yet another soon to be previous version.

Click to expand...

Yes. Stability is a perk of slow releases and lower investment.

That is growing the hobby.

Click to expand...

Maybe slowing the rate of contraction. Growth generally requires riskier bets. DDI was risky, high-cost bid to grow the hobby, it crashed & burned. Encounters was a bid to grow the hobby, it didn't do so badly, and it hasn't been abandoned by AL, though it doesn't get the material support it used to. Besides, the only folks who are going to be gunshy about buying the next ed because the last few rolled so often or bloated so fast are established fans. New ones should be blissfully unaware of those issues.

the Jester said:

Speaking for myself, D&D is doing very well indeed. I have so many players that I am running two groups (averaging somewhere around 2.5 games/week) and may have to start up a third to accommodate some other folks who want in.

Click to expand...

Same. I have an active core group of 5 and another group of 3 and 7 that want to do drop-ins. If I was in my 20s again, I could run 3 sessions a week all in an original campaign setting. Interest among "non-geeks" is higher than I've ever seen it.