D&D 5E 5e most conservative edition yet? (In terms of new settings)

[Ruin Explorer]

They didn't go from great to selling the company overnight.
They went bankrupt in '97 but were in a bad way during '95 and '96 as well.
Lots of companies file for bankruptcy and recover slowly. TSR filed and was immediately sold. They were in such a bad way recovery wasn't possible.

They famously wasted money on bad games. Like the Buck Rogers RPG and Dragon Dice.

Ryan Dancey on the Acquisition of TSR

I'm aware of all the history, thanks.

Buck Rogers literally cannot have cost them that much money, because there was very little actual publishing effort expended on it, and for all the "it sold poorly" I've read, which I'm sure is true, I've never seen "and yet they printed zillions of copies". In the paucity of copies suggests they knew it would sell poorly and didn't print that many. It's fair to point it out as a pointless and quixotic pursuit, but I'm not seeing it as a major part of the problem - rather a symptom.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In fact, 5e is less conservative than 3e and 4e, because they are going into new territory (MtG) and trying new partnerships (Critical Roll). That approach is paying off. They will keep doing that. Good for them.

We must have different definitions of conservative. Re-using existing settings from another, extremely successful, game, which cost little, and require very little creatively, seems like the very definition of "conservative" in the financial sense (not the political sense) here. Its cautious and low-risk. Likewise the partnerships have been carefully made with extremely popular brands to sell merchandised books. I can see that could be argued more reasonably as not "conservative" in a sense, because it's not something WotC have really done before, but its certainly in the same general space of cautious, low-risk, no-creativity decisions.

It'll help D&D's bottom line, which is great, but I kind of worry about D&D in 10-20 years if we just keep doing merchandise and MtG settings. I don't know if we'd be better off it was all re-hashed 2E/3E settings, to be clear, but I do think a broader mix of merchandise, re-hash and novel settings would be better for D&D's long-term health, especially going into the more digital future.

 

[darjr]

I'm aware of all the history, thanks.

Buck Rogers literally cannot have cost them that much money, because there was very little actual publishing effort expended on it, and for all the "it sold poorly" I've read, which I'm sure is true, I've never seen "and yet they printed zillions of copies". In the paucity of copies suggests they knew it would sell poorly and didn't print that many. It's fair to point it out as a pointless and quixotic pursuit, but I'm not seeing it as a major part of the problem - rather a symptom.

From what I’ve read it cost them a lot in licensing alone. It did seem like a scheme to line the pockets of the ceo.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From what I’ve read it cost them a lot in licensing alone. It did seem like a scheme to line the pockets of the ceo.

I'd be interested to know how much it actually was, but I guess we'll never know.

 

[darjr]

I'd be interested to know how much it actually was, but I guess we'll never know.

and it was only a small part of the pie of TSR fouling up at business.

 

[Jester David]

We must have different definitions of conservative. Re-using existing settings from another, extremely successful, game, which cost little, and require very little creatively, seems like the very definition of "conservative" in the financial sense (not the political sense) here. Its cautious and low-risk. Likewise the partnerships have been carefully made with extremely popular brands to sell merchandised books. I can see that could be argued more reasonably as not "conservative" in a sense, because it's not something WotC have really done before, but its certainly in the same general space of cautious, low-risk, no-creativity decisions.

It'll help D&D's bottom line, which is great, but I kind of worry about D&D in 10-20 years if we just keep doing merchandise and MtG settings. I don't know if we'd be better off it was all re-hashed 2E/3E settings, to be clear, but I do think a broader mix of merchandise, re-hash and novel settings would be better for D&D's long-term health, especially going into the more digital future.

a
I'm actually with @atanakar in this.

They're trying not to reprint books we've seen before.
And we have boxed sets for Stranger Things and Rick & Morty. That's pretty weird.
They have a Starer Set with one-on-one play. They're experimenting with streaming shows and big public events. They're toying with different formats of maps. Dice tins and accessories.

They're not just doing a PHB2 or a Big Book of Crunch that will sell well.

 

[Eltab]

If WotC ever decided to rejuvenate the 2e Historical Sourcebooks, Theros = kinda Classical Greece, and Nerath = kinda 'leaving the Dark Age'.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm sorry, economics is real mate. There are limits to what you can claim.

A company as incompetent as you want to suggest would have, exactly as I said, gone under in the early 1990s. Clearly some of their products were selling like absolute gangbusters if they were routinely selling other stuff below cost. Also one product selling below cost doesn't mean they all were, which is the suggestion I was responding to.

Yes, what goes up must come down: they went out of business for a reason.

 

[darjr]

The death blow was the return of all those dragon dice and hardback books that were in distribution. After that when the talks with Five Rings Publishing to buy them started.

 

[Parmandur]

The death blow was the return of all those dragon dice and hardback books that were in distribution. After that when the talks with Five Rings Publishing to buy them started.

True, but that was the death knell because of dozens of other dumb decisions.