7 Years of D&D Stories? And a "Big Reveal" Coming?

When asked what he was working on, WotC's Chris Perkins revealed a couple of juicy tidbits. They're not much, but they're certainly tantalizing. Initially, he said that "Our marketing team has a big reveal in the works", and followed that up separately with "Right now I'm working on the next seven years of D&D stories". What all that might mean is anybody's guess, but it sounds like there are plans for D&D stretching into the foreseeable future! Thanks to Barantor for the scoop!

 

[Jester David]

Your math works. But the overall evaluation has problems with assumptions.

You are presuming the tradeoff is roughly linear. If 100 people will buy 1 book and 70 people will buy three, then you are better off selling three.

Again, it depends on the sale cut-off. If you need to sell 50 copies to even cut even, then the 1 book is still the more profitable choice.
The more you split the audience and spread out sales, the less money you make until you're selling lots and lots of books but losing money. See TSR as an example of this.

There is no reason to presume it is three 100-pg books vs one 300-pg book.

4e and to a lesser extent 3e was dominated by lots of small 160-page books focused on small segments of the audience. Martial Power and Arcane Power and Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane. Or even The Complete Fighter's Handbook from 2e. All mid-sized books focused deliberately on a small sub-section of the audience. A single 320-page book would have had less content than three Powers books, but if it focused on all three types of class, it might have sold better than any one of the other books. While total sales might have been less than all three books combined (as the price point would have been higher) it should be significantly more profitable.

If 100 people buy 1-book this year and 30% of your market is playing other games that attracted their attention in the past year, then you are losing ground.
And that kind of decline can quickly spiral even people loving the situation move on for lack of supporting community.

If your fans leave that suddenly for other games, then you have larger problems.
Plus, we haven't seen any correlation between number of releases and audience retention. 4e had monthly released but hemorrhaged it audience.

If people aren't having fun playing now, there's no reason to believe they'll have more fun with twice as much content or when they feel obligated to pay more. Regular DLC doesn't encourage people to keep playing a videogame they don't enjoy.

 

[BryonD]

If your fans leave that suddenly for other games, then you have larger problems.

Lack of adequate support is one possible "larger problem".
If we presume for sake of argument that 5E is a generally good and popular game and has no other "larger problems", you can still argue that there will be constant new options and competitions for people's time.

Lake of adequate support is a "larger problem" all to itself.

Plus, we haven't seen any correlation between number of releases and audience retention. 4e had monthly released but hemorrhaged it audience.

As you pointed out other "larger problems" can also be the source of audience loss. But it is faulty logic to say that because high release failed to save a game with an small fanbase that low release can not be detrimental to a game with adequate fanbase.

If people aren't having fun playing now, there's no reason to believe they'll have more fun with twice as much content or when they feel obligated to pay more. Regular DLC doesn't encourage people to keep playing a videogame they don't enjoy.

True. But it has nothing to do with my point.

As to the rest: you are still basing everything on the presumptions that the overall market is stable. And that is a very bad assumption.

 

[Sailor Moon]

4e and to a lesser extent 3e was dominated by lots of small 160-page books focused on small segments of the audience. Martial Power and Arcane Power and Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane. Or even The Complete Fighter's Handbook from 2e. All mid-sized books focused deliberately on a small sub-section of the audience. A single 320-page book would have had less content than three Powers books, but if it focused on all three types of class, it might have sold better than any one of the other books. While total sales might have been less than all three books combined (as the price point would have been higher) it should be significantly more profitable.

A small release schedule would not have saved 4th edition. It was the rules themselves that people didn't like, not the amount of content that was put out.

More content also allows you test the game in new ways. Everyone likes to test out new classes, or subclasses, or feats etc..

One thing 3rd edition did wrong was it put out content that made other content either redundant, or contradicted it. If the road 3rd edition was going down was so bad then how come is spawned a game that took the number 1 spot in RPG's?

 

[BryonD]

4e had monthly released but hemorrhaged it audience.

I'd also add that Pathfinder has monthly releases and at going on six years is almost certainly the gold standard for success in a modern RPG.

I do NOT suggest that the monthly schedule is a significant factor in that success.
I do suggest that it didn't hold it back.

The monthly schedule may in fact be helping. It may be that slightly less would be even better. It seems unlikely that their very heavy release schedule is a negative element.

It is also worth noting that their mix of APs to fluff heavy campaign material to crunch heavy material is very much to the former.
One serious crunch book per year plus a monster manual (or alternate similar cousin ) plus the two AP support pdfs (assuming there is now precedent) plus a small monthly L&L would be on the order of PF.

 

[Hussar]

Of course. There is a lot more to it than that, but if you want to sum it up in a few words you want more people to buy your product than not.

*cough*Apple*cough*

Apple iPhones sell a fraction of Google Android phones. Yet, Apple is valued as one of the highest valued companies in history.

 

[Hussar]

A small release schedule would not have saved 4th edition. It was the rules themselves that people didn't like, not the amount of content that was put out.

More content also allows you test the game in new ways. Everyone likes to test out new classes, or subclasses, or feats etc..

One thing 3rd edition did wrong was it put out content that made other content either redundant, or contradicted it. If the road 3rd edition was going down was so bad then how come is spawned a game that took the number 1 spot in RPG's?

What does number 1 spot mean when WOTC is not producing any product at all? Big fish in a small pond does not make you a big fish. Did Paizo rocket up to top spot, or did WOTC's sales shrink to the point where Paizo took top spot?

Time will tell.

 

[BryonD]

*cough*Apple*cough*

Apple iPhones sell a fraction of Google Android phones. Yet, Apple is valued as one of the highest valued companies in history.

Ok, so what is the lesson learned for D&D?

What individual company sells more android phones than Apple? How does the combined value of Android phone companies compare to Apple?

Are you advocating the WotC should want *fewer* players? (They already had that)

 

[BryonD]

What does number 1 spot mean when WOTC is not producing any product at all? Big fish in a small pond does not make you a big fish. Did Paizo rocket up to top spot, or did WOTC's sales shrink to the point where Paizo took top spot?

Time will tell.

What evidence do you have that the RPG market shrunk? Are you saying that 4E managed to shrink the entire industry that badly that it was used to be a big pond and now it is a small pond?


If the entire pond stayed the same size, WotC's share shrunk and Paizo was the biggest one, then that is comparable. It is possible that the pie is more evenly divided. But, then again, you just[/] pointed at Apple as an example when their product is being compared to competition across numerous other companies.

So, if being the biggest one in the same total pond is not a good thing, then your standards are biased.
If you are saying 4E shrunk the pond, then your view of 4E is far worse than mine.

 

[Jester David]

Lack of adequate support is one possible "larger problem".
If we presume for sake of argument that 5E is a generally good and popular game and has no other "larger problems", you can still argue that there will be constant new options and competitions for people's time.

Lake of adequate support is a "larger problem" all to itself.

Ah yes, the "adequate support" buzzword, a vital part of the "not enough product drinking game". Because there's an amount of support that is exactly adequate and will make everyone happy. No one seems to know what that is or agree, but they know the almost monthly products we've seen are not "adequate" and we need to keep churning out product like Goldilocks with an eating disorder testing porridge until everyone is agreed we have reached "adequate" for everyone.

As you pointed out other "larger problems" can also be the source of audience loss. But it is faulty logic to say that because high release failed to save a game with an small fanbase that low release can not be detrimental to a game with adequate fanbase.

Do you have an example of a game with a low release being detrimental to one with an adequate fanbase?

More content also allows you test the game in new ways. Everyone likes to test out new classes, or subclasses, or feats etc.

Actually, I find new classes detrimental, as they dilute the archetypes of the core classes and generally lead to overspecialization. I was exceedingly happy with Paizo when they said they were going to limit new classes and exceedingly disappointed when they decided to reverse that decision and churn out new classes.
And, there's no shortage of classes already in the game for me to test. More than I will ever be able to use. With a dozen classes and at least two subclasses for each, you could run four 1-20 campaigns without seeing a subclass repeat itself. And I very much doubt anyone will be able to run four 1-20 campaigns before WotC releases an expansion. Heck, according to their last survey, most people haven't even hit level 10 and they've already released one new archetype and seven new races.

One thing 3rd edition did wrong was it put out content that made other content either redundant, or contradicted it. If the road 3rd edition was going down was so bad then how come is spawned a game that took the number 1 spot in RPG's?

Pathfinder took the #1 spot in part because it was solid and in part because people were leaving D&D. More people just left D&D than went to Paizo. Had all the people who left D&D but didn't switch to Pathfinder had instead bought, say, 13th Age, that would have handily become the #1 RPG. And Paizo managed to take the #1 spot before they switched to monthly content. Heck, they held onto the #1 spot for well over a year before they opted to make the Player Companions monthly.

I'd also add that Pathfinder has monthly releases and at going on six years is almost certainly the gold standard for success in a modern RPG.

Pathfinder reference. And drink!

Paizo grew into monthly releases (beyond APs). It did not start with them. When they launched the RPG and took the #1 spot they were barely releasing more content than 5e is (and much of that was world specific).
And the monthly content from Paizo has become increasingly unnecessary. I've all but stopped buying Player Companions as the content I'll use in them has dropped to zero. Pathfinder is a success for Paizo. It's a success for a company that has set the bar much lower and is happy with whatever they get for as long as they get. Paizo the company almost went under several times before Pathfinder, and things looked very bad when 4e was announced. Any month they remain in business is a triumph. WotC likely views D&D with slightly higher expectations than "not going under" or "lasting one year longer".

5e needs to last as long as possible. I doubt WotC will give the D&D RPG a fifth chance to succeed.

I do NOT suggest that the monthly schedule is a significant factor in that success.
I do suggest that it didn't hold it back.
The monthly schedule may in fact be helping. It may be that slightly less would be even better. It seems unlikely that their very heavy release schedule is a negative element

Has it held it back in the short term? No.
Has it held it back in the long term? Maybe.

Pathfinder is running out of steam. After this coming summer, there's not a lot of need for new hardcovers, and the player companions, monster books, and most of the campaign books have already become unnecassary. The edition is pretty much done (if not already tapped out). All they have left is their setting; Paizo has become the Golarion company.
Had they held off on monthly releases, they could have survived for a couple more years before they had to gamble on a revised edition. And boy will that be a gamble.

And that's the catch. An RPG can support a finite number of releases. There's no hard number, but a game cannot continue indefinitely without revision. The faster you release product the faster you hit that finite number and the game collapses in on itself. Settings can last longer, as can adventures. But the game itself can only manage so many books.

One serious crunch book per year plus a monster manual (or alternate similar cousin ) plus the two AP support pdfs (assuming there is now precedent) plus a small monthly L&L would be on the order of PF.

And that seems like a perfectly *ahem* adequate amount of content. And there's a very real possibility that's what we're getting. I would not be surprised if they yanked all the sublasses from the Adventurer's Handbook to release a larger (and much more tested) Big Book of Subclasses and options this summer. Really, a single book of subclasses expanding on the PHB is really all we need and cover all the basic archetypes and concepts. And in 2016 the crunch book could be psionics.

Well, I don't think we need an annual Monster Manual. Pathfinder has managed to do a good job keeping those going by having NPC and monster statblocks, but that wouldn't work as well for 5e. After 3 monsters books things get a little ridiculous and the books become pure filler. A new monster book every other year would be fine.

Which gets back to my "board game style releases" thread, where, after a certain point, they should just stop releasing new accessories and try alternate products. When you're trying to cobble together a Magic of Incarnum or pad out the monsters for a fifth Monster Manual the content is just no longer worth it. What it adds is no longer benefitial.

 

[Jester David]

What evidence do you have that the RPG market shrunk? Are you saying that 4E managed to shrink the entire industry that badly that it was used to be a big pond and now it is a small pond?

Well, we know how many PHBs sold during 3.0 and 3.5e. And we know that 4e somehow outsold 3e on its launch. And we know how many Pathfinder Core Rulebooks have sold and that every year Paizo sold more Pathfinder CRBs than the year before.
The number of CRB was around half the number of 3.0 PHBs. So the number Paizo sold several years earlier - when they started beating 4e - would be much lower. So the number of people who stopped buying 4e was greater than the number of people who bought Pathfinder.
So the total number of people buying RPG books either shrank or became much, much more spread out. Likely a bit of both.