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!

 

[BryonD]

I think we can say that in 2007/8 4e launched and burned brightly until it fizzled out in 2011/12,

If this is accurate, why is there so much conversation from Mearls about addressing "disgruntled fans" in an article from late 2010. And he doesn't just say they are out there, he is talking about it as a serious issue needing a solution.

This doesn't dispute that there was a segment of the market that LOVED 4E. But you don't get good replies from an echo-chamber. You need to step back and look at the market as a whole as a legitimate beast with important differing views.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

If you are correct then the conversation becomes largely moot.
That said, I'm not sure that you can make the generalization that people complaining about WotC's poor communication are people who won't buy APs.

If they announce a splat in 2015, will that make you wrong?

Might as well make my predictions here, feel free to mock me in a year or two when I'm proven wrong!

I actually am expecting them to (well, hoping) put out one non-adventure hardcover product, if only because I'm skeptical that that all they're doing right now is supervising the third party publishers working on the adventure path (that seems like it would require less than the whole team of 8).

I'd be very surprised to see two such books, and will be firmly "wrong" if they release anything more than that in 2015. We're still far enough out from next year that I can't really predict whether or not they'll up the release schedule in 2016, but March 2015 Trickster Spirit will go on record as saying he thinks the cap will still be two non-adventure path supplements (that is, a max of two non-"Players' Companions" books). Future Trickster Spirit might change his views based on WotC as we get closer to next January.

I don't have any ideas as to what this hypothetical 2015 supplement might be, though if I have to share a wild guess I'd put my money on a Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. No idea if that's the case - they could pull a fast one and release a non-Forgotten Realms setting, or put out a Monster Manual instead.

To be honest I really don't see any evidence to indicate they're releasing anything this year that's not an adventure path or an accompanying player's companion, but hey I'm as subject to wishful thinking as much as the next guy so I'll say 1-2 products this year. With a six month announcement lead time that gives us until the end of June before my hopes start sinking. If the "big reveal" in the works is an announcement of several non-adventure path products in 2015-2016, I'll eat crow.

If they don't announce a splat and D&D starts falling in 2016 (APs don't sell as well either), will that make you wrong?

I will say yes, though let me clarify - what I am actually saying is that Wizards doesn't care about ICv2 ratings whatsoever and isn't pursuing a strategy towards saying at the top of those charts. That said, even with only the core books and adventure paths I personally suspect D&D has recaptured the top spot for some time.

So I will be solidly wrong about my personal assessment on the relative size of D&D's customer base vs. Pathfinder's, but right about Wizards interest in the tabletop publishing arena.

Now if Pathfinder takes the top spot and Wizards reacts by putting out more product to reclaim it, I will have been proven fully wrong, since in that situation I would expect Wizards to stay the course - my actual position is that tabletop book sales are mostly irrelevant to them, and that they'd rather invest in and earn the profits from things like "Sword Coast Legends" than they do pen and paper splatbooks, and that 5E will be a nominally supported "token" RPG line to center the brand around.

I think the same thing could be said about people sling insults at anyone who dares complain when things go poorly.
Shouldn't you check your own characterizations if it bothers you when others do it?

I've got no worries about me.
But if you are using the terms you are using and then turning around and saying you don't mean them for what they are, then that makes it that much worse that you are being critical of others for doing the exact same thing.

Didn't really see any of the aforementioned words ("riotous", "fanboy", "outrage") as particularly insulting, just descriptive - some folks are clearly emotionally invested and upset over what Wizards is doing ("outraged"), and those folks happen to be the hardcore devotees of the game ("fanboys", or to be more gender-inclusive, "fanchildren", a title I'll happily apply to my own self), who are being extremely vocal ("riotous") about Wizards perceived botching of the game line and being neglectful of their customers' desires.

I don't really think that my point - that if Wizards isn't planning on selling further products to those customers (making them ex-customers), they'd probably do best to ignore them and not take their criticisms into account when deciding on how to grow the brand - was as insulting towards those critics as some of those critics were being towards Mike Mearls personally, whom many of the WotC-critics have said seems like a nice guy who shouldn't be taken to task for what WotC executives decide to do with the product line.

They are acting like they are customers dealing with someone who is not living up to expectations.

Well, an adjustment has to occur somewhere. Either Wizards has to start living up to those customers' expectations, or those customers have to realize that their expectations are faulty.

Since I've seen no indications that WotC is about to release a steady stream of supplements, I'm leaning towards the latter.

I'm holding someone who wants to sell recreational material to the public to the standards of someone who wants to sell recreational material to the public.

The recreational material, in the form of the core books, has already been sold to the public, and seemed to have been very well received (by tabletop RPG standards).

The new material they're looking to sell to the public are the Adventure Paths. What lofty standards do they need to achieve to sell adventure paths? They've got a pretty good organised play system set up at various FLGSs, and folks'll be able to buy it at stores or from online retailers.

Arguing that they need to sell more product for 5E to be a success is using an outdated definition for success (the 3E/4E business model). Everything we've seen so far leads me to believe that 5E just needs to make a modest profit from core book sales and the adventure paths every year to be a "success" in WotC's new model.

I've used Monopoly as the model before, but Monopoly is kind of notorious for releasing tie-in editions so it's not the best comparison. Battleship or Clue would be a better fit. Neither need supplementary extensions, expansion decks or new mechanics to make a profit. People buy the game, and the transaction is complete. Maybe you lose some pieces or the box gets ruined in a flood or you like the Star Wars version so you go buy another one, but there is no dependence on Parker Brothers' behalf you being an ongoing Battleship or Clue customer.

The fact that they've not announced any supplements so far, and don't have the staff to produce more than one or two a year, if any, means that they're not viewing those supplements as critical to 5E's continued success under their revised metric for success. They're putting out adventure paths for perplexed players who just purchased the game and are wondering now what do they do with it, but that looks to be all the "recreational material" they're interested in putting out and they seem to be on track to sell it just fine.

 

[bmfrosty]

If this is accurate, why is there so much conversation from Mearls about addressing "disgruntled fans" in an article from late 2010. And he doesn't just say they are out there, he is talking about it as a serious issue needing a solution.

This doesn't dispute that there was a segment of the market that LOVED 4E. But you don't get good replies from an echo-chamber. You need to step back and look at the market as a whole as a legitimate beast with important differing views.

Both happened.

It sold a bunch for a few years (2-4?) and then fizzled. There was a schism. Both happened. Multiple reasons for the schism and for the fizzling including a few that were directly connected. Both have been very well covered in this thread.

 

[Shasarak]

Can we triple our prescience with unchained monkeys flinging darts?

As long as we are willing to lose a certain percentage of monkeys to dart injuries, it sounds like a plan with no visible drawbacks!

 

[bmfrosty]

Might as well make my predictions here, feel free to mock me in a year or two when I'm proven wrong!

<snip>

The fact that they've not announced any supplements so far, and don't have the staff to produce more than one or two a year, if any, means that they're not viewing those supplements as critical to 5E's continued success under their revised metric for success. They're putting out adventure paths for perplexed players who just purchased the game and are wondering now what do they do with it, but that looks to be all the "recreational material" they're interested in putting out and they seem to be on track to sell it just fine.

I think we'll see 2 AP a year as the minimum. I also think that we'll see Campaign Settings, but at a more measured rate. Maybe 1 per year.

I would like to also see monster, modules, and howtos on how refluff a race/class into something else. That could be freebies on their site or some sort of subscription PDF, but I wouldn't predict that it would happen. I just think it would be nice.

Another wishlist item - given that they're they're trying to hold back character generators that cover items that are only in the PHB, but not in the Basic Rules, I think they need to put together something official. I think they missed an opportunity to put registration cards in the core books. I think there are some deep marketing opportunities there. I think there are opportunities to reward their repeat customers there.

 

[billd91]

As long as we are willing to lose a certain percentage of monkeys to dart injuries, it sounds like a plan with no visible drawbacks!

Except that we all know that monkeys don't just fling darts. And that will be a visible drawback.

 

[Shasarak]

Except that we all know that monkeys don't just fling darts. And that will be a visible drawback.

I thought that was why we had interns? =;0)

 

[BryonD]

Both happened.

It sold a bunch for a few years (2-4?) and then fizzled. There was a schism. Both happened. Multiple reasons for the schism and for the fizzling including a few that were directly connected. Both have been very well covered in this thread.

Both can happen is one is it fizzled in 2011/2012 and another is that it fizzled before late 2010.

It certainly launched as a blockbuster. But your "few years" is guesswork and evidence doesn't support it very well.

 

[Kramodlog]

I'm unsure as to what point you're trying to make.

View attachment 67522

My point was that there were some people still questioning the success/failure of 4e and Pathfinder. That debated was settles a while back.

 

[BryonD]

Might as well make my predictions here, feel free to mock me in a year or two when I'm proven wrong!

I actually am expecting them to (well, hoping) put out one non-adventure hardcover product, if only because I'm skeptical that that all they're doing right now is supervising the third party publishers working on the adventure path (that seems like it would require less than the whole team of 8).

I'd be very surprised to see two such books, and will be firmly "wrong" if they release anything more than that in 2015.

I think this is a very safe prediction. I think two major (non-AP) releases in 2015 is virtually impossible. they could be playing a lot of stuff really secret, but that doesn't seem at all in line with any comments.

We're still far enough out from next year that I can't really predict whether or not they'll up the release schedule in 2016, but March 2015 Trickster Spirit will go on record as saying he thinks the cap will still be two non-adventure path supplements (that is, a max of two non-"Players' Companions" books). Future Trickster Spirit might change his views based on WotC as we get closer to next January.

Again, fair enough. I'd say another "major" book and a Monster Manual II by that or some other name.
I think we aligned enough to call it the same ballpark estimate.

I don't have any ideas as to what this hypothetical 2015 supplement might be, though if I have to share a wild guess I'd put my money on a Forgotten Realms Campaign setting. No idea if that's the case - they could pull a fast one and release a non-Forgotten Realms setting, or put out a Monster Manual instead.

I'd bet AGAINST a campaign setting because the APs offer a lot of that and they wouldn't be covering their bets as well.

To be honest I really don't see any evidence to indicate they're releasing anything this year that's not an adventure path or an accompanying player's companion, but hey I'm as subject to wishful thinking as much as the next guy so I'll say 1-2 products this year. With a six month announcement lead time that gives us until the end of June before my hopes start sinking. If the "big reveal" in the works is an announcement of several non-adventure path products in 2015-2016, I'll eat crow.

I don't see any evidence yet either.
My predictions are more along the lines of: if they are no planning some support now, they will when they start to see fans wander off to other alternatives. so it could be late 2016 if they have to "wake up" and then get started.

I will say yes, though let me clarify - what I am actually saying is that Wizards doesn't care about ICv2 ratings whatsoever and isn't pursuing a strategy towards saying at the top of those charts. That said, even with only the core books and adventure paths I personally suspect D&D has recaptured the top spot for some time.

I don't know what could make a strong competition against them for two or three quarters, just using core alone.

They don't care about ICv2. But (and this is "its all about the movie" aside) I think they do care about sales and overall game popularity. And is ICv2 is going down, metrics they DO care about are going down.

So I will be solidly wrong about my personal assessment on the relative size of D&D's customer base vs. Pathfinder's, but right about Wizards interest in the tabletop publishing arena.

Now if Pathfinder takes the top spot and Wizards reacts by putting out more product to reclaim it, I will have been proven fully wrong, since in that situation I would expect Wizards to stay the course - my actual position is that tabletop book sales are mostly irrelevant to them, and that they'd rather invest in and earn the profits from things like "Sword Coast Legends" than they do pen and paper splatbooks, and that 5E will be a nominally supported "token" RPG line to center the brand around.

There is reason to believe this is the plan.
If this is the plan a lot of people will (yet again) be making up reasons why it isn't the plan's fault when the plan fails a few years from now.

Didn't really see any of the aforementioned words ("riotous", "fanboy", "outrage") as particularly insulting, just descriptive

But doesn't that undercut your own complaint?
When you use words you don't care what they mean to other people, you only care what you say you intended them to mean.
When other people say similar things they are "slinging insults". You can't have it both ways.

Again, as I said before, it is fine by me if you want people to chill and not over-react to what you said. But if that is what you want them you should offer the same attitude and not accuse others of "insult flinging".

Well, an adjustment has to occur somewhere. Either Wizards has to start living up to those customers' expectations, or those customers have to realize that their expectations are faulty.

Since I've seen no indications that WotC is about to release a steady stream of supplements, I'm leaning towards the latter.

There is no such thing as faulty customer expectations. There are customer expectations that you meet and there are customer expectations that your competitors meet.
It may be flawed to think that WotC plans to meet this expectations, but if that is the case WotC is either planning to lose customers (again) or they have badly miscalculated.

The recreational material, in the form of the core books, has already been sold to the public, and seemed to have been very well received (by tabletop RPG standards).

The new material they're looking to sell to the public are the Adventure Paths. What lofty standards do they need to achieve to sell adventure paths? They've got a pretty good organised play system set up at various FLGSs, and folks'll be able to buy it at stores or from online retailers.

APs are also recreational material. It seems decidely odd that you are not calling it that. And if a lot of people turn to other games, less APs will sell.

Arguing that they need to sell more product for 5E to be a success is using an outdated definition for success (the 3E/4E business model). Everything we've seen so far leads me to believe that 5E just needs to make a modest profit from core book sales and the adventure paths every year to be a "success" in WotC's new model.

You don't know that. But, again, if people are playing other games, it is entirely possible that even this standard of success will not be met.

My definition of success is maximizing revenue and overall return on investment.