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!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lacking confirmation data is not logically or factually the same as being "dead wrong."

Exactly. Thus 'bad standard.'

 

[Imaro]

I think the Icv2 data that shows D&D continuing to lead Pathfinder until the release of Essentials is consistent with the idea that new players retained by 4e at least made up for the loss of 3.5 hold-outs and those discouraged from trying D&D at all by the edition war.

No... what it shows is that D&D continued to outsell Pathfinder in hobby stores (surprisingly (or not) enough where D&D Encounters were being held) but there is plenty of data, as you said admittedly incomplete that points in a different direction...

like amazon rankings which show the Pathfinder corebook being ranked higher that the 4e books for more periods than 4e is ranked higher than Pathfinder.

As for those who 'grew dissatisfied' again, as suggested by the only available (Icv2) data, Essentials /did/ recover the top spot relative to pathfinder after it's initial launch until the pace of publication dwindled away to almost nothing. That suggests that new players made up the loss of any 4e fans who abandoned the game with the Essentials change of direction or otherwise grew dissatisfied in time to push initial Essentials sales below ongoing Pathfinder sales. So, a qualified 'yeah, maybe.'

I fail to see ho ICV2 rankings show what you are suggesting here... If anything I would say it is suggesting that 4e had a strong showing in hobby shops (probably due to the encounters program), nothing more and nothing less. It would seem to reason that since there is a concentration of 4e players on a regular weekly basis that the sales for 4e items would be disproportionately higher in these outlets, especially when one factors in the Paizo model for selling books with a free PDF through subs.

While 4e hardly seemed to be D&D at all to long-time D&Ders, it was more intuitive and easier to learn for new players coming to the TTRPG hobby 'cold' or cross-pollinating from the orders-of-magnitude-more-popular CCG and MMO hobbies.

If you say so... I didn't see this with 4e at all when I participated in encounters for a limited time...

So, IMX, I did see significantly more new players retained by 4e and go on to become DMs fairly quickly. It was startling, really, because, I looked at 4e and saw a very complex game that had many systems you had to do a double-take and give a second or third chance before they made sense (much like 5e's neo-Vancian, actually, but /more/ of them).

Again our experiences differ. I saw alot of players come and go at the hobby shop where I played at, and the same 3 DM's running it each week for the swag.

The thing is, that greater retention could never have been enough to make 4e a 'success' - certainly not in the sense of meeting the leaked revenue goals - because there was nothing in WotC's handling of the property to bring in /more/ new players to try it. Indeed, there was the edition war possibly dissuading some new players from trying D&D at all. Retaining more new players doesn't make much difference when the trickle of new players remains relatively slow. In 10 years, 4e might have built up an impressive base of new-to-TTRPG fans, but in only 2? Not a chance, IMHO, even had it retained 100% of new players who tried it.

Yeah if it took it 10 years to make up for the fans it lost in one... I'm going to go ahead and call that a failure.

What risk? If there ever was a hardcore 4e fanbase as fanatical as the 3.5 and old-school hold-outs who rejected 4e, it would have already been lost by Essentials. Besides, even if the edition war were a strong indicator of loyalty, even the most brutal of 4vengers were still essentially(npi) defending 4e from attack, not holding it up as the only way to play the game. Finally, 4e fans have no 'clone' like Pathfinder or OSR games to flee to. So, WotC couldn't have seen much risk in alienating 4e fans by un-winding all the advancements made by 4e and presenting a 5e that fit more or less between AD&D and 3e in sophistication and quality. And, indeed, former 4vengers like myself are actively playing (well, running, in my case) and promoting 5e.

Why would it have been lost by essentials when essentials wasn't a new edition but supplements to the 4e core? At least that was the party line back then to anyone who suggested otherwise... As to "defending 4e from attack" let's just say I saw plenty of "attacks" on 3e by 4e proponents espousing their own "one wayism". And finally as to 4e's advancements... let's just say if the game becomes less fun for me to play, I don't consider it an advancement. But just from reading this paragraph above I can tell we probably aren't going to find a middle ground on 4e since I'm not keen on one side playing the victim role...

EDIT: Emphasis Mine...Slinging words like fanatical around for the 3.x and old school fan bases because they didn't share your preferences in gaming doesn't really give much credence to your cries of victimization... It appears the 4venger continues to be strong in this one.

 

[neobolts]

"Fanboy" certainly has a negative connotation, and if you use it, you're namecalling, if inadvertently. "Fanchildren" sounds a little weird to me, "fanpeople" redundant, perhaps "fanspawn"? Nah.

How about just "fans"? We're all fans of D&D, even if we call it Pathfinder (oooh, *zing*)!

Note: serious point with weak attempt at humor.

Fanboy is not an insult unless used as a insult. I would refer to myself as a D&D fanboy, or a tech geek, or a gaming nerd. If I was in high school and Rip Musclejock was calling me a fanboy, geek, or nerd, it would not be the same thing.

 

[Dire Bare]

Fanboy is not an insult unless used as a insult. I would refer to myself as a D&D fanboy, or a tech geek, or a gaming nerd. If I was in high school and Rip Musclejock was calling me a fanboy, geek, or nerd, it would not be the same thing.

Sorry, but "fanboy" is a slur. Perhaps in the past it was not, and I'm sure not everyone is aware that the word has gained a negative connotation, and I'm sure there are folks who use it without meaning to be negative . . . . but it's still a slur today. A mild one, but insulting nonetheless. Even worse if you spell it "fanboi".

Innocent words gain negative meanings or connotations all the time. As a teacher, I have to counsel my students to avoid using the words "retarded" and "gay" as they are pretty much exclusively used as slurs nowadays, while the first has a clinical and scientific meaning and the second started out pretty innocent in meaning (and can still be used positively as an identifier, but in middle school its more often used as a slur).

Just like Jay (Silent Bob's sidekick) failed to do in "Clerks 2", you can't just "take it back" if you don't like that the word has become negative.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No... what it shows is that D&D continued to outsell Pathfinder in hobby stores (surprisingly (or not) enough where D&D Encounters were being held)

The Encounters program was exclusively run in retail establishments, that doesn't mean it was run in every such establishment. And, the Pathfinder Society was quite active in promoting organized play, as well. So that doesn't seem like a huge confounding variable.

It does point to it capturing more data about the new players in question, though, since in-store programs are one place they tend to show up.

but there is plenty of data, as you said admittedly incomplete that points in a different direction...

Speculation and confirmation bias, yes, data, not so much. Look, folks crowed over Pathfinder beating the Essentials release on Icv2, so apparently, it's good enough when it aligns with confirmation bias.

like amazon rankings which show the Pathfinder corebook being ranked higher that the 4e books for more periods than 4e is ranked higher than Pathfinder.

The Amazon rankings of 5e everyone was going nuts over a while back turned out to involve only a few thousand books - and Amazon is much more significant now than it was back then (and, AFAICK, we have no solid numbers from that period, either). So, no, a ranking with no attendant volume data means vanishingly little.

I fail to see ho ICV2 rankings show what you are suggesting here...

I didn't say 'show' or 'prove,' only 'support.' That Essentials fell from the top spot only to recapture it, for instance, suggests that new players retained made up for the hard-core 4e fanatics who ragequit over the change in direction. It could, alternately, support the theory that said 4e hold-outs relented fairly quickly.

If you say so... I didn't see this with 4e at all when I participated in encounters for a limited time...

I did, I was in on it from the second season on. Like I said, it was something that surprised me. I never expect to see many new players come back after trying D&D. It always seemed like it just wasn't for everybody, that we D&Ders were a special breed. What I saw with new players entering the hobby with 4e made me re-examine that perception.

Yeah if it took it 10 years to make up for the fans it lost in one... I'm going to go ahead and call that a failure.

I was thinking 10 years to build up a large fan base of entirely-new fans, not merely make up for the loss of old ones. It seems making up for the loss happened fairly quickly, either that or the loss just wasn't that large (or both) or 4e wouldn't have held the top spot while pitting supplemental material vs the Pathfinder core release in 2009.

Why would it have been lost by essentials when essentials wasn't a new edition but supplements to the 4e core?

Because it was a radical change in direction (and the new direction was arguably 'backwards'). Fanatical 4e fans would not have liked that at all.

I know I didn't.

At least that was the party line back then to anyone who suggested otherwise... As to "defending 4e from attack" let's just say I saw plenty of "attacks" on 3e by 4e proponents espousing their own "one wayism".

'Attacks' like "4e is no more grid dependent than 3.5 was" or "Yes, 4e has a lot of named conditions to track, but 3.5 had even more?" I'm sure you did. Besides, it's not like problems with 3.5 hadn't been long-established. Fans of 3.5 had been complaining that the "Fighter SUX," that combats were static, that WoCLW dependence was silly, and that prepped casters dominated play, among many other things, for a long time. Those weren't things made up to defend 4e, they were established shortcomings of D&D that 4e tried to fix or minimize. You can't defend AEDU on the grounds that it greatly improved class balance without admitting that class balance was always a pretty serious problem, before, for instance, and the same holds true throughout the exchanges of the edition war.

And finally as to 4e's advancements... let's just say if the game becomes less fun for me to play, I don't consider it and advancement.

No one can force you to have fun with a better-balanced, more playable, clearer, and easier-to-run game. Just like no one can force you to drive fast in a Tesla roadster. Clinging to pre-conceived notions in the face of evidence to the contrary is easy. Being open to new ideas is hard - and, often, not worth it at all (if you're completely satisfied with an existing product, the fact that a new one might be objectively better by some quantitative measure doesn't reduce that satisfaction).
That's just human nature.

Slinging words like fanatical around for the 3.x and old school fan bases because they didn't share your preferences in gaming

What did you think 'fan' was short for?

 

[Wicht]

Exactly. Thus 'bad standard.'

Is that what you said?
Must have missed that.
I thought you were saying that professing ignorance of all the facts was the same as admitting to being dead wrong.

 

[pkt77242]

Then all we can really say is we don't know. Lack of information can lead to wrong results.

I get what you are saying, though I think that you are taking it a bit far, as generally we will never have all of the pertinent information in these discussions. I also find it funny that you argue that WotC is making bad business decisions in other threads when you lack the information to know that. Isn't that a double standard?

 

[TwoSix]

Why would it have been lost by essentials when essentials wasn't a new edition but supplements to the 4e core? At least that was the party line back then to anyone who suggested otherwise... As to "defending 4e from attack" let's just say I saw plenty of "attacks" on 3e by 4e proponents espousing their own "one wayism". And finally as to 4e's advancements... let's just say if the game becomes less fun for me to play, I don't consider it an advancement. But just from reading this paragraph above I can tell we probably aren't going to find a middle ground on 4e since I'm not keen on one side playing the victim role...

There were plenty of 4e fans who considered Essentials as a step backwards due to its abandonment of the full AEDU structure. It was a pretty contentious topic among the 4e fanbase.

And seriously, there's no winners in the Edition War. No side is anywhere close to blameless. There were (and are) angry, loud partisans on both sides, angry and loud enough that even even-keel players get swept up into bad faith arguments. These sales arguments are simply pedantry framed as historical accuracy disguising the attempt to make a moral judgment on the worth of 4e. Either

A) "4e's failure is due to its rejection by the marketplace because it was an inferior game." or
B) "4e was a great game, and its failure was a due to a combination of corporate mishandling and the intransigence of a segment of the playerbase."

EDIT: Emphasis Mine...Slinging words like fanatical around for the 3.x and old school fan bases because they didn't share your preferences in gaming doesn't really give much credence to your cries of victimization... It appears the 4venger continues to be strong in this one.

Victimization is a little harsh. Most 4e fans just feel some regret that the game didn't get a chance to be further developed so that it really shined, like 3e has had over the last 15 years. I mean, if you're a fan of consistent AEDU, you only got 2 years of consistent development work, from 2008 until 2010. And even if you were a fan of Essentials, you only got about an extra year and a half from that.

 

[pkt77242]

Sorry, but "fanboy" is a slur. Perhaps in the past it was not, and I'm sure not everyone is aware that the word has gained a negative connotation, and I'm sure there are folks who use it without meaning to be negative . . . . but it's still a slur today. A mild one, but insulting nonetheless. Even worse if you spell it "fanboi".

Innocent words gain negative meanings or connotations all the time. As a teacher, I have to counsel my students to avoid using the words "retarded" and "gay" as they are pretty much exclusively used as slurs nowadays, while the first has a clinical and scientific meaning and the second started out pretty innocent in meaning (and can still be used positively as an identifier, but in middle school its more often used as a slur).

Just like Jay (Silent Bob's sidekick) failed to do in "Clerks 2", you can't just "take it back" if you don't like that the word has become negative.

I think that slur is a touch harsh. I wouldn't mix Fanboy in with all of the other slurs out there. It is more like calling someone a homer of a sports team.

 

[Imaro]

The Encounters program was exclusively run in retail establishments, that doesn't mean it was run in every such establishment. And, the Pathfinder Society was quite active in promoting organized play, as well. So that doesn't seem like a huge confounding variable.

I never said it was run in every establishment... but it was run exclusively in FLGS's which is where ICV2 collects the lion's share of their data from for the rankings you keep citing as proof. As the the Pathfinder Society you seem to be selectively choosing the confounding variables you want to address since as I stated before Pathfinder sells directly with both a price reduction and free PDF as incentive. So there is much less reason to buy Paizo product from a LFGS...

It does point to it capturing more data about the new players in question, though, since in-store programs are one place they tend to show up.

Exactly what data concerning new players did it capture?

Speculation and confirmation bias, yes, data, not so much. Look, folks crowed over Pathfinder beating the Essentials release on Icv2, so apparently, it's good enough when it aligns with confirmation bias.

At least it is for you...as you are so aptly demonstrating...

The Amazon rankings of 5e everyone was going nuts over a while back turned out to involve only a few thousand books - and Amazon is much more significant now than it was back then (and, AFAICK, we have no solid numbers from that period, either). So, no, a ranking with no attendant volume data means vanishingly little.

Wait... what, citation please, otherwise I call bull...

I didn't say 'show' or 'prove,' only 'support.' That Essentials fell from the top spot only to recapture it, for instance, suggests that new players retained made up for the hard-core 4e fanatics who ragequit over the change in direction. It could, alternately, support the theory that said 4e hold-outs relented fairly quickly.

Or it could show that a few/some/many who had lost interest in 4e swung back around to check essentials out once we heard about what it was... I admit I bought the essentials books because many were saying it was much closer to the older editions... so it actually could support numerous conclusions... but doesn't actually support anything.

I did, I was in on it from the second season on. Like I said, it was something that surprised me. I never expect to see many new players come back after trying D&D. It always seemed like it just wasn't for everybody, that we D&Ders were a special breed. What I saw with new players entering the hobby with 4e made me re-examine that perception.

Anecdotes and examples... we could go round and round all day. So unless one of us has proof the other is lying this is kind of fruitless discussion...

I was thinking 10 years to build up a large fan base of entirely-new fans, not merely make up for the loss of old ones. It seems making up for the loss happened fairly quickly, either that or the loss just wasn't that large (or both) or 4e wouldn't have held the top spot while pitting supplemental material vs the Pathfinder core release in 2009.

Ah, because of that incomplete data you keep relying on to prove...sorry support your conclusions. The funny thing is that when looked at with confirmation bias and incomplete a person can make data support nealy any conclusion they desire. I'll trust in Lisa Stevens, the CEO of Pathfinder stating that Pathfinder overtook D&D months before ICV2 stated Pathfinder was on top over your inferences from ICV2... I mean that's the actual word of someone who had access to complete data at the time.

Because it was a radical change in direction (and the new direction was arguably 'backwards'). Fanatical 4e fans would not have liked that at all.

I know I didn't.

Attacks' like "4e is no more grid dependent than 3.5 was" or "Yes, 4e has a lot of named conditions to track, but 3.5 had even more?" I'm sure you did. Besides, it's not like problems with 3.5 hadn't been long-established. Fans of 3.5 had been complaining that the "Fighter SUX," that combats were static, that WoCLW dependence was silly, and that prepped casters dominated play, among many other things, for a long time. Those weren't things made up to defend 4e, they were established shortcomings of D&D that 4e tried to fix or minimize. You can't defend AEDU on the grounds that it greatly improved class balance without admitting that class balance was always a pretty serious problem, before.

Again we could go back with examples but it would be pointless... so you keep painting fans of 4e in the victim role if that's what floats your boat, it's of little consequence to me how you choose to remember the 4e edition wars.

No one can force you to have fun with a better-balanced, more playable, clearer, and easier-to-run game. Just like no one can force you to drive fast in a Tesla roadster.

Yeah apparently no one could force me to have fun with hour+ long combat, short but numerous condition tracking, and flavorless crunch either... *shrug* but now I have 5e and I am having fun... sorry yours didn't take.

What did you think 'fan' was short for?

Here, let me educate you on the differences between the two words as they are used now...

Definition of FAN

1
: an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator.
2
: an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit).


Definition of FANATIC

: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion.


One clearly has a more negative connotation than the other... but I think you knew that already and since you are aware of both words I can only assume you intentionally chose to pick one over the other.