It's amazing watching people defend power creep as not being there after wotc themselves talked up power creep as a deliberate and desirable goal to plan for a while back.
It’s all relative though right? If the monsters also creep what’s the problem?It's amazing watching people defend power creep as not being there after wotc themselves talked up power creep as a deliberate and desirable goal to plan for a while back.
Bookscan is just numbers and ICv2 just reports on those numbers. Can't refute numbers without alternative numbers - it isn't enough to just say "Trust me, Bro"I was reminded of this article on ICV pointing out the many errors in the claims made by just one of those people ‘studying the numbers’. Bookscan data isn’t reliable. It doesn’t include all the hobby store sales if any, online retailers or VTT/digital sales.
My favorite quote from the article…
“[…] a large segment of the RPG players are predisposed to distrust WotC already. So, believing WotC would deliberately overstate sales plays into that storyline and would attract attention, which it did (after all, I just wrote a column on it).”
I think this thread is more of the same. As is the YouTube video that started it, by someone who’s opening comments mention that he plays Pathfinder 2
![]()
The problem is obvious... Look at the specifics. Wotc was talking up PC power creep. It doesn't matter if monsters are strong enough to provide an appropriate challenge to PCs not built under a deliberate extreme unoptimized baseline now when the goal is deliberate PC power creep as a sellable featureIt’s all relative though right? If the monsters also creep what’s the problem?
Eh. The article is from ICv2 which you just said was a credible source? Or is it only the articles there that you agree with that are credible sources.Bookscan is just numbers and ICv2 just reports on those numbers. Can't refute numbers without alternative numbers - it isn't enough to just say "Trust me, Bro"
That's what your "article" is doing.
Both are considered valuable assets in their industries, so not as trivial as you make them out to be. But I get itEh. The article is from ICv2 which you just said was a credible source? Or is it only the articles there that you agree with that are credible sources.
Bookscan is a sliver of a slice of the numbers. Great to discuss, and a good starting point, but they have to be put in context.
I don't care for balanced gameplay at all. I like systems that break balance much more than 5e does.Does D&D need to be a tightly balanced system? Is there no room for people who value different things from the game?
The more I play games that don’t attempt to be balanced, the more I realize it has little bearing on how much fun the game is.
Because eventually the power levels across the board causes the game to move out of one's comfort zone, potentially, and make the experience less fun.It’s all relative though right? If the monsters also creep what’s the problem?
D&D is not even half of WoTC, not sure what it really is currently, it has risen in contribution in recent years but I have no idea how much that is BG3 as distinct from D&D proper.Isn't the OP premise of this thread that Hasbro stock prices are driven by the success or failure of D&D? Is that valid?
I know D&D is significant, but is it really the driver? WotC, which composes D&D and MTG and other brands is like 20% of Hasbro revenue in 2021 according to Google AI. But D&D is what, half? of WotC. So somewhere around 10%.
So if that's all true, sure D&D 2024 success if important, but it's only going to be one of many factors impacting Hasbro stock performance.