Do you want/are you ready for a D&D 5th edition?

[Rechan]

All I'm going to say about 5e is this:

They better playtest the damn thing.

3.5 came out what, 3-4 years after 3.0? And with 4e they were scrambling to fix it a year after release, then had to fix the monster math, had to add feat taxes and so forth well before Essentials.

Wizards needs to playtest to death the thing. To make sure the math works and any patches are superficial.

That is, assuming that it isn't just a reboot to milk more sales by re-printing.

Wait, I'll say another thing. That unless WotC puts PR as a priority, they're likely going to poison the well before 5e is even out. Because a lot of misgivings towards 4e can be traced back to poor statements by designers/book layout/presentation.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Yes the lesson was learned - Paizo is doing what Dancey described and is now leading the market....

I read a lot of bleating about this, primarily from Paizo fans and the anti-WotC crowd, but the truth is, we don't know how well D&D is doing compared to PF. Nobody but insiders at Wizards have access to the true numbers behind DDi. Paizo is most certainly outselling WotC in the book stores, but Paizo also doesn't have a digital subscription service.

It may very well still be that DDi is a flop - like I said, nobody but the bean-counters and brass at WotC/Hasbro know for sure - but until anyone has some actual facts to back up these claims, they're just making noise.

Quite frankly, I don't care who sells more - I care about what I like - end of story.

I just suspect that a lot of this feeling of who outsells who comes from the echo chamber effect that is so prevalent in the General section of the forum, and at a lot of FLGSes, and even among peoples' own circle of gamers.

The real lesson is never start a land war in Asia. never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line. that you can't put the genie back into the bottle once you have freed him.

The Auld Grump

This is in part because the OGL was designed specifically so you *couldn't* put the genie back in the proverbial bottle. The license was modelled after the open-source software movement, and the "stick-it-to-the-man" part of me loves that, and wishes that it had continued into 4e.

If they had continued to use it for 4e, the market may very well have done more to embrace 4e (as Eric Mona initially thought it would*), and we might have a very different landscape in the RPG world today. Don't misread me - I'm not saying a better one, just different. In fact, I'm happy that the people that liked the 3.x architecture continue to have support. I wish it could be so for all editions, from OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, etc.

* the thread is still around on ENWorld. I didn't care to look it up, but trust me, it's here somewhere.

 

[TarionzCousin]

In fact, I'm happy that the people that liked the 3.x architecture continue to have support. I wish it could be so for all editions, from OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, etc.

Amen to this.

I am gratified that there are third party publishers supporting earlier editions of D&D (the so-called "retro clones") but would love to see WotC support them too--even if it only means selling the old pdf's again.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Maybe I am being cynical in my view, but I have seen these things happen before. It reminds me a lot of the way IBM created the PS/2 line of computers with micro-channel in a bid to take back a larger slice of the market pie. What they managed to accomplish was cede control of the market to their largest competitor (Compaq) and then eventually the clone makers. Now maybe Hasbro forced WotC to do this, I don't know. But to me it makes no difference, the result is the same.

Based on the statements made by the D&D Brand Manager at the time and the general feeling among third parties, I think WotC wanted something closer to the OGL but that it was blocked by someone higher up that either didn't get it or didn't like it.

Granted, it's all speculation, but I would think that if WotC itself and not its parent company were deadset against the OGL, there would have been more from their community representatives talking about how open gaming isn't necessarily the best thing ever, couching the eventual change, rather than promises up and down as well as handshake agreements with many other designers that something was coming.

I had always been under the assumption that the original GSL was closer to the OGL than not, but that somebody upstairs saw it as a threat to D&D's intellectual property and wouldn't be persuaded otherwise. Admittedly, I could very, very well be wrong, but it's what makes the most sense here based on what I actually saw coming from WotC versus what they actually did.

 

[IronWolf]

Paizo is most certainly outselling WotC in the book stores, but Paizo also doesn't have a digital subscription service.

Paizo does have a subscription program though. A rather extensive one for multiple product lines that also includes a digital distribution in the form of PDFs. Those number are also not known.

Quite frankly, I don't care who sells more - I care about what I like - end of story.

100% agreed!

I just suspect that a lot of this feeling of who outsells who comes from the echo chamber effect that is so prevalent in the General section of the forum, and at a lot of FLGSes, and even among peoples' own circle of gamers.

Yep, sort of the nature of discussion boards, conversations at game stores and amongst friends.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I read a lot of bleating about this, primarily from Paizo fans and the anti-WotC crowd, but the truth is, we don't know how well D&D is doing compared to PF. Nobody but insiders at Wizards have access to the true numbers behind DDi. Paizo is most certainly outselling WotC in the book stores, but Paizo also doesn't have a digital subscription service.

It may very well still be that DDi is a flop - like I said, nobody but the bean-counters and brass at WotC/Hasbro know for sure - but until anyone has some actual facts to back up these claims, they're just making noise.

Quite frankly, I don't care who sells more - I care about what I like - end of story.

I just suspect that a lot of this feeling of who outsells who comes from the echo chamber effect that is so prevalent in the General section of the forum, and at a lot of FLGSes, and even among peoples' own circle of gamers.

This is in part because the OGL was designed specifically so you *couldn't* put the genie back in the proverbial bottle. The license was modelled after the open-source software movement, and the "stick-it-to-the-man" part of me loves that, and wishes that it had continued into 4e.

If they had continued to use it for 4e, the market may very well have done more to embrace 4e (as Eric Mona initially thought it would*), and we might have a very different landscape in the RPG world today. Don't misread me - I'm not saying a better one, just different. In fact, I'm happy that the people that liked the 3.x architecture continue to have support. I wish it could be so for all editions, from OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, etc.

* the thread is still around on ENWorld. I didn't care to look it up, but trust me, it's here somewhere.

My point is that the lesson learned was not by WotC - but by Paizo. That the Open License does help sales. It likely made 3.X as popular as it was, and helped it last as long as it did. (I do not count 3e and 3.5 as separate games, but I also don't count 4e and Essentials as separate games. If one was a new edition then so was the other, and 4e has had the 4.5 that WotC promised would not happen....)

I think sales are pretty much evenly split between Pathfinder and 4e, when the DDI is factored in. Little to no support for that assumption, aside from local observation. But given that the only eye's view that I have is local (my area is very Pathfinder-centric) the numbers that I have seen bandied by ICv2 seem a hair conservative.

That said, I expect WotC to regain the top slot because of the Christmas rush. How long they can hold it...? I expected Essentials to do much better for them than appears to be the case, so my abilities as a prophet are suspect.

People seem to think that having the DDI is having a license to mint gold pieces, but I suspect that development costs were high, and that maintaining and expanding the DDI also is higher than some folks think.

The fact that a lot of folks are polarized about the 4e rules is a separate matter. I hate them, some one else loves them, and Bob down the street doesn't care which he plays as long as he doesn't have to be the one running the game.

Yes, the OGL was designed so that it could not be retracted, but in creating the GSL WotC was still making the attempt to rebottle used djinn. That was their part of the lesson.

Paizo's lesson was on how to make the OGL work for them. They are not fighting the terms of the license, but rather are using them to advantage. Making the rules easily accessible, putting search functions into their online SRD, etc.... WotC, on the other hand, locked away most of their material when the OGL was still new.

The Auld Grump

 

[Rechan]

I believe the "Who sells more" issue comes down to a combination of three things:

1) "My team is selling more than yours"
2) Sales = success = I want my team to succeed and continue
3) Sales = proof of failure = validation of leaving that edition/disliking that edition/Itoldyouso.

 

[MoxieFu]

Based on the statements made by the D&D Brand Manager at the time and the general feeling among third parties, I think WotC wanted something closer to the OGL but that it was blocked by someone higher up that either didn't get it or didn't like it.

Granted, it's all speculation, but I would think that if WotC itself and not its parent company were deadset against the OGL, there would have been more from their community representatives talking about how open gaming isn't necessarily the best thing ever, couching the eventual change, rather than promises up and down as well as handshake agreements with many other designers that something was coming.

I had always been under the assumption that the original GSL was closer to the OGL than not, but that somebody upstairs saw it as a threat to D&D's intellectual property and wouldn't be persuaded otherwise. Admittedly, I could very, very well be wrong, but it's what makes the most sense here based on what I actually saw coming from WotC versus what they actually did.

My approach to this is not listening to their words, but to watch what they do. To me actions are worth far more than words.

 

[Stormonu]

I do not count 3e and 3.5 as separate games, but I also don't count 4e and Essentials as separate games. If one was a new edition then so was the other, and 4e has had the 4.5 that WotC promised would not happen....

The Auld Grump

Personally, I count any time I have to repurchase the core rulebook(s) to play the game as an edition change. For me, that'd put D&D on about 8th edition (1E, Unearthed Arcana, 2E, Player's Option, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, Essentials) - er, not including the BECMI line.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Personally, I count any time I have to repurchase the core rulebook(s) to play the game as an edition change. For me, that'd put D&D on about 8th edition (1E, Unearthed Arcana, 2E, Player's Option, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, Essentials) - er, not including the BECMI line.

Ah, but you are consistent, so it still comes out the same. Both or neither works fine, it is only when trying to claim that one is and the other is not.

I might count the BECMI line, but for adventures, at least, swapping between systems seemed more the norm than otherwise.

The Auld Grump - I don't remember how often I ran Keep on the Borderlands with AD&D....