Because I've heard this story before at least a dozen times from a dozen different companies, large and small (some much larger than WotC), and in absolutely none of those cases did it turn out that they actually followed a 5-year plan, even when they actually did have one.
I guess it depends on what you think of as "following a 5-year plan". No plan is 100% set-in-stone. That would be foolish. But you were arguing that a plan that looked like "Book A. Book B. Book C." was
too much of a plan. (Or at least it seemed so). I would assume that the plan would have a basic sketch on what those books actually
look like - meaning I would think that the plan was
more developed than that, not less (certainly more for 2026, if not 2027 as well.
If it wasn't worth "lying" (your word, not mine) about, you wouldn't be devoting so much time and effort to defending it. Clearly this putative plan has some kind of significant value to you, not least in claiming it would be followed.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I also don't know why you think I'm "devoting time to defending it". I'm devoting time to
talking to you about it, because I find it interesting. I'm not really defending anything, beyond superficially. I simply think that if they say they have a five-year plan sketched out, then they probably do. I absolutely don't think that their next five years is set in stone, that would be ridiculous. Nor do I think that it particularly needs defending. I simply had
just barely enough interest in why you formed your opinion to speak to you on the subject.
Also, I'm not saying they're "lying", I'm saying I think it's unlikely that their vision of "5-year plan" is anything like as detailed or precise as you and others have suggested it is.
Who suggested it was detailed or precise? "Book A; Book B" is not precise. As I say above, it's probably MORE detailed than that, but not set in stone. Not fleshed out.
This is another thing I've seen before. People assuming this is some detailed plan, when it's usually vague-as-hell and barely worthy of the name "plan". And talking about it isn't "lying" it's "hype", which is something related but fundamentally different.
You won't catch me arguing that a corporation isn't using hype.
More likely they had and I say had some vague ideas as to where they were going over the next 5 years. More precise ones for the next year or two.
But it's actively silly, imho, to believe that a complete change-out of the people with the most direct influence on D&D is going to result in absolutely no major changes from anything that even was planned.
Never said that it would.
Yet that's exactly what you suggested!
Huh? Where did I do that?
That these guys would just be caretakers who'd follow some established plan. To me, at least, that's a laughable idea, based on how these things have gone down historically.
As usual, on the interned, we seem to be arguing over a thin margin between opinions while looking like there is a gulf between us. I think that it should be
easy to follow a "plan" simply because the plan is vague and broad enough to follow. You made it sound (to me) like you were arguing that there was no way that they left a five year plan. I believe that they probably did. Meanwhile, we agree that the plan is probably malleable and vague. To me, that's what a 5-year plan IS. It's still a plan.
Yup, which is why I said I don't think we'll see any real evidence re: the direction of the new people until at least late 2026.
Sure, I agree.