D&D 5E Given WotC plans with the RPG will 5e always be the #1 seller?

[Mistwell]

To be fair, even if that's true, WotC is not D&D, WotC is a CCG company that also owns D&D. The CCG industry is at least a full order of magnitude larger than the RPG industry.

Yes Tony, THAT IS MY POINT. He's arguing HASBRO is exercising creative control over D&D. Not WOTC, Hasbro. D&D doesn't even rank a mention in quarterly reports beyond movie news. It's totally not on Hasbro's radar. At most, if Hasbro ever mentions WOTC, it's purely for CCG news. WOTC truly has total autonomy over D&D. They are considered highly influential within Hasbro, and Hasbro doesn't interfere with day to day operations for small scale product lines such as D&D. At all.

If you disagree with my position, then show me one shred of evidence supporting Black Ranger's claim that Hasbro exercises creative control over the D&D product line of WOTC's.

 

[Mistwell]

Have you? If so, you might have noticed that WotC is solely mentioned for MtG. D&D isn't deemed worthy enough to have a few pixels spared to be added on their investor fact sheet (and that's meant to really wet potential investors appetite for Hasbro)

Heck, even if you look at their 33 pages investor presentation, D&D is still not mentioned at all (unlike 35 other brands deemed worth mentioning). Even the aquisition of WotC is described as "Acquires Wizards of the Coast and it's Magic the Gathering franchise"

Yes, I have, and yeesh are people missing the point here. Yes Mirtek, I am well aware D&D isn't deemed worth enough to even get mentioned. Now which position would that tend to support? Mine, which says that Hasbro does not exercise creative control over D&D which is run by the WOTC division which never warrants any notice by Hasbro in any way other than for CCGs in their quarterly reports? Or Black Ranger, who claims Hasbro does exercise creative control over D&D despite D&D never warranting any reporting at all, based on his degree from a college telling him that all companies would exercise control all the time over everything because...reasons?

If you disagree with my position, then show me one shred of evidence supporting Black Ranger's claim that Hasbro exercises creative control over the D&D product line of WOTC's.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes Tony, THAT IS MY POINT. He's arguing HASBRO is exercising creative control over D&D. Not WOTC, Hasbro. D&D doesn't even rank a mention in quarterly reports beyond movie news. It's totally not on Hasbro's radar.

You'd've made that point much more clearly and convincingly by arguing that D&D's revenue is too puny to concern Hasbro, than by pointing out that WotC, irrelevantly, is raking it in on the CCG side of the house.

Whether Hasbro's management is the kind to meddle creatively with a low-performing brand in the hopes of building it up vs cutting it's costs so it's profitable even at such low revenue is another question.

 

[Ratskinner]

.... 5e is as arcane as 3.x - and only barely saved from being as counter-intuitive as AD&D by sticking with d20 core mechanics. For every improvement in clarity/consistency that makes the game simpler or easier to understand (like 'vantage) there's several steps back (like Vancian, saving throws, inconsistent class advancement), not to mention unchallenged D&Disms like armor making you 'miss,' that have always made new players scratch their heads a bit.

While I wouldn't say 5e is simple to learn, I wouldn't put it near 3e or AD&D in its..."arcanity?"...3e had a relatively simple core, but with oodles of exceptions, traps, and corner-cases. AD&D practically defines an arcane ruleset. 5e...nowhere close to that. That said, no edition of D&D even approaches the ease with which new players can pick up a game like Fate, and for some of the reasons you mention. I haven't personally tried to introduce any newbies to Dungeon World yet, but I'd be very curious to see how it worked out (especially with some of the alternative playbooks/classes that have come out for spellcasters.)

 

[Mistwell]

You'd've made that point much more clearly and convincingly by arguing that D&D's revenue is too puny to concern Hasbro, than by pointing out that WotC, irrelevantly, is raking it in on the CCG side of the house.

Whether Hasbro's management is the kind to meddle creatively with a low-performing brand in the hopes of building it up vs cutting it's costs so it's profitable even at such low revenue is another question.

It's relevant that WOTC is raking it in on the CCG side because WOTC doesn't tend to mess with divisions that are experiencing success, just those who are experiencing distress. Right now, the WOTC division (in general, thanks to the success of the CCGs) have a lot of influence within Hasbro. They're sort of the golden boys. Nobody at Hasbro is messing with what they do, because they're bringing in so much money. And since D&D falls under WOTC, that's included in the "we're not messing with this division". That was the point of my mentioning WOTC's success.

As long as D&D doesn't become noticed as "harming WOTC so much that WOTC's revenue noticeably goes down", which would be damn hard to do given the tiny budgets they get to begin with inside of WOTC as a whole, I don't think anyone at Hasbro will touch it, or even really notice it.

And again, if you have any evidence that Hasbro is exercising creative control over the D&D product line in any way, I'd like to hear it. Right now, it seems like a pretty dubious claim.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's relevant that WOTC is raking it in on the CCG side because WOTC doesn't tend to mess with divisions that are experiencing success, just those who are experiencing distress.

Are you sure the CCG and RPG sides of the house are being lumped together like that? They weren't at D&D's last rev-roll.

And again, if you have any evidence that Hasbro is exercising creative control over the D&D product line in any way, I'd like to hear it. Right now, it seems like a pretty dubious claim.

The shape of 5e and lack of resources apparently devoted to it would seem to argue against Hasbro exercising creative control over D&D. If nothing else, Mike Mearls has been fairly forthcoming about his preferences, and 5e seems to cleave to them.

 

[BryonD]

Hmmm...this isn't exactly how I remember it. There was a sitshtorm from the beginning, and not just the "Its not my D&D" or Slaviscekian PR debacles. Discerning gamers were having issues with the rules from the beginning, particularly the Grind and having to mess with damage and attacks and all that. The problems were evident right away. I think what became clear later on is that WotC wasn't able to fix it, despite giving it a kind of half-hearted shot (Essentials).

I agree with the comment regarding the storm. I know that a lot of people found serious problems from the beginning and I'll agree that fans saw some issues. But there was massive fanfare about the overwhelming success of the NYT bestselling game and much celebration in the face of data that 4E was the king of RPGs. There was much proclamation that hold-outs would give in to the inevitable, that Pazio were fools, etc, etc.... The fan side was overwhelmingly supportive, even if they agreed in some issue (grind) which they considered well worth the trade. (And, to be clear, good for them!!)

Remember, Essentials was planned like a year after launch, so WotC knew there was a problem.

Well, again, it depends on who you asked. There was certainly more than a little "I told you so" from the h4ter side. But the pro-4E side was still staunch. They claimed that critical comments were just proof of desperation. Remember, it was all about getting that red box on the WalMart shelf. Everything from there would be destiny.

Don't forget that many people had the rules before they were published by virtue of PDF Gate (remember the core rulebook PDFs with the little rainbow code bar? Not that I owned such a despicable, illegal download but "I just heard about it" ).

Right. Good thing that hasn't happened this time.......

Seriously, I don't strongly disagree with the over-arching point you are making. The foundation for disaster was there. But at the same time there was enough new shiny and endorphins that the atmosphere amongst fans was through the roof. And they were wrong.

So, just because 5E fans (including me this time, though I'm not a full superfan) are feeling the same way this time doesn't mean things will be any better 3 years from now.

I still think a hell of a lot is riding on how hackable the game is without losing itself combined with how much WotC can get the fanbase to embrace a customizable RPG.

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I wouldn't say 5e is simple to learn, I wouldn't put it near 3e or AD&D in its..."arcanity?"...3e had a relatively simple core, but with oodles of exceptions, traps, and corner-cases. AD&D practically defines an arcane ruleset. 5e...nowhere close to that.

I acknowledge that it hasn't given up all the ground that modern D&D gained in consolidating the quixotic variety of rules in AD&D. But, it has given up some, and not done as much to move further in that direction (Advantage/Disadvantage being the clearest example of what they /have/ done - honestly, whether bounded accuracy is another is debatable).

For now, it enjoys a certain level of reduced complexity due to existing only in it's basic form. By that definition (incomplete = simple), prior-ed starter products (that covered only a few levels) were /much/ simpler.

That said, no edition of D&D even approaches the ease with which new players can pick up a game like Fate, and for some of the reasons you mention. I haven't personally tried to introduce any newbies to Dungeon World yet, but I'd be very curious to see how it worked out.

I thought Dungeon World was one of the OSR retro-clones?

And, yes, there are plenty of genuinely-simple-to-learn games out there. They're just (perhaps sadly) not the games that introduce most potential new players to the hobby.

 

[Mistwell]

Are you sure the CCG and RPG sides of the house are being lumped together like that? They weren't at D&D's last rev-roll.

Yes, it's all under WOTC now, and that was explained near the end of the very article people keep citing to talk about how at one time they were not. You can also see that in the quarterly reports - it's all lumped in under one heading.

 

[Ratskinner]

I thought Dungeon World was one of the OSR retro-clones?

Well, that's a matter of no small debate. It uses some very new-school mechanics, but aims to reproduce an old-school vibe. There are staunch supporters on both sides. I personally didn't find it nearly as "hard-coded" as the game is purported to be in that regard, and the experience from the GM side of the table was vastly different from my recollections of old-school days. (Not that it was terrible.)

And, yes, there are plenty of genuinely-simple-to-learn games out there. They're just (perhaps sadly) not the games that introduce most potential new players to the hobby.

True. Which, I think is the real argument against 5e's simplicity being a big selling point. D&D has, for better or worse, been the entry point to TTRPGs for decades now, and its complexity has never seemed to slow that down. For that matter, the much ballyhooed "fad" period was during the AD&D/BECMI era.