D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

[Saplatt]

Also, Essentials hit the shelves late in Q3, but there was a run-up to it that was not exactly well-received - starting with a controversial update to the CB in June, that, along with previews, created some negative impressions of the new release.
...

That still doesn't explain how the APG was able to match sales with the entire Dark Sun project plus the Psionics splat, since none of those involved Essentials. (And keep in mind that a tie in this context was a disaster for WotC, given the relative size and resources of the two companies.)

My point is that 4E was already suffering from book sales problems prior to the release of Essentials. And that doesn't seem like much of a mystery to me. By the summer of 2010, they'd already released a mountain of splats and settings, and there was almost certainly a diminished rate of return on new splats. Historically, that's always been the case. Second, by early 2010, a lot of people had probably realized that, for a fraction of the price of one splatbook, they could simply pay for a one-month download and get all the updates plus the errata, on the DDI character builder. In other words, 4E was already an old man less than three years into its release.

I think that's exactly why they've already indicated they'll be producing materials at a slower rate for 5E, at least when it comes to splats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

T, they'd already released a mountain of splats and settings, and there was almost certainly a diminished rate of return on new splats. Historically, that's always been the case. Second, by early 2010, a lot of people had probably realized that, for a fraction of the price of one splatbook, they could simply pay for a one-month download and get all the updates plus the errata, on the DDI character builder.

"Splats" never sell as well as core books, so that certainly had something to do with it. And, yes, there almost had to have been an impact from DDI, the question - and there's no answer forthcoming from WotC - was whether the cannibalizing of print sales to initiate subscription income streams was a net gain for the line. IcV2 only captures data on one slice of the market, so would miss that sort of thing completely - but it's (slightly) better than nothing.

 

[Queer Venger]

Speaking only for myself (but Im sure Im not the only one)

5e has brought me back to D&D. I lost interest in what 3.5 & 4e became. I was not inspired by either of these versions.
I am thrilled by seeing what 5e can do (and I've been playing and DMing it). I played it at Gen Con and the response from everyone there was that this game is a hit.
Again, Im speaking for myself here: I predict (from talking to lots of folks at Gen Con last week) that D&D 5 will bring back alot of players like myself (and many from Pathfinder).

There I said it.

 

[sunshadow21]

Fully getting players away from Pathfinder is going to be a tough sell, I think. I can see a lot of PF players playing, or at least following, both, but Paizo has a solid following for good reason, and WotC is going to have it's hands full just competing with what Paizo's current and upcoming products. They have many solid product lines, which now includes the promise of a variety of computer games as well, and have found a way to deal with the challenges found in the traditional classes in ways that give players more options without taking those classes away from those that like them. WotC's attempts to create balance while staying within the confines of the traditional classes will win over some, but will turn away just as many when other systems and companies have found ways to do so that don't risk gutting the traditional concepts of those classes the same way that WotC has done now in two editions. For similar reasons, winning back large portions of the OGL crowd is going to be very difficult. The pre 3rd edition crowd will be easier to win over, but only if the DMG has guidelines for trimming a lot of things, like feats, healing surges, and similar things, out of the game without a lot of work. In the end, they made an edition that will please a lot of people, but will have great difficulty pleasing enough people long enough to fully justify the cost and effort of buying all the books and learning what is at it's roots a new system, no matter how many throwbacks they put in to make it seem otherwise.

 

[Haffrung]

Fully getting players away from Pathfinder is going to be a tough sell, I think. I can see a lot of PF players playing, or at least following, both, but Paizo has a solid following for good reason, and WotC is going to have it's hands full just competing with what Paizo's current and upcoming products.

How about the DMs? Pathfinder has a reputation as a game that a lot of DMs run grudgingly. 5E is easier to run than Pathfinder, and more appealing to many Pathfinder players than 4E. If the DMs switch, the players will follow suit.

They have many solid product lines, which now includes the promise of a variety of computer games as well, and have found a way to deal with the challenges found in the traditional classes in ways that give players more options without taking those classes away from those that like them. WotC's attempts to create balance while staying within the confines of the traditional classes will win over some, but will turn away just as many when other systems and companies have found ways to do so that don't risk gutting the traditional concepts of those classes the same way that WotC has done now in two editions.

I'm curious what these traditional classes are and how they've been gutted in 5E.

For similar reasons, winning back large portions of the OGL crowd is going to be very difficult. The pre 3rd edition crowd will be easier to win over, but only if the DMG has guidelines for trimming a lot of things, like feats, healing surges, and similar things, out of the game without a lot of work. In the end, they made an edition that will please a lot of people, but will have great difficulty pleasing enough people long enough to fully justify the cost and effort of buying all the books and learning what is at it's roots a new system, no matter how many throwbacks they put in to make it seem otherwise.

Reading forums, it's easy to conclude that most players are deeply committed to one edition or another. I think that's a factor of people being contentious on the internet, and hardcore edition loyalists being over-represented among the hobbyists who have an online presence. Most players are a lot more casual and easy-going than forums suggest, and will give another edition a try if they think it will be fun. And if players are geek consumers (and why would WotC target people who aren't consumers), they're going to spend a certain amount of money on games every year. If you play D&D, there are a lot worse bets for your gaming money than the PHB for a new edition of D&D for $40.

That's not even speaking of new players. Every edition of D&D is built on a healthy intake of new hobbyists, and 5E is the most accessible edition to casual and new players published in 25 years.

 

[sunshadow21]

How about the DMs? Pathfinder has a reputation as a game that a lot of DMs run grudgingly. 5E is easier to run than Pathfinder, and more appealing to many Pathfinder players than 4E. If the DMs switch, the players will follow suit.

That's not a safe assumption. Players will switch to a point, but getting them to actively invest in a system takes more than an eager DM, as 4E showed quite clearly, especially when they have already invested heavily in some other system. 4E did a great job of winning over DMs, but without an equal wave of support from the player side of the screen, most people still ended dumping it and moving on to something everyone could full enjoy, whether that be PF or something else. PF will certainly lose a certain percentage of their players and DMs, but not nearly as much as so many seem to think. A few will switch over entirely, but most of the current PF crowd that choose to play 5E will do so in addition to playing PF or at the very least will do so augmenting their 5E game with PF material. So Paizo has nothing to worry about until WotC suddenly starts churning out a monthly AP that matches Paizo in quality, and even than, they don't really have need to worry, as all that would mean is people would end up buying from both companies.

In addition, WotC still has a lot of work ahead of them to get anything substantial out beyond the initial release, and while they are hitting all the major notes reasonably well, I'm seeing a lot of potential cracks when looking at the material itself that will prevent 5E from being the takeoff hit that a lot of people are predicting. It will do well, but it will turn off as many people as it pleases when the shine wears off. Not having a book for any world even scheduled, trying to redefine the precise role of fighter and wizard yet again (vs the strategy PF and most OGL companies seem to be following of releasing options to those classes rather than trying to rewrite their core), and trying to mash multiple divergent systems into a d20 chassis not really built to handle many of those concepts will give WotC as many failures as it does successes over time.

 

[pedro2112]

We have a ton of dedicated PF players around here, who are very invested in the Paizo product. Most of them are definitely going to play 5E in one way or another. The majority are going to abandon PF entirely. I know that's anecdotal, but I found that interesting.

 

[sunshadow21]

We have a ton of dedicated PF players around here, who are very invested in the Paizo product. Most of them are definitely going to play 5E in one way or another. The majority are going to abandon PF entirely. I know that's anecdotal, but I found that interesting.

How long that holds up is going to be the key. If WotC doesn't put anything at all out to fill the void after the initial release, players and DMs will end up reaching out to other systems and other companies to fill the hole. Since it sounds like they aren't planning on a whole lot of active support, and the lack of anything major through next summer beyond the DMG supports this, is going to mean that even those that are playing 5E are likely to be buying material from other sources, weakening the overall impact that 5E has on the market as a whole.

 

[Braumeister]

How long that holds up is going to be the key. If WotC doesn't put anything at all out to fill the void after the initial release, players and DMs will end up reaching out to other systems and other companies to fill the hole. Since it sounds like they aren't planning on a whole lot of active support, and the lack of anything major through next summer beyond the DMG supports this, is going to mean that even those that are playing 5E are likely to be buying material from other sources, weakening the overall impact that 5E has on the market as a whole.

I can live with the core books for a while, but I would like to see modules/adventure paths released with some frequency and a strong digital focus such as apps like Morningstar, the return of Dragon/Dungeon in some worthwhile format, and better website functionality.

As player and DM, splatbooks are the last thing I feel I need right now. Give me more adventures and tools, and I'll be quite happy with this edition.

 

[prosfilaes]

That many Pathfinder players would try 5E is not surprising at all, but to declare that you're switching from Pathfinder to 5E without even having seen the DMG and MM seems rather hasty, and I'm seriously skeptical that a majority of Pathfinder players are so tired of Pathfinder that they're willing to jump from ship.