D&D 5E I think WotC has it backwards (re: story arcs)

[delericho]

I wouldn't call the last two flops because they were tv movies and direct to DVD. A flop would be a theatrical release.

That's arguable, but they can hardly be considered any sort of success, can they?

 

[teitan]

That's arguable, but they can hardly be considered any sort of success, can they?

I kind of likes the second one, even with the hokey dialogue. But yeah not in the popular sense. I'd not doubt they made money though. The budgets were really low and were probably recouped through the commercials shown ad later DVD sales. Dragon God sold pretty well on DVD locally, not sure about beyond my area though lol.

 

[teitan]

Well enough to warrant Vile Darkness anyway lol

 

[delericho]

Well enough to warrant Vile Darkness anyway lol

IFAIK, "Vile Darkness" was more about retaining the license than making money - they had to make a sequel within X years or the license reverted. That's one of the key points in the ongoing lawsuit, actually - WotC's side are claiming that VD wasn't a proper sequel because it has no ongoing characters, plot threads, or settings.

 

[Mercurius]

Converting adventures isn't *that* hard. The hard part of DMing is coming up with stories, maps, NPCs, plots, etc. Having to build encounters is only so-so. A rigorous update (converting all the statblocks) is tricky, but reimagining the encounters with different monsters is easier, and just swapping out statblocks is dead simple.

Plus you learn by doing. You become a better DM by fumbling through a conversion or cobbling together an adventure.
(This also assumes no one else has done the conversion. There are dozens of fully converted Pathfinder APs with full 5e statblocks. So all the work is already done.)

Yes, for you and I. But imagine being a new DM. What you just wrote is daunting, to say the least.

As I see it, you have a few levels of DMs, using the guild ranks:

Novice - Someone just starting. They need a beginner's set.
Apprentice - someone learning the game.
Journeyman - someone who has played for years, has a good grasp of the game, but hasn't mastered it - either because of time, or because they've never gone past being a casual DM.
Master - Someone for whom DMing is second nature. This really can only come through thousands of hours of DMing, and consistency of play.

Even though I've played and DMed D&D for over three decades, I'd call myself a journeyman. I've had many years of not playing, and have rarely played with consistency. You and most here are probably masters. The problem with being a master is that you forget what it is like not to be one. What's the problem, just change the oil? It is the easiest thing in the book. Yes, true, but for a novice it is scary to think of changing your own oil. An apprentice might give it a shot, but they'll need guidance. A journeyman can do it, but might prefer just bringing it to Jiffy Lube.

Funny thing, Paizo is producing content in excess of what TSR was producing at their peak. So it is very much a 2e-style glut. (Excluding the magazines.) Not as bad as 3e during its peak, but pretty darn close. Paizo is putting out an insane amount of content.

I've heard this said before but just don't know if it is true, at least if we only look at the core type products: splats, settings, adventures. I know Paizo is cranking out a lot of other stuff, too.

If I have a few hours to kill, maybe I'll create a comparison of different editions and yearly output in various categories: splats/rules supplements, setting books, adventures, miscellaneous tools, etc.

But when I said that about Paizo, I was mainly thinking about the first three. They put out, what 2-3 hardcovers a year? 2-3 setting books? Two adventure paths and a few one-off modules? That hardly seems excessive. But more so, what they put out doesn't seem like filler, at least as far as the hardcovers go.

Anyhow, to me it seems clear that "more" is in order, or at least that the majority of the fan-base would prefer more. How much more is debatable. But to say that no more is necessary because it is easy to re-tool old material, while true, isn't true for everybody - and only fully true for DMs who are both "masters" and who have a ton of time on their hands.

 

[Jester David]

Yes, for you and I. But imagine being a new DM. What you just wrote is daunting, to say the least.

Even though I've played and DMed D&D for over three decades, I'd call myself a journeyman. I've had many years of not playing, and have rarely played with consistency. You and most here are probably masters. The problem with being a master is that you forget what it is like not to be one. What's the problem, just change the oil? It is the easiest thing in the book. Yes, true, but for a novice it is scary to think of changing your own oil. An apprentice might give it a shot, but they'll need guidance. A journeyman can do it, but might prefer just bringing it to Jiffy Lube.

I think people underestimate new DMs. Many might not know the rules but launch themselves into playing just fine, blissfully unaware of what they haven't learned.
I skimmed the DMG when I started running and just kinda threw adventures together. Both in 2e and 3e. I was years into 3e before I learned about how to appropriately balance encounters and the appropriate treasure to award. I just sorta threw together fights and handed things out. And I played just fine not knowing about rules like reach or the full details of the Attack of Opportunity system. I was too busy writing adventures to care.

I think one of the strongest appeals of D&D to new DMs is being able to tell your own stories and write your own adventures. That's a HUGE draw. So more published content isn't a plus. I was really disdainful of published modules for many, many years, dismissing them as "for people too uncreative to write their own stuff."
Similarly, the last thing new players need is more to read. Just getting through the core rules and the DMG can be daunting without generating waves of new material to be purchased, read, and absorbed.

I think people get far too concerned about holding the hands of new players. First, there's not *that* many of them coming in to really be a viable audience. It's a greying hobby. And they slowly trickle in over years and an inconsistent rate.
WotC has done the best they've ever done to accommodate new players: a cheap starter box and free rules online. And adventures you can run with just those books. All that's huge, and any more is excessive.

I've heard this said before but just don't know if it is true, at least if we only look at the core type products: splats, settings, adventures. I know Paizo is cranking out a lot of other stuff, too.

When I first heard the statistic I thought it was BS so I went and looked myself. And Paizo had a nice lead.
1997 is a good year to compare with TSR IIRC. I think I also went with WotC in 2004 or 2005.

The catch is, TSR did very few hardcover books and released a lot of small accessories. But with 96 pages of adventure/accessory released each month in an AP volume, Paizo keeps up nicely. Just adding up the APs, hardcovers, player companions, and campaign setting books Paizo publishes a couple thousand pages every year. If they repackaged their material to spread it out, they could more than release a 240-page hardcover book each month. Keep in mind that during most of its lifespan, 4e limited itself to a 160-page book each month.

But when I said that about Paizo, I was mainly thinking about the first three. They put out, what 2-3 hardcovers a year? 2-3 setting books? Two adventure paths and a few one-off modules? That hardly seems excessive. But more so, what they put out doesn't seem like filler, at least as far as the hardcovers go.

3 hardcover accessories in the 250+ page range. And in the last couple years they've done a hardcover setting book. They did a hardcover superadventure last year as well and planned the Player's Strategy Guide for last year as well but printing delays kept it to this year. (Had the Strategy Guide not been delayed they would have released 6 hardcover books last year.)
They also produce a 32-page player book every month and a 64-page Campaign Setting book every other month (sometimes more often), which vary between crunch and fluff.

Anyhow, to me it seems clear that "more" is in order, or at least that the majority of the fan-base would prefer more. How much more is debatable. But to say that no more is necessary because it is easy to re-tool old material, while true, isn't true for everybody - and only fully true for DMs who are both "masters" and who have a ton of time on their hands.

How do you figure majority of the fanbase? These forums account for less than 1% of games, and mostly the really hardcore ones that want to talk about the game between games. The vast majority of gamers are likely very different than the type that frequents message boards or even visits ENWorld.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes. Attacking something that I haven't said. Which you did. I said you do not need to play the game to buy the books. You said that I only buy the books to read them. Not the same statement.

Oh, I see. So you were deliberately vague in your statement just so that when someone made the only reasonable implication for what you do with a roleplaying game book that isn't playing the game (which would be READING the book)... you then can say "Ha! STRAW MAN! I NEVER SAID THAT!" And I guess I was right thinking that you must think books should be used as paperweights, doorstops, stepstools or other stupid uses if *reading* the book or *playing the game* with the book aren't the two things you would do with them.

Wow, that's lame. Really, really, lame. You know... occasionally I've found you to make inciteful comments on things... but this one really sucked.

I wrote it already and you ignored it. For some people RPGs are D&D exclusively. Buying other RPGs is not part of the equation as other RPGs do not "exist" or are unimportant. I'll go further and say that D&D is often the first RPG people play and that there is a special emotional relation to D&D. It makes it more desirable than other RPGs. It is also the most known. Viewed as an industry leader. People will buy it just to see where RPGs are now and where they are going. Collection is another reason.

I didn't ignore it... because I included *other D&D editions* in my statements. If you want to read D&D books... you can buy a shiteload of D&D books right now. They just aren't for 5E. But if you aren't playing the game, the mechanics of 5E aren't necessary, and thus buying 5E books specifically aren't necessary either.

Don't think I can get much clearer than that, but I'm sure you're going to surprise me.

 

[Kramodlog]

As Mistwell has pointed out more than once, for the CEO to say that on an earnings call it's not enough for D&D to be doing well relative to two years ago, it needs to be doing well relative to Hasbro as a whole. That's huge, even in a new edition cycle.

Sure, it needs to show on Hasbro's radar, but there are different ways to show on a radar. Suddenly a brand makes 5 million dollars in revenues in one quarter and suddenly a brand sees an increase of 1,000% in revenues in one quarter are two different things. Both can show on radars, but both can have different financial implications.

Also, the CEO mentioned D&D only at the end of the conference, when someone asked him about other brands than MtG. Cause it was all about MtG, Transformers and My Little Pony. I do not know if those are scripted like parliamentary questions, but without it we would have heard about the "tear". So, how much it showed on the CEO's radar, remains to be seen.

Yes, I'll be interested to see those as well. Whether, and for how long, D&D continues to do well is an interesting question.

Indeed. From Mearls' comments in the video where Ryan Dancey talks about D&D's history, it might be that we are more interested in it than folks at WotC. Althought, it might just be politeness from Mearls.

 

[Kramodlog]

the only reasonable implication

The only reasonable implication from my statement is that you do not need to play the game to buy the books. It is true. If you think it is false, attack that.

My statement is also a response to you who were saying WotC wants people to play the game so they want to buy it. All I'm saying is that you do not need to play it to buy it.

But you made this about me and about other RPGs. Bravo.

I didn't ignore it...

You didn't even quote it and totally miss the point I was making and made again. Let us see if you ignored it a second time.

If you want to read D&D books... you can buy a shiteload of D&D books right now. They just aren't for 5E. But if you aren't playing the game, the mechanics of 5E aren't necessary, and thus buying 5E books specifically aren't necessary either.

And ignored again.

So this started with "you do not need to play the game to buy it" and the response is "buy other RGPs and/or buy other editions of D&D and your poopie, Goldomark". This is going nowhere.

 

[houser2112]

This ignores the option of converting past adventures to 5e (which is super easy for 1e/2e), or using the playtest adventures, or buying the prepublished storylines books as inspiration for your games, or buying Pathfinder or 3rd Party adventures and converting those.

Plus, this argument makes the pretty large assumption that people can play through an entire storyline in the six months before the next is released. Very likely, even a group playing somewhat regularly, will take longer than six months. Even a speedy group that manages to do a storyline in 9 months will have their choice after the second storyline: the one they missed or the one being released shortly.

Anecdata: I'm a player in a Rise of the Runelords campaign using 5E rules. We started in November, playing every 3-4 weeks for 6-8 hours, and I think the DM said we've completed book 4, so we're about 2/3 (?) of the way through it. The DM has repeatedly said how surprised he is at how fast we're getting through it, citing combat speed as the likely factor.

Comparing the anniversary edition of RotRL with the two books of either of WotC's APs, on book thickness alone, they're about equal (I haven't actually read any of these books, so thickness is all I have to go on). So, we're on schedule to complete an AP in 9 months, but a more prolific group could probably do it in 6.