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

[delericho]

Sure, it needs to show on Hasbro's radar...

No. I'm sorry, but this argument has been thoroughly debunked. It's not enough for D&D to "show on the radar", and it's not enough for it to be doing better (even much better) than before. To be mentioned in those terms on that call it needs to be causing a material revenue increase for Hasbro.

Now, you can argue that maybe that's not because 5e is the success, but that there's some licensing deal that we aren't privy to that is making the difference. That seems unlikely, especially with WotC's statements that this is the most successful release ever, but it is indeed possible.

But the argument that this is just a relative success due to the previous two years of near-silence just isn't credible.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], in response.

Even if I agree with you that new DMs don't need to be hand-held and are more creative than are sometimes given credit for, not to mention something I don't think you mentioned, which is that a lot of the reason people play D&D instead of computer games is the creative aspect. So I'll give you all that. But what about those folks, such as myself, who don't have as much time as we did back in the day, that want easily insertible one-shot adventures and pieces to work with, to fit together? I love the creative element of creating a world, putting together a campaign, but struggle with the time to create site locations and adventures.

Looking beyond adventures, I have never run a game in a published setting because I love world building. But I love buying setting books and find them of value to the game as a whole for new reasons beyond the actual use of them in a game. One, they are great resources for ideas and reading enjoyment for folks such as myself. Two, and this is the important one, a living setting brings the game alive in a way that, in my mind, was really lacking from 4E but we can see in Pathfinder, and both 2E and 3E.

See, this is where I think WotC just doesn't "get it," and Paizo has gotten it. Not every product needs to meet a certain profit margin. Sometimes you need loss leaders to support the overall brand. A setting is a perfect example. Another good example is a print magazine. Sure, magazines are an old technology and I realize that the chances that we'll ever see an actual print version of Dragon are virtually zero, but in my mind when Dragon stopped being printed there was a hole in the D&D community that was never really filled. I do think the app is a nice move, although we'll see how things go with that.

So all that said, here's a question for you: Why are you so dead-set on defending WotC's current minimalist approach? What harm is there in an increased output of product? Please don't say "edition treadmill" and "glut," as I'm not advocating for the excesses of the past. I'm talking about a fuller schedule of products, one that is diversified and serves more than only those two extremes of the spectrum that want to either play the story arcs, one after the other, or do everything themselves. Imagine a half a dozen other products a year, two or three modules, a splat or two, and a setting book or two? What harm is there in that?

 

[Parmandur]

[MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION], in response.



Even if I agree with you that new DMs don't need to be hand-held and are more creative than are sometimes given credit for, not to mention something I don't think you mentioned, which is that a lot of the reason people play D&D instead of computer games is the creative aspect. So I'll give you all that. But what about those folks, such as myself, who don't have as much time as we did back in the day, that want easily insertible one-shot adventures and pieces to work with, to fit together? I love the creative element of creating a world, putting together a campaign, but struggle with the time to create site locations and adventures.



Looking beyond adventures, I have never run a game in a published setting because I love world building. But I love buying setting books and find them of value to the game as a whole for new reasons beyond the actual use of them in a game. One, they are great resources for ideas and reading enjoyment for folks such as myself. Two, and this is the important one, a living setting brings the game alive in a way that, in my mind, was really lacking from 4E but we can see in Pathfinder, and both 2E and 3E.



See, this is where I think WotC just doesn't "get it," and Paizo has gotten it. Not every product needs to meet a certain profit margin. Sometimes you need loss leaders to support the overall brand. A setting is a perfect example. Another good example is a print magazine. Sure, magazines are an old technology and I realize that the chances that we'll ever see an actual print version of Dragon are virtually zero, but in my mind when Dragon stopped being printed there was a hole in the D&D community that was never really filled. I do think the app is a nice move, although we'll see how things go with that.



So all that said, here's a question for you: Why are you so dead-set on defending WotC's current minimalist approach? What harm is there in an increased output of product? Please don't say "edition treadmill" and "glut," as I'm not advocating for the excesses of the past. I'm talking about a fuller schedule of products, one that is diversified and serves more than only those two extremes of the spectrum that want to either play the story arcs, one after the other, or do everything themselves. Imagine a half a dozen other products a year, two or three modules, a splat or two, and a setting book or two? What harm is there in that?

Because their current schedule is what I want (noy to speak for him). Pre-5E, the only D&D book I ever bought new was the 4E PHB; and other than that a used 3E PHB.

Now I have bought. Every. Single. Book. At least partially because, ya know, I can.

 

[Nellisir]

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."

You're conflating at least two types of product here, and not in a useful way. I too was disdainful of published adventures for many, many years. I didn't buy them. I DON'T buy them. But I bought setting material and game accessories because they were interesting and gave me a lot of new ideas in ways that adventures didn't.

I'm not sure what your buying habits were when you were younger, but WotC's current plan seems directly inimical to keeping young you as a returning (not one-time) customer, and anyone similarly interested in homebrewing. I mean, you say

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.

but you wouldn't have bought those adventures?

 

[Nellisir]

Because their current schedule is what I want (noy to speak for him). Pre-5E, the only D&D book I ever bought new was the 4E PHB; and other than that a used 3E PHB.

Now I have bought. Every. Single. Book. At least partially because, ya know, I can.

So...you only own the 4e PHB, the 3e PHB, and the 5e line? And you're advocating against a sort of book that you're not interested in, haven't read, haven't bought, and won't buy?

Why are you here in this thread? Why is it so important to you that I not get what I want? All the people who want a minimal release schedule from WotC...just don't buy anything else. Is that so complicated? What do you care about the life cycle of 5e? Your whole point is that YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED. That's what you keep shouting at us, anyways. We don't "need" more. Well, neither do you. There are tons of old adventures - and new adventures - for other systems out there to convert when you need a new one. Is it really so terrible to let people who've already read or played those actually get something they haven't seen before? (PS - Dear WotC - No more Castle Ravenloft adventures. Thanks.)

You've decided that since you're full, we shouldn't eat.

 

[Kramodlog]

No. I'm sorry, but this argument has been thoroughly debunked.

Um... That is not a rebuttle to what I said. I didn't say the CEO lied.

It's not enough for D&D to "show on the radar", and it's not enough for it to be doing better (even much better) than before. To be mentioned in those terms on that call it needs to be causing a material revenue increase for Hasbro.

Cause Mistwell said so it is accurate? Please. There is context that his rebuttle doesn't adress. Read the transcript. The CEO was answering follow up questions to the presentation. When D&D was mentioned to answer a follow up question to one of the follow up questions. It wasn't in the initial presentation. So probably not veeted and it doesn't need to cause material increase to Hasbro. It does not invalidates the "sudden surge in revenues theory".

Sean P. McGowan - Needham & Co. LLC
Hi. Thanks. Also I have a couple, if I can. When you look at the royalties and entertainment revenue that comes in and then you allocate them around the brands, can you talk a little bit about what that says about the growth of – would TRANSFORMERS have been up without such payments? And I'm not trying to say that's not legitimate revenue. It is. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether it's the payments that are driving that growth or is that actual sales of toys? And similarly, what does it say for Girls if – you had a lot of things going right on the entertainment licensing in the quarter for Girls and it's still down?

Brian D. Goldner - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director
Yeah. I think we noted why Girls was down. We're up against a very big FURBY comp, and, of course, in the first quarter, Easy Bake was down because, again, it's very holiday-sales oriented. And there's a bit of impact with some inventories based on the West Coast port strike and some delays around a little bit of product. TRANSFORMERS would have been up without the entertainment payment. So I think that I would turn it around a little bit. I would say that our objective is to continue to grow our Franchise Brands across a number of dimensions. We're going to continue to be the preeminent creator of toys and games through great innovations and consumer insight.

But through storytelling, we are going to bring the power of our brands to other consumer product categories. That is the nature of the way fans and enthusiasts want to enjoy brands today. We are following the consumer, and they're telling us that that, in fact, is the most contemporary way to proceed, and that is modern-day brand building. And so we think that we're offering both a differentiated approach to the market as well as something that's incredibly compelling to our fans, enthusiasts, kids and other audiences around the world. And that's what's being borne out. The blueprint is – the strategy that we're employing and we see those revenues from our consumer products business as important as and an opportunity to expand our operating profit beyond just what our Toys and Games business can provide. But recognize that our franchise – but I recognize that our Franchise Brands inherently even within our toy business, enjoy higher operating margin than our partner brands because, of course, they have lower royalties to be paid out.

Sean P. McGowan - Needham & Co. LLC
Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Similarly, was the increase in – like, was Games up ex-MAGIC?

Brian D. Goldner - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director
Games was flattish. It was up in the U.S., down a little bit internationally, but we have a number of games that grew within the quarter. In fact, a raft of games including Dungeons & Dragons, which is really on a tear, Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE and OUIJA were all up in the quarter. And we're seeing great sell-through of our games. Our Games POS was up in the first quarter in the U.S., and up in many markets around the world. And so down a little bit internationally, but we view a lot of that as just timing on some of our new games initiatives.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/308...arnings-call-transcript?page=5&p=qanda&l=last

The guy was asking if revenues for some brands came from the direct sells of toys or from royalties from all the crap that comes with brands (e.g. films). The CEO says that the revenues (or sells, not sure) from Games have been flat except for the ones mentioned, including D&D that is a on a tear. It is more complicated than just being a case of "it needs to give Hasbro increase material gain to be mentioned".

So, revenues (or sells) are up. Yeah, they are selling more than they use too. We know that. What it actually means, we do not know exactly what a tear means and what is the context.

Now, you can argue that maybe that's not because 5e is the success, but that there's some licensing deal that we aren't privy to that is making the difference. That seems unlikely, especially with WotC's statements that this is the most successful release ever, but it is indeed possible.

They would be getting money from a product we do not know exist?

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Um... That is not a rebuttle to what I said. I didn't say the CEO lied.

Cause Mistwell said so it is accurate? Please. There is context that his rebuttle doesn't adress. Read the transcript. The CEO was answering follow up questions to the presentation. When D&D was mentioned to answer a follow up question to one of the follow up questions. It wasn't in the initial presentation. So probably not veeted and it doesn't need to cause material increase to Hasbro. It does not invalidates the "sudden surge in revenues theory".

http://seekingalpha.com/article/308...arnings-call-transcript?page=5&p=qanda&l=last

The guy was asking if revenues for some brands came from the direct sells of toys or from royalties from all the crap that comes with brands (e.g. films). The CEO says that the revenues (or sells, not sure) from Games have been flat except for the ones mentioned, including D&D that is a on a tear. It is more complicated than just being a case of "it needs to give Hasbro increase material gain to be mentioned".

So, revenues (or sells) are up. Yeah, they are selling more than they use too. We know that. What it actually means, we do not know exactly what a tear means and what is the context.

They would be getting money from a product we do not know exist?

You're an under-the-bridge-dweller, please leave.

 

[Beleriphon]

They would be getting money from a product we do not know exist?

They could, say a TV show deal that is finalized but hasn't started an production stages. It is unlikely though, given the media coverage of new TV show and movies. Could be all of corporate NDA stuff floating around, but again not terribly likely given that Hasbro wants people to be excited and invest in the brands they own.

 

[Capn Charlie]

I think a really big potential is being lost by not offering compendiums of the OP adventures. I'd love nothing more than a big hardbacked binding of all the AL adventures at the end of the season, with some extra info thrown in, like some epilogue stuff about how it turns out in those town in likely scenarios, some interlinking of the adventures, etc. Heck, want to be my best friend for life, send out paperback folios of those adventures to OP locations, then sell the hardback at the end of the season, giving the DMs a little something neat.

 

[Parmandur]

So...you only own the 4e PHB, the 3e PHB, and the 5e line? And you're advocating against a sort of book that you're not interested in, haven't read, haven't bought, and won't buy?



Why are you here in this thread? Why is it so important to you that I not get what I want? All the people who want a minimal release schedule from WotC...just don't buy anything else. Is that so complicated? What do you care about the life cycle of 5e? Your whole point is that YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED. That's what you keep shouting at us, anyways. We don't "need" more. Well, neither do you. There are tons of old adventures - and new adventures - for other systems out there to convert when you need a new one. Is it really so terrible to let people who've already read or played those actually get something they haven't seen before? (PS - Dear WotC - No more Castle Ravenloft adventures. Thanks.)



You've decided that since you're full, we shouldn't eat.

I've got some 1E and Basic stuff from used bookstores; thing is, during 3E, I wanted so much that I froze and bought nothing. Overwhelming product release. Now, they are releasing at a relaxed pace, and it is easier to buy.

I love what they are doing; I want them to continue on course. If you get what you want, I'll stop buying new books because I can't keep up. They seem to think more people are like that, so their return on investment is best served with a slow steady schedule. Mearls has gone into this in detail on Twitter.