D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Hussar]

I'm not sure if this was directed toward me (or if it was just thrown out there in particular), but I'll admit that I don't know; Teos Abadia may have drawn some conclusions in that regard, but I honestly can't recall off the top of my head, though to be fair that's not really germane to what I've been discussing here.

Little of both?

My point being, there is a huge difference between sales growth slowing and sales outright falling.

We know that sales were falling for 3.5. It wasn’t that they were stable or the rate of growth was slowing, sales were outright dropping.

The only way to stay afloat was to keep endlessly churning out another book. And that isn’t stable. It’s just not because too much rides on those initial sales of each title.

The slower release means that you aren’t taking sales away from the tails of older books. That’s the secret to 5e’s success afaik. That you have six or eight year old books that are still selling and selling well.

How many copies of a 2015 Paizo title do you think they sold this month? WotC is still selling thousands of SCAG copies a year. If the start banging out new books, those will inevitably lead to less sales of older titles.

 

[Echohawk]

I'm not aware that we do. But as I noted before, the #2 company in the TTRPG space found a way to make them work.

Now, I want to be clear that I'm not drawing a straight line from Paizo to WotC in that regard; quite the contrary. Would WotC have needed to change their distribution method(s), and possibly their target audience? That seems likely.

I find it hard to disagree with Alzrius's point that it is clearly possible for a RPG company to have a much faster product release schedule than 5e's and still be successful. However, it probably isn't possible for WotC to have a much faster print schedule and still be (sufficiently) successful, at least not using their current business model.

Paizo relies heavily on subscriptions for print products and are not attached to keeping every title available in print. Those two things are a significant advantage when answering the question "what pace of releases can our business model support?". WotC has to worry about keeping everything available in print, which demands more shelf space in bookstores, and more risk in determining how many copies to produce.

But we have an increasing amount of evidence that WotC is indeed adjusting its business model to support a faster pace of content release. It isn't doing that by churning out more print products (because, business model), but by ramping up the pace of digital-only releases. Between 2017 and 2021 there were seven paid digital-only releases on D&D Beyond. Even single one of those was a charity fund raiser. So far in 2023, we've had three paid digital-only release. The first of those (Misplaced Monsters: Volume One) was again a charity release. But Monstrous Compendium Vol. 4: Eldraine Creatures and Adventure Atlas: The Mortuary are normal paid-for products.

I think this makes it very clear that WotC agrees with those who think the market will support a faster release rate for D&D content. They plan to cater to that not by messing (much) with the release rate of printed books, but by upping the pace of digital content releases. That's going to make people who want more content and don't mind digital happy. And it will make the people who want more content, but only if it is in print, even more unhappy.​

 

[UngainlyTitan]

... Rather, what I think is important is countering the narrative that 3.5's release schedule necessarily meant that unprofitability/unsustainability was inevitable, i.e. that releasing so much so fast meant that there'd be more expeditures than revenue....

Why exactly is this important?

 

[Hussar]

Why exactly is this important?

I think I can answer this one.

It's important to those who are asking for a faster release schedule. If they can show that a faster release schedule is economically viable (or at least as viable as the current release schedule) then it shows that a faster release schedule would be a good thing.

For me, I really don't see it. Every edition of D&D with a faster release schedule died a painful death. I have zero interest in going through yet another edition churn, thankyouverymuch. Four since WotC bought D&D is more than enough. Anything that keeps us in that evergreen belt where you get an optional book every ten years that cleans things up and gives it a spit and polish makes me happy.

Put it this way. I bought THREE core sets for three different editions (barring a 3.5 DMG) in less than ten years. I have zero interest in going back to anything approaching that. While I might be on record for wishing 2024 was a bit more of a change than it appears to be, I'm not exactly unhappy either.

People talked about the risk inherent in the VTT. Well, I can see that, but, to be honest, even if the VTT entirely crashes and burns, I doubt it would have much impact on D&D. It's largely a separate thing. Bumping up the production schedule, OTOH, seems a far riskier proposition - particularly if we bumped it to the level that @Maxperson was suggesting where you have a new book of rules every year. Urgh, no thanks. Really not interested in that.

 

[dave2008]

This sounds like a fundamental disagreement with regard to not only what we think is relevant, but what we're talking about in the first place. I'm not of the opinion that 3.5 sales tapering off is particularly noteworthy, as it's something that's common to all editions, including 5E. Rather, what I think is important is countering the narrative that 3.5's release schedule necessarily meant that unprofitability/unsustainability was inevitable, i.e. that releasing so much so fast meant that there'd be more expeditures than revenue. I find nothing to indicate that this was the case, and reason to say otherwise.

Yes, we disagree about what is being discussed. IMO, that (the bold part)was never the discussion. I don't think anyone but you was just talking about 3.5e

I respectfully disagree. While 5E is selling well, I don't find much to indicate what it is that's prompting more people to buy their books (though as I said that's not my primary consideration here to begin with). That D&D is a phenomenon now isn't being argued, but why it's selling so well doesn't seem to me to have a clear answer, or even much in the way of anything that can be considered evidence; only speculation and opinion.

I suggest we agree to disagree and move one.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think I can answer this one.

It's important to those who are asking for a faster release schedule. If they can show that a faster release schedule is economically viable (or at least as viable as the current release schedule) then it shows that a faster release schedule would be a good thing.

Well, Yeah, I get that but to what purpose? Even if they could convince everyone here, we do not call the shots at WoTC and I do not believe that they have convinced everyone here. For all we know WoTC management have data that justify their current position and invalidates the other approach.

For me, I really don't see it. Every edition of D&D with a faster release schedule died a painful death. I have zero interest in going through yet another edition churn, thankyouverymuch. Four since WotC bought D&D is more than enough. Anything that keeps us in that evergreen belt where you get an optional book every ten years that cleans things up and gives it a spit and polish makes me happy.

Put it this way. I bought THREE core sets for three different editions (barring a 3.5 DMG) in less than ten years. I have zero interest in going back to anything approaching that. While I might be on record for wishing 2024 was a bit more of a change than it appears to be, I'm not exactly unhappy either.

I mostly agree, I think that Paizo manages a faster release cycle is because they have subscribers, their system is crunchier and thus a bit more hardcore and that it would not scale to WoTC's numbers.
What I also understand is why the people wanting to buy more stuff do not go third party there is more than enough stuff out there. Quite a bit of it at WoTC standards or better.

People talked about the risk inherent in the VTT. Well, I can see that, but, to be honest, even if the VTT entirely crashes and burns, I doubt it would have much impact on D&D. It's largely a separate thing. Bumping up the production schedule, OTOH, seems a far riskier proposition - particularly if we bumped it to the level that @Maxperson was suggesting where you have a new book of rules every year. Urgh, no thanks. Really not interested in that.

Again I agree. On the topic of the VTT, I see as WoTC management realising that they cannot grow profits to where they want them by milking the core ttrpg market but they need it as the base for the IP and the cred to spread D&D in a way that is more monetizable.

 

[Hussar]

Well, Yeah, I get that but to what purpose? Even if they could convince everyone here, we do not call the shots at WoTC and I do not believe that they have convinced everyone here. For all we know WoTC management have data that justify their current position and invalidates the other approach.

.... well.... I have my own thoughts as to the purpose here, but, I'll not give in to that particular temptation.

I mostly agree, I think that Paizo manages a faster release cycle is because they have subscribers, their system is crunchier and thus a bit more hardcore and that it would not scale to WoTC's numbers.
What I also understand is why the people wanting to buy more stuff do not go third party there is more than enough stuff out there. Quite a bit of it at WoTC standards or better.

Again, I'm with you on this one. Never minding DM's Guild, there are a number of highly professional publishers who have a pretty serious library of 5e books. If you want a bunch of crunch and setting, there's Kobold right there. All you could ever want. And fantastic stuff too.

Again I agree. On the topic of the VTT, I see as WoTC management realising that they cannot grow profits to where they want them by milking the core ttrpg market but they need it as the base for the IP and the cred to spread D&D in a way that is more monetizable.

Again, I'm the wrong one to be talking here. I don't really see it either.

 

[Nikosandros]

Why the need to second-guess WotC commercial strategy? It is obviously going well for them. Could it go even better? Possibly, but that's their concern, not mine. Is it possible to have a different strategy and still maintain profitability? That's also true, but each company will make its own decisions.

As customers we are free to decide our purchases and the amount of choices that we currently have is mind-boggling. Like, I can't even keep up with all the news about products coming out in specific niches.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why the need to second-guess WotC commercial strategy? It is obviously going well for them. Could it go even better? Possibly, but that's their concern, not mine. Is is possible to have a different strategy and still maintain profitability? That's also true, but each company will make its own decisions.

As customers we are free to decide our purchase and the amount of choices that we currently have is mind-boggling. Like, I can't even keep up with all the news about products coming out in specific niches.

Moreover, as you allude to and as @UngainlyTitan also just recently noted ...

In addition to the releases by WoTC ... there is a literal firehose of content by 3PP. Both physical media and stuff on the DM's Guild. And it covers almost every possible thing you can think of.

Sure, some of it isn't the highest quality. But some of it is as good (if not better) than anything WoTC is putting out.

Which brings us around to another point- this gradual release schedule not only has led D&D to have the strongest sales ever (not just "good," as people have said ... these have been the best years of D&D, eclipsing even the boom times between Egbert and the '84 crash), it has also led to a healthy ecosystem for 3PP.

And if WoTC starts seriously ramping up its production schedule, that will result in more material that will crowd out the work of these 3PP. Which ... well, personally, I like a world in which they have the space to profit as well.

 

[mamba]

Everyone was angry for what they explored doing, not what they actually did.

If you explore a bank robbery or murder, people can get upset over you exploring it too, not just about you committing it.

The terms were very draconic, they did not have a legal leg to stand on as far as revoking 1.0 (that was just posturing to pressure people into 1.1), and in their communication they were very firm that they would at best budge very little. So no, that was not an open ended exploration, it was an attempt at strong-arming which they lost as they turned out to be in the weaker position.

I grant them that they recovered and released the SRD under CC, but this was more than a friendly discussion among peers that they just started awkwardly