D&D 5E Mearl's Book Design Philosophy

[Shasarak]

I think that both of you are getting caught up on the same thing. 3E (and it's "business plan") was a short term success. Releasing splats increases short term profits but it erodes long-term profits as it quickens the decline of the edition and eventually leads to a new addition (which usually means a time between the 2 editions where profits and revenue dry up and books towards the end of the edition usually sell ).

5E is trying to buck that trend by thinking about long-term profits (evergreen edition, strengthening the brand name, etc.). Yes that means a change in strategy, it also means more focus on the "brand", and less focus on pumping out splatbooks and other short term profit/revenue generators.

From a marketing standpoint they are most likely doing it right.

So if an 8 year run is a "short term success" then what do we call a 2 year run?

Or am I the only one to remember the last "ever-green" product that WotC produced?

 

[wedgeski]

Hmm. It appears the community can ceaselessly complain they're not getting what they're used to (splats, MM2, PHB2, etc.) while simultaneously calling BS on Mearls when he says he's doing something different this edition. That is one delicious cake we're eating.

 

[wedgeski]

Many corporations blunder. New Coke was a disaster.

Oh you *so* lose this thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

All outward signs of 3e suggested it was a success and yet now we are told that it was not successful.

So it seems that "success" is a moving target.

It was a success but WoTC screwed it up. The big ones were.

3.5 released 2 years to early
To many books bloated the market (diminishing returns) combined with
2004 3.5 crashing the market+ World of Warcraft landing.

I think there is a middle ground between bloat and very little. They are working on a new book of splat. What I think they are doing is driving up pent up demand so when something does land it sells big kind of like the original UA saved D&D.

They are also trying out to see if the "adventures don't sell theory" holds true. They sold in 1E/B/X day and with the Pathfinder APs they did not sell to much during the 2E one due to things like to many settings, crappy adventures produced and a lack of Gary E Gygaxs name on the cover.

3.0 was stupidly front loaded and in 2E I think it took them 4 years to make a FR boxed set and TSR only made 1 hardcover a year+ lots of softcover.

They started spamming books later because they needed a quick money infusion (UA and DL saved TSR), sure enough though they started working on 2E two years later though.

I think people are not used to waiting. I have resorted to 3pp myself thatis money left on the table by WoTC. I want to buy more but o not want 3E or 4E levels of bloat (or 2E). Buying a dozen D&D books sure buying 60 or 80+ like 2E/3E not so much. Bought 4 of the 5E APs, not rally buying any more now so no CoS/SKT for me. Its not like they have done a good job with all those APs anyway.

 

[wedgeski]

I think people are not used to waiting. I have resorted to 3pp myself thatis money left on the table by WoTC. I want to buy more but o not want 3E or 4E levels of bloat (or 2E). Buying a dozen D&D books sure buying 60 or 80+ like 2E/3E not so much. Bought 4 of the 5E APs, not rally buying any more now so no CoS/SKT for me. Its not like they have done a good job with all those APs anyway.

I think WotC is perfectly happy for you to buy 3P material, else there wouldn't be a SRD. Besides which, if you're buying off the DMSG, it *is* money going into their coffers.

 

[Maxperson]

New Coke met with immediate backlash and public protests, whereas all outward signs suggest that 5E is a success.

Yes. However, I bring up New Coke as an example that just because the company views a tactic as successful, does not mean that it is good or won't eventually bit them in the rear.

 

[Maxperson]

Unless you are saying that you like New Coke, I'm not sure I follow how that is relevant to you and WotC disagreeing as to how successful something was.

The Coca Cola company thought it was a good idea. WotC thinks crapping on tons of old customers is a good idea.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that both of you are getting caught up on the same thing. 3E (and it's "business plan") was a short term success. Releasing splats increases short term profits but it erodes long-term profits as it quickens the decline of the edition and eventually leads to a new addition (which usually means a time between the 2 editions where profits and revenue dry up and books towards the end of the edition usually sell ).

It has not been proven that releasing a small number of splats does that at all. 3e and 4e released TONS of splats, and that's not what is being asked for here. Equating lots with a few like you are is inherently flawed.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh you *so* lose this thread.

Heathen! Were you actually one of those who LIKED New Coke?!?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes. However, I bring up New Coke as an example that just because the company views a tactic as successful, does not mean that it is good or won't eventually bit them in the rear.

Except that New Coke is a horrible analogy for 5E because they are in no way similar.

The correct analogy would be that New Coke = 4E. A direct and quite substantial movement away from the standard thing of the past in hopes of attracting new customers. However, that new item... while happily accepted and judged superior by some, was rejected out of hand by a huge swathe of the population as being too different. It just wasn't what they thought of as that thing.

Thus... the proper analogy for 5E is that it is Coca-Cola Classic. A return back to the popular form of the past that made most of the customer base very happy and which actually bumped sales. But that there were still some who felt that this "new old" version just wasn't the same as the actual old version, and thus refused to go with it. But they were so few in number that the company saw the sales data and realized what they were doing was going so well that they were completely okay with leaving those few others behind.