• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Mike Mearls explaining his view of D&D and how it should be merchandize

Wow, if this actually is their take on D&D, then the future of the RPG and its settings will be truly sad. Hearing all this talk about valuing some random D&D-branded apps, t-shirts or other little, meaningless (IMO) stuff over the RPG is so damn discouraging.
Whether you like it or not, it is important to be realistic about where we as a market fit in the big picture.

And, ultimately, WotC/Hasbro can't really harm the hobby if they tried.

There is enough demand that someone will be making cool games people want to play. But if that somebody hits it big enough that they can make more money selling t-shirts and apps (or think they can make more money) then they will likely pass the baton as well. But for the foreseeable future there will be a baton and someone carrying it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This gets back to "whose definition of 'big' are we using, and what is that definition". :)

Does it matter? Surely, whoever's definition was used, and whatever the definition was, if Mearls (or A.N. Other) persuaded them that they could get it, that would explain making the investment.

I certainly think the later. When you are talking about years or possibly even decades, the cultural background seeps through. Millions of people who would consider thinking about D&D, have a general concept of what it is because the community exists as part of the background. If the HeroMaker RPG comes out in 2017 and takes gamer world by storm and becomes the #1 RPG by a long shot (comparable to D&D in the past) then before 2027 the geek jokes on sit coms will be dropping the name Heromaker, not D&D.

The same way World of Warcraft has eclipsed D&D in those cultural references? :)

But, seriously, I'm not at all convinced you're wrong. Maybe they do need to support the RPG more than they are. Maybe they will find they can't meaningfully grow the brand. Or similar. And, in any case, as someone interested in the RPG and much less anything else labelled D&D, I'd certainly prefer to see more support for the RPG. I just understand why they might choose differently.
 

Does it matter? Surely, whoever's definition was used, and whatever the definition was, if Mearls (or A.N. Other) persuaded them that they could get it, that would explain making the investment.
They succeeding in convincing them to make the investment.. But does it yet seem that they were right?


The same way World of Warcraft has eclipsed D&D in those cultural references? :)
I don't know. Do we see a lot of WoW jokes on Big Bang Theory? Comic Books are a geek thing. But everyone will line up to see The Avengers and love it, but Comic Book Men is still a show that is built upon the amusement of observing geek who actually care about comic books.

If a cultural reference wants to portray someone as a geek it will mention their comic books and D&D gaming. If that cultural reference wants to portray someone as main-stream but light / pop focused, they will mention them playing WoW and watching Avengers. I think they are very different perceptions.

But, seriously, I'm not at all convinced you're wrong. Maybe they do need to support the RPG more than they are. Maybe they will find they can't meaningfully grow the brand. Or similar. And, in any case, as someone interested in the RPG and much less anything else labelled D&D, I'd certainly prefer to see more support for the RPG. I just understand why they might choose differently.
Agreed.

I'm completely confident that I'll have good game to play five years from now. So I'm not feeling particularly invested in a side on this debate. But I do think the "less is more" crowd is ultimately wrong for the health of 5E. (And given a choice I'd vote for 5E doing well).
 

They succeeding in convincing them to make the investment.. But does it yet seem that they were right?

Ah, I see. In that case, you're right - it depends on how they've defined "big". But what evidence we have does suggest 5e is selling extremely well right now. But, of course, "well" is another relative term. :)

I don't know. Do we see a lot of WoW jokes on Big Bang Theory?

Occasionally. But I believe they've had 2 D&D-themed episodes and only one MMO themed one - and that was Age of Conan. I suspect WoW has been added to the geek lexicon, but I don't think it has supplanted D&D.

I'm completely confident that I'll have good game to play five years from now. So I'm not feeling particularly invested in a side on this debate. But I do think the "less is more" crowd is ultimately wrong for the health of 5E. (And given a choice I'd vote for 5E doing well).

Aye. I wouldn't be surprised if "less is more" is worse for 5e but better for the brand.
 

Aye. I wouldn't be surprised if "less is more" is worse for 5e but better for the brand.
The brand has very deep roots. The past 6 years didn't take it down. 5E won't take it down.

But I think what is good for D&D as a currently popular game is good for the brand. And what is bad for D&D as a currently popular game erodes the brand.
 

Working in another niche industry as a model railroading manufacturer, I can tell you that the vast majority of the consumers have no idea how the business behind the scenes of their hobby works.

RPGs, like model railroading, is a cash-poor business. Each project is paid largely by the success of earlier projects. One or two poor performing projects can bankrupt a company. This is vastly different when you have a marketable brand, because the licensing fees generate cash-flow to help fund the projects.

Look at say, the 5th Ed PHB. As a company you have to pay for your staff, your utilities, on a daily basis producing this product. No money is being generated by that product right now, and in most industries the vast majority of your sales of any given product (usually 60-90%) are in the first year of that product's release. The core rule books probably are on the low end of that, but the prior projects that are paying the bills have that trajectory.

So, after the years of development, you're ready to go to press. You've already paid out tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in development (a % of your payroll, real estate, utilities, insurance, not to mention advertising, etc.). Now you have to pay for publishing. I don't know if it's an exact match to production of a model train, but usually you're paying part up front, and part on delivery. How much does it cost to print a PHB?

Back in the day books had a 40% margin for the book store, perhaps it's 20% for a large store now (like B&N) and 10% for a gaming store. Amazon probably pays distributor price and still wants to make a small profit on the book, and $30 is 40% off so that's a reasonable assumption. WotC needs to make some money on their investment, so we'll say they simply double their cost, making the cost to WotC $15/book.

How many books in a print run? 100,000? That's a nice $1.5 million in printing costs paid out with no revenue for the project yet. Not including all of those other costs associated with the project up to this point. Once they start getting paid by their dealers and distributors they stand to make $1.5 million at that sort of markup, minus all of the prior costs, continuing advertising and marketing, etc.

The bigger the company, the bigger the bucket of money at the end, but it's also a huge amount to risk on a single project. Publishing more books can produce more cash-flow, or it can tie up your money (and lose cash-flow) just, if not more, easily. WotC owns D&D because TSR landed on the other end of that equation.

For TSR projects were often losing money before they even hit the market, and the return of unsold products pretty much sealed their fate, made worse by the number of unique products they had. A 10%+ return on a single product is really tough on your cash-flow and budget. But 10%+ each on several dozen products ends a company. And from what I've read, returns were extremely high at the time.

RPGs are a niche market, but over the long run are most likely to be non- to moderately profitable for a small company focused on a small market (Paizo), to break even on 'core product' for a large company with profitability achieved through licensing deals (WotC/Hasbro).

Development and funding for a video game (Neverwinter Nights) pays off because the audience is much larger, and it's a product you can monetize in many ways. Digital tools, which will be a niche product within a niche product, is very hard to make profitable.

Doing it in-house is expensive. Not only are you going through the same sort of development, you probably can't charge much for the end product. Plus there's the endless development and support cycle as new content and features are added. The online approach helps because you don't have to develop for multiple (changing) platforms, but there are still multiple browsers to contend with and they continue to evolve as well.

For WotC, outsourcing is a much better option. They don't have to cover as many, if any, of the costs. But it's much harder for the developer. Being able to meet deadlines, and usually licensing fee payments (because they are often paid up front, at least in part) can be a big challenge.

I do agree that pdf's are an option that's helpful. I think the big thing here is trying to find your price point and feature set so you don't cannibalize your hard copy sales. Would people be happy with a $15 pdf? If you're SRP on a hard copy is $50, how many sales will you lose to a $10 or $15 pdf? Yes, printing is a big chunk of your production costs, but it's not the only one.

So the T-shirts, video games, posters, or whatever other licensed product they can sell are a huge help. And many of those generate much bigger profits than the game itself. I also wonder how much of those profits come back to WotC itself for more development. I think that in this case, for the brand to flourish, the game itself is very important. But that's not always the case. Star Wars generates way more profits on merchandising than the movies ever did. And while they get a big bump when a new movie comes out, they'd be making millions whether another movie was ever made or not.

To me, WotC exists very much in the same manner as any given retail store of a large retail company. Pick one - Staples, Best Buy, Wal Mart, whatever. Each store has to be self-sufficient in terms of sales. A portion of those sales goes to the corporate umbrella. As long as WotC is not only generating income for Hasbro, but is also generating enough to remain self-sufficient, it's a viable product. That can be a very good place to be - you have the backing of a huge corporation for advertising, merchandising, and distribution channels, but a small company in charge of the actual research, development, and product design. But each year you have to be able to generate an increase. Sales should be on an upwards trajectory, and costs should remain fixed or be dropping. Those are tough orders in today's economy. And established brands and products tend to plateau. That's good for projections, not great for growth.

As much as I'd like to see some high quality digital tools, it's an extremely hard niche for WotC to find a way to justify the cost in time and money. Ideally it would make some money, but I think that something that truly breaks even would work too if it doesn't put a drain on people resources from other projects.

Ilbranteloth
 


Whether you like it or not, it is important to be realistic about where we as a market fit in the big picture.

And, ultimately, WotC/Hasbro can't really harm the hobby if they tried.

There is enough demand that someone will be making cool games people want to play. But if that somebody hits it big enough that they can make more money selling t-shirts and apps (or think they can make more money) then they will likely pass the baton as well. But for the foreseeable future there will be a baton and someone carrying it.

The thing is that -while others will surely keep developing RPGs and prioritize them over other stuff- Hasbro/WotC own the settings and game that I like and enjoy the most. Seeing talks about those losing priority in favor of stuff like apps is disheartening, whether it is financially successfull or not (especially because if WotC can get reasonable income and get going by supporting and loving the RPG/settings as their main product, then going out for maximum profit with t-shirts and the likes is merely the result of -forgive me this expression- Hasbro's/whoever's ''greed'').
 
Last edited:

If WotC thinks they can make more money selling T-shirts, then that means they think more people want T-shirts. It would be "greedy" of us to deny more people the shirts they want just because we want games.
 

If WotC thinks they can make more money selling T-shirts, then that means they think more people want T-shirts. It would be "greedy" of us to deny more people the shirts they want just because we want games.

There are craptons of companies that make shirts, apps and all the random gadgets. Only Hasbro/WotC can make D&D/Forgotten Realms/Eberron/Planescape/... If they prioritize the ''brand'' and neglect the RPG because of that, then it means that they probably don't really care about nurturing it, they're mostly into the money (which is what corporates are for anyway, that's why I wrote ''greed'' between commas). And yes, some may argue that the money made thorugh the ''brand'' could be used to develop the game, but lets face it: if they find out that the real income is in stuff like t-shirts (assuming that it is true), then they're not going back to focus on D&D/settings.

Ofc this is all speculation, a ''If...'' situation. It's too early to judge and it surely isn't my intention to do so.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top