Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.

 

[mflayermonk]

Thanks for linking the tweets (they were interesting) and great discussion as well.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

While I take your point, I think it's important not to exaggerate.

More like excusing your pet 4th Edition's fagotry.

 

[DM Howard]

I agree with this.

I would also like to give me view on what it could be as well.

Let's say their planned material goal is 2 AP's per year. I don't think they are going to flat out tell us that we are definitely going to get two AP's plus some online material because they know lot's of people will walk away. I think one of their strategies is to keep us guessing, keep us hoping that something else will come out.

So WotC is becoming Games Workshop? GREEEAT! said no one ever.

 

[Jester David]

Do you have a cite for that? I know the 3.0e PHB sold about 800k units (and about 300k in the first month), but hadn't seen any similar number for 3.5e. Needless to say, a figure of "only" ~400k is a bit of a surprise.

Likely the sane as your 800k figure: it was posted on this board done time ago. I'd have to hunt it down.

 

[delericho]

Likely the sane as your 800k figure: it was posted on this board done time ago. I'd have to hunt it down.

Probably not worth the effort. Thanks anyway.

 

[Jester David]

Probably not worth the effort. Thanks anyway.

Searched and can't find the original (which I believe was written by Erik Mona but some attribute to Ryan Dancey) places 3.0 sales at ~500k w/300k in the first month, 3:5e at ~350k, and Pathfinder (then) at ~250k.

I'd forgotten the first month part, but those are the numbers I recalled when I wrote my post. But that does emphasize 3.5 was not this glorious game changing event, given it took five years to sell as many books as 3.0 did in a month. Given people called 4e "4.0" for years and some still call 5e "5.0", I think the fans are really wary of a new half edition.

 

[delericho]

I'd forgotten the first month part, but those are the numbers I recalled when I wrote my post. But that does emphasize 3.5 was not this glorious game changing event, given it took five years to sell as many books as 3.0 did in a month. Given people called 4e "4.0" for years and some still call 5e "5.0", I think the fans are really wary of a new half edition.

Yep, very interesting. And you're right - that should indeed change the thinking about "half editions". Those numbers suggest that the 5e PHB probably outsold the 3.5e PHB in its first month (since we know 3e did 300k and 5e's launch was bigger).

 

[Shasarak]

True. And Pathfinder isn't D&D 3.25, is it.

That is a good point. 3.5 doubled the length of the 3e run and then Pathfinder has doubled it again.

Which means if Paizo produce a reprint of Pathfinder then it will last for as long as the whole of 1e and 2e together.

No to both: Essentials got it's ass kicked by Pathfinder on release (for one quarter), while the earlier release of Pathfinder didn't beat the 4e supplements it was up against, which were reputedly under-performing the 4e release dramatically. So, by inference, Essentials did pretty badly. And, Essentials only lasted 2 years - unless you want to give it credit for lingering on store shelves, with no new books, while Next was developed & playtested. Really, the Essentials form factor was abandoned immediately, with HoS and later books published in the usual hardcover format, and they pulled back slightly from the Essentials design philosophy, after HoS, as well. So even two years is kinda pushing it.

During that time, though, D&D went back to out-selling Pathfinder. Until it stopped putting out new books, then it lagged (publishing nothing new but staying #2) until 5e came roaring back.

It'll be interesting to see how 5.5 goes....

How well Essentials did compared to Pathfinder is not the point. The point is that without Essentials 4e would have only lasted for just over 2 years.

Veteran's armor was profoundly broken before the errata, profoundly nerfed afterwards. Fairly typical of 'update' style errata, really, and, IMHO, indicative of a cynical formula: sell a book with a few (or more than a few) broken bits that powergamers will salivate over. Wait a little while, then cut those bits out from under them with an update that nerfs 'em. Lather, rinse, repeat. Essentials moved away from frequent updates, and left more broken stuff in longer.

The only thing "broken" about Veterans Armour was the people who used to have a dozen sets that they would use over and over again. Now I never ever saw that in actual real life play and most likely could have be solved by a simple directive to the DM to "dont do that". So as a rule I do not use the WotC errata.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That is a good point. 3.5 doubled the length of the 3e run and then Pathfinder has doubled it again.

Oh, you don't mean had double the run, you mean had a run of a similar length. I get it.

How well Essentials did compared to Pathfinder is not the point.

It's a tenuous one. Initial release tends to be the strongest in-store sales. Essentials, at release, was beaten by Pathfinder (not at release), but Pathfinder, at release, had been beaten by 4e, in it's second year. Ergo, Essentials didn't do /nearly/ as well as 4e. As has come out in this thread, the same seems to have been true of 3.5 vs 3.0, FWIW.

The point is that without Essentials 4e would have only lasted for just over 2 years.

No way of knowing that. It might have lasted the four years it survived in spite of Essentials, or it might have lasted 10. It's really up to WotC's design decisions (and Hasbro's financial ones) how long an ed goes.

The only thing "broken" about Veterans Armour was the people who used to have a dozen sets that they would use over and over again.

More than one was quite enough to qualify as 'broken,' and even the base power, without any 'abuse' was questionable. Nerfing it meant DMs who didn't care if it was broken could just keep it working as-was, while DMs who did care didn't have to argue with players about nerfing it, themselves (there was still lingering 3.x-RAW-style attitude out there at the time).

 

[Shasarak]

Except all the fans that don't. In two years, 3.0e sold almost twice as many PHBs as 3.5e sold in five years. And many of those sales would have been new players or replacement copies and would have applied to the 3.0 books had those been available instead.

Actually a better idea then just reprinting the Core books would be to merchandise a new issue of the Core books. Maybe have a Minecraft or Transformers version of the Core books. Decrease the staff to one or two people with freelancers and milk the "collectible" market.

Again, how long 3e would have continued without the 3.5e revamp is debatable. It might have gone on another three or four years. The impetus for the 3.5e release was because the management of WotC likely wasn't used to publishing and the low sustained profits it produces and wanted something more in line with Magic where there's a Core set that sells well every year or two. But that didn't work.
Arguably, 3e could have continued just as long and just as well if they had released all the books following the 3.5e relaunch instead.

History has shown that it can and has lasted for more then 3 or 4 years. My biggest complaint about 3.5 was that it essentially sank the AEG Warlord Accordlands world setting by delaying it past the peak marketing cycle.

Essentials went over worse. The manager of the D&D line resigned, they cancelled a half dozen books, delayed one to turn it into a hardcover rather than a softcover, and immediately started work on 5e. Essentials killed 4e. Which is the danger of a relaunch...

Obviously I do not have any sales reports or special insight but the sales charts showed Essentials putting DnD on top again after the first dip so the sales can not have been too terrible. And there was rumor that the managers wife who also worked at WotC had been fired so maybe his resignation was not to do with Essentials at all (Take that with a large grain of salt of course).

I'm talking about real errata. Typo fixing and clarification. Not the updates of 4e, which I don't think anyone wants.

Problematic rules can be fixed via the Unearthed Arcana and Sage Advice columns.
If, after a few years, there's enough content there they could amalgamate that into a book. Or do an optional revised PHB that incorporates some of that stuff,

Again I am wary of stealth errata given the WotC track record. So if they want to do a 5.1 release then I hope it is at least obvious.