Proof D&D is in serious decline

[delericho]

Holy hell, it was 3.5 haemhoerraging numbers and 4e stopping the rot.

Alternately...

It appears that popular entertainment throws up a whole load of fads that pop up, last for a couple of years, and then go quiet. They tend not to disappear entirely, but they largely disappear from the zeitgeist.

About 20 years later, many of these fads have a resurgence, as the kids who were into them back in the day are now young adults (with either large amounts of disposable income, kids of their own, or both). And so, they have a second time in the sun.

Some few of these items then parley that second period of significance into a more lasting prominence - Star Wars (via the prequels, Clone Wars, the video games, etc), Transformers (via the new cartoons).

Most, however, do not - they have a few short years in the sun and then drop off again. BSG is a good example of this - the new show lasted for a few years and was good, but attempts to gain lasting traction via spin-offs has failed.

D&D would also appear to fall into this latter category, with the second period of significance starting around 1999 and ending around 2004. In which case, it wasn't 3.5e that caused any sort of problems... those numbers would have dropped whatever WotC had done. And it also doesn't really matter what WotC do with regard to 4e, 5e, 6e, or whatever - they're in that quiet time when only the core fanbase exist.

What also isn't clear is whether fads that have had their second day in the sun will receive a third airing in another 20 years, or if they've simply had their day. I guess we'll find out in five years or so.

(Or, alternately, all of this could be completely wrong. )

 

[Neonchameleon]

It's clearly not fair to include the first year of DDN playtesting as part of the 4e era, Neonchameleon. Nice try though.

I'm taking the 4e end date as Dec 2011. Let's look at Jan 2004-Dec 2006 vs. Jan 2009-Dec 2011.

January 2004: D&D: 100, Dungeons and Dragons: 60.
December 2006: D&D: 60, Dungeons and Dragons: 37.
(60+37)/(100+60)= 61% remaining.

I think you've been rounding your numbers? The numbers I see when I look are:
Jan 2004 - 100, 62.
December 2006 = 58, 35.

I make that 57%

January 2009: D&D: 46, Dungeons and Dragons: 20.
December 2011: D&D: 32, Dungeons and Dragons: 17.
(32+17)/(46+20)= 74% remaining.

I think you've made a typo there too. December 2011 would appear to be 37 and 17. Or 82% remaining.

Little bit less, but still a substantial decline.

Where "Little bit less" = less than half the rate of decline.

And [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] may very well be right. But even that says a lot about the success or failure of 4e. My big worry is that D&D Next will be released to a resounding "Meh" (as it appears to have at the moment) and will end up being D&D Last.

 

[delericho]

My big worry is that D&D Next will be released to a resounding "Meh"...

This seems quite likely.

and will end up being D&D Last.

Almost certainly not. I can see two possible responses to the Big Meh:

The first option (and one I hope they've planned for) is that Hasbro will simply box the line. They may keep the core rules in print (because that's pretty low-cost) but without any ongoing support. That way, people who are interested can still find the game, but there's little ongoing cost. Then, in a few years when they're looking for a nostalgia product, Hasbro may take it out of the vault, dust off the cobwebs, and put out a new version.

(If they're smart, and I think they are, WotC are already planning for this eventuality. Sure, they'd much rather sell us loads of splatbooks, and adventures, and especially DDI subs, but as a backup plan they should construct the Core Rulebooks (or, better, Starter Set) on the assumption that this may be the only thing that remains available - so it needs to be useable indefinitely without any other support, ever.)

The second scenario is that some young, up-and-coming RPG company may feel it worth their while to license the D&D TTRPG. Sure, they'd only be sure of having it for 5 years, but that could be enough for a company to establish a name for themselves. (It wouldn't be Paizo, and almost certainly not FFG, but if someone was keen to become the next Paizo, they might see such a strategy as a decent way to get started...)

But D&D is in a slightly odd position - it has too much name recognition for Hasbro to simply let it die, and yet it doesn't really have any record of success as anything other than a tabletop RPG - the movies suck, the miniatures are now essentially done, and although D&D related video games have done well this has generally been under other names (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Forgotten Realms... D&D Online being a key exception, of course).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Random thought [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION], if your 20 year pattern is right then Vampire the Masquerade should be able to make far more waves in the next few years than just a 20th anniversary book.

 

[delericho]

That's a very good point. Although...

To a certain extent, VtM rode a wave of vampire-philia. IIRC, Anne Rice was huge at that time, what with the "Interview the a Vampire" movie just coming out.

To a certain extent, the vampire-philia thing never quite went away - Rice gave way to Buffy, which gave way to Twilight (and a whole lot of steps in between). And, in fact, it's only just now starting to look like vampires are finally 'over'. (Rather depressingly, it looks like the successor is mommy-porn like "Fifty Shades of Gray".)

Yes, that is me getting in my excuses first, before VtM becomes the exception that proves the rule to be wrong.

(Conversely, it looks like "Shadowrun" may be hoping that this is their year for the Big Comeback. Although I don't think they were ever as big as VtM.)

 

[Miar]

I think some of the problem is you need to add in Pathfinder. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=dungeons and dragons, d&d, pathfinder&cmpt=q

 

[delericho]

I think some of the problem is you need to add in Pathfinder.

In principle you're right, but there's a major problem with that: "Pathfinder" refers not just to the game but also to the car and to the recent fantasy film of the same name. Adding a graph for 'pathfinder' in conjunction with 'paizo' might help... except that it's quite likely that that's not the term most people use for their search, at least initially.

 

[Miar]

In principle you're right, but there's a major problem with that: "Pathfinder" refers not just to the game but also to the car and to the recent fantasy film of the same name. Adding a graph for 'pathfinder' in conjunction with 'paizo' might help... except that it's quite likely that that's not the term most people use for their search, at least initially.

I didn't know about the film or the car. You can see where my priorities are!

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

There are three kinds of lies. lies, damned lies and statistics. - Twain (or possibly Disreali)
Correlation is also not causation.

I have never, ever seen sales figures from the company whose figures matter, which is WotC. Maybe if you could assemble figures for D&D sales taken from enough B&M and online retailers to constitute a reliably representative sample? I don't know that even that is possible or I suspect some particularly keen Chicken Little would have done so instead of quoting a single friend who works in retail or simply claiming to have uncontestable knowledge on the matter and failing to provide stuff like convincing evidence.

I'd say the google information is... curious, but as has been pointed out it just can't be extrapolated into an actual prediction about the viability of D&D as a hobby or a going sales concern. Too many influencing factors to account for; too much noise in the data.

AFAIK WotC has never shared their sales data beyond perhaps a few statements of, "this or that specific item actually sold well," which can be interpreted as saying NOTHING definitive even about the product in question much less extrapolating usefully about the game as a whole.

Nothing to see here.