D&D 5E (2014) Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[BryonD]

I really don't think Paizo is. Everything is built on what came before.

I'm curious, which product did you buy and experience this problem?

 

[BryonD]

WotC wants strong game stores: that is how it promotes and sells M:tG. PDFs undermine strong game stores; hence WotC isn't releasing PDFs of core books.

And this is a good answer. Though, as also mentioned upthread, while not selling PDFs of the core may help brick and mortars and thus help M:tG, the lack of releasing other stuff does nothing to support Brick and Mortars (thus does nothing to help M:tG).

 

[BryonD]

Edit: BTW, I'm not saying that producing more adventures is a good idea for WotC. It may not be; the audience for any particular product is more limited, and it may not make enough financial sense. Just saying that I can sympathize with the OP's desire for more adventure material.

It is funny where we stand when you look at history. WotC had a few well received 3E modules. But overall they were considered sub-par. I can't speak at all regarding 4E modules, but the comments I've seen from 4E fans was that WotC didn't do any better then either.

Mines was good. But HotDQ had serious issues and received a lot of complaints. So far the quality of Mines seems to just repeat the pattern of a good lead-off. Will they continue to crash from there? Who knows? But it is not an established sweet spot for WotC.

And then for non-adventures, the whole debate seems abstract and ignoring reality. I get the idea that "bloat" is bad. So slower is better than bloat.
But when actually looked at what is happening "slow" = ZERO and anything greater than ZERO is "bloat". shrug

 

[Hussar]

I'm curious, which product did you buy and experience this problem?

To be fair, I never really got into Pathfinder, so my experience is based on when Paizo produced Dungeon and Dragon. I know from those AP's, that there was a boat load of material from all sorts of different supplements used in those modules. I just assumed that Pathfinder would be no different.

See, the problem I'm seeing with your interpretations is you're forgetting scale. What is "great" for Paizo isn't necessarily great for WOTC. Paizo didn't jump ahead of 4e. 4e died first. It wasn't until WOTC stopped producing ANY material for 4e that you saw Pathfinder take top spot. And, look at now, in the first quarter, when competing in the stores, you have half a dozen (or so) WOTC products competing against a couple of THOUSAND Paizo products and 5e takes top spot.

Your presumptions that "the bottom fell out of 4e" are unwarranted. 4e failed to achieve the goal of tripling the size of the RPG market. Yup, that's true. But, outside of that goal, no one has any idea how well or poorly 4e actually did. The fact that you had just shy of 100 k DDi subscribers tends to point to a pretty darn healthy hobby size. What's the subscription rate for Pathfinder? Is there a 100k subscribers? Did they actually manage to double the number of subs they had when they held both Dungeon and Dragon? I don't know, and I'm fairly sure you don't either.

 

[Sebkha]

Link to Original

How is your interest in D&D 5e? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

The WotC (and WotC-derived) versions of D&D are all enjoyable in surprisingly different ways, and in each case I think it's somewhat to do with the different way you "win" each of them.

The 3e lineage is about rules mastery. You win it the week before the campaign starts, by planning your next dozen levels of cunningly broken prestige class interactions, optimizing every magic item slot, and stacking a zillion buffs. You're hungry for every level as that master plan slowly unfolds. Breaking the system is the fun, and a system that's been crushed under its own bloated weight provides endless opportunity.

4e excels as an actual boardgame. You win it in the heat of battle, right there at the table, by getting to know your fellow combatants and pulling off precisely coordinated combos with a mix of planning and improvisation. No other edition rewards tactical mastery so handsomely.

In 5e the inspiration mechanic is so powerful that you win the game by gaining and spending inspiration as rapidly as possible. It's crucial to have bonds and flaws that you can flaunt to catch the DM's attention, intra-personal drama with your other party members, and madcap schemes in which hilarity can ensue.

...admittedly, I'm caricaturing the editions outrageously and the idea of "winning" an RPG is dubious, but my point is that each of the games rewards different approaches. I enjoyed being a rules lawyer in 3e, enjoyed being a tactician in 4e, and now I'm thoroughly enjoying being a thespian in 5e.

 

[BryonD]

To be fair, I never really got into Pathfinder, so my experience is based on when Paizo produced Dungeon and Dragon.

So your prior statement may not be accurate?

I know from those AP's, that there was a boat load of material from all sorts of different supplements used in those modules. I just assumed that Pathfinder would be no different.

They used their stuff, but would reprint everything needed.

4e died first.

...


Your presumptions that "the bottom fell out of 4e" are unwarranted.

Which is it?

4e failed to achieve the goal of tripling the size of the RPG market. Yup, that's true. But, outside of that goal, no one has any idea how well or poorly 4e actually did. The fact that you had just shy of 100 k DDi subscribers tends to point to a pretty darn healthy hobby size.

Heh, you still don't know that 100K # is true. And the fact that they pulled the plug seems to just put it that much more in question.

What's the subscription rate for Pathfinder? Is there a 100k subscribers? Did they actually manage to double the number of subs they had when they held both Dungeon and Dragon? I don't know, and I'm fairly sure you don't either.

Right, we don't. I do know that the people in meatspace actually talking about 4E dropped off and PF was everywhere. But we don't know numbers.

Of course, this is also true of DDI. I'm very familiar with the argument for the #. And it has always included the leap of faith that the numbers started at 1 and WotC was willing to make this presumed massive revenue matter readily public. The alternative that the actual baseline was hidden and they didn't just decide to drop 100K monthly subscriptions fees for no good reason is just ignored.

But whatever, I'm not even going to worry about convincing you of something you simply don't want to believe. You assured me over and over that I was clueless about 4E's fate and now you describe that period as "4e died". It doesn't matter.

All the data we do have strongly suggests that PF was kicking 4E's butt. You don't have any alternative of success to point at. If the best thing going isn't anywhere near good enough for WotC, then nothing will be anywhere near good enough for WotC. So you are not arguing that your plan does a better job of sustaining 5E, you are just arguing that doing an inferior job of sustaining 5E is no problem because the best alternative still isn't good enough. I'm not convinced that is even true. But you are correct that we don't know that part. I do presume they have a realistic ballpark idea and if it was as bad as you paint it, they would not have bothered with what they have done.

 

[Hussar]

BryonD, I know I cannot convince you of anything. I'm just trying to point out that the picture you have painted is hardly the only possibility. "All the data we do have strongly suggests that PF was kicking 4e's butt"? Really? The brand new Pathfinder couldn't budge 4e until they stopped publishing 4e material. And even then, it wasn't right away. Had they kept publishing 4e material, I have a pretty strong suspicion that 4e would have chugged right along at top spot the entire time.

Let me repeat that, Pathfinder ONLY took top spot when WOTC stopped publishing anything. It took WOTC completely forgoing ANY new material for Paizo to take over top spot.

Which leads me to suspect that a very modest publication schedule will put WOTC back in 1st place.

So, if 5e stays in #1 spot in the next quarter, what's your new interpretation going to be then? That Paizo is now a failure because it couldn't maintain it's market dominance? That people are being driven away from Paizo into the arms of 5e because of a poor game? After all, that's precisely your interpretation now of 4e, so, if 5e stays on top, doesn't that mean the exact same thing for Pathfinder?

You've long maintained that the reason 4e failed is due to its inferiority to Pathfinder. That if 4e had been a "good" game, then it would not have lost top spot. So, logically, if Paizo loses top spot to 5e, then it must be for the same reason - it's an inferior product.

I anxiously await to hear you talk about how Pathfinder is a sub-par game since it's no longer commanding the top spot. You certainly waxed at length, and continue to do so, about the failure of 4e. When are you going to start talking about how Pathfinder just isn't a satisfactory game?

 

[dmccoy1693]

Pathfinder ONLY took top spot when WOTC stopped publishing anything. It took WOTC completely forgoing ANY new material for Paizo to take over top spot.

Actually, that is factually incorrect. Pathfinder tied 4e the same quarter that Essentials launched and surpassed it in spring of 2011. Source.

Wizards released a number of 4e books for the rest of 2011. In fact, a total of four books were released in 2011 following the end of the second quarter and one in 2012. Source.

If anything, the drop of in production schedule supports the idea that Wizards decided to end the development of any new 4e products when they lost the top spot and only released products that were already in the pipeline from that point forward.

 

[darjr]

Actually, that is factually incorrect. Pathfinder tied 4e the same quarter that Essentials launched and surpassed it in spring of 2011. Source.

Wizards released a number of 4e books for the rest of 2011. In fact, a total of four books were released in 2011 following the end of the second quarter and one in 2012. Source.

If anything, the drop of in production schedule supports the idea that Wizards decided to end the development of any new 4e products when they lost the top spot and only released products that were already in the pipeline from that point forward.

I think this is accurate. It does highlight that a business the size of Paizo's at the time wasn't interesting to WotC/Hasbro. While for Paizo it was a huge success and continues and grows from there.

 

[Ranes]

The 3e lineage is about rules mastery. You win it the week before the campaign starts, by planning your next dozen levels of cunningly broken prestige class interactions, optimizing every magic item slot, and stacking a zillion buffs. You're hungry for every level as that master plan slowly unfolds. Breaking the system is the fun, and a system that's been crushed under its own bloated weight provides endless opportunity.

I was about to take you to task on this, not least because I don't include any PrCs in my game, until I read:

..admittedly, I'm caricaturing the editions outrageously...

So, yep. Let's go with that. And I'm glad you can get something out of every edition. Your underlying point, that each game rewards a different style of play, is entirely reasonable. But how much does it address the concerns expressed in this thread?

I'll confess to being a little unsympathetic to the concerns of D&D fans with vast libraries spanning generations of the game who bemoan the relative lack of material aimed specifically at the latest edition. At the same time, though, I do wonder what people new to the hobby think when they go to a store, see a wall of PF stuff and only a shelf of D&D. Some might indeed be put off by the wall. Others might think, "Well, that's where the action is."

I don't play PF but that's only because I'm happier than ever with 3e (and yes, I'm also playing and enjoying 5e), so I have nothing but admiration for what Paizo has done with PF. I just want D&D to thrive, too. So, if D&D requires more support to ensure that, then by all means let's see more support.

For the moment, however, I think there's probably just the right amount of 5e out there and that WotC is pacing itself for the long game. I know that's just a gut feeling. I concede that there are some compelling arguments that the 5e support strategy may not ultimately be for the best. But even then, WotC has the resources required to give its strategy time; if in a year or two it thinks it may need to step up its product publishing schedule, it will still be able to do so.

Or maybe it is time for D&D to begin repositioning itself as a brand: not necessarily to be the biggest, having the broadest appeal, but to be considered the most prestigious, historically, aesthetically, mechanically and by association, for example (in which case, that latter criterion will need some work).