D&D 5E So this is how D&D 5e dies, a beautiful start only to die in disgrace because of mismanagement. RIP 5e

[Clint_L]

Yep. One of the tamer combinations that I remember came from a family get together. Someone flipped up the black card that said, "What would grandma find disturbing, yet oddly charming?" The card I played was, "Grandpa's ashes." One of the women there who was also a grandmother laughed and said, "Considering that I have grandpa's ashes up on my mantle, I have to agree!" Everyone got a great laugh.

It's an amazing game for people who aren't easily offended, and a game to stay away from if you are.

It's one of our favourite family games, but you really have to curate who you play it with. You need people who aren't easily offended, but you also need people who aren't secretly nuTSR-types, because that would just make the game gross. I doubt any of us hang out with those types, though.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

When people say a game is dead, what they mean is that it is no longer published. You might argue that this isn't exactly an accurate term, and you'd be right. It's an idiomatic expression and welcome to the English language.

I mean I think you have here a whole thread full of people who don't interpret "dead game" as necessarily meaning no longer published game, so the assertion that that is a universally accepted idiom by all English speakers seems pretty dubious.

Personally I mostly hear "dead" for games (in the broader sense) in the context of MMOs with shut down or merely empty servers, as well as video game multiplayer options that are no longer functional or where nobody else cues up to play. And based on anecdotal uses here and elsewhere I would posit that when people say a game is "dead" they are referring to a nexus of factors rendering it no longer played, prominently including but not limited to a lack of ungoing publisher support.

 

[masdog]

I think they're pivoting to a business model where they make more on subscription services and microtransactions in a manner we've seen done in video games. Changing the OGL was just the first step of their new business model.

They probably know that their market share will not be all that affected, and that their move into systems like DDB and on-line gaming hold a far greater return potential than easily-pirated pdfs.

It must be why they hired software executives. D&D-as-a-service.

It’s clear that this is where they want to go. A lot of companies are trying to move to a model that generates annual recurring revenue.

But I’m not sure this business model change will work out very well for them. While a transition to subscription-based gaming might be a great revenue generator on paper, it also carries some substantial risks. Two of the biggest that they’re already entering a crowded space of entertainment subscription services (if you include WOW, the video game console subscriptions, the video-on-demand streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, etc) and that there are already perfectly good alternatives to both D&D and D&D Beyond’s SaaS services that don’t require a subscription.

I don’t think the former Microsoft execs that run WotC will be able to repeat what Microsoft did with Office and Office365. Office365 offered customers so significant benefits over the old model like hosting and managing some of the more complicated Microsoft products that businesses relied on like Exchange and Sharepoint. And there was no real office suite competitor in the business space (other office suites exist, but they didn’t have the same footprint outside of niche areas or the integration/plugins with 3rd-party products). And they offered financial benefits to business customers.

I’m not sure D&D Beyond offers enough benefits for customers to justify the monthly or yearly subscription. At least not yet. And I think the attack on the OGL highlights the weakness of their service. Once customers realize they don’t have to pay WotC every month, they won’t. (And with a recession predicted, people will look closely at their entertainment services and make choices…)

I doubt 5e will die by the end of the year as it will take time for competitors to really come operational.

But there are already competitors that are ready to go. You’re posting on the forum of one of them…

 

[Krachek]

Define Dead in term of a RPG?
if I consider Pathfinder still alive, then DnD is immortal!

 

[MGibster]

I mean I think you have here a whole thread full of people who don't interpret "dead game" as necessarily meaning no longer published game, so the assertion that that is a universally accepted idiom by all English speakers seems pretty dubious.

I didn't say it was universally accepted, only that it was an idiom and English is full of them. It comes from retail language regarding dead stock which is just a discontinued product. The Atari 2600 was introduced in 1977 and didn't die until 1992. It's okay if a lot of people don't understand what it means, but as most people used it in the 80s and 90s, a dead game was one that had been discontinued. i.e. Was no longer in production. But that was back in the day when it was hard to find discontinued games because they weren't available. It's probably easier for me to get 1st edition's Oriental Adventures today than it was even in 1992.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not going to die.

WotC/Hasbro will take a hit, maybe suffer monetarily and produce less for a while at the absolute worst for them. And then one day someone will revive the IP and it will get some nostalgia bounce and the cycle will begin anew.

Outside the IP, too many people have too much of their personalities tied to their hobbies for D&D to 'die'. D&D will become Kleenexed to mean 'Fantasy RPG', people will keep playing every edition with every possible homebrew and still consider it D&D. People will still reference all the memes whether they're playing the WotC D&D or the Paizo one or one of the many under the ORC and being just as free or gatekeepy about what that actually means as always.

It's like DC Comics: It sets itself on fire every decade or so, but doesn't actually go away. And hey, a lot of you guys liked the results last time it burned down and left me out in the cold, so maybe you'll like the new thing.

 

[Jd Smith1]

It’s clear that this is where they want to go. A lot of companies are trying to move to a model that generates annual recurring revenue.

But I’m not sure this business model change will work out very well for them. While a transition to subscription-based gaming might be a great revenue generator on paper, it also carries some substantial risks. Two of the biggest that they’re already entering a crowded space of entertainment subscription services (if you include WOW, the video game console subscriptions, the video-on-demand streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, etc) and that there are already perfectly good alternatives to both D&D and D&D Beyond’s SaaS services that don’t require a subscription.

I think you've got wishful thinking. I believe the first step is to clear away the third party input, which rumor alone has gotten a solid head start. Next will come 6e or whatever they call it, with a strong push into online/remote gaming, and VTT-aided F2F gaming.

As you've noted yourself, a large number of gamers are already conditioned to pay for entertainment streams.

The curse of the current game model, as has been bemoaned here in this site, is that a gaming group often only contains one consistent purchaser: the GM. And pdfs are basically selling on the honor system, what with the file-sharing options.

I think WotC is planning on moving a big portion of the gaming community into the digital age.

 

[masdog]

I think you've got wishful thinking.

You might be right there. But I do want to make one thing clear. I don't think that this will be the death of D&D or TTRPGs as a popular hobby. I just think that this might not work out as well as WotC is hoping. Moving any customer from a perpetual to subscription license model is hard in general.

I might jump around when quoting your post and reply out of order.

I think WotC is planning on moving a big portion of the gaming community into the digital age.

This is laudable. But I would clarify it - they're planning on moving a big portion of the current D&D player base into the digital age. The gaming community is larger than just D&D.

I believe the first step is to clear away the third party input, which rumor alone has gotten a solid head start. Next will come 6e or whatever they call it, with a strong push into online/remote gaming, and VTT-aided F2F gaming.

I think they need to be careful here. First, "clear[ing] away the third party input" could be seen as WotC using their market position to push out competitors. And that might attract some unwanted attention. Especially if it pushes out VTTs that provide services for other games because they can also serve OGL 1.0 content.

The curse of the current game model, as has been bemoaned here in this site, is that a gaming group often only contains one consistent purchaser: the GM. And pdfs are basically selling on the honor system, what with the file-sharing options.

That's been the state of TTRPGs for a long time, though. Every player doesn't need to buy every splatbook or adventure book. And in many systems, they don't even need to buy the core rulebook. And yes, PDFs are on the honor system. I'm not sure there is a good way to address this outside of some draconian DRM, but then that limits the utility of PDFs.

I'm not sure the solution to this, though, is to try and lock the game behind a subscription service that monetizes all players.

Even if it is, the route that WotC was originally taking with D&D Beyond and the proposed OGL 1.1 wouldn't have solved that problem for 3PP anyway. WotC's proposed terms would have driven them out of the market completely.

As you've noted yourself, a large number of gamers are already conditioned to pay for entertainment streams.

Yes, they do. But adding a new service, or raising prices, causes people to reevaluate if they really need that service or if they should find alternatives.

It comes down to a question of value. Does this service deliver value for the price? Does it deliver value compared to the other services I can subscribe to? And right now, in the moment with everything going on, it's hard to see that value. Especially since the current subscription levels really don't seem to offer a lot of value from a surface glance and they don't really distinguish themselves from the competing options other than being "WotC's platform of choice."

I think the attack on the OGL now really underscores the weakness of their product and market position today. Yes, D&D has a large player base. But if they really had a strong offering, they would have said that they were moving D&D v.Next into Beyond as a Gaming-as-a-Service product under a new, more restrictive license and started to work on exclusives for that service by drawing from Hasbro's extensive library of properties like My Little Pony and Power Rangers.

They wouldn't have even acknowledged any potential competitors or "punched down" at the 3PP ecosystem.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Ironically, I don't think this is how 5e dies. I suspect 5e will continue to be played by many for decades to come.

One DnD though... I don't think that one is going to do to well. A combination of people sticking on 5e and moving to alternate systems may end up killing it very fast.

I anticipate 5e will fork (and continue), as 3.5 did with PF1.

Worse, you'll have every 3pp in the biz jump in and support a new 5.5 fork with adventure and supporting material. The VTTs will support it, all buff and shiny.

What if Paizo decides to support a 5.5 fork it with 5.5 statted versions of PF Adv Path supporting 5.5 as well (I could well see this happening).

Like that presaged with 4th ed (except worse), it will put 6th ed competing with 2 versions of its former self, PF2 and a new forked 5.5. That will not go well for WotC. It may not be fatal, but well? No.

 

[Jd Smith1]

This is laudable. But I would clarify it - they're planning on moving a big portion of the current D&D player base into the digital age. The gaming community is larger than just D&D.

Yes and no. Roll20 keeps getting bigger, and Foundry is doing well, and neither is just D&D. We're also seeing gaming products turn up on Steam. I believe WotC see on-line as the future, and plans to take a dominating market share.

I think they need to be careful here. First, "clear[ing] away the third party input" could be seen as WotC using their market position to push out competitors. And that might attract some unwanted attention. Especially if it pushes out VTTs that provide services for other games because they can also serve OGL 1.0 content.

Unwanted attention from whom? They're asserting their right to their IP. Nothing illegal in that. Pushing out competitors is also perfectly legal.

That's been the state of TTRPGs for a long time, though. Every player doesn't need to buy every splatbook or adventure book. And in many systems, they don't even need to buy the core rulebook. And yes, PDFs are on the honor system. I'm not sure there is a good way to address this outside of some draconian DRM, but then that limits the utility of PDFs.

Going to an on-line system, such as DDB, where books can be shared, but not duplicated.

Cutting piracy by a third would massively increase a market share.

Even if it is, the route that WotC was originally taking with D&D Beyond and the proposed OGL 1.1 wouldn't have solved that problem for 3PP anyway. WotC's proposed terms would have driven them out of the market completely.

And the problem for WotC would be what?

Yes, they do. But adding a new service, or raising prices, causes people to reevaluate if they really need that service or if they should find alternatives.

There would be a period of adjustment. But look at at the move of video games from arcades to PCs to gaming platforms. The transition of movies to storage systems to steaming systems.

And RPGs from dead tree to pdfs to...

Change is inevitable. Full service and independant gas stations, gaming arcades, movie theaters, movie rental businesses: with change comes the elimination or drastic reduction of certain business models. Look at the FLGS: definitely on the decline.

It comes down to a question of value. Does this service deliver value for the price? Does it deliver value compared to the other services I can subscribe to? And right now, in the moment with everything going on, it's hard to see that value.

Hardly. THe value is both tremendous and obvious. On-line gaming is booming, and the tech infrastructure is maturing. I had an all-European group for a year, and with only average Net service we has absolutely no tech issues.

I think the attack on the OGL now really underscores the weakness of their product and market position today. Yes, D&D has a large player base. But if they really had a strong offering, they would have said that they were moving D&D v.Next into Beyond as a Gaming-as-a-Service product under a new, more restrictive license and started to work on exclusives for that service by drawing from Hasbro's extensive library of properties like My Little Pony and Power Rangers.

It isn't an attack, it is evolution. And evolution in business works exactly as Darwin envisioned.

I believe we are seeing the end of what will be seen as a golden era of small-time publishers.