I don't 'know it' (I'm skeptical by nature - though, it seems painfully obvious) it's just what the actual numbers we do have indicate. They're not complete numbers, but they're what we have to go on. They were good enough numbers for PF boosters when they showed PF beating Essentials in one quarter of 2010, but now that they show D&D trouncing PF quarter after quarter, they're limited value can finally be acknowledged. :shrug:How do you know it's back on top?
Yep, and they don't share those figures, and wouldn't obliged to share accurate figures even if they chose to, so there's no help there.Don't forget that most of Pathfinder's sales comes from their own website and not rely on stores and sites like Amazon, even though they do sell their products through those.
Where do you get "they are not working to grow"? The very strategy is designed to grow the hobby. And from my point of view its working. And it seems it's working generally.
I wish someone would explain to me exactly how WotC are "growing the hobby" that differs from what they have been doing for the last 15 years.
Well for one they've shown a commitment to an edition that by design is supposed to last. Part of that is to invest in the longterm of the game instead of the short term splat tread mill.
I think they do have Veggie Boy there, unless he left again. He posted earlier this year that he had taken a contract position as FR Lore Guy - though I guess that won't involve him doing crunch, more keeping track of fluff.
No, I meant what are they doing differently. Not doing something is not actually the same as doing something.
Technically, it's not that new. Sure, in 2e you needed a spell (Sense Shifting) to re-skin magic, and nothing else was really up for grabs that way, but even in 1e there were some weapons that would stand in for eachother (the scimitar also included saber & tulwar - stuff like that). In 3.x it was official that you could describe your character how you liked - so race and gear could be re-fluffed all you wanted. 4e took that to 'powers' (spells, maneuvers, magic items &c), as well - fluff & crunch were virtually independent of eachother, as long as you didn't change a mechanical keyword (so you couldn't change a spell into a maneuver, for instance).In fact, one of my favorite new rules from 5e is to reskin things however you like. I love it that I have that fluffy freedom.
And the DM, of course - ultimately, how 'balanced' the game is, in play, is on his shoulders.We can all make up our own fluff without consequence, getting the crunch to work takes more of an effort to balance, and therefore many of us like to leave that task to the official publishers.
Yes. Stability is a perk of slow releases and lower investment.This seems to have given them breathing room to escape the short term profit motive, that in turn means the game could get a chance at a longer life. Which in turn, again imho, is reassuring to many that they are not buying into yet another soon to be previous version.
Maybe slowing the rate of contraction. Growth generally requires riskier bets. DDI was risky, high-cost bid to grow the hobby, it crashed & burned. Encounters was a bid to grow the hobby, it didn't do so badly, and it hasn't been abandoned by AL, though it doesn't get the material support it used to. Besides, the only folks who are going to be gunshy about buying the next ed because the last few rolled so often or bloated so fast are established fans. New ones should be blissfully unaware of those issues.That is growing the hobby.
Speaking for myself, D&D is doing very well indeed. I have so many players that I am running two groups (averaging somewhere around 2.5 games/week) and may have to start up a third to accommodate some other folks who want in.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.