TSR TSR's Amazing Accounting Department

[Jay Verkuilen]

I believe that is incorrect: my understanding is that the non-Chainmail rules in OD&D used some modified naval combat rules, which became standard D&D combat. The ships in these rules were put in "Armor Classes": First Class was hardest to hit, Second Class was slightly easier, etc...

The term "armor class" certainly makes sense because it was adopted from real naval terminology, and I can see lower being better from Royal Navy I believe, which had First through Fifth Rate for ships of the line, originally. Hit points came from actual naval wargaming, which was used heavily IRL when planning operations. The big thing that happened in the early days was that table lookup was considered totally normal. If you've ever played one of those Avalon Hill type wargames they're filled with lookup tables, so this would have been NBD to early players. But for some reason I thought there was some early version where AC went up... could be wrong. It's a small thing.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

It seems that edition changes have been a bust for maximizing profit: quick infusions that do long-term harm.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Mid-edition re-covering and other things like that, certainly tend to be cash grabs. Often edition changes were really done with fixing the rules or pushing in a new direction in mind, though.

Of course they do sell a ton of books because most sales tend to be to core books, which generally have much higher print runs and thus better margins. They also generate a lot of buzz, which isn't bad for marketing either.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Mid-edition re-covering and other things like that, certainly tend to be cash grabs. Often edition changes were really done with fixing the rules or pushing in a new direction in mind, though.

Of course they do sell a ton of books because most sales tend to be to core books, which generally have much higher print runs and thus better margins. They also generate a lot of buzz, which isn't bad for marketing either.

Well, they are fraught enterprises: every edition WotC released before 5E had crashed and burned within five years (ignoring the "half edition" fiction of "3.5"). It's a boom and bust cycle, not necessarily the best model to follow. WotC us currently operating on an Evergreen theory, and it just might last.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Well, they are fraught enterprises: every edition WotC released before 5E had crashed and burned within five years (ignoring the "half edition" fiction of "3.5"). It's a boom and bust cycle, not necessarily the best model to follow. WotC us currently operating on an Evergreen theory, and it just might last.

Nothing's evergreen. There probably were things that WotC did in the past to make the boom and bust worse---the OGL in 3.X that induced the D20 glut was a good example, as did the way 4E got rolled out without the online development they'd over-promised---but I suspect many of those things weren't easy to foresee, even if they seem obvious in retrospect.

I wouldn't be unhappy with a 5.5 that cleaned up some of the rough spots that exist in the original 5E design.

 

[Parmandur]

Nothing's evergreen. There probably were things that WotC did in the past to make the boom and bust worse---the OGL in 3.X that induced the D20 glut was a good example, as did the way 4E got rolled out without the online development they'd over-promised---but I suspect many of those things weren't easy to foresee, even if they seem obvious in retrospect.

I wouldn't be unhappy with a 5.5 that cleaned up some of the rough spots that exist in the original 5E design.

I'm not saying the game won't change: I don't doubt that there will be a 6E eventually (no 5.5, 3.5 was apparently a marketing disaster per WotC). However, it will be more like the latest edition change for Monopoly or Magic: different and improved, but not necessarily heralded, and backwards compatible to make the transition easy on players (backwards compatibility with 5E is the number one design consideration for any theoretical future edition, as WotC has been at pains to say every time the topic comes up). WotC has, for example, gone out of their way to never, ever talk about "Fifth Edition" in marketing contexts. Just "Dungeons & Dragons," full stop. The upper echelons of the D&D community are fairly conscious of the edition situation, but WotC is not using edition as a marketing tool anymore, because it really didn't work.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I'm not saying the game won't change: I don't doubt that there will be a 6E eventually (no 5.5, 3.5 was apparently a marketing disaster per WotC). However, it will be more like the latest edition change for Monopoly or Magic: different and improved, but not necessarily heralded, and backwards compatible to make the transition easy on players (backwards compatibility with 5E is the number one design consideration for any theoretical future edition, as WotC has been at pains to say every time the topic comes up). WotC has, for example, gone out of their way to never, ever talk about "Fifth Edition" in marketing contexts. Just "Dungeons & Dragons," full stop. The upper echelons of the D&D community are fairly conscious of the edition situation, but WotC is not using edition as a marketing tool anymore, because it really didn't work.

Well it worked GREAT in 3E for a while and brought in a lot of new folks, but failed badly in 4E. Sometimes people over-learn lessons from the past. Still, I don't mind substantial backwards compatibility so I'm OK with the notion of not making massive changes. In general, 5E is pretty smooth, maintaining a lot of what was good from Ye Olde Dayes but with more modern mechanics.

But it does certainly have some rough patches and missed opportunities. I totally get why bounded accuracy is generally a good idea, but they didn't really manage to make it work in a number of spots, most notably saves and skills at medium to higher levels. There are other areas I don't really like either, but some of that's more taste than messed up math. One of these days I should really write down all the changes I want, if for no other reason than that way I can just have all my house rules in one spot.

 

[Parmandur]

Well it worked GREAT in 3E for a while and brought in a lot of new folks, but failed badly in 4E. Sometimes people over-learn lessons from the past. Still, I don't mind substantial backwards compatibility so I'm OK with the notion of not making massive changes. In general, 5E is pretty smooth, maintaining a lot of what was good from Ye Olde Dayes but with more modern mechanics.

But it does certainly have some rough patches and missed opportunities. I totally get why bounded accuracy is generally a good idea, but they didn't really manage to make it work in a number of spots, most notably saves and skills at medium to higher levels. There are other areas I don't really like either, but some of that's more taste than messed up math. One of these days I should really write down all the changes I want, if for no other reason than that way I can just have all my house rules in one spot.

It worked-ish. 3E was replaced by a new edition within 3 years, and 3.5 was ultimately a losing proposition in terms of profit improvement. 4E was a much more obvious "New Coke" style Trainwreck, but the 3.x edition changes were problematic themselves, and 2E never caught up with 1E per my understanding.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

It worked-ish. 3E was replaced by a new edition within 3 years, and 3.5 was ultimately a losing proposition in terms of profit improvement. 4E was a much more obvious "New Coke" style Trainwreck, but the 3.x edition changes were problematic themselves, and 2E never caught up with 1E per my understanding.

That's all true, but I think it misses the competition in the market. 3.X had the misfortune of being in the marketplace competing against a ton of D20 RPGs (which was, arguably, their own doing) as well as the widespread success of MMOs and collectable minis games (things that couldn't be foreseen), both of which took substantial market share from D&D. As I recall, Monte Cook said that 3.5 came out when it did not because it wasn't part of the overall business plan (it was for a few years later) but because 3.0 sales dove faster than they expected. 2E came out right when two big competitors emerged: The White Wolf games and, way more importantly, CCGs, both of which were certainly unforeseen by TSR management. So, in a lot of ways, the fight for market was a whole lot harder. Of course, one might argue that this doesn't account for why 5E has been so successful... to be clear, I don't know either, but I really don't think that things like live streaming of other people's games would be so popular was something anyone thought of in 2012.

 

[Zardnaar]

My theory with 3.0 was sales were so front loaded they hit saturation point a lot faster.

2E afaik outsoldvmostveditions but didn't hitv1E or red box numbers.

3.5 is the second worst selling D&D after OD&D, maybe 4E but I suspect that one sold well initially but cratered fast.

D&D can't really sustain a 2E to 4E publishing schedule. Prime example if milking the existing fanbase.

1E, B/X and 5E made a bigger pie.

 

[ccs]

I don't doubt that there will be a 6E eventually (no 5.5, 3.5 was apparently a marketing disaster per WotC). However, it will be more like the latest edition change for Monopoly or Magic: different and improved, but not necessarily heralded, and backwards compatible to make the transition easy on players

It'll be heralded. And I bet I know when.
But I agree it will be very backwards compatible. You won't have to change (unless your only play is in the AL), but the improvements will encourage you to do so.