D&D 5E (2014) Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Hussar]

You know a person or team can be the champion one year and be at bottom 2 years later.

D&D 5e won't be at the bottom but I predict a noticeable slippage of sales if WOTC continues their conservative norevisionist trends.

What do you mean by "slippage in sales"? Because, I have a suspicion that you might be working from a different definition here.

Do you mean that the double digit growth year on year will slow, or that they will actually start losing sales? Historically, D&D has never gone down the new edition route until sales have actually fallen. As in, actual shrinkage, not just "we didn't grow as much this year as last".

So, you're predicting that in 2 years time that D&D sales will go from double digit growth year on year, to actual loss?

 

[Hussar]

It's funny in a way. The old model of constantly needing to sell new books to keep the money coming in has totally fallen by the wayside.

Let's not forget that the top D&D sellers are STILL the core books. And they are still selling unbelievably well.

Good grief, WotC could sit back, not release another book for the next five years and STILL be making bank.

The reason we got new editions in the past is because that edition failed. That's the hard truth. The edition came, it sold, and then it died. There has been zero evidence of anything like that in the current edition. You don't have record breaking growth, year on year, when you are not selling.

The prediction is two years? Not likely. The next two year's worth of offerings could absolutely tank and we'd still not see a new edition on the horizon. When the PHB falls past the 1000 mark on Amazon, then start to think new edition. Otherwise? Why would you possibly bother?

 

[tetrasodium]

Right, which is why they're moding the game with each book released. I'm saying they have no way of mind-reading what your game is going to house rule. They can use massive amounts of data to figure out what the market wants the most of, but they can't figure out specifically what your game is going to use. In as open and modular a game as this, there is no way to satisfy what you're asking for in its entirety. But they ARE releasing modular tweaks to the system, whether in the form of supernatural gifts systems, letting you build your own ancestries, showing you how to design a Domain of Dread, releasing modular plug-and-play anthology adventures in addition to full adventure paths, including rules for maritime activities in Ghosts of Saltmarsh, rules for horror in Ravenloft, epic world-crushing monsters, heroic quests, divine grace, and living present deities in Theros, winter/arctic/tundra survival rules in Icewind Dale, underdark mechanics in Out of the Abyss, infernal mechanics in Baldur's Gate, etc, etc.

The word "moding" implies changes rather than mere additions. It's telling that while trying to talk up modular additions to 5e you needed to lean so heavily on mere additions & the hadcover APs. We have a core book that shows there are crunchy components like the tactical grid based stuff they realized were important. If not we wouldn't have things like flanking & facing in the dmg... Problem being they pretty much let someone who dislikes them to design those optional rules in a way that checks a box while failing to meet the need in nearly every possible way.

 

[Hussar]

The word "moding" implies changes rather than mere additions. It's telling that while trying to talk up modular additions to 5e you needed to lean so heavily on mere additions & the hadcover APs. We have a core book that shows there are crunchy components like the tactical grid based stuff they realized were important. If not we wouldn't have things like flanking & facing in the dmg... Problem being they pretty much let someone who dislikes them to design those optional rules in a way that checks a box while failing to meet the need in nearly every possible way.

But, that does speak to where they could go in the future. There's nothing stopping them from producing a crunch heavy supplement that leans much harder on the crunchy side of combat. Say something like So and So's Theories of Warfare - a book of rules for larger scale combat, tactical combat, vehicle combat, running a military style campaign, and I'm sure a handful of other ideas.

One doesn't need a new edition for that. And, that's largely what they mean by modular. You certainly don't need Xanathar's or Tasha's to run D&D. You don't need any of the supplements really. None of them particularly tie to any other one, and, if they do, the applicable rules are usually reprinted in the other book. Don't want to use the Tasha's stuff? You certainly don't have to. It's not like Storm King's Thunder is impossible to play without it. In fact, none of the modules need any of the supplements.

Now, I do agree that 5e's tactical rules are pretty bad. Not going to argue that. But, again, that doesn't make the game unplayable. It's funny. Back in the day, supplements were not only needed to play - they were actually referenced by other books. Now, you can take or leave a supplement and it doesn't really matter. Don't have Xanathar's? Oh well, guess the downtime rules in the PHB will have to suffice. And, frankly, most of the time, (with some notable recent discussion exceptions) the supplemental rules and the base rules function pretty well. I've almost never had a 5e game grind to a halt because of the rules.

 

[TheSword]

It's funny in a way. The old model of constantly needing to sell new books to keep the money coming in has totally fallen by the wayside.

Let's not forget that the top D&D sellers are STILL the core books. And they are still selling unbelievably well.

Good grief, WotC could sit back, not release another book for the next five years and STILL be making bank.

The reason we got new editions in the past is because that edition failed. That's the hard truth. The edition came, it sold, and then it died. There has been zero evidence of anything like that in the current edition. You don't have record breaking growth, year on year, when you are not selling.

The prediction is two years? Not likely. The next two year's worth of offerings could absolutely tank and we'd still not see a new edition on the horizon. When the PHB falls past the 1000 mark on Amazon, then start to think new edition. Otherwise? Why would you possibly bother?

This is so true. While we’re squabbling about what a couple of paragraphs in a splat book means, the rest of the world is buying the three core books and a couple of campaigns and playing D&D.

 

[Minigiant]

What do you mean by "slippage in sales"? Because, I have a suspicion that you might be working from a different definition here.

Do you mean that the double digit growth year on year will slow, or that they will actually start losing sales? Historically, D&D has never gone down the new edition route until sales have actually fallen. As in, actual shrinkage, not just "we didn't grow as much this year as last".

So, you're predicting that in 2 years time that D&D sales will go from double digit growth year on year, to actual loss?

Losses? No.

I'm saying growth will slow and setting and rules won't sell as well as previous books of their kind. However the decline will be slow and gradual thus not triggering alarm bells. Especially since the core books will likely still be big sellers.

I don't actual predict 6e for a long time. I am predicting a few books getting a meh from the community as core target group would have homebrewed, brought a DMguild book, or supported a Kickstarter with all those themes in it already.

 

[Hussar]

This is so true. While we’re squabbling about what a couple of paragraphs in a splat book means, the rest of the world is buying the three core books and a couple of campaigns and playing D&D

Yeah. I'd agree with that. Imagine you were watching some live play podcast or Twitch stream and you decide to get into D&D. Now, you've watched a few hours (or maybe a lot more than a few hours) of other people playing, so, you've probably got a pretty decent grounding in how the mechanics work. You pick up the core 3 and, say, Candlekeep Mysteries. (So chosen because that's the campaign I just started ) Why would you need or even care about Tasha's or Volos or SCAG?

Two or three years down the road, that same group (presuming things went well) have now played out the core books and are looking for something a bit new. Poof, there's Tasha's or whatever.

I mean, good grief, how many years could you play right now with just WotC modules and the core 3? It's a really good time to be a gamer.

 

[Hussar]

Losses? No.

I'm saying growth will slow and setting and rules won't sell as well as previous books of their kind. However the decline will be slow and gradual thus not triggering alarm bells. Especially since the core books will likely still be big sellers.

I don't actual predict 6e for a long time. I am predicting a few books getting a meh from the community as core target group would have homebrewed, brought a DMguild book, or supported a Kickstarter with all those themes in it already.

See, that's very different from what's happened in every other edition. It was always boom and bust. There's never been a gradual downturn.

Now, the double digit growth? Oh yeah, that will level off eventually. Has to. Nothing, not even Canadian real estate, grows forever. But, even if it just levels off, there's still no need for a new edition. Level at the current levels would still be far, far more successful than any RPG has ever been.

This is what it must have felt like when WotC started doing Magic the Gathering. Unbelievable growth. Basically a license to print money. Then, maturation of the market and a steady stream of income ever since. That would be so nice.

 

[Minigiant]

See, that's very different from what's happened in every other edition. It was always boom and bust. There's never been a gradual downturn.

I think that's because fundamentally 5e is a good game.

Personally the only other edition I think had a decent skeleton was the 4e Essentials line. All the rest were built on fundamentally bad design to me for core book sustainable growth.

Now, the double digit growth? Oh yeah, that will level off eventually. Has to. Nothing, not even Canadian real estate, grows forever. But, even if it just levels off, there's still no need for a new edition. Level at the current levels would still be far, far more successful than any RPG has ever been.

This is what it must have felt like when WotC started doing Magic the Gathering. Unbelievable growth. Basically a license to print money. Then, maturation of the market and a steady stream of income ever since. That would be so nice.

Question is whether this pleases the number crunchers and execs?

4e ended not because it didn't sell books. It's because it didn't sell enough books. The amount they wanted.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's because fundamentally 5e is a good game.

Personally the only other edition I think had a decent skeleton was the 4e Essentials line. All the rest were built on fundamentally bad design to me for core book sustainable growth.

That's a strongly debatable point.

Question is whether this pleases the number crunchers and execs?

4e ended not because it didn't sell books. It's because it didn't sell enough books. The amount they wanted.

Well, yes. That's part and parcel of any business venture. If I can make more money in the bank than selling books, why am I selling books? And, frankly, no matter how you slice it, 4e was not successful. It just wasn't. At best it managed to capture about half(ish) (and possibly less) of the existing player base and never attracted new players in any significant numbers.

So, it lasted about 5 years and died. About par for the course for any previous WotC edition.

But, again, I doubt the "number crunchers" are going to be pushing for any significant changes. Not so long as there is any growth or even if it just remains stable. A stable, evergreen product is a cash cow. You don't do anything to change that.