D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[Derren]

And you seem to think that "feel like D&D" is something everyone cares about. ly.I care about whether something is a good and enjoyable game that does what it sets out to do. For that matter if I were to say "Wow, this really does feel like D&D," the second half of my sentence would be "a hack and slashy combat fest full of disconnected rules and subsystems that were clunky and rickety by the standards of the 1990s and that I need to beat into shape with a hammer to make workable."

Exactly. Getting hung up on nostalgia is very dangerous as you always remember it in a much more positive way than it really was and it also does not account for a change in taste, culture or technique. Besides, many D&D players of 3E/Pathfinder and 4E have not played 1E etc. For them "feels like D&D" means something completely different than for older gamers.
Also, after the shism, just printing D&D on the book will not automatically attract customers. They have broken with D&D already, so why should they come back? Because it "feels like D&D"? If thats all they want they would not have left in the first place (unless you declare 4E to be not D&D which disappoints the 4E players who then ask themselves why they should play 5E).

To get more players 5E must be better for the players than other RPGs on the market. But instead of trying to do that 5E, apparently in a fear to displease any potential customers, is based on brand recognition, nostalgia and the lowest common denominator and I don't think that a design like that will work.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

And you seem to think that "feel like D&D" is something everyone cares about. I care about whether something is a good and enjoyable game that does what it sets out to do. For that matter if I were to say "Wow, this really does feel like D&D," the second half of my sentence would be "a hack and slashy combat fest full of disconnected rules and subsystems that were clunky and rickety by the standards of the 1990s and that I need to beat into shape with a hammer to make workable."

Here's the thing. Most people buy D&D because of the D&D feel. There are actually other fantasy games that do mechanics better than any edition of Dungeons and Dragons, but those other games don't have the D&D feel, except for Pathfinder and retro clones. What sells is what D&D does that nobody other system can do. It's not based on some sort of new age mechanics that have shaken the core of RPG's today, it's the feel of the game and that is why it sells.

 

[D'karr]

What sells is what D&D does that nobody other system can do. It's not based on some sort of new age mechanics that have shaken the core of RPG's today, it's the feel of the game and that is why it sells.

For a new person that has never played the game this is not even possible. How could they know how it feels if they have never played it? Without having ever played the game how can they know what the system can do, that supposedly no other system can do? Nowadays, D&D sells because of the name. I would probably argue that it has always sold because of the name.

In 1979, when I purchased the game it was because the image on the tin captured my imagination, and the name was evocative. I was the one that introduced all my local friends to the game. I had no conception of "feel" or what the system could do. It was marketing, the back of the box promised something that I wanted to buy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Here's the thing. Most people buy D&D because of the D&D feel.

I'd like to see some evidence of this as it's in direct contradiction to my experience. Most people who buy D&D buy it because it's the only tabletop RPG they have ever heard of (with the possible exception of Vampire: The Masquerade) and is the only TTRPG they can find in anything except highly specialised shops. Of that group, some continue to buy D&D because they like the feel, some buy D&D because it is good enough and they don't want to learn any new games, some continue to buy D&D because it's what everyone else plays, and some move on to other systems. And some, like me, like D&D for some purposes because of the feel and the way it plays - and don't like it for others for precisely the same reasons.

What sells is what D&D does that nobody other system can do.

Getting into mainstream bookstores - hell, my local gaming stores don't stock any RPGs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'd like to see some evidence of this as it's in direct contradiction to my experience. Most people who buy D&D buy it because it's the only tabletop RPG they have ever heard of (with the possible exception of Vampire: The Masquerade) and is the only TTRPG they can find in anything except highly specialised shops. Of that group, some continue to buy D&D because they like the feel, some buy D&D because it is good enough and they don't want to learn any new games, some continue to buy D&D because it's what everyone else plays, and some move on to other systems. And some, like me, like D&D for some purposes because of the feel and the way it plays - and don't like it for others for precisely the same reasons.



Getting into mainstream bookstores - hell, my local gaming stores don't stock any RPGs.

Well, i think there are a lot of reasons people buy d&d, certianly it is the most visible and has been on the market longest. But i also think feel is important. 4E and pathfinder demonstrate this a biit. A lot of peopl stopped buying dungeons and dragons when 4th came out because they felt it altered the feel (i know i felt that way). And many people switched to pathfiner, which didn't have the d&d name, because they felt it continud the feel.

 

[dracomilan]

Could feel strange to point it out after 38 pages of arguments, but the feel depends a lot on basic things like typography, paper quality and drawings.
4E books didn't meet the standards of 3.x books for me or my friends (we were used to books which resembled grimoires and suddenly were presented with quality math books).
So maybe it will be simpler than we all think: if they get the style right, they will sell a LOT of copies. If not, the game will fail.

 

[Lokiare]

Well, i think there are a lot of reasons people buy d&d, certianly it is the most visible and has been on the market longest. But i also think feel is important. 4E and pathfinder demonstrate this a biit. A lot of peopl stopped buying dungeons and dragons when 4th came out because they felt it altered the feel (i know i felt that way). And many people switched to pathfiner, which didn't have the d&d name, because they felt it continud the feel.

The problem with these kinds of speculations is that the sales number from the ICv reports show that 4E was making as much or more than 3.5E up until the end of the second year and only started to drop down when they slowed down the release of 4E books and launched Essentials. There are also several books that hit name brand bestseller lists near the end of the second year.

In other words they lowered supply so people couldn't buy the books and they also changed the game up and people didn't like that with Essentials (which was meant to be a way to unite the player base with an old school feel by putting different subsystems in than AEDU such as Vancian casting, people that didn't like 4E picked the book up in the store saw the "4E" logo on the back and put it back down without even opening it).

What really happened is that for the first time people who liked a previous edition of D&D could go to another company and continue getting support, instead of feeling like they had to play the newest edition to get support. Pathfinder and Paizo picked that up and instead of focusing on rulebooks, they focused on adventures and settings supplements. Which is a better strategy. They also created higher quality books, and elicited feedback from their customers and used that feedback to shape future products. Something WotC doesn't seem to be capable of.

For the most part 5E is going to be a failure because it doesn't really bring anything new and it doesn't bring any enhancements. Anything that is good about 5E can be easily imported into pathfinder (or another OGL game) by using a slightly different wording and implementation. There really isn't enough in 5E to distinguish it from a slightly house ruled 1E or 2E.

The other thing that is going to spell the fall of 5E is their budget. Hasbro pulled their big budget out from under them so the D&D side of WotC is running on what they can generate. What they generate is the PDF sales and the DDi sales. This probably barely pays the salaries of the 5 full time workers on 5E (Someone estimated the budget from the sales awhile back and then estimated the salaries of the people working on 5E). There is little or no room in the budget to actually advertise the new product. Its a wonder they have enough money to even print it at this point.

Lastly its likely that 5E is meant to be a last 'forever' product like monopoly where for the most part nothing will be added, removed, or changed for the foreseeable future. Essentials was meant to be like this, but people wouldn't buy it...

 

[Mistwell]

For the most part 5E is going to be a failure because it doesn't really bring anything new and it doesn't bring any enhancements. Anything that is good about 5E can be easily imported into pathfinder (or another OGL game) by using a slightly different wording and implementation. There really isn't enough in 5E to distinguish it from a slightly house ruled 1E or 2E.

i disagree with this.

The other thing that is going to spell the fall of 5E is their budget. Hasbro pulled their big budget out from under them so the D&D side of WotC is running on what they can generate. What they generate is the PDF sales and the DDi sales. This probably barely pays the salaries of the 5 full time workers on 5E (Someone estimated the budget from the sales awhile back and then estimated the salaries of the people working on 5E). There is little or no room in the budget to actually advertise the new product. Its a wonder they have enough money to even print it at this point.

And this i think needs support. Let me see even a shred of evidence supporting this claim.

 

[Lokiare]

i disagree with this.



And this i think needs support. Let me see even a shred of evidence supporting this claim.

Here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History an employee of WotC that worked on 3.5E and 4E talks about how Hasbro was going to shelve D&D or make it run on its profits if they didn't meet the sales goals.

You can look at the author's on the various articles and the few books that have been published since 5E was announced and easily come to the conclusion that there are very few people working for WotC on the D&D side right now. Someone on the WotC forums a while back estimated that they could support up to 5 people. I'll let you put 1 and 1 together to get 2...

 

[Mistwell]

Here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History an employee of WotC that worked on 3.5E and 4E talks about how Hasbro was going to shelve D&D or make it run on its profits if they didn't meet the sales goals.

Still waiting on proof for current WoTC. You're talking about something from 8 years ago, which the author agrees never came to happen, and the group that had made the prior decisions isn't even there any more.

You can look at the author's on the various articles and the few books that have been published since 5E was announced and easily come to the conclusion that there are very few people working for WotC on the D&D side right now.

More like come to the conclusion that you have no idea. You obviously have no clue what it takes to run a division of a company like the D&D group. Me, I have an idea. But, it's not one I can say at the moment. Other than, I disagree with your uneducated speculation.

Someone on the WotC forums a while back estimated that they could support up to 5 people. I'll let you put 1 and 1 together to get 2...

So random guy on the internet with no insider knowledge at all said something and you're repeating it like fact?

Let's be real clear. You claimed a major industry company, a public corporation, is intentionally not supporting one of it's known brand divisions. It's an extraordinary claim, and requires some kind of proof. You didn't state it as if it were simply your guess, you claimed it was fact. Provide proof.