WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[Oofta]

If Magic is failing, then that probably means that WotC management will look to D&D to make up for the lost revenue. Prepare for monetization!

Because up until this point they've been selling D&D products as a non-profit public service?

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC's leadership "failed" their way to 5e exponentially enlarging D&D's player base and cultural footprint. But those levels of growth were always unsustainable, so now they are trying to engineer a soft landing, unlike the crashes that have plagued D&D in the past.

Previously, this is when TSR/WotC would have announced a whole new edition to try to get the hardcore base to replace all their books and thus infuse some fast cash into sales. But they are trying something new, now, which is to engineer a shift to a D&D culture that is perennial, where they can put out, say, a new PHB without it signalling that everyone needs to replace all their stuff...or maybe quit the game (or just stick with the old version, which from a WotC perspective is more or less like quitting the game).

All of which is to say that I think it's a little early to argue that WotC's leadership has failed.

Yet they still clearly want people to replace their hardcover books. They're just giving less reason to do so with this half-measure new edition.

 

[Velderan]

Wow. I was mostly joking/oversimplifying in that post. It's crazy to see that this is actually what you want. That's absolutely anathema to me. I don't want to buy the same book over and over again. That's a waste of money to me, even if they're several years/even decades between release.

And as a newby game designer, I would hate having to do that.

Personally, I'd rather new material based on familiar concepts. SotDQ seems to be my ideal product; the basic underlying story is familiar, but you're telling a new story that doesn't do anything to the old stories while updating some of the mechanics in a way that works for the current edition. Continuing to use DL as an example since it's current, I have zero interest in a 5e adaption of DL1-14 being sold because I already own DL1-14 and can adapt them myself. Those stories have also been reprinted/adapted 3 other times (Classics compilation, the 2e/SAGA 15th anniversary book, and the 3e books from Sovereign Press). They're all easily available through DMs Guild so there's no reason to remake them imo.

 

[Scribe]

That is more or less the time it took for type 1 to get unreachable and forced modern to be a thing, and ten years after that, we have now pioneer because modern itself has gotten unreachable.

We could discuss that. Modern was not unreachable at all.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That'd be great, yeah. My favorite time in D&D's history for content.

And if you recall, the game did get saved.

As much as I wouldn't mind more setting splatbooks, my problem here is

1. The most-likely candidate for these would be Forgotten Realms, which is the one setting I don't really desire more content from and
   
   
2. I feel like the setting stuff we've gotten so far hasn't been great. It's definitely improved over time, but I'm not sure more setting stuff will be a strength.

I mean, from your posts, you seem to want D&D to return to something more like it was in 2e or before. Meanwhile, Musk himself would probably describe himself as a disrupter.

A Muskhelmed D&D would probably have no print products at all, and possibly no products from WotC.

Possibly, though I do think with Twitter Musk has shown himself to want to return to something "before", something that doesn't really exist save in the minds of bitter people who don't like how "woke" things got. If we are actually talking Musk himself, I'd wager we return to stuff that was problematic but "classic".

But really, the whole Musk debate (while a hilarious and wonderfully-unified pile-on on a board that feels like it argues about everything) is kind of a strawman: the OP wants a "visionary" at the helm of 5E. And it's unfair to try and only associate it with the stupidity of a narcissist like Musk. However, even then I think it's just not a good idea. What we really don't need is a single "visionary" directing 5E, but a group of people making gentler changes for stability and quality.

Right now, 5E is in a pretty solid place sales-wise. Sales are insane, and while I would make the argument that it's so high on the book list because the only place you can properly read the rulebook is physically, they are still clearly making a bunch of cash. 1D&D looks like it has some good ideas for changes (even if they are not likely bringing me back to the game) and overall the whole franchise seems like it is in a really good place for the future. You don't need a singular visionary who is going out there to break things because nothing is really broken right now: things seem to be working fairly well on all fronts.

Rather, the biggest threat right now is continuing to dip into nostalgia. I'd rather see a Steering Committee that looks to how past stuff can be adapted and used in a way that won't have WOTC putting its foot in its mouth, as well as trying to keep a nice gap between the top and the most hardcore fans. One of the simplest things they could do with D&D is get a few sensitivity readers/editors to make sure they aren't doing anything bluntly stupid, while also pushing for newer voices and expanded settings beyond just "European High Fantasy". Al Qadim and Kara-Tur are interesting places to visit, but I really don't trust WOTC to do them with any sort of tasteful handling (I've heard good things about the fan Al-Qadim book on the DMG). They should look at adding new voices to update these places like Paizo did with their Mwangi Expanse book and now their Impossible Lands book, both of which are very good and the former being one of the most highly regarded setting books in my recent memory.

So yeah, I don't think we need someone big to make drastic changes because 5E is not in trouble. I would want to focus on polishing it and making sure it's in a good place for the future, which would be more about doing a better job of modernizing old material and raising new voices into positions of power to help the company from calcifying in the near future.

 

[Gradine]

It is curious how the Great Man Theory of leadership finds new ways to be reasserted.

My least favorite and least accurate historical trope

 

[Jahydin]

It is curious how the Great Man Theory of leadership finds new ways to be reasserted.

Maybe if the desire was for Musk to buy the company and design the best version of D&D himself.

But if the desire was to politically clean house back to a more neutral stance and allow creators to go ham without worrying about six levels of Sensitivity Experts , I think it's fair to say this is the best man for the job, no?

Unless I completely missed OP's reason for wanting Musk specifically...

 

[Jahydin]

My least favorite and least accurate historical trope

This is the first time I've come across it and curious to learn.

Do you think the trope itself isn't accurate?

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, from your posts, you seem to want D&D to return to something more like it was in 2e or before.

Not who you're replying to above, but I'm all for this!

A Muskhelmed D&D would probably have no print products at all, and possibly no products from WotC.

Muskhelm - a magical head covering that does...hmmm...all sorts of possibilities there.

 

[darjr]

I want a lot of content for D&D.

There IS a lot of content for D&D!

So much one of the common complaints is that there is so much, "wont people think of the poor other games!"

 

[darjr]

Lets look at part of the credits for Explorers Guide to Wildmount.



Well, looks like a quite a few WotC folks and WotC regular contributors. Imagine that?

 

[Clint_L]

Yet they still clearly want people to replace their hardcover books. They're just giving less reason to do so with this half-measure new edition.

Yes, eventually, but not all at once, out of a sense of forced obligation.

They haven't announced replacements for all their hard cover books, and they have explicitly stated that they don't want a situation where they make all people's existing hardcover books obsolete.

What they have described is wanting to move to a paradigm where, instead of expecting folks to replace their entire collection every 5-10 years, they can continuously sell books, adding updates as they feel the game needs. Which seems like a much better economic model - the old "editions" model only happened out of financial desperation and was always a stop-gap measure rather than a long-term strategy.

WotC is trying to move from short-term tactics to a long term strategy. That is explicitly how they have described OneD&D, as rejection of that old "editions" paradigm of planned obsolescence. They are envisioning that they can sell more books incrementally by NOT throwing the baby out with the bathwater as the old "editions" system did. So, yeah, they wanna sell more books. And they are arguing that they can do so by not continuously rebooting the game and driving customers away.

Look at it this way: they think they have developed a healthy system. They are probably largely through the rapid growth phase, so the question is "how do we get to sustained growth" while keeping the game healthy. Jettisoning 5e is a huge risk, and there is no need to do so because the game has a big, healthy base. So instead of jettisoning it, they have to train players to stop thinking of D&D in terms of editions, and instead think in terms of one continuous game that evolves incrementally, with no obvious dividing points. Because from a sales perspective, you don't want to divide a healthy customer base.

They have stated, point blank, that they DO NOT like the old "editions" paradigm. It is a problem. It is bad for business. They reject it.

 

[Velderan]

Al Qadim and Kara-Tur are interesting places to visit, but I really don't trust WOTC to do them with any sort of tasteful handling (I've heard good things about the fan Al-Qadim book on the DMG).

If I'm remembering the recent DMG Al Qadim book correctly, one of the co-authors is actually Middle Eastern so they're far more likely to actually get the culture they're drawing inspiration from correctly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There IS a lot of content for D&D!

So much one of the common complaints is that there is so much, "wont people think of the poor other games!"

Not my common complaint. Those other games have plenty of content too. For example, I have a rather large collection of books for Star Trek Adventures.

 

[Aldarc]

There IS a lot of content for D&D!

So much one of the common complaints is that there is so much, "wont people think of the poor other games!"

I'm not sure if the former is the reason for the latter. Most criticisms I see has less to do with whether D&D has a lot of content but rather with its market hegemonic dominance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, eventually, but not all at once, out of a sense of forced obligation.

They haven't announced replacements for all their hard cover books, and they have explicitly stated that they don't want a situation where they make all people's existing hardcover books obsolete.

What they have described is wanting to move to a paradigm where, instead of expecting folks to replace their entire collection every 5-10 years, they can continuously sell books, adding updates as they feel the game needs. Which seems like a much better economic model - the old "editions" model only happened out of financial desperation and was always a stop-gap measure rather than a long-term strategy.

WotC is trying to move from short-term tactics to a long term strategy. That is explicitly how they have described OneD&D, as rejection of that old "editions" paradigm of planned obsolescence. They are envisioning that they can sell more books incrementally by NOT throwing the baby out with the bathwater as the old "editions" system did. So, yeah, they wanna sell more books. And they are arguing that they can do so by not continuously rebooting the game and driving customers away.

Look at it this way: they think they have developed a healthy system. They are probably largely through the rapid growth phase, so the question is "how do we get to sustained growth" while keeping the game healthy. Jettisoning 5e is a huge risk, and there is no need to do so because the game has a big, healthy base. So instead of jettisoning it, they have to train players to stop thinking of D&D in terms of editions, and instead think in terms of one continuous game that evolves incrementally, with no obvious dividing points. Because from a sales perspective, you don't want to divide a healthy customer base.

They have stated, point blank, that they DO NOT like the old "editions" paradigm. It is a problem. It is bad for business. They reject it.

I know what they said, I just don't think it will work out that way, and I don't expect they'll succeed in "training players" to accept their "new paradigm".

 

[Gradine]

This is the first time I've come across it and curious to learn.

Do you think the trope itself isn't accurate?

The trope is inaccurate.

Generally speaking, the most significant historical moments are precipitated by natural forces (particularly climate catastrophe and disease), or by broader movements of peoples as a whole (from migration to political movements). Leaders do emerge but are often reacting to historical moments rather than making them. There are a few exceptions, to be sure, but as a whole the historical obsession with "Great Men" requires ignoring the absolutely necessary role that the many (and entirely other forces outside humanity's control) play in history's most significant moments

 

[J.Quondam]

The trope is inaccurate.

Generally speaking, the most significant historical moments are precipitated by natural forces (particularly climate catastrophe and disease), or by broader movements of peoples as a whole (from migration to political movements). Leaders do emerge but are often reacting to historical moments rather than making them. There are a few exceptions, to be sure, but as a whole the historical obsession with "Great Men" requires ignoring the absolutely necessary role that the many (and entirely other forces outside humanity's control) play in history's most significant moments

It might be renamed to "The Great Men theory of taking credit".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It might be renamed to "The Great Men theory of taking credit".

Though I think that, that might be a tad unfair to the "Great Men (some of whom were women)". I think that the "Great Men" thing is a reflection the desire for a simple narrative to hang history upon. Couple with a desire to claim we can control our destiny rather than accept a more humble status as reactors in a more chaotic environment.

 

[JEB]

Maybe they were encouraged to cater to the hardcore fans who wanted older Gen X settings rather than the settings the current casual audience would actually find interesting.

If they were catering to Gen X with Ravenloft and Spelljammer, they wouldn't have rebooted the settings. I'm sure they were hoping for Gen X to spend money on them anyway, because nostalgia, but reboots are intended to hook new audiences, not cater to old ones.