On these forums and various other sites such as ENworld there has been a lot of complaints about the current D&D release schedule. Put simply they can’t or won’t seem to support 5E at the rate of 3E and 4E and they can’t even match Pathfinder levels of production which is a monthly adventure and around 3 big splat books a year which is already half of 4E reduced schedule in 2010 and around a ¼ of 3.5s splat book o rama. Not to point fingers at WoTC but in TSRs dying year they released around 60 products in one year as well.
Now this can lead one to various conclusions but I think the simple one is probably the easiest. D&D was in a death spiral. Note that this is just IMHO and a death spirial can be recovered ffrom. WoTC for all the problems they have are a lot better at running the show than TSR ever ere as D&D has more or less gone under at least 3 times.
In the mid 1970’s, the Blumes bailed out Gary Gygax. This lead to Gyary being a minority shareholder in TSR.
In 1985 when the Blues sold their shares to Lorraine Williams which lead to the departure of Gary Gygax at the end of 1985.
In 1997 when TSR was in debt for around 24-27 million dollars. This lead to the WoTC buyout orchestrated by Ryan Dancey who served as the bridge between Lorraine Williams and Peter Adkinson. D&D lost an average of 2 million dollars a year under Lorraine’s tenure although as I understand it things went downhill fast after 1993 or so.
Note D&D bounced back.
Last year Eric Mona provided the figures for estimated sales of 3E.
3.0 500k
3.5 250-350k
Pathfinder 250k
This was when Pathfinder was number 1 as well before 5E landed. Each edition of 3E sold less than the one before. I have only seem some estimates of 4E but Monte Cook claimed August of 2014 the D&D player base was down to a 3rd of its size in the 3.5 days which also matches up with some estimates of of 4E on ENworld. This was also against an estimate by CV2 that the entire RPG industry in 2013 was worth around 13 million dollars, D&D fell of the ICV2 charts and Paizo was known to have revenue of 12.7 million dollars in 2012. The top 5 RPG companies on the RPG charts in 2013 employed less than 100 people between them (TSR 1983 had 300 staff source Gary Gygax, 3.0 launch had around 50 staff, source Monte Cook). Paizo had around 25, D&D had around 15. Monte Cook Games had 5 staff at the time and was one of the larger RPGs according to ICV2 with sales of around 18 000 reported.
D&Ds glory days are long gone. The height was 1982/83 and 2000/2001 according to Sharon Appelcine who wrote a book on the history of D&D. While TSR was busy going bankrupt in the mid 90’s they had revenue in the 40 million range apparently (while losing millions per year) and TSR pre Lorraine peaked at around 27 million in 1983 which adjusted for inflation is around 50 million these days. Ryan Dancey provided the figure of 25-30 million for 3E circa 2006. Once again the overall trend has been downwards however. Put simply D&D was worth around twice (or more) what the rest of the RPG industry was worth put together.
By now it is probably safe to say the market also fragmented between Paizo and WoTC. Paizo won one round but to some extent they both lost. Paizo inherited a shrinking market, WoTC got a nasty surprise it seems. So how does this explain the current 5E release schedule. They have been promising quality over quantity and I think they got this with the core rules and the Starter Set, the follow on adventures are nothing special although I have not read the Elemental Evil book to be fair but I have been hearing mixed things about it so it seems to be a typical D&D adventure.
With the very small staff they have left due to a shrinking market and loss of market share they can’t really produce much even if they wanted to. The other reason is I do not think even they could now how much they could sell and likely won’t until around August this year or one year after 5E release, Mearls even said as much on twitter. From there it seems to take around a year to produce a large RPG book, TSR used to be able to do a 32 page module in a month so it seems not much has really changed. A year is actually very efficient Gary took 2 years to write 1E, other publishers with kickstarter have been unreliable putting it mildly.
And that’s the reason IMHO of course. The death spiral I referenced earlier was pre 5E launch which has been great but 5E seems to be suffering from what every other edition of D&D has suffered from (they used software to track 5E Amazon sales and posted it on ENworld). That problem is a heavily front loaded buy in where a huge % of an editions books are sold in the 1st year. 3.0 may have sold 500k, Ryan Dancey claimed it sold 300k in the 1st month which means they sold 200k over the next 2.5 years. 4E sold well on release and so did 2E with sales in the 270k range of the PHB. By most accounts 5E has sold well but sales are down a’la every other edition of D&D with maybe the exception of OD&D, 1E and BECMI which peaked later in the edition cycle.
Put simply if they do increase products we will not know until 5Es second year. Its seems 5E has managed to reverse the overall pattern of decline that D&D has been in since the 3.0 launch. Some estimates of PHB sales have been made but I have not found anything on the Starter Set. Would Im like a faster D&D release schedule? Yes marginally faster being honest as I would like to see 1 setting book, 1-2 splat books and monthly adventure support (smaller adventures though ‘la Dungeon Magazine) would be about perfect for me. I understand though why WoTC have done what they have done due to circumstances beyond their control.
The future will determine 5Es fate one way or the other as I would not like to call it one way or the other. There are some bright spots and some dark clouds and I have no idea which way things will go.
Meanwhile, those of us who are content to just play 5e without worrying about it, are having the most enormous fun. Ironic, isn't it?
I don't need WotC to support me directly because I have all the rule books and everything I need to go on making up our own adventures indefinitely. I do buy the published adventures (and play them) partly as a way of giving WotC more money. I'm content. WotC can focus their limited manpower resources on widening the appeal of the game by supporting game stores (through AL), computer game franchises and anything else they can think of. The more they reach out, the more popular D&D becomes and the more popular my hobby becomes. And that's good in itself.
Back in the day, when the world was young and green, I would buy all the core books and a few of the splat books but very, very few of the published adventures. Because they were too small. So TSR didn't make very much money from me. Likewise with each successive edition up to and including 4e. But now, I've bought everything WotC has published for 5e. They must be doing something right. 
BoldItalic wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Delazar78 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Unfortunately, I just can't get into the business side of D&D. It puts me to sleep 
. But I agree with Zard's assessment (he seems to have did his homework ):
D&D is in a downward spiral I think. I remember it's hey-day so it's current state is kinda sad. I also believe the game can recover though. I can't help but worry however that there's a lot going on behind the scenes right now. I wouldn't know the business side of things, just a gut feeling.
Still, I hope D&D does well in the long run. The production is top notch and the rules are very nice. All I can really do is support the game I enjoy.
Personally, I like the slow & low release schedule. It's perfect for a gamer like me, who wouldn't be buying the splat books and doesn't like to feel left out because of it.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I'm part of the main revenue stream for D&D, since I play only once per week and generally only spend $100-$150 per year on RPG books (and even once per week is a bit much for me, but I've got a good group and am having fun). I don't know the production costs of a book or the return they can expect from a splat book because I've never seen any of their internal numbers and even if they made them available, I've been around long enough to know that statistics and numbers can be 100% true and 200% misleading.
I realize some people aren't happy and they want more... and those people probably spend a lot more money than I ever will on D&D. One of the people I play with spent more on 4e than I spent on all the RPGs I've played since my first game in '85, and there have been quite a few, especially during my Emo/WOD phase after college... I'm not really proud of that, but it happened.
I'll be interested to see how the folks at WotC and Hasbro decide to proceed, but I'm fairly sure that for me and my casual play style, as long as the AL support stays at the level it is with the mini-adventures and the APs they put out are decent enough quality that I can burn 2-3 hours every wednesday night playing with my friends, they can have my $100-$150.
I suppose if someone gave me access to their ledger, the market surveys and the playtest survey results... and then paid me a couple week's salary, of course... I could do a cost-benefit analysis based on prior publication runs to find out if producing a bunch of splat books would be worth it. But I have a job of my own already and I would be willing to bet that Hasbro/WotC already employs a bean-counter of their own to do things like that.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
CCS wrote:
I think it just needs to be said. Not that it will actually stop the dead horse from being beaten. I mean look at the alignment threads. That has been done to death.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
from my understanding, WotC want to avoid the book bloat they had in previous edition where in order to play the game a player need to buy the PHB 1, 2,3 the complete Arcane, complete divine, complete adventurere and complete marital book, then teh necromnomicaon, the draconomicon, the book of exalted evil, the book of vile darkness etc... making it very difficult for a lot of player to buy all the books. Then the player missing a book couldn't create a character as powerfull as the player with all the book, so in organized game, it had become a pay to win game where every book you buy gave you a small boost in power.
From my understanding, the current model is to attract new player to the table, to increase the popularity of DnD, they want me (an experience player) to be able to ask my girlfriend (who never played DnD before) if she want to come try DnD this Wednesday and they want her to be able to understand the game. If we were playing 3.5 in order for my girlfriend to join the table she wouldhave to read 4 books, learn all the flanking, higher ground rules. To understand the difference between a armor bonus, enhancement bonus, Natural armor bonus, moral bonus, profane bonus, divine bonus etc... otherwise once she sit at the table I would be require to control both her and my character or she would die since she wouldn't understand all the +1 and +2 she most stack together to be able to hit the target.
With 5e she only need to read the PHB and the little player companion (an honestly, the PHB race are stronger, so she can simply read the PHB and ignore the Player companion without loosing power) Then she can sit at the table and even if she doesn't get advantage she can still hit the target, and as she play and enjoy the game she'll learn how to gain advantage and learn to enjoy the game.
Then every season the player companion will change, so if we reach season 10 we won't have 10 player companion to read, just 1, the one for the specific season (yes Optimizer can and will go around saying that the race, spell, feat, subclass etc... available to class X from season Y make that character more powerfull then if made using a different season combination, but by intent, WotC idea is that character from all season are about the same power so my sorcerer from Season 1 should be able to compete and be usefull in a adventure in season 4. Your season 4 sorcerer might be 1% more powerfull then my sorcerer season 1 on paper, but in reality, that 1% won't be significant, and specially for new player (like my girlfriend) won't be perceptive. Yes I don't have access to Melf Minute Meteor from season 2 being from season 1, but Melf Minute Meteor cannot be used at the same time as Haste (since they are both concentration forcing any spellcaster from choosing between the 2 spells.)
TL;DR: it's easier to attract new player when they don't need to buy 5 books to try the game. At my store when a new player want to join we give him a free pregen, then at the end of the game we tell him that if he want to learn more he can go see the free PDF, and if he still want to learn more and have access to the other class he can buy the PHB
Istbor wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Aren't they just waiting for 3rd parties to show up with product ideas (TTRPG, video games, movies, cartoons, etc...)?
I know that if there aren't more options on the horizon, my group might end up moving to another system. There's a lot of "i like this edition but i'm waiting for the X, Y or Z to come out to really enjoy it". If the concepts that aren't supported never get released, there are going to be more than a few people who get tired with core.
Subclass and race expancons are nice (UA - Mino is interesting). I like the 2E race books that expanded the race and provided race based classes. I think they could get into region based classes as well.
I agree they should NOT flood the market with a ton of new material... but you know that is only if Dwarves comes out first lol... if Elves come first then you will hear me yell from under the mountian...
Gnarl:
Due to the change of License they are closing the loop on 3rd party groups. All the free app 3rd party guys are shut out of 5E content. The problem is they work with a small select group of 3rd party's and the reslut is not always a good one... think TrapDoor
I prefer the older open license vs the new ristrictive license they are using, but Hasboro is trying to keep another Pazio away.
No movies or TV deals will be made as the only folks at Sweetpea hold exclusive rights to TV and movies since 1994... Hasboro has been in court since 2013 trying to get the rights (probably since they realized they could be worth millions if they could turn it aroudn like the comic book movies have and make quality movies with good story the target market will grow beyond the D&D crowd).
IRONSKULL!
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Kravell wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Kravell wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Istbor wrote:
Maybe raised threads should start at -1 level of experience.
I think it's great WotC is slowing down and taking a more methodical approach. Not only is it making me get off my ass to get back to campaign designing again, I'm looking forward to the new reelases. I do hope they expand beyond FR *cough* Greyhawk *cough* but with the books for 5e now i'm making my own anad having a good time. More importantly, i haven't seen all this discontent that the internet is so famous for conjuring up.
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I just see the limited release schedule as WotC being conservative. Given how 4th Edition was received by many I think it's only prudent that they hold back a bit and assess what the next best move is. Is it campaign settings and if so which ones? Is it more in depth looks at the Realms? If so will they look at the less known aspects such as Kara-Tur or Al-Qadim? Is it character options? I think one of the big problems they had before was that they tried to hit too many marks too quickly and ended up with some inferior output as a result. It would make sense if they want to avoid that this time around. In any event all I need are players and the motivation to be creative. I don't really need massive amounts of supplements for that.
I want more and I feel no need to justify this.
CCS wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Dreadnoght wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
DP
JohnLynch wrote:
Zardnaar: paizo only puts out 3 books a year.
Zardnaar redux: paizo only puts out 3 books a year for their RPG product that aren't adventures.
Zardnaar revised: paizo puts most of their mechanics into hardcovers which come out once a year.
Keep going Zardnaar. You'll eventually make a post so specific that you're correct. Except what's the point? Paizo puts out 1 player facing hardcover a year (they've actually done two player facing hardcovers for the past two years. But we're not going to let facts get in the way!). 5th edition is less than 1 years old and has put out 1 player facing hardcover. Therefore as of today WotC are continuing to put out books at the same rate you claim Paizo puts out (a claim that's false. But a claim you've made nonetheless).
Also the 13 other books you've dimissed that Paizo puts out for it's players? Those books have some of the worst examples of unbalanced mechanics which directly does impact the bloatedness and brokenness of Pathfinder. But I understand why you would want to discount those books. Those books prove you to have been terribly incorrect and rather than admit you were wrong you will continue to twist your own words into a pretzel until they finally resemble something that could be considered somewhat related to correct.
JohnLynch wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
They aren't hardcovers but each one has mechanics for players to use. But by all means, continue to keep digging as you try to find excuses to discount these books.
Regardless of what qualifications you add after the fact, your initial statement was Paizo only releases 3 books a year (plus adventures) but you were wrong. Nothing you say now can change that fact. I'm sure you'll be more careful in how you phrase it in the future to try to make whatever point you're trying to push.
JohnLynch is correct. Each month, Paizo releases a player companion book that adds more options for various classes, adds more feats, magic items, and spells. Just because they aren't hardcover 160+ page books doesn't mean they don't exist. Paizo still releases more than WotC, by a large margin. The amount of things they produce each month is a little on the excessive side (usually about 3-4 things a month), but I would rather have 3-4 things a month to choose to purchase than 1 thing every 3 months. It is nicer on the wallet, but it is too little for me.
I'm reminded of the old adage, "Be careful what you wish for."
Let's say some of you here have your way and WotC decides to crank up its production, releasing books at a much faster rate. Therefor at a reduced level of design quality as well, mind you.
Now what happens? Does 5e’s desired sustainability take a hit? Will the bloat and lack of balance shorten its life cycle? Does it become just another burned out system chock full of banned material, played with a binder full of houserules necessary to keep it functional at the table? Does this open it up as ripe for being replaced by the next shiny system to come along in a few years?
I’d argue it would.
And I’d argue that’s bad.
And so I’d argue to keep doing it the way WotC is choosing to do it.
Because, IMO, that is what's best for D&D in the long run.
All i want is a balance. I don't need 3 books a month but i sure as hell don't want less than one player book a year.
GhostStepper wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
And no, my point is based directly on WotC's repeated statements as to why they are trying a much reduced production schedule. So as to better QC what they do publish. And to allow their products to breathe and experience considerable play and chances for feedback before the next one. As well as to meet the request of the majority of those who provided input on the matter.
I wasn't stating an opinion devoid of context or evidence. You did though.
JohnLynch wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
There really aren't other companies as big as WotC but Fantasy Flight Games can serve as an example of another successful company when it comes to RPGs (along with Paizo). They started with D20 and couple of house systems, then jumped into Warhammer and some other RPGs. Next, they took the Star Wars license. Do I think they are going to make a lot of money for an RPG in 2016 with the Star Wars RPG? Yes. Yes I do.
Again, they built things up over time. Started small and built up. Now, they make a lot of boardgames and card games too (for Star Wars too), but they still put out an impressive amount of RPG content for each line (a new book every few months for the biggest lines, more for Star Wars). So they make the RPG people happy and likely make tons more money on the minis, cards, and boards. But they still support the RPG in a strong way.
Wizards seems to handle RPGs in a way no other company does. And in the case of the Star Wars license, it seems like it may end up costing them money.
Edit: my completely totally my own opinion is that Wizards slipped up in letting the Star Wars RPG license go. I can't see any circumstance in which that license won't make a lot of money in 2016 for a game company. Again, I don't know why Wizards dropped it, but from a financial sense it leaves me scratching my head. I know at the time they didn't know what was going to happen, but still a Star Wars RPG should be profitable and be able to stay afloat. Especially when you add in minis, board games, and cards.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Kravell wrote:
I am very happy, I have been playing and collecting D&D since 1987, and I do not need another Complete Gnome Cobbler's Handbook or what-have-you, and with 5th Ed being the most conversion friendly edition to date (IMO/E), I just convert any previous edition material I fancy. I have converted many races, classes, monsters, and spells to 5th Ed; it is a blast.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Dreadnoght wrote:
I don't mind the slow release schedule, but I'd love to see better guidance for creating my own content and modifying existing content.
Apparently, they heard the calls for more adventures. I think they'll have more releases consistently.
What confuses me is, if WotC are outsourcing the adventurers, what are the in house designers actually doing?
I don't mind a slow release schedule. Bloat is annoying. But I would like a few more character options. A book (or pdf) of backgrounds, for example, would really help flesh things out.
Also, adventures are nice, I guess, but these really huge "epic" campaigns have no interest for me. The trawling out of all the various big bads from the lore and throwing them into world-ending adventures is hackneyed and clichéd. What I would have interest in is smaller, 1 to 3 level adventures that I can more easily adapt to my own campaign.
I think 1 'Players' book a year (archetypes, backgrounds, feats, spells etc, possibly around a theme) and 1 'DM' book (Monster Manual, Campain Setting, etc) a year would be fine, alongside 2 or 3 more modular adventures.
Hell, one 'splat' (DM or Player, I don't really want books that do both so much) a year and a few small adventures would be ok. It's these big 'campaigns' I have no use for. I can tell my own stories (that's the best bit!), I want the tools to help me do it in new and exciting ways.
Lezta wrote:
I suspect the 1st 5E splat book will be Unearthed Arcana.
Zardnaar wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
You can even buy the Elemental Evil Player's Guide as a softcover! It's just US$ 9.99+shipping in vivid color, or 7.99+shipping in basic color!
I know I ordered that, even though it's free as a PDF. I like to have physical splats.
Marandahir wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
So the AD&D Complete X series of books? None of those were splat? They were all soft cover. That's a metric crapton of non-splat bloat right there...
Farmer42 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Just to note, the "official" definition of a splatbook (per wikipedia's entry on splatbook):
Splatbooks are sourcebooks devoted to a particular facet, character class, or fictional faction in a role-playing game, providing additional background details and rules options. For example, a "swords and sorcery" fantasy game might offer splatbooks for each of the races in the setting: humans, dwarves, elves, and others.
The size, or binding of the bookd doesn't matter. It's the type of content within the source that matters. The Elemental Evil Player's Companion is a splatbook though it's bordering on too broad to be one. The Complete X Books were definitely splatbooks. Even the BECMI Gazateers were splatbooks, just thin ones. WW was the first to use the term for these types of supplements but even most of their splatbooks weren't very thick.
Something like Unearthed Arcana, Fiend Folio, Heroes of the Feywild aren't splatbooks but actual rulebooks/supplements. The distinction (at least in WW coining the term) was that their splatbooks were all soft-cover only, and the non-splats were the books that had a hardcover + softcover version and a much higher page count, as well as covering a wider range of material.
No, no, more Complete Gnome Cobblers Handbook, is not needed, and silly.
I think softcover books make better splat books because they make a *splat* when you drop them on a table.
Orethalion wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
BoldItalic wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
ZaranBlack wrote: