5E Seems like the End of D&D

[Complete4th]

Though I'd love to think that 5e will fail, it won't. Even if it's lacking in innovation, it's a new mix of classic ingredients that some group of D&Ders will be sure to love.

I'm in the exact opposite position.  I don't want 5e to fail, but I think it will.

Well here's hoping you're right.

See, the thing is that there are different standards for "failure."  By the standards of most of the RPG industry, 4e would have been a solid success.  By the standards of WotC, which is answerable to Hasbro, it was a failure.  It didn't shift the profit model to a more sustainable structure; it didn't grow the market the way it was supposed to. 

...but it doesn't just have to "have fans."  It has to have a LOT of fans.  It has to have more fans than 4e; it has to have more fans than 3.5.  If either of those games had had enough fans to satisfy Hasbro's profit benchmarks, they wouldn't have been discontinued.

Would you agree with me when I say that such a sustainable profit model and such a large fan base is virtually impossible, even for D&D, regardless of edition? I mean Jesus or Buddha would have to write the edition that might attract a sustainable and profitable fan base to make Hasbro happy, yes? Further, would you agree that D&D is like pizza -- it's practically impossible to ruin it completely.

If no, I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. If yes...don't you think it's likely that Hasbro and WotC know that every edition will fail to meet their standards? Which makes each new edition a predestined certainty, even before the current edition is published.

If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that no edition has yet "failed" in any fundamental way, and that 5e fundamentally failing is unlikely? In short, all this talk of failure and success is dramatization on the part of fans who haven't caught on to WotC's cyclical business model. (That's not a commentary on your powers of perception, because to be fair, WotC has only gone thru two edition cycles.)

No, actually, it SUCKS to imagine D&D crashing.  Even though it's battered, D&D is still one of the main pillars of the RPG industry.  If it falls, there will be a great deal of fallout.  Companies will go under; people will lose their jobs.  A lot of those people are friends and acquaintances of mine. 

Maybe 'fun' was the wrong word, but D&D crashing sure seems to be a riveting topic, judging by how often it shows up on gamer forums -- particularly around edition changeovers.

[DonQuixote]

If D&D ever does crash so hard that Hasbro no longer wants it, we should run a Kickstarter to buy the rights to the material...and then release it all into the SRD.

[sirpercival]

If D&D ever does crash so hard that Hasbro no longer wants it, we should run a Kickstarter to buy the rights to the material...and then release it all into the SRD.

That... is a beautiful idea!

[Solo]

God willing, we'll all meet up again when D&D 6E: The Search for More Money comes out.

[Zionpopsickle]

D&D the Flamethrower! (kids love that one)

[Unbeliever]

D&D's market share is far less than its brand recognition would otherwise indicate.  That = failure for a product line.  Further, 3E was absurdly successful (for an RPG game) and its rules dominated the market for about a decade.  They went from the single largest fan base an RPG has ever had to maybe half of that, maybe less. 

Besides that, I largely agree with Caelic's assessment of the industry. 

I actually think there has been too much emphasis on getting the mechanics right and balance.  I think the designers need a solid vision for the game -- what is it they are setting out to do.  And, that vision does need to be quality.  The game will live or die based on that.  Right now, 5E's fundamental philosophy is either schizophrenic or non-existent. 

I'd start with that, which should inform some of the basic mechanical approaches, and then work out from there.  I also think a bit of imbalance is fine, which might explain my biases.  It's what gives games a bit of flavor and an obsession with balance can often do more harm than good by making the RPG unduly restrictive -- closer to a video game RPG than a tabletop one. 

[caelic]

Would you agree with me when I say that such a sustainable profit model and such a large fan base is virtually impossible, even for D&D, regardless of edition? I mean Jesus or Buddha would have to write the edition that might attract a sustainable and profitable fan base to make Hasbro happy, yes? Further, would you agree that D&D is like pizza -- it's practically impossible to ruin it completely.

I'd absolutely agree.  I think a lot of people at WotC would agree, too.  (Who was it who went on record as saying that D&D would be a great flagship title for a company with 20 or so employees?)

If yes...don't you think it's likely that Hasbro and WotC know that every edition will fail to meet their standards? Which makes each new edition a predestined certainty, even before the current edition is published.

I don't think so, no.  I think 3.5 stayed profitable enough to keep Hasbro happy for a while with the "book a month" model...which means that, as far as Hasbro's concerned, those numbers are reachable.  I think the folks at WotC realized that they couldn't keep that model going indefinitely, which is why they tried for the MMORPG profit model with 4e.  That failed, and now, I think, the chickens are coming home to roost.

If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that no edition has yet "failed" in any fundamental way, and that 5e fundamentally failing is unlikely? In short, all this talk of failure and success is dramatization on the part of fans who haven't caught on to WotC's cyclical business model. (That's not a commentary on your powers of perception, because to be fair, WotC has only gone thru two edition cycles.)

Here's the thing: I know that wasn't their initial business model, because I was working for a company that was made privy to their initial business model.  The original plan with 3.0 and the OGL was to make money on the "evergreen" books--the PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual.  They honestly thought that they'd be able to maintain profitability on the core rulebooks.  Needless to say, they found out pretty quickly that that business model wasn't going to work, at which point they shifted to the 3.5 "hardcover every month" model.

They're looking for a sustainable profit model.  They've been looking for one since 3.0.  Frankly, I don't think they've found it yet--which is why they keep changing it, why they keep going to new editions, and why the time between editions is decreasing.

[caelic]

If D&D ever does crash so hard that Hasbro no longer wants it, we should run a Kickstarter to buy the rights to the material...and then release it all into the SRD.

It's a lovely thought, isn't it?  Unfortunately, Hasbro is known for not letting go of IPs, even underperforming ones.  They tend to put them on the shelf instead, and that's what worries me.  If 5e does poorly, the most likely outcome will be no D&D at all for the foreseeable future.

[caelic]

I'd start with that, which should inform some of the basic mechanical approaches, and then work out from there.  I also think a bit of imbalance is fine, which might explain my biases.  It's what gives games a bit of flavor and an obsession with balance can often do more harm than good by making the RPG unduly restrictive -- closer to a video game RPG than a tabletop one.

I'd go further, and say that a bit of imbalance is not only fine, but needed in order to craft a roleplaying game with broad-based appeal.  The simple fact is that there's a large portion of their target audience that likes the metagame of rules mastery and optimization.

[Unbeliever]

I admit to not knowing much about the RPG industry.  Other companies seem more or less profitable.  Sustainable at least, controlling for the general crappy state of the economy. 

Is D&D's problem that is has obscene overhead?  Are its expectations over the top?  The game is and has been extremely fiddly, so they can do pretty well making and selling supplements.  Although I think the hardcover $30 book a month is a silly model and not a sustainable one. 

Off the top of my head, I think the thing I'd do with a big company is make tools that make the game as easy to run as possible.  That's always been part of D&D's appeal to me:  I can whip up an adventure in less time than it takes me to type this post.  Contrast that with Vampire:  the Masquerade or Mutants and Masterminds.  But, 4E's online tools (not to unduly pick on it, 3E had no online tools to speak of) were awful, hard to use, and out of date.  I would have focused on stuff like that, and maybe a nice way of implementing miniatures as I found the MtG approach to miniature sales more annoying than anything else.

[veekie]

^^
Game rule altering books always have a saturation point. D&D has every single book contain more spells, more classes, more feats, more items and more monsters. This pushes the game towards a maximum overhead and aggravates power creep, while also making material look more stale as time goes on.

It gets increasingly difficult to be excited about a given piece of rules when you are presented with at least 3-4 new classes every month. Only the most notable would stand out, and mainly just become more and more focused/specialized to eke out extra value.

Really, they need a fresh setting to flesh out with fluff books(lower sales, but significantly more sustainable), adventures and campaigns. Space out the rules heavy books to every few months, because wallets need regeneration

Let's examine one of the things that you said is unbalanced; teleportation.  How broken is teleportation really in D&D?  Well, tactical teleportation isn't broken at all, hell its so unbroken you can get it on a 1400g item.  Really, only long range strategic teleportation is broken and not because of mechanical abilities but because it disrupts narrative flow.  And the solution to this can be as simple as not allowing long-range teleporation to work on places you haven't actually physically visited before.  Otherwise require physical LOS to the location you wish to teleport to.  Bam! No more using Teleport to end run around the adventure. 

Its both more complicated and simpler than that. Qualitative abilities don't necessarily need numeric quantifiers, in fact, for the most part, numeric analysis fails because qualitative abilities are determined by the sum of their parts, how they interact with other abilities.
You can split them into Must Have(Required capability for a given level range), Nice To Have(Appropriate, but non-compulsory abilities) and Forbidden(abilities which break the plot/game).

Must have, going by the 3.5 model, is some form of flight, access to recovery(hp and non-hp conditions), planar travel.
Nice to have, are more commonly, tactical teleportation, senses, etc. Combat niches also fall under these(well most of the game does really).
Forbidden as mentioned, break narrative, or break combat. Long distance teleportation, Binding, extant Polymorph, etc.

Not so bad, as long as everyone gets some(and not all) of the mid-range capabilities.

[caelic]

I admit to not knowing much about the RPG industry.  Other companies seem more or less profitable.  Sustainable at least, controlling for the general crappy state of the economy. 

"Sustainable" is a lot closer to the truth.  The definition of "successful RPG designer" is similar to the definition I once heard an actor give for "successful actor":  "I eat regularly."  Sure, there's the occasional exception, like Richard Garfield, but those are less frequent than the actors who make it big.

Is D&D's problem that is has obscene overhead?  Are its expectations over the top?  The game is and has been extremely fiddly, so they can do pretty well making and selling supplements.  Although I think the hardcover $30 book a month is a silly model and not a sustainable one. 

D&D's problem is that it's a Volkswagen Beetle, and it's being expected to pull a tractor trailer load.  Tabletop RPGs are not and have never been a high-profit commodity.   The labor-to-profit ratio is high; the product is a niche product which has been largely supplanted by alternatives.

WotC was a big fish in a very small pond--and then it got bought out by Hasbro, which in terms of games is one of the biggest fish around.  Hasbro deals with individual product lines that have profit margins higher than most RPG companies.  Now, for some of WotC's lines, that's not going to be a problem.  CCGs generate a lot more profit-to-labor than tabletop RPGs, for instance. 

D&D, though?  They're trying to make it perform at a level that RPGs just don't perform.  What would be wild success for any other company is failure for them.  Proof of that can be seen in 4e.  When Pathfinder managed to pull neck and neck with 4e, it was an INCREDIBLE success for Pathfinder, and marked Paizo as one of the big dogs of the RPG industry.  In the meantime, 4e was scrapped for having comparable numbers.

But, 4E's online tools (not to unduly pick on it, 3E had no online tools to speak of) were awful, hard to use, and out of date.  I would have focused on stuff like that, and maybe a nice way of implementing miniatures as I found the MtG approach to miniature sales more annoying than anything else.

"More annoying," but also more profitable.  D&D Miniatures, from everything I've heard, were significantly more profitable than D&D.  (I'm not sure what happened to cause them to pull the product line.) 

I, too, would like to see them produce these products, but they've demonstrated that right now, they just don't have the expertise to do it well.  They'd have to hire significant new talent to pull it off correctly, and WotC is NOT known for being in a hiring phase.  (Heck, their just-before-Christmas layoffs have become a punchline.  A sad punchline, but a punchline nonetheless.)

[veekie]

On minis, probably because they might make more money, but also have a smaller margin than books. Consider the production and design effort going into each mini, Hasbro might consider it simply too low margin and high risk to bother with.

[caelic]

^^
Game rule altering books always have a saturation point. D&D has every single book contain more spells, more classes, more feats, more items and more monsters. This pushes the game towards a maximum overhead and aggravates power creep, while also making material look more stale as time goes on.

It gets increasingly difficult to be excited about a given piece of rules when you are presented with at least 3-4 new classes every month. Only the most notable would stand out, and mainly just become more and more focused/specialized to eke out extra value.

Really, they need a fresh setting to flesh out with fluff books(lower sales, but significantly more sustainable), adventures and campaigns. Space out the rules heavy books to every few months, because wallets need regeneration

...and therein is the Catch-22.

Going back to my Volkswagen metaphor, imagine the movie Speed, only with Keanu Reeves tooling around in an old, decrepit VW Beetle.

Sandra Bullock: "Oh, no...we have to keep going over 88 MPH, or the bomb will go off!"

Keanu Reeves: "Uhh...this is a VW Beetle.  If I keep going 88 MPH, the engine's going to overheat and we'll stall out.  Then the bomb will go off!"

Sandra Bullock: "But if you slow down, the bomb will go off RIGHT NOW!"

Keanu Reeves: "Most non-triumphant!  I guess I'll have to keep going 88 MPH, and we'll have to try to think of something to solve the problem before the engine overheats!"

Yes, okay, I took a few liberties with the plot.  The point is that they're caught in a similar situation.  If they space out the release of high-crunch (and high-profit) books, then their profit margins go down, and Hasbro is unhappy.  If they keep churning out high-crunch books every month, their profit margins stay high...for a while, until people get sick of buying a new book every month.  Then profits go down, and Hasbro is unhappy.

Their solution when that happened with 3.0 was 3.5...and people generally accepted it.  Their solution when that happened with 3.5 was 4.0, and they knew in ADVANCE that it was going to piss a lot of people off, so they went into it saying, "We have to change this strategy.  We need to incorporate online services with a monthly fee, and we need to attract a lot of new players to make up for the old players we're going to lose with this move."

And...they failed.  Completely.  Their online services were massively late and inferior, and they didn't gain significant new players. 

So now, they've hit the reset button again...with no real clear idea of HOW they're going to keep the car going at 88 MPH through THIS edition.

I honestly think they're out of ideas.

[caelic]

On minis, probably because they might make more money, but also have a smaller margin than books. Consider the production and design effort going into each mini, Hasbro might consider it simply too low margin and high risk to bother with.

Yeah, I could see the bean-counters nixing FUTURE expansions.  Injection molds cost a frigging fortune.  But the thing about injection molds is, once you have them, they last basically forever and the cost per mini is next to nothing.  I can't understand why they didn't keep producing the models for which they'd ALREADY paid the overhead.

[darqueseid]

Oh god I know exactly the formula for how to maintain profitability with D&D:

1) create a good, sustainable core set of rules that creates a basic game world and provides for core classes. (also sell core book(s) as a PDF or on kindle, etc etc. you must keep up with the times)

2) You can start separate campaign settings with a harcover, and use that to begin periodicals (comic book-like) for each of the different(greyhawk base, dark sun, forgotten realms, eberron, and more) campaign settings.  Release these magazines quarterly each detailing different new areas of the world plus a new campaign module written for that world.  (also sell these online as PDFs)   If you make the prices reasonable, say 3-5$ an issue, you will make money on the periodicals...  Each magazine should have setting-specific stuff, not core rule changes

3) annually or perhaps twice a year,   release core hard cover supplements, which provide new class and character options like prestige classes, new feats , new choices for people to customize thier characters.
this should provide time to play test (also sell on PDF, kindle, etc etc.)

4)eventually put the core rules online as an SRD, but continue to sell new hardcover stuff that adds to the rules.

5) Create a proprietary online battle-map program, that has the maps/ monster figures and such loaded as they are released.  Sell a subscription to this for a nominal fee or a one time sign up fee (it should be web java-based or any relevant mobile code).  Allow for games to be run pen/paper and tabletop figurines or on this online program with the goal being the online way speeds up setup time and combat speed time.

Its almost the same model they started with in 3.x, but they got greedy and started releasing a book a month.  They also didn't have a 21st century model for a book online platform, and they didn't have an online battlemap program.

You make money of the initial purchasers of the core rules, the periodicals, the online program, the books in pdf format, the figurines etc etc.  You don't have to re-invent the wheel here, you just have to add in the current technology.

I'd be down for buying the rights to D&D, if it meant we could release an edition that was really good. but its probably true that hasbro won't release the rights even if its failing. 

 

[caelic]

1) create a good, sustainable core set of rules that creates a basic game world and provides for core classes. (also sell core book(s) as a PDF or on kindle, etc etc. you must keep up with the times)

Okay.  Those will be profitable for approximately a year prior to saturation at current rates.

2) You can start separate campaign settings with a harcover, and use that to begin periodicals (comic book-like) for each of the different(greyhawk base, dark sun, forgotten realms, eberron, and more) campaign settings.  Release these magazines quarterly each detailing different new areas of the world plus a new campaign module written for that world.  (also sell these online as PDFs)   If you make the prices reasonable, say 3-5$ an issue, you will make money on the periodicals...  Each magazine should have setting-specific stuff, not core rule changes

So how many pages of material are we looking at here?  How much will you pay a writer to write those pages?  How much will you pay editors to edit it?  Are you going to shoot for an industry-acceptable standard of graphic presentation (which means color art and professional layout?) How much will you pay the artists and graphic designers for that?

Remember that WotC started with cheaper softcover rules supplements in 3.0.  They went to hardcovers because the softcover rules supplements weren't profitable enough.  They still had to pay for most of the same expenses as a hardcover, and they couldn't charge nearly as much.

And that was for softcovers with crunch in them.  Realistically speaking, books that simply offer campaign source material without crunch sit on the shelves, and are only bought by the most diehard devotees of that campaign setting.

3) annually or perhaps twice a year,   release core hard cover supplements, which provide new class and character options like prestige classes, new feats , new choices for people to customize thier characters.
this should provide time to play test (also sell on PDF, kindle, etc etc.)

Realistically speaking, that means you're only going to have a genuinely profitable book once or twice a year.  Sad, but true in today's market.

5) Create a proprietary online battle-map program, that has the maps/ monster figures and such loaded as they are released.  Sell a subscription to this for a nominal fee or a one time sign up fee (it should be web java-based or any relevant mobile code).  Allow for games to be run pen/paper and tabletop figurines or on this online program with the goal being the online way speeds up setup time and combat speed time.

Sounds great, doesn't it?  Which is why, of course, WotC decided to do just that with fourth edition.

So what went wrong?

Well, to put it bluntly, they had no frigging clue of what they were promising.  They didn't know how many man-hours go into MAINTAINING an online service like that, and they lacked both the manpower and technical expertise to do so.

So, realistically, any gaming company that wants to offer that is going to need to hire a staff of dedicated techies to keep the thing running.  How much do you charge to not only pay for the hardware, software, and dedicated staff, but also generate a profit?


I don't think the folks at WotC are idiots.  These ideas have occurred to them before--it's just that they aren't going to work.  I frankly don't think there IS a viable profit model for a tabletop RPG that will meet Hasbro's expectations.

Its almost the same model they started with in 3.x, but they got greedy and started releasing a book a month.  They also didn't have a 21st century model for a book online platform, and they didn't have an online battlemap program.

They didn't get greedy; they got desperate.  The 3.0 model didn't work.

[Unbeliever]

I'm a little confused, though.  Hasbro makes stuff like Monopoly and the like.  Those can't be that profitable on a game by game basis.  Although I guess you don't need to hire additional designers, etc. to keep Monopoly going.  More overhead = more demand for profit, maby? 

And, Caelic, you're telling us a lot about Hasbro.  Are there any internal documents that you're basing this on?  If we're going to assume that the WotC folks aren't idiots business-wise -- which is, frankly, a big stretch, folks don't go into the RPG business b/c they are business masterminds -- it seems reasonable to assume that the Hasbro guys aren't as well.  I find it hard to imagine that they looked at WotC's D&D-based revenue stream and thought "yeah, we can double that."  That would be a wildly unrealistic expectation for any industry to have.  I can see them experimenting with D&D minis to make the overall game more profitable and doing stuff like that, but I can't see them coming up with flying unicorn-like expectations for the RPG industry.  It would take their finance guys 5 minutes to figure out what we all know, to wit that it's not a very profitable industry. 

And, if they truly thought D&D was unprofitable, or insufficiently profitable, I'd expect that they'd sell it.  That's what happened with their Star Wars license, although that strikes me as one of the greatest RPG industry business blunders ever.  You'd have plenty to choose from, but when you have (a) the most beloved and powerful geek IP in history and (b) an actually pretty good game or at least a good chasis from a game, even splitting profits 50/50 is a really good gig. 

[caelic]

I'm a little confused, though.  Hasbro makes stuff like Monopoly and the like.  Those can't be that profitable on a game by game basis.  Although I guess you don't need to hire additional designers, etc. to keep Monopoly going.  More overhead = more demand for profit, maby? 

Quantity is everything.  Hasbro sells about 3 million copies of Monopoly per year.  And as you said, they don't need additional designers; the only costs are the components and ink, which aren't that expensive when you already own the plant for churning them out.  Consider that the baseline sets sell for about $20, and figure the production costs are about $10 (I seriously doubt it's that high,) and Monopoly alone is bringing in $30 million per year at a very rough estimate.  That would mean that from 1973 to 2006, it brought in roughly a billion dollars--which is about the estimated value of all of the D&D-related merchandise sold during that time.  (Keep in mind that that includes D&D's heyday in the 80's, and also that Hasbro didn't need to actually pay for any significant new design during that time.)

Best case scenario, Monopoly by itself makes as much as D&D put together; more realistically, it almost certainly makes more.

And, Caelic, you're telling us a lot about Hasbro.  Are there any internal documents that you're basing this on?

Documents, no; it's based on conversations I've had with various people who are or were employed by either WotC or Hasbro.  They could be lying, but I have no reason to think they are.

If we're going to assume that the WotC folks aren't idiots business-wise -- which is, frankly, a big stretch, folks don't go into the RPG business b/c they are business masterminds -- it seems reasonable to assume that the Hasbro guys aren't as well.  I find it hard to imagine that they looked at WotC's D&D-based revenue stream and thought "yeah, we can double that."

From everything I've been told, they didn't buy WotC for D&D; they bought it for Magic.  D&D was a peripheral concern.  That being said, make no mistake: D&D is profitable.  D&D novels sell; D&D computer games sell; D&D miniatures sell, or did sell.  It's D&D the tabletop roleplaying game that's not so profitable...and that's been true since before WotC bought out TSR.

And, if they truly thought D&D was unprofitable, or insufficiently profitable, I'd expect that they'd sell it.  That's what happened with their Star Wars license, although that strikes me as one of the greatest RPG industry business blunders ever. 

See above.  There's no question that they can make money on the D&D intellectual property; it's just that, in the long run, the tabletop game may not be a part of their strategy for making that money anymore.

As for Star Wars, that's not one I know the specifics of.  Are you sure they sold it...as opposed to declining to continue paying for the (probably very expensive) rights?

[Unbeliever]

^ I totally buy your conversations with the folks that worked at WotC and Hasbro.  You seemed to be speaking authoritatively on it, so I was wondering where your info was coming from, that's all. 

That being said, I'm surprised Hasbro/WotC doesn't treat D&D like a loss leader.  Maybe they are, but they just aren't willing to commit to that.  A loss leader is something that they sell knowing they will take a hit on, but is designed to get people to buy other products that are more profitable.  Keeping people (like us) obsessed with D&D means they can sell more Planescape:  Torments and minis and novels and what have you.  My strategy for that would be to create the best game, thereby capturing the widest market share, that I could and also to put out the most setting books, etc. so that I can cast the widest net of these ancillary goods.  Which just goes to show that Hasbro should pay me a fortune.

@Star Wars
I misspoke, they declined to renew the license.  Though the difference is a little bit academic.  And, they had effectively abandoned the line before then -- I think there was a year where only a single book came out.  If RPG books just aren't profitable, then maybe it wasn't worth it to them.  They weren't really going to benefit from the ancillary market.  Although it seems weird that they'd even bother going through all the effort to acquire a long-term license from Lucasarts if they didn't think it was going to be profitable.  And, like D&D, it had an attached minis game, etc. 

But, I just think it was due to poor foresight and internal corporate restructuring.  A lot of the Star Wars Saga Edition team got shuffled into 4E, and they never put real effort into it.  Things like that happen in Fortune 500 companies all the time (this I say from close personal contacts with employees of said companies) and cost them huge amounts of revenue.  That's speculation based on the evidence I have available.