Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Dean]

The profit margins on pen and paper roleplaying products is famously thin. It might be impossible to make 5E successful no matter how much business it did. They have been paying staff for 3 years to produce nothing. Those are costs that even big businesses would be sweating to have to recoup and since 5E is a fake product that was always going to fail it is totally possible that we see the first actual flop of a major roleplaying product in history.

[virgil]

Wasn't it Frank that gave a good analysis that the relative profit margins are really good, but the absolute margins are fairly small? Basically, you can get awesome return on investment, but your investments are capped really low compared to other business models.

[Cyberzombie]

WOTC hasn't put out a Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper RPG
product since November 2011 so they've had about 3 years to work.

That's so crazy to think about. I don't know how Mearls ever convinced them to pay him for 3 years while he basically did nothing.

[Insomniac]

WOTC hasn't put out a Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper RPG
product since November 2011 so they've had about 3 years to work.

That's so crazy to think about. I don't know how Mearls ever convinced them to pay him for 3 years while he basically did nothing.

The modular thing freaks me out. It makes me think that this going to be what the playtesting was...2e and 3.5 with a smidge of 4E, put in a blender at "Frappe" with completely fucked math and any mathematical failure of the system will be passed off as player failure.

"Modular" What, like Skill Challenges in Star Wars SAGA and then 4E?
Which were terrible?

"Bounded Accuracy"
Didn't they just have an entire failed edition predicated on divorcing monsters from PCs with Bounded charts that were shockingly wrong to the point where people tell you that WOTC issued radically different charts as errata and then even after that the players tell you that you shouldn't even use the first 2 out of 3 Monster Manuals?

Bounded PC accuracy led to a math-hole that had multiple feat taxes printed instead of changing the way PC attacks and damages scaled because they just admitted that they made monster's Bounded mechanics so incorrectly as to be unplayable for 2 years and didn't want to admit that the PC's math was effed, too.

Also, doesn't printing 3.5/4E and Next stuff sound like the 4E/Essentials debacle? They will be stealing Next players from themselves with their own printed materials.

:/

[Cyberzombie]

The modular thing freaks me out. It makes me think that this going to be what the playtesting was...2e and 3.5 with a smidge of 4E, put in a blender at "Frappe" with completely fucked math and any mathematical failure of the system will be passed off as player failure.

"Modular" What, like Skill Challenges in Star Wars SAGA and then 4E?
Which were terrible?

The playtests showed no modularity at all. It was all a buzzword to try to make people think it would somehow get fans of all editions to keep playing the game they liked.

The concept of modularity is such that you can swap out subsystems to create a different kind of game. So instead of having one way to do skills, you might have a 3.5 system and say the more rules-lite way from 13th Age. Instead of having one combat system, you'd have an option between running a tactical grid-based combat and a more traditional Theater of the Mind. And you could mix and match those things however you liked.

It wasn't bad in theory, but it's not something that the D&DN team could ever pull off.

[Drolyt]

Wasn't it Frank that gave a good analysis that the relative profit margins are really good, but the absolute margins are fairly small? Basically, you can get awesome return on investment, but your investments are capped really low compared to other business models.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this if anyone knows.

[Cyberzombie]

Wasn't it Frank that gave a good analysis that the relative profit margins are really good, but the absolute margins are fairly small? Basically, you can get awesome return on investment, but your investments are capped really low compared to other business models.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this if anyone knows.

Pretty sure it just has to do with the fact that the cost to produce an RPG is very cheap as you need a small team of writers and the ability to print books, so cost to expenses can be a high ratio, but if you compare total revenue, it's crap compared to MtG or video games, because they sell far better.

[Drolyt]

Wasn't it Frank that gave a good analysis that the relative profit margins are really good, but the absolute margins are fairly small? Basically, you can get awesome return on investment, but your investments are capped really low compared to other business models.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this if anyone knows.

Pretty sure it just has to do with the fact that the cost to produce an RPG is very cheap as you need a small team of writers and the ability to print books, so cost to expenses can be a high ratio, but if you compare total revenue, it's crap compared to MtG or video games, because they sell far better.

Sorry, I made a stupid post. What I was actually thinking in my head is that I wanted to know more about the economics of TTRPGs in general. Still, you're probably right.

[Username17]

WOTC hasn't put out a Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper RPG
product since November 2011 so they've had about 3 years to work.

That's so crazy to think about. I don't know how Mearls ever convinced them to pay him for 3 years while he basically did nothing.

Well, 4th edition was in development for 3 years. We don't have as good documentation from the pre-Hasbro days, but I'm pretty sure 3rd edition was in development for a few years too.

The thing that's crazy is that while they are flailing away making a new edition, they aren't putting anything new on the shelves. They don't even have a B-team cranking out setting books or something. All they are doing is letting people buy legacy pdfs and shit.

The weird thing isn't that they are taking a few years to make the new edition, although three years with basically nothing to show for it is pretty odd. The weird thing is that apparently they have so few people left on staff that they can't even release trial balloon books like Tome of Magic.

-Username17

[Insomniac]

The weird thing isn't that they are taking a few years to make the new edition, although three years with basically nothing to show for it is pretty odd. The weird thing is that apparently they have so few people left on staff that they can't even release trial balloon books like Tome of Magic.

-Username17

Yeah. Last edition hit 5 Monster Manuals.
Why not crank a few of those out?
They only did 2 race books. Why not something like Races of Stone?
They only put out 6 Essentials books.
They were at about a book or two a month clip and then they did nothing for 3 years. Odd.

The Tome books and SAGA edition were like 4E dry-runs. The open playtesting thing is what they decided to do instead of put out product for 30 months. Really? I figured they'd get a little greedy and put out some material that is 4.5 if not explicitly called that, but nah. They decided to release boxed board games like they were Fantasy Flight.

It just baffles me. Maybe the rumblings and grumblings that after 4E
Hasbro doesn't give a crap about the pen and paper aspect of Dungeons
and Dragons anymore are true. Sure, they want the name. But if it goes on a boardgame or a video game and makes them money, maybe even more money than the TTRPG, who cares about the tabletop?

[Krusk]

I think we didn't see any bloatware books because they had basically two incompatable systems by the end of it. Essentials and Hardback books. Putting out a Monster Manual 6 or something would require it to work with one or the other. 4e is a pretty fragile fanbase, and forcing them to actually pick one of the two would probably cause another edition war, which they really couldn't afford.

Or I guess they could revise the math again, but thats probably a lot of effort for shovelware.

I am suprised they didn't take the least talented designer and force him to churn out adventure paths or something.

Hey, speaking of 5e. Has anyone heard anything about the digital front for 5e? Will DDI Still be a thing, will it include any of the current stuff it does? How about the promised, undelivered stuff? Will they do something else?

[MfA]

Apparently they still had 80K DDI subscribers a year ago ... for that kind of dough you should be able to kick out a couple of books a year.

Also you'd think they could design the Next playtest in a way which appears to not be an exercise in spitting in their face ... at least put a fucking Warlord in or something.

[CCarter]

So Pathfinder 2.0 has been mentioned a couple of times...anyone have any good news/rumours/analysis on that?

[Koumei]

I imagine they want to wait a bit because:

• They can still think of crap to publish and people still buy it
• They released it on a ticket of "works with 3.5", drawing in 3E fans, so they want to keep those people as long as possible
• If they wait until after Next proves to be a flop, they basically get to go "Look at this, still going stable for the entire lifetime of 4 and 4.5 and into the stillborn mess that is 5!

So you have laziness, fan support and of course "building good credibility so people wet themselves over PF2: The Revenge of the Return of Son of Pathfinder Strikes Back Again".

Now sure, there's so much bloat and expansion that it looks like the British Empire, and it pretty much looks like a good opportunity to start afresh, but the fans clearly like all that bloat.

[Insomniac]

Now sure, there's so much bloat and expansion that it looks like the British Empire, and it pretty much looks like a good opportunity to start afresh, but the fans clearly like all that bloat.

It seems like Pathfinder has done everything it realistically can in about 5 years or so. The Mythic Rules could be a dry-run for 2.0.

I think they have something in the works and will release it a few months after Next so the drop of Next doesn't steal the sales.

[DSMatticus]

The Pathfinder team has the almost uncanny ability to avoid having good ideas. They turned caster edition from a stupid mistake into a design philosophy, with the developers arguing at length on the forums about how noncasters should not have nice things, right up to and including "because raelizrm." Seriously. They are so bad.

But as long as they brand themself as the continuation of 3.5 and WotC can't pull their head out of their ass long enough to offer any real competition, that's easier to overlook. The people looking for moar 3.5 have already made peace (knowingly or otherwise) with its flaws, and failing to fix them obviously isn't a deal-breaker or else they wouldn't be playing 3.5 in the first place.

But when they start on Pathfinder 2.0, people will expect actual changes. Both because there are flaws that need fixed, and because if you're not changing anything then people will tell you to go fuck yourself when you slap 2.0 on everything and ask them to buy it all over again. And their dev team has never been in a position to offer actual change, because they are too busy jerking off to nerfing noncasters.

[Koumei]

And their dev team has never been in a position to offer actual change, because they are too busy jerking off to nerfing noncasters.

Honestly, it's altogether possible a future PF2.0 will actually not include non-casters as playable options. I mean, it won't even pretend they're playable by putting them in the book. They could just say "everyone useful knows how to manipulate magic. The core classes in this game are the Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Witch, Alchemist, Bard, Summoner, Inquisitor. Look forward to our splatbooks with True Necromancer, Battlemage, Shadow Caster, Mesmerist, Spirit Shaman, Psychic, Arcane Invoker, and Your Mum!"

And that would actually be less stupid and offensive than the current position. But it might be considered ballsy, and recent releases from them have been anything but that.

[Insomniac]

11 years of Caster Supremacy and it is basically one of those tropes.
Like, don't you Get It (tm)? Casters Rule, Martials Drool. It is always good design philosophy to make 25+ percent of the classes inferior.

Remember when people cried about nerfed Wizards in 4E simply because they were mechanically similar to every other class and not Marty Stu
jerkoff fantasies of book smarts making you a god that let you cast Quickened Sit At The Cool Kid's Table, Maximized Wedgie The Sports
Captain and Extended Fuck the Prom Queen?

Revenge of the Nerds is thoroughly mechanically embedded into
3.5/Pathfinder. Anything that brings casters back to Earth will be met
with outrage.

[Koumei]

Which is why, if they're smart*, they'll go so far as to just drop the other classes. There won't be the same outrage if they just go "Hahaha, Fighty Men can suck so hard that they're NPC Classes like Peasants! WIZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD~!"

I mean, fuck, they could advertise it with a Bigby Hand literally wedgying a Barbarian, and talk about how now that Fighty Men are NPCs, your Casty Men can kill 5-10 at a time, MORE MAGIC, MORE SPELLPOWER, PURE HEXSTACY! (Yes, the Warlock ad on Steam)

*This is the bit where it falls apart.

[Cyberzombie]

Honestly, it's altogether possible a future PF2.0 will actually not include non-casters as playable options. I mean, it won't even pretend they're playable by putting them in the book.

Definitely the best way to go.

[Drolyt]

Remember when people cried about nerfed Wizards in 4E simply because they were mechanically similar to every other class and not Marty Stu
jerkoff fantasies of book smarts making you a god that let you cast Quickened Sit At The Cool Kid's Table, Maximized Wedgie The Sports
Captain and Extended Fuck the Prom Queen?

No, people hated the 4e magic system because it sucked and didn't let you do anything cool. Also because the system they threw out had been with D&D from the beginning and was as closely associated with the game as dungeons and dragons were. Also because Tome of Battle, while flawed and filled with trap options, presented an alternative and much better vision for balancing the classes than what 4e ultimately came up with.

Edit: Also, only one of the major casters gets their power from being smart. Druids, clerics, and sorcerers do not fit into your weird nerds/jocks hypothesis.

[nockermensch]

Apparently they still had 80K DDI subscribers a year ago ... for that kind of dough you should be able to kick out a couple of books a year.

This must not be overlooked. If they're sitting on this kind of revenue, they must ask for all new products:

"What's the risk that releasing this hurts our subscription base?"

I'm seriously wondering if this isn't the actual reason behind their lack of releases: Subscription based revenue is a veritable goldmine on the Internet (source: My company did work for other companies that do just that, and I've seen their numbers).

Then again, if Next was actually good, they'd be creating buzz to attract more suckerssubscribers to their goldmine. So my feeling about their new edition remains the same: It's severely incomplete, or it's shit and they know.

[TiaC]

Edit: Also, only one of the major casters gets their power from being smart. Druids, clerics, and sorcerers do not fit into your weird nerds/jocks hypothesis.

Yeah, sorcerers are the popular kids.

[Insomniac]

The idea that magic is from your intelligence, wisdom or personality wish fulfillments and has more draw for game designers than physical classes and therefore the bias will be to Brains and Spirit over Blood and Guts is a pretty common one. I don't think it can be accidental that unless you are at least half-casting you seem to be really left behind in 3.Whatever/Pathfinder.

The thing that confused me about Next was...

"Okay, that is it, we won't be putting our playtest public."

What? When you won't be releasing the game for another year?
Trying to hide something? Trying to bury a bone in the backyard?
Take the turd off the market for half a year and pretend to polish it so you don't lose your job this summer?

[deaddmwalking]

It's not my experience that most people want to play casters.

The reason there is a problem with mundane characters falling so far behind magical characters is that people want to play a mundane character that doesn't suck. They will cling to the delusion that they're contributing until a caster does their 'schtick' better than they can themselves.

Clerics are the 'best' at outshining martial characters because the BAB isn't far behind a straight Martial and their spells easily overcome the differences - even without breaking the game by becoming a multi-armed arrow-firing Archer Demon.