# ICv2 Reports On RPGs Growth This Year



## Parmandur (Aug 8, 2022)

darjr said:


> D&D 5e takes the First and 3rd places with Pathfinder in 2nd and GI Joe and Power Rangers rounding out 4th and 5th.
> View attachment 256989
> 
> 
> ...



So, that's 3 Hasbro properties and 2 slots for OGL takes on Hasbronpropert. Dang.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 8, 2022)

I flipped through the G.I. Joe book at GenCon and was pretty impressed with the production values. 10 year-old me would've loved that game.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 8, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I flipped through the G.I. Joe book at GenCon and was pretty impressed with the production values. 10 year-old me would've loved that game.



There's a copy at my FLGS I keep eyeballing but I know I will never play it.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 8, 2022)

There's a PR RPG? :O



Retreater said:


> I flipped through the G.I. Joe book at GenCon and was pretty impressed with the production values. 10 year-old me would've loved that game.



What's the base system is it d20 or d6 or something else?


----------



## payn (Aug 8, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> There's a PR RPG? :O
> 
> 
> What's the base system is it d20 or d6 or something else?



Sounds like D20.


----------



## Leatherhead (Aug 8, 2022)

Renegade Studios also just (pre)released the Transformers RPG and I really want to play that one.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 9, 2022)

5e was _always_ supposed to feed players to other RPGs. I guess it just had to get all the players first.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 9, 2022)

What's the one in 3rd place?


----------



## Maggan (Aug 9, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> What's the one in 3rd place?



Darrington is Critical Role's publishing company, so I guess that it's their Tal'dorei stuff that's selling strong.

Goodman does 5e stuff, most notably the mammoth books in the Original Adventures Reincarnated series.

I think it's weird that ICv2 group them together like that.


----------



## Zardnaar (Aug 9, 2022)

Maggan said:


> Darrington is Critical Role's publishing company, so I guess that it's their Tal'dorei stuff that's selling strong.
> 
> Goodman does 5e stuff, most notably the mammoth books in the Original Adventures Reincarnated series.
> 
> I think it's weird that ICv2 group them together like that.




Cheers that's what I didn't get.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Looks pretty much like a monopoly to me.

Not surprising that licenses such as Doctor Who, Lord of the Rings, Batman, all the licenses associated with Everyday Heroes and also Adventures in Rokugan are all heading the way of the 5E market. I honestly wonder what other game lines will follow suit? Shadowrun for 5E? Warhammer for 5E? Traveller for 5E? Runequest for 5E?

Still, things are all relative. While some companies might not be Top 5, they may still be selling well compared to their own company targets - and 40 different brands suggest a good diversity. The key thing for the hobby is that it is still growing.


----------



## schneeland (Aug 9, 2022)

Seems like things are going quite well for House Hasbronnen.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Aug 9, 2022)

That’s another reason why the Goodman Games licensed Original Adventures Reincarnated ought to be supported by WotC in the same way as their other storylines, by:

Opening up those mini-settings (Isle of Dread, Castle Amber, Keep on the Borderlands, etc.) to community content creation on DMs Guild. Wouldn’t have to open up the whole world of Greyhawk or Mystara yet—just the local map.
Listing them in the 5e Storyline sidebar at DMs Guild.
Including their content on D&D Beyond.
Here’s a petition to sign: D&D 5E - Petition: Add Goodman Games' official "OAR" module series to Wizards' support platforms (D&D Beyond, DMs Guild Storylines & Content Creation)


----------



## MockingBird (Aug 9, 2022)

I've been eyeballing the Tal'dorei book. I remember seeing the first print at BAM and regret not getting it. This one is supposedly updated and bigger.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> 5e was _always_ supposed to feed players to other RPGs. I guess it just had to get all the players first.



"Supposed to" is a weird way to say that. D&D, as the main entry point into the hobby, inevitably brings players to other games. Rising tides. Boats. That sort of thing. But I don't think that is a design goal of the game, and it certainly wouldn't be a particularly smart one if it were.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> Looks pretty much like a monopoly to me.



That's not what that word means.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That's not what that word means.



"A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector.” (Monopoly Definition)

Seems like it to me. 

In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share. I wouldn’t be surprised in D&D has double that right now. It isn’t a _pure_ monopoly (100% market share) but it is a monopoly where they have control over the market.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> "A monopoly is a *market structure* where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector.” (Monopoly Definition)
> 
> Seems like it to me.
> 
> In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share. I wouldn’t be surprised in D&D has double that right now. It isn’t a _pure_ monopoly (100% market share) but it is a monopoly where they have control over the market.



Emphasis mine. That's the important part. In order for it to be a monopoly it can't just be because it is the most popular thing. The structure of the market has to be such that nothing else can be. if WotC controlled all the distribution of TTRPGs, for example, then you might be able to start to build the case that D&D is a monopoly. As it is, it is simply the most popular product.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Emphasis mine. That's the important part. In order for it to be a monopoly it can't just be because it is the most popular thing. The structure of the market has to be such that nothing else can be. if WotC controlled all the distribution of TTRPGs, for example, then you might be able to start to build the case that D&D is a monopoly. As it is, it is simply the most popular product.



Put it this way, most retailers wouldn’t be selling any RPG right now without D&D establishing its market. Yes, it is a monopoly as defined.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> Put it this way, most retailers wouldn’t be selling any RPG right now without D&D establishing its market. Yes, it is a monopoly as defined.



It is fascinating when people make up their own definitions for words in order to win arguments.


----------



## RobJN (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> Looks pretty much like a monopoly to me.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> It is fascinating when people make up their own definitions for words in order to win arguments.



I’ve provided you with a definition from a cited source. You argued with it.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> I’ve provided you with a definition from a cited source. You argued with it.



Lol -- you didn't even use the correct definition of the term you sourced. You should probably read that whole page if you are going to link it and argue based on it.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Lol -- you didn't even use the correct definition of the term you sourced. You should probably read that whole page if you are going to link it and argue based on it.



Lol. Yes, I did. All your arguments are consisting of here is an assumption of authority on your part. You don’t have that. You are simply arguing with a definition and an explanation provided. In fact, this very site has already discussed the fact that D&D has a monopoly on the RPG market in one of its podcasts. I suggest you go find it and listen to it - you might learn something.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Aug 9, 2022)

Another thing:

Though Renegade Game Studios firmly denied that Essence20 was in any way a playtest for 6E, it would be folly for Wizards to not take the success of the Essence20 games into account when designing 6E, whether that be in 2024, or some years down the road.

Because, despite the great success of D&D 5E, it says a lot when your own Hasbro licensee basically refuses to use the system due to its over-complicatedness vis-a-vis the totally fresh, “non-rpg savvy” group of consumers which those lines are targeting.

Renegade originally announced they we using 5E, but they later changed their tune, probably after playtests with new consumers indicated that 5E just wouldn’t fly.

Essence20 is still quite similar to 5E. Its four attributes are clearly collapsed versions of the six D&D attributes. And its skill list even uses the same names, but likewise collapses outlying D&D mechanics (e.g. initiative) into the skill list as well.

I’m not suggesting that 6E (whenever it comes) will have less than six attributes, but except for that, the rest of Essence20 could very well serve as 6E as-is, right out of the gate.


----------



## Gammadoodler (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> "A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector.” (Monopoly Definition)
> 
> Seems like it to me.
> 
> In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share. I wouldn’t be surprised in D&D has double that right now. It isn’t a _pure_ monopoly (100% market share) but it is a monopoly where they have control over the market.



I imagine an important part would be to define the industry/sector. TTRPGs vs tabletop games vs RPGs generally vs games generally vs. Published materials generally vs. entertainment generally. 

I'd expect that once you get outside the specific TTRPG niche, the market share dominance evaporates. 

If we confine the consideration to just TTRPGs, what would be the impact of a monopoly? The only distribution channels I can think of that would be small enough to lean on would be FLGSs, but even there I'm not sure. FLGSs typically offer higher margins and sell other products to stay in business. For materials, 5e is just a very small part of the larger publishing industry that uses mostly the same materials. The only thing I think they could do is try and price their competition out of the market for creative talent. But I really don't think they have the budget for that, and I'm not actually sure how "bad" it would be if they tried.

Tldr: if it's a monopoly, it's an extraordinarily weak one.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Gammadoodler said:


> I imagine an important part would be to define the industry/sector. TTRPGs vs tabletop games vs RPGs generally vs games generally vs. Published materials generally vs. entertainment generally.
> 
> I'd expect that once you get outside the specific TTRPG niche, the market share dominance evaporates.
> 
> ...



The chart at the top of the thread is for Tabletop RPG, which is the context of what we are discussing. I would challenge you to find any retailer that sells tabletop RPG that doesn’t sell D&D5E. I know of several that _only_ sell D&D5E. Do you think that is an extraordinarily weak situation for them?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> The chart at the top of the table is for Tabletop RPG, which is the context of what we are discussing. I would challenge you to find any retailer that sells tabletop RPG that doesn’t sell D&D5E. I know of several that _only_ sell D&D5E. Do you think that is an extraordinarily weak situation for them?



That still doesn't make it a monopoly. WotC is not the sole producers of TTRPGs, nor do they control the distribution of same. Therefore, by the exact definition you linked, it isn't a monopoly. It is a market leader. Even a market dominator. But "monopoly" has a specific legal definition as well as ethical implication.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That still doesn't make it a monopoly. WotC is not the sole producers of TTRPGs, nor do they control the distribution of same. Therefore, by the exact definition you linked, it isn't a monopoly. It is a market leader. Even a market dominator. But "monopoly" has a specific legal definition as well as ethical implication.



I gave you specific legal definition from the UK. A company does not need to be a sole producer in a market to have monopoly power over it - as defined in the source I gave. Like I say, you really need to go and find that podcast and listen to it too - because this has already been discussed by people better qualified than you and I.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2022)

*Mod Note:*
Bickering over definitions is not constructive.  Please find a way through the conversation that doesn't have you trying to "win" based on definitions, or the discussion will end.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

EDIT: Posted before the mod note.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> I gave you specific legal definition from the UK. A company does not need to be a sole producer in a market to have monopoly power over it - as defined in the source I gave. Like I say, you really need to go and find that podcast and listen to it too - because this has already been discussed by people better qualified than you and I.




Moving away from technical definitions, having 4/5 of the top products be from different companies probably means that your _monopoly theory _could use a little work, or perhaps needs to depend on a higher quality of podcast.

Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't interesting conversations about *antitrust *theory that have to do with the accumulation of market power, but as others have alluded to- this requires defining the market in question, and determining the actual power within the market (and if you're a fan of US antitrust theory, looking at the harm to the consumer in terms of prices). 

While D&D is certainly popular, it does not seem that there is any _anti-competitive _or _anti-consumer _behavior, and given the ease for new entrants and the power of third-party distributors (_cough_ Amazon) I don't think you'd have a very good case that mere popularity is leading to antitrust concerns.

But I may not be listening to the right podcasts.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Moving away from technical definitions, having 4/5 of the top products be from different companies probably means that your _monopoly theory _could use a little work, or perhaps needs to depend on a higher quality of podcast.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't interesting conversations about *antitrust *theory that have to do with the accumulation of market power, but as others have alluded to- this requires defining the market in question, and determining the actual power within the market (and if you're a fan of US antitrust theory, looking at the harm to the consumer in terms of prices).
> 
> ...



It is not _my_ theory.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> It is not _my_ theory.




I apologize if I was being subtle. I think you might be confusing _monopoly_ with _antitrust._

You were using the definition of "monopoly." That's an economics term. _Monopoly power _(in relation to market power) is different- that's an _antitrust term, _related to legal issues of market power. In the United States (for example) this is the Sherman Act.


----------



## darjr (Aug 9, 2022)

It would be interesting to see a breakdown by individual product.

If it included products from the top ten or so of total sales rank companies.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I apologize if I was being subtle. I think you might be confusing _monopoly_ with _antitrust._
> 
> You were using the definition of "monopoly." That's an economics term. _Monopoly power _is different- that's an _antitrust term, _related to legal issues of market power. In the United States (for example) this is the Sherman Act.



No. I thought a Mod just came on this thread to stop bickering about definitions. The point is this is not my theory that I am putting out here like some maverick. I am explaining what _other people_ have defined the situation as. 

I am referring you to a Podcast on this site that has already discussed and examined this entire point.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> No. I thought a Mod just came on this thread to stop bickering about definitions. The point is this is not my theory that I am putting out here like some maverick. I am explaining what _other people_ have defined the situation as.
> 
> I am referring you to a Podcast on this site that has already discussed and examined this entire point.



For clarity -- I don't think you actually linked a podcast. I would actually be interested in a discussion on D&D as a monopoly.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> For clarity -- I don't think you actually linked a podcast. I would actually be interested in a discussion on D&D as a monopoly.



No I haven’t linked it. Find it for yourself. It’s one of Morrus’ Podcasts from earlier this year in discussion with some industry analyst. It isn’t as if providing links and sources actually makes any difference with the posters on this thread anyway.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> No I haven’t linked it. Find it for yourself. It’s one of Morrus’ Podcasts from earlier this year in discussion with some industry analyst. It isn’t as if providing links and sources actually makes any difference with the posters on this thread anyway.




I mean... I did provide you a link to the FTC's explanation of "Monopolization defined" so that you could see how it works in the real world (and it's written for laymen to understand it). So ... I guess you're right! People don't bother with links.

But if you want another overview, try this. Go to section 2. You'll see why "bigness" alone is not an issue- it's really about the leveraging of market power. Which ... yeah.

If you have any stories about Hasbro leveraging the market power of D&D within the TTRPG space to exclude competition, I'd be all ears.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> No I haven’t linked it. Find it for yourself. It’s one of Morrus’ Podcasts from earlier this year in discussion with some industry analyst. It isn’t as if providing links and sources actually makes any difference with the posters on this thread anyway.



That was unnecessarily rude.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> Looks pretty much like a monopoly to me.



Monopoly TTRPG confirmed! /s

Appropriately, it’s also a Hasbro brand lol


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

@Morrus Do you know which podcast episode @TrippyHippy might be referring to that talks about D&D as a monopoly of dominant market force?

I tried to search but was coming up empty.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> That was unnecessarily rude.



Was it? Because, again, I thought a Mod had asked people to stop bickering about definitions and all I am reading is a bunch of dogpiling posters wanting to continue with it, regardless.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> No I haven’t linked it. Find it for yourself. It’s one of Morrus’ Podcasts from earlier this year in discussion with some industry analyst. It isn’t as if providing links and sources actually makes any difference with the posters on this thread anyway.




*Mod Note:*
If you have so little respect for the people, it is a wonder why you engage at all.

I'll alleviate you from the need to respond further to this discussion.


----------



## Gammadoodler (Aug 9, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> The chart at the top of the thread is for Tabletop RPG, which is the context of what we are discussing. I would challenge you to find any retailer that sells tabletop RPG that doesn’t sell D&D5E. I know of several that _only_ sell D&D5E. Do you think that is an extraordinarily weak situation for them?



It means they are strong within their niche, a niche which has seen remarkable growth over the last few years, but, in the grand scheme of things, a very small niche.

The question, it seems to me, is how much power (external to the quality of their product) they can wield within that niche. Are the retailers who sell D&D exclusively doing so because it's part of the contract with D&D, or is it because it's the only TTRPG that they can reliably sell? Do we think that D&D has sufficient power in their negotiations with their distributors to successfully bake that into their agreements? 

I doubt it. Frankly, I just do not think there are a lot of businesses that are that reliant on TTRPG sales. Amazon sure isn't. Other bookstores aren't. Comic shops aren't. Maybe some FLGSs might be, but not any that I've seen. Perhaps some VTTs are, but at that point we're at a niche within a niche.

D&D is doing very well. That does not mean that D&D is very strong.


----------



## Jimmy Dick (Aug 9, 2022)

I don't mind 5e being at the top of the list at all. That game system does a wonderful job of getting new players into the hobby and as a rules system is very good. What I like the most about 5e is how it feeds players into Pathfinder 2e and Pathfinder Society 2e. My lodges have a very substantial number of players who play both systems and that is perfectly fine. The rising tide and floating boats is very apt and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Aug 9, 2022)

D&D is not only the most popular TTRPG, but also the "icebreaker" what created the market, and today it belongs to Hasbro (name from "Hassenfeld Brothers"), one of the biggest megacorporations within the toy and game industry. The other companies lack the ways for a "product emplacement" in the main media like this. 

And the players would rather to use only one system, and more when this is so focused into the "crunch". And some TTRPG franchises are better known than videogames, for example Vampire: the Mascarade, Pathfinder or Mutant: Year Zero(Call of Chulthu is different). And there is an inertia, because the new players get used to the system used by the most, not only with TTRPG, but with the wargames. In little cities the players bet for Games Workshop because is easier to find more players following the same game or system. 

A lot of time ago I bought "Eclipse Phase" and I loved the lore, but I am not used yet to the list of abilities scores. 

There are more titles, but these are focused into the storytelling part, and the players would rather to spend money with sourcebooks about "crunch".


----------



## Luceilia (Aug 9, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> There's a PR RPG? :O



Based on multiple YT reviews... It doesn't seem good...

D20 style leveling, colors as classes, zordon era obsession (don't get me wrong I loved that era, but at this point it's what, 15-20% of PR at most?)....


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mean... I did provide you a link to the FTC's explanation of "Monopolization defined" so that you could see how it works in the real world (and it's written for laymen to understand it). So ... I guess you're right! People don't bother with links.
> 
> But if you want another overview, try this. Go to section 2. You'll see why "bigness" alone is not an issue- it's really about the leveraging of market power. Which ... yeah.
> 
> If you have any stories about Hasbro leveraging the market power of D&D within the TTRPG space to exclude competition, I'd be all ears.



The OGL might be one of the most astonishing Judo moves in the history of intellectual property: giving away tons of stuff to competitors, which benefits competitors and e courage them to make products compatible with your own products...without being in the least anti-competitive? Genius.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The OGL might be one of the most astonishing Judo moves in the history of intellectual property: giving away tons of stuff to competitors, which benefits competitors and e courage them to make products compatible with your own products...without being in the least anti-competitive? Genius.



Hobbling it for 4E was probably WotC's single biggest blunder in their history as stewards of D&D.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Hobbling it for 4E was probably WotC's single biggest blunder in their history as stewards of D&D.



I mean, the genius of Innis subtle enough that I understand why somebody got upset about it and wanted to put the genie back in the bottle. Glad they brought it back.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> @Morrus Do you know which podcast episode @TrippyHippy might be referring to that talks about D&D as a monopoly of dominant market force?
> 
> I tried to search but was coming up empty.



Haven't the foggiest. Sorry!


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Haven't the foggiest. Sorry!



Dang. It actually sounds like a really interesting discussion.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, the genius of Innis subtle enough that I understand why somebody got upset about it and wanted to put the genie back in the bottle. Glad they brought it back.



I honestly wonder if whoever made that decision got fired after Paizo announced Pathfinder....


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I honestly wonder if whoever made that decision got fired after Paizo announced Pathfinder....



The primary architect of the OGL was Ryan Dancey, then VP of WotC. I’ve interviewed him more than once on the subject. Short answer, no he didn’t.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> The primary architect of the OGL was Ryan Dancey, then VP of WotC. I’ve interviewed him more than once on the subject. Short answer, no he didn’t.



No, I mean whoever decided to NOT use it for 4E.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 9, 2022)

While I'm thankful for the licenses for 3.x and 5e, I wish we'd gotten a good OGL for 4e. The industry could be in a very different place right now, especially for crunchier games.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

Retreater said:


> While I'm thankful for the licenses for 3.x and 5e, I wish we'd gotten a good OGL for 4e. The industry could be in a very different place right now, especially for crunchier games.



Literally all the mountains of 3rd party Pathfinder support would have gone to 4E -- just like it is now going to 5E instead of PF2.


----------



## payn (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Literally all the mountains of 3rd party Pathfinder support would have gone to 4E -- just like it is now going to 5E instead of PF2.



lol, I remember the threads about Paizo's announcement. "Damn, I love Paizo but they will be out of business in 6 months without supporting 4E"


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I honestly wonder if whoever made that decision got fired after Paizo announced Pathfinder....



Probably not: they didn't bring the OGL back until 20q6.

Which ages me wonder: did the OGL put 5E into megaoverdrive...?


----------



## Retreater (Aug 9, 2022)

payn said:


> lol, I remember the threads about Paizo's announcement. "Damn, I love Paizo but they will be out of business in 6 months without supporting 4E"



I'm trying to remember the big 3PPs who went in to support 4E. 
Goodman had a line of 4E. If I remember they had to liquidate their 3.x offerings - which was their initial Dungeon Crawl Classics adventure line. I assume the 4E modules weren't popular enough, so they created their own DCC RPG.
Also, I think EN Publishing did a 4E AP as well - Zeitgeist? 
Can you think of any other big supporters of 4E?


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Aug 9, 2022)

I think the chart’s groupings are odd.

“D&D 5E products produced directly by Wizards” = one category.

“D&D 5E products produced by Goodman Games + Darrington” = another category. 

Why? What is the defining criterion for this grouping? Is it all WotC licensees? Does it also include those companies’ non-Wizards-licensed “5E compatible” products as well?

Does Pathfinder include non-2E sales, such as their 5E AP conversions and residual 1E sales?

And then, two categories are allotted to Renegade Games, even though they use the same Essence20 system. By that standard, each Wizards campaign world (Spelljammer, Radiant Citadel, etc) could be given its own ranking in the chart.

The grouping seems to stack the results in certain ways.


----------



## BigZebra (Aug 9, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I'm trying to remember the big 3PPs who went in to support 4E.
> Goodman had a line of 4E. If I remember they had to liquidate their 3.x offerings - which was their initial Dungeon Crawl Classics adventure line. I assume the 4E modules weren't popular enough, so they created their own DCC RPG.
> Also, I think EN Publishing did a 4E AP as well - Zeitgeist?
> Can you think of any other big supporters of 4E?



Kobold Press did a little 4e.  I think some of the first Open Design stuff was actually 4e.
And Zeigeist should be an awesome 4e campaign. I actually bought the first hardback - an enormous book.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Aug 9, 2022)

Retreater said:


> I'm trying to remember the big 3PPs who went in to support 4E.
> Goodman had a line of 4E. If I remember they had to liquidate their 3.x offerings - which was their initial Dungeon Crawl Classics adventure line. I assume the 4E modules weren't popular enough, so they created their own DCC RPG.
> Also, I think EN Publishing did a 4E AP as well - Zeitgeist?
> Can you think of any other big supporters of 4E?



Not a big publisher, but Zeitgeist Games made a 4E version of Blackmoor, as a licensee of Wizards. AFAIK, this was the only world-license which continued after 3E. And it shortly ended after Dave’s death.


----------



## BRayne (Aug 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Haven't the foggiest. Sorry!




IIRC the RPG streaming episode TrooperSJP touched on it a bit?


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I honestly wonder if whoever made that decision got fired after Paizo announced Pathfinder....






Parmandur said:


> Probably not: they didn't bring the OGL back until 20q6.



Yes, Licensing Manager Linae Foster was fired.






						Game System License - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jer (Aug 9, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Yes, Licensing Manager Linae Foster was fired.



IIRC that was because the folks at the top had become hostile to the entire idea of open gaming licenses, not because they were punishing her for something.  I think she was fired when the guy in charge of the D&D line - who was her boss - was also fired.  I also recall hearing that the GSL was an internal compromise between most of the folks at the top after Ryan Dancey left who hated the idea of open gaming at all and a few folks around the D&D brand who knew what a disaster it would be to try to go back to the old TSR way of doing things (which is basically what the folks at the top wanted).  And that's how 4e's licensing became the disastrous mess that it remains today.

Fortunately by the 5e roll out the folks at the top had turned over and the new folks who came in understood the open source model from software and understood why trying to go back to the old way of doing things was counterproductive to growing the brand (which is where I think the tension came from - the group of folks who thought the _game_ was the most important thing were the ones were in charge when 4e rolled out, and the group of folks who thought the _brand_ was the most important thing were in charge when 5e rolled out.  The branding folks have clearly won that argument.)


----------



## darjr (Aug 9, 2022)

I think a lot of people were let go or left D&D WotC after 4e.

And during


----------



## darjr (Aug 9, 2022)

Jer said:


> IIRC that was because the folks at the top had become hostile to the entire idea of open gaming licenses, not because they were punishing her for something.  I think she was fired when the guy in charge of the D&D line - who was her boss - was also fired.  I also recall hearing that the GSL was an internal compromise between most of the folks at the top after Ryan Dancey left who hated the idea of open gaming at all and a few folks around the D&D brand who knew what a disaster it would be to try to go back to the old TSR way of doing things (which is basically what the folks at the top wanted).  And that's how 4e's licensing became the disastrous mess that it remains today.
> 
> Fortunately by the 5e roll out the folks at the top had turned over and the new folks who came in understood the open source model from software and understood why trying to go back to the old way of doing things was counterproductive to growing the brand (which is where I think the tension came from - the group of folks who thought the _game_ was the most important thing were the ones were in charge when 4e rolled out, and the group of folks who thought the _brand_ was the most important thing were in charge when 5e rolled out.  The branding folks have clearly won that argument.)



I’m not sure the 5e OGL was a done deal before or at the roll out of 5e. Yes it was decided it was the way forward at some point but I think the DMSGUILD was a defacto requirement before it could be released. Though I’m not sure it was announced at the same time.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2022)

darjr said:


> I’m not sure the 5e OGL was a done deal before or at the roll out of 5e. Yes it was decided it was the way forward at some point but I think the DMSGUILD was a defacto requirement before it could be released. Though I’m not sure it was announced at the same time.



Just as a note, there isn’t a ‘5E OGL’. There’s just the OGL, published 20 years ago. It’s the same OGL.


----------



## darjr (Aug 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Just as a note, there isn’t a ‘5E OGL’. There’s just the OGL, published 20 years ago. It’s the same OGL.



Oh, yea. Meant 5e SRD and placed under the OGL. Is that closer?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

darjr said:


> Oh, yea. Meant 5e SRD and placed under the OGL. Is that closer?



Sometimes I forget that the 5E SRD is not the full rules of the game -- until I try and look up a class ability....


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Sometimes I forget that the 5E SRD is not the full rules of the game -- until I try and look up a class ability....



If only there was a fully featured 5E SRD out there! 






						Home | Level Up
					






					www.a5e.tools


----------



## payn (Aug 9, 2022)

darjr said:


> I think a lot of people were let go or left D&D WotC after 4e.
> 
> And during



Didnt they land over at Paizo?


----------



## darjr (Aug 9, 2022)

payn said:


> Didnt they land over at Paizo?



No idea how many, some? Not everyone.


----------



## JThursby (Aug 9, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> “D&D 5E products produced directly by Wizards” = one category.
> 
> “D&D 5E products produced by Goodman Games + Darrington” = another category.
> 
> Why? What is the defining criterion for this grouping? Is it all WotC licensees? Does it also include those companies’ non-Wizards-licensed “5E compatible” products as well?



My speculation is that they are trying to say that third party published 5e is the #3 seller right now, underneath 5e first party and Pathfinder first party.  This reads like a hint towards the vast swath of smaller publishers that are looking for trends to follow from the data.  In other words, the message they're trying to convey is "if you are not Paizo or Hasbro, make a 5e book if you value making money."


----------



## darjr (Aug 9, 2022)

Anyone get the pro version of the article with all 10? Is that even shareable?


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 9, 2022)

JThursby said:


> My speculation is that they are trying to say that third party published 5e is the #3 seller right now, underneath 5e first party and Pathfinder first party.  This reads like a hint towards the vast swath of smaller publishers that are looking for trends to follow from the data.  In other words, the message they're trying to convey is "if you are not Paizo or Hasbro, make a 5e book if you value making money."



This a publication for store owners: the message is "stock 3rd party 5E and Power Rangers."


----------



## JThursby (Aug 9, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> This a publication for store owners: the message is "stock 3rd party 5E and Power Rangers."



Man, even when Pathfinder is #2 stores don't want to carry it.  Maybe it's just the few FLGS in my area, but even during the days of Pathfinder dominance there was some kind of antipathy they held toward it.  Perhaps the ICv2 numbers are inflated by Paizo's online sales/PDFs which don't translate to store sales, I don't really know.

I'm also interested to see how RPGs compare to TCGs and Wargames.  Personally I hate it when a FLGS pivots to be TCG-centric, it feels like they're pressuring me to gamble on card packs, overpay for a card I actually want, or leave.  If TCGs are diminishing in relevance that's good news for my store experience, the less I'm expected to participate in them the better.


----------



## Xohar17 (Aug 9, 2022)

JThursby said:


> Man, even when Pathfinder is #2 stores don't want to carry it.  Maybe it's just the few FLGS in my area, but even during the days of Pathfinder dominance there was some kind of antipathy they held toward it.  Perhaps the ICv2 numbers are inflated by Paizo's online sales/PDFs which don't translate to store sales, I don't really know.
> 
> I'm also interested to see how RPGs compare to TCGs and Wargames.  Personally I hate it when a FLGS pivots to be TCG-centric, it feels like they're pressuring me to gamble on card packs, overpay for a card I actually want, or leave.  If TCGs are diminishing in relevance that's good news for my store experience, the less I'm expected to participate in them the better.



As far as i know most flgs are tcg first and second, everything else third.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 9, 2022)

darjr said:


> I think a lot of people were let go or left D&D WotC after 4e.
> 
> And during



Yeah, I remember nigh-annual announcements of people being laid off. Usually shortly before Christmas, too. But that wasn't just under 4e, that's been a long-running tradition.


darjr said:


> I’m not sure the 5e OGL was a done deal before or at the roll out of 5e. Yes it was decided it was the way forward at some point but I think the DMSGUILD was a defacto requirement before it could be released. Though I’m not sure it was announced at the same time.



Without looking things up, I'm about 90% certain they were. As I recall, they were presented at the same time as different alternatives for people wanting to make their own D&D stuff, along the lines of "DM's Guild lets you do A, B, and C, while the OGL lets you do X, Y, and Z."


----------



## JThursby (Aug 9, 2022)

Xohar17 said:


> As far as i know most flgs are tcg first and second, everything else third.



Stores of that old school model have lost my business.  The store I run games at is much newer and model themselves on having active communities for D&D and Wargames (not just Warhammer, I see way more Star Wars and Battletech being played anecdotally).  Given the explosive rise of RPGs in general this seems to be actually viable rather than wishful thinking on the store's part.


----------



## darjr (Aug 9, 2022)

JThursby said:


> Stores of that old school model have lost my business.  The store I run games at is much newer and model themselves on having active communities for D&D and Wargames (not just Warhammer, I see way more Star Wars and Battletech being played anecdotally).  Given the explosive rise of RPGs in general this seems to be actually viable rather than wishful thinking on the store's part.



Before Covid one store here (the FLGS I mostly run for) never started their Friday Night Magic at their second store to fit in more tables of D&D.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2022)

JThursby said:


> Stores of that old school model have lost my business.



They don’t care. You aren’t who makes their money.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 9, 2022)

JThursby said:


> Man, even when Pathfinder is #2 stores don't want to carry it.  Maybe it's just the few FLGS in my area, but even during the days of Pathfinder dominance there was some kind of antipathy they held toward it.  Perhaps the ICv2 numbers are inflated by Paizo's online sales/PDFs which don't translate to store sales, I don't really know.
> 
> I'm also interested to see how RPGs compare to TCGs and Wargames.  Personally I hate it when a FLGS pivots to be TCG-centric, it feels like they're pressuring me to gamble on card packs, overpay for a card I actually want, or leave.  If TCGs are diminishing in relevance that's good news for my store experience, the less I'm expected to participate in them the better.



This is all physical store, based on surveys from the stores sent to the trade organization
 TCG is still way bigger than RPGs: Magic is way bigger than it ever used to be.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 9, 2022)

JThursby said:


> Man, even when Pathfinder is #2 stores don't want to carry it.  Maybe it's just the few FLGS in my area, but even during the days of Pathfinder dominance there was some kind of antipathy they held toward it.  Perhaps the ICv2 numbers are inflated by Paizo's online sales/PDFs which don't translate to store sales, I don't really know.
> 
> I'm also interested to see how RPGs compare to TCGs and Wargames.  Personally I hate it when a FLGS pivots to be TCG-centric, it feels like they're pressuring me to gamble on card packs, overpay for a card I actually want, or leave.  If TCGs are diminishing in relevance that's good news for my store experience, the less I'm expected to participate in them the better.



My game store has nearly every PF2 product in stock, with almost as much shelf space as 5e. The only problem is - they're not moving it. They date the price tags for all items, and it's not uncommon to find PF2 Core books with dates going back to 2019 (meaning they haven't moved them since the release of the system). 
I'm curious to go through the 5e stuff and check dates. The selection is very full, with some limited edition covers too. (Likely ones that are being sought out in the collectors' market.) I have a feeling no RPGs are selling well for them ... which is one of the reasons I'm trying to start some in-person games there. You can walk by the shelf and see 5 copies of Van Richten's Guide sitting there.


----------



## Xohar17 (Aug 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> They don’t care. You aren’t who makes their money.



Yeah, as far as I know, (which is what my lfgs store owner tells me) tcgs have much much much higer profit margins than selling or running ttrpg, its not even a drop in a glass of water of their total earnings. They only sell it as a cool sidething. Even tabletop games bring much higher reveneau to the store. However, i must clarify that I dont live in the states, and is much easier to get for example mtg cards in my language than dnd books.


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 9, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> So, that's 3 Hasbro properties and 2 slots for OGL takes on Hasbronpropert. Dang.



Nuts what a multi-million production and advertising budget can do, eh?

EDIT: naughty word, even just 100K for advertising alone is such a boon for indie publishers hahahaha that'd be a game changer for virtually all of us.


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> "Supposed to" is a weird way to say that. D&D, as the main entry point into the hobby, inevitably brings players to other games. Rising tides. Boats. That sort of thing. But I don't think that is a design goal of the game, and it certainly wouldn't be a particularly smart one if it were.



Rising tides has been proven to actually not be a true thing in the bigger economy. Turns out Reagan's "Rising Tides" actually just made things a lot worse for the American economy and was a categorical lie. So, while it is cool that I can actually get projects funded on Kickstarter due to 5E popularity, its like, if you combine every indie Kickstarter in the last year and put the amount that Kickstarter earned against 5E, you literally still wouldn't have more then a 4th of 5E's capital. 

In this case, its more like there's such a massive storm of customers and profits around 5E that the rest of us have juuuuuuust enough rain water to not die of thirst. Or well, at least before Covid destroyed shipping and handling!


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 9, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Nuts what a multi-million production and advertising budget can do, eh?
> 
> EDIT: naughty word, even just 100K for advertising alone is such a boon for indie publishers hahahaha that'd be a game changer for virtually all of us.



For Pathfinder...?


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 9, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> For Pathfinder...?



No, for WotC. Pathfinder does do very well for itself, and is most certainly the exception to the rule in comparison to most studios, but my focus is on Hasbro.


----------



## JThursby (Aug 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> They don’t care. You aren’t who makes their money.



I mean fair enough, as long as there's a store/space for my hobby they can have theirs.


Retreater said:


> I have a feeling no RPGs are selling well for them ... which is one of the reasons I'm trying to start some in-person games there. You can walk by the shelf and see 5 copies of Van Richten's Guide sitting there.



I definitely know stores like this.  Sometimes it's because it's an MTG den that literally does not care their shelves of other things are skewed, disorganized or have damaged goods, sometimes the local players are just into something else. Still, this used to be the vast majority of stores I knew, and now it's like only half.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 9, 2022)

JThursby said:


> I definitely know stores like this. Sometimes it's because it's an MTG den that literally does not care their shelves of other things are skewed, disorganized or have damaged goods, sometimes the local players are just into something else. Still, this used to be the vast majority of stores I knew, and now it's like only half.



I think the thing with mine is that the store is overall very crowded. They accept trade-ins; as a result they have countless shelves of DVDs, old PS3/Xbox 360 games, etc. Then there's graphic novels and single issues of comics that they haven't been able to sell. And plushies, action figures (which they also take in trade), cosplay props. Double-stacked shelves of board games (some of which have been discontinued and no longer supported). And then they order like 5 copies of every new D&D release, and they just keep getting shelved as tightly as they can - with no front-facing marketing. 
Then they have "some" Warhammer 40K and Age of Sigmar ... but not enough to field an army, like just a couple of unit options for each faction. 
They were originally in an old furniture warehouse, but about ten years ago they moved to a typical strip-mall shop. I don't think they have changed the warehouse mentality.


----------



## Jimmy Dick (Aug 9, 2022)

Reynard said:


> Literally all the mountains of 3rd party Pathfinder support would have gone to 4E -- just like it is now going to 5E instead of PF2.



There's more 3pp support going to 2e every month. In fact, we're seeing plenty of support for both systems, some of it concurrent support from the publisher cashing in on both systems.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 9, 2022)

Jimmy Dick said:


> There's more 3pp support going to 2e every month. In fact, we're seeing plenty of support for both systems, some of it concurrent support from the publisher cashing in on both systems.



That's good news. But the difference is stark.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 10, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> "A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector.” (Monopoly Definition)
> 
> Seems like it to me.
> 
> In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share. I wouldn’t be surprised in D&D has double that right now. It isn’t a _pure_ monopoly (100% market share) but it is a monopoly where they have control over the market.




 I think it's more like 75% D&D, rising to 90% or higher if you count D&D knock offs.


----------



## Eyes of Nine (Aug 10, 2022)

schneeland said:


> Seems like things are going quite well for House Hasbronnen.



The 5picE must flow!


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

Maggan said:


> Darrington is Critical Role's publishing company, so I guess that it's their Tal'dorei stuff that's selling strong.
> 
> Goodman does 5e stuff, most notably the mammoth books in the Original Adventures Reincarnated series.
> 
> I think it's weird that ICv2 group them together like that.



They also publish their own adventures and they have some monster books coming up inluding a Lankhmar monster books and Dungeon Denizens for 5e and DCC. I am probably getting the Lankhmar book but checking out of 5e for DCC in general for the future.


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

TrippyHippy said:


> Looks pretty much like a monopoly to me.
> 
> Not surprising that licenses such as Doctor Who, Lord of the Rings, Batman, all the licenses associated with Everyday Heroes and also Adventures in Rokugan are all heading the way of the 5E market. I honestly wonder what other game lines will follow suit? Shadowrun for 5E? Warhammer for 5E? Traveller for 5E? Runequest for 5E?
> 
> Still, things are all relative. While some companies might not be Top 5, they may still be selling well compared to their own company targets - and 40 different brands suggest a good diversity. The key thing for the hobby is that it is still growing.



Looks like 3.x era to me


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> I've been eyeballing the Tal'dorei book. I remember seeing the first print at BAM and regret not getting it. This one is supposedly updated and bigger.



It is, and it is HUGE compared to the original. It is about the size of Eberron vs SCAG. A lot of reused artwork and some copypasta but still wonderfully done and the PDF even has some neat little lightning effects going on when you change pages.


----------



## Ulfgeir (Aug 10, 2022)

I must say that it does feel weird to group together 3rd-party stuff for D&D as one entry, and also surpised that Pathfinder has stayed at a high place for so long.  Not surprised over Power Rangers and GI Joe, they are both new games, and rides hard on the nostalgia factor. I doubt they will be there for long.


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Another thing:
> 
> Though Renegade Game Studios firmly denied that Essence20 was in any way a playtest for 6E, it would be folly for Wizards to not take the success of the Essence20 games into account when designing 6E, whether that be in 2024, or some years down the road.
> 
> ...



Methinks someone wasn't around during 3.x when people were also putting out OGL games and making their own games like Mutants & Masterminds, Spycraft, Monte Cook's World of Darkness, Arcana Evolved, etc that essentially tore down 3.x era D&D and built whole new games from them, especially M&M or that the OSR was constructed based on that whole concept of the OGL allowing for people to take the SRD and rebuild their favorite games from childhood and new games like WHite Star or Zweihander. It's not new, people have been doing it since M&M showed what the OGL and D20 mechanics can do and some of the best games today were birthed in that era like DCC, M&M, Pathfinder...


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

Gammadoodler said:


> It means they are strong within their niche, a niche which has seen remarkable growth over the last few years, but, in the grand scheme of things, a very small niche.
> 
> The question, it seems to me, is how much power (external to the quality of their product) they can wield within that niche. Are the retailers who sell D&D exclusively doing so because it's part of the contract with D&D, or is it because it's the only TTRPG that they can reliably sell? Do we think that D&D has sufficient power in their negotiations with their distributors to successfully bake that into their agreements?
> 
> ...



We know that WOTC makes up half of Hasbro's operating income with essentially 2 IP, MTG and D&D. We also know D&D is massive now so it's not "niche" at this time, hitting best sellers lists including NYT. WOTC topped 816 million in 2020 and reported continued growth numbers this year. They reported over 50 million D&D players NOW worldwide.


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

Reynard said:


> I honestly wonder if whoever made that decision got fired after Paizo announced Pathfinder....



Considering that the market fracture started with the OSR before 4e launched and Pathfinder wasn't overtaking 4e except in the months that 4e didn't have products until the end of its lifecycle I doubt it would have impacted them. D&D 4e wasn't canned because of Pathfinder or even loss of market share, it was canned because it didn't hit the expected sales goal that Hasbro set for it to become a "core brand" which is a tag they put on IP they expect to his more than 50 million (in 2008 money) a year in profit and those brands were earmarked with unlimited budgets for product development. WOTC developed a huge marketing and product strategy for 4e and failed to deliver on all fronts within the timeframe allotted for core brand development and the budget was slashed. Usually they put the IP on ice for a few years and then relaunch it years later, while doing soft products like anniversary products, one off collectors pieces (sound familiar anniversary edition core rulebooks and special edition adventures with D&D next playtests?) that have low cost development cycles and small teams. While 4e was operating it was always shy of that 50 million and hampered by Hasbro not letting them include licensing, novel sales (didn't have the D&D logo on Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance novels after all) and other periphery things. When 5e launched they had a small budget, small staff, small (still) release schedule compared to any non 1e era in D&D history. None of that was because Paizo and Pathfinder. It was failure to be able to deliver on the plan and most of it wasn't really the development team's fault as DDI fell apart due to tragic events and was such an integral aspect to 4e, the product was rushed to market, Essentials should have been the final product but 3.5 sales had started to collapse under the weight of the bloat. PAthfinder certainly rejuvenated 3.5 players but the OSR started the cracks in the ship. Pathfinder was popular enough to catch the people as Hasbro crippled the ship that was 4e.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Aug 10, 2022)

teitan said:


> Methinks someone wasn't around during 3.x when people were also putting out OGL games and making their own games like Mutants & Masterminds, Spycraft, Monte Cook's World of Darkness, Arcana Evolved, etc that essentially tore down 3.x era D&D and built whole new games from them, especially M&M or that the OSR was constructed based on that whole concept of the OGL allowing for people to take the SRD and rebuild their favorite games from childhood and new games like WHite Star or Zweihander. It's not new, people have been doing it since M&M showed what the OGL and D20 mechanics can do and some of the best games today were birthed in that era like DCC, M&M, Pathfinder...



Methinks someone missed the point. None of those games you listed were Hasbro-licensees!

Methinks I’ll spell it out for you my good fellow. To make a parallel example, it would as if in, say, in the year 2006 (when 4e was first announced, two years before its 2008 release) Hasbro licensed out their MTG IP and Axis & Allies IP to another RPG studio, and that studio announced they were going to use D&D 3.5e (or at least the 3.5 SRD d20 system).

But then a few months later, they say: “f**k that, we’re going to make our own system called Essence20, which only has four attributes, and which is mechanically a lot more streamlined than 3.5e/d20. Because we found through playtesting, that our target audience—the vast world of MTG and A&A players who’ve never played D&D before—was f***king stumped by the gigantic and complex rulebook and legacy quirks of 3.5e.”

And then MTG and Axis and Allies become two of the top five sellers in the RPG market.

At that time, an ENWorld member (a 2006 version of myself) suggests that it would be wise for Wizards to take note of this highly successful Essence20 system (which licensees of Hasbro produced, in conscious defiance of D&D 3.5) as they prepare the groundwork for the upcoming 4th edition.

Methinks another ENWorld member strolls by and not only misses the point, but also makes personal inferences about the OP’s longevity which are off the mark and kinda irksome.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 10, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Methinks someone missed the point. None of those games you listed were Wizards-licensees!
> 
> Mithinks I’ll spell it out for you my good fellow. To make a parallel example, it would as if in, say, in the year 2006 (when 4e was first announced, two years before its 2008 release) Wizards licensed out their MTG IP and Axis & Allies IP to another RPG studio, and that studio announced they were going to use D&D 3.5e (or at least the 3.5 SRD d20 system).
> 
> ...



Hasbro licensee, not WotC.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Aug 10, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Hasbro licensee, not WotC.



Right. I will correct it in the post.


----------



## Gammadoodler (Aug 10, 2022)

teitan said:


> We know that WOTC makes up half of Hasbro's operating income with essentially 2 IP, MTG and D&D. We also know D&D is massive now so it's not "niche" at this time, hitting best sellers lists including NYT. WOTC topped 816 million in 2020 and reported continued growth numbers this year. They reported over 50 million D&D players NOW worldwide.



Random googling (grains of salt)..

Global streaming market.. $59 billion
Global publishing market.. $110 billion
Global movie theater market.. $60 billion
Global gaming market.. $200 billion.
Global toy market..$129 billion

Global tabletop market (which includes board games like Monopoly and Life with rpgs)...$7 billion

This is what I mean by niche market. Slightly more than 10% of the nearest comp and that's lumped in with other board games.

I agree WotC is doing great and the hobby is likely more popular than its ever been. But there's still a long way to go before it's no longer niche (imho).


----------



## darjr (Aug 10, 2022)

True. But at the rate the PHB is selling it might be headed there. Or at least a lot bigger.


----------



## Gammadoodler (Aug 10, 2022)

darjr said:


> True. But at the rate the PHB is selling it might be headed there. Or at least a lot bigger.



I certainly hope so. There are some structural challenges that make it tough to match some of the straight consumer markets (needing a group, role asymmetry between DM and players) on a logistics basis.

I think a good metric to look at long term would be something like participation compared to youth sports, marching band, etc. If the hobby gets to a place where it's talked about in the same sentence with those things, then I think we'll have "arrived"


----------



## Shardstone (Aug 10, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Methinks someone missed the point. None of those games you listed were Hasbro-licensees!
> 
> Methinks I’ll spell it out for you my good fellow. To make a parallel example, it would as if in, say, in the year 2006 (when 4e was first announced, two years before its 2008 release) Hasbro licensed out their MTG IP and Axis & Allies IP to another RPG studio, and that studio announced they were going to use D&D 3.5e (or at least the 3.5 SRD d20 system).
> 
> ...



Typing in all methinks man...come on bro.


----------



## Von Ether (Aug 10, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Just as a note, there isn’t a ‘5E OGL’. There’s just the OGL, published 20 years ago. It’s the same OGL.




Which I find entertaining. 

I know of a fellow who decided to "convert" D&D stuff into another game system's community content program. He posted both a 3e and 5e OGL in the back of his PDF to cover himself for using D&D SRD terms. But I digress.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 10, 2022)

Von Ether said:


> He posted both a 3e and 5e OGL in the back of his PDF to cover himself for using D&D SRD terms. But I digress.



So he copy/pasted the OGL twice?


----------



## Jer (Aug 10, 2022)

Morrus said:


> So he copy/pasted the OGL twice?



It wouldn't be exactly the same - the copyright notices are different.  I can see how someone might not realize that if they really wanted to cover their behind and include both the 3e and 5e SRD content as references they just have to update the copyright notice and not reproduce the license for each SRD.


----------



## Von Ether (Aug 10, 2022)

Shardstone said:


> Rising tides has been proven to actually not be a true thing in the bigger economy. Turns out Reagan's "Rising Tides" actually just made things a lot worse for the American economy and was a categorical lie. So, while it is cool that I can actually get projects funded on Kickstarter due to 5E popularity, its like, if you combine every indie Kickstarter in the last year and put the amount that Kickstarter earned against 5E, you literally still wouldn't have more then a 4th of 5E's capital.
> 
> In this case, its more like there's such a massive storm of customers and profits around 5E that the rest of us have juuuuuuust enough rain water to not die of thirst. Or well, at least before Covid destroyed shipping and handling!




While I agree on the fail on a larger economy, I've already seen players at the hobby shop starting to sniffing around this year for "something different" than D&D. People are discovering Gumshoe, CoC, GURPS, Cypher and other games. 

Even on the plane back from GenCon, I had a 3 year player of D&D say he was looking for other stuff as a reaction to 5e being everywhere. Sadly his hometown is long drive from the big city, so his pickings might be slim in RL vs an online game.

But yeah, I get you. One of Amazon's original investors said, "I make as much a 10, 000 middle class families. That doesn't mean I buy 10,000 pairs of jeans."


----------



## Von Ether (Aug 10, 2022)

Morrus said:


> So he copy/pasted the OGL twice?



Yep!


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 10, 2022)

Von Ether said:


> I know of a fellow who decided to "convert" D&D stuff into another game system's community content program. He posted both a 3e and 5e OGL in the back of his PDF to cover himself for using D&D SRD terms. But I digress.



When all else fails, just slap as many legal disclaimers as possible—that way, all your bases are covered! /s


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

Dungeonosophy said:


> Methinks someone missed the point. None of those games you listed were Hasbro-licensees!
> 
> Methinks I’ll spell it out for you my good fellow. To make a parallel example, it would as if in, say, in the year 2006 (when 4e was first announced, two years before its 2008 release) Hasbro licensed out their MTG IP and Axis & Allies IP to another RPG studio, and that studio announced they were going to use D&D 3.5e (or at least the 3.5 SRD d20 system).
> 
> ...



Nope. Still the same. They used the OGL to make a game that fit what they needed. That they’re a licensor is not a difference maker and is just you adding a layer to it that is meaningless. It’s a third party company that picked up a license that WOTC didn’t want to work with and Hasbro is getting free money for them to develop and use. It will have zero effect on anything that WOTC does with 6e unless they hire on people from Renegade to develop 6e 2 years ago with massively successful credentials like when they brought in Monte Cook as a consultant for 5e and imported his casting system from Arcana Unearthed with using higher and lower level spell slots to alter how spells work. The name on the game has nothing to do with anything. Don’t read into it. You missed my point that all those people with those successful games were WOTC staffers at one point and have been at WOTC since as well consulting and developing as freelancers on products. We still don’t have Damage saves instead of hit points.


----------



## Von Ether (Aug 10, 2022)

The next evolution in ttprg, _everything_, classes, "spells," and gear are bolt on mechanics which just painlessly transfer to a new core dice mechanic once you are tried of using a d20.


----------



## teitan (Aug 10, 2022)

Gammadoodler said:


> Random googling (grains of salt)..
> 
> Global streaming market.. $59 billion
> Global publishing market.. $110 billion
> ...



Well it comes from Hasbro themselves where they stand as far as their profits being half of their operating profits. It’s an incredibly strong performance considering a core brand like Transformers, not niche, isn’t doing as well as D&D.


----------



## darjr (Aug 10, 2022)

I think some of the developers from Renegrade have worked with WotC on D&D.

Adventurers League and, I think other freelance work.


----------



## Von Ether (Aug 10, 2022)

darjr said:


> I think some of the developers from Renegrade have worked with WotC on D&D.
> 
> Adventurers League and, I think other freelance work.




Is it time to look at the legacy of the DMs Guild Adept program?


----------



## darjr (Aug 10, 2022)

Von Ether said:


> Is it time to look at the legacy of the DMs Guild Adept program?



That might be interesting. New thread?


----------



## Gammadoodler (Aug 10, 2022)

teitan said:


> Well it comes from Hasbro themselves where they stand as far as their profits being half of their operating profits. It’s an incredibly strong performance considering a core brand like Transformers, not niche, isn’t doing as well as D&D.



It's a bit of a question of what you want to use as your performance measure. Looking at the 10-k, it looks like "WotC and Digital gaming" makes up around 20% of revenue ($1.3 of $6.4b). So, 4 out of 5 dollars Hasbro collects are from other properties.. That said, WoTC is remarkably profitable (42% operating profit..wow..) as you've mentioned.

I haven't seen a breakdown of MtG vs. D&D within that category, but they are in different brand portfolios. The one with MtG in it(Franchise Brands at $2.8b) is 3x larger than the one with D&D (Hasbro Gaming at $850m), and MtG is consistently bullet number one in any management commentary related to growth. Can't draw too much from this, but it sure looks to me like MtG is carrying most of the weight. This would seem to be consistent with how we see game stores operate and how we come across WotC products in other retail locations. I'dove to be wrong though.

To be clear, I'm not meaning to suggest that there's anything bad related to how D&D is doing. My only point has been that the tabletop RPG industry is still small relative to more mainstream sources of entertainment.


----------



## Retreater (Aug 17, 2022)

Retreater said:


> The selection is very full, with some limited edition covers too. (Likely ones that are being sought out in the collectors' market.) I have a feeling no RPGs are selling well for them ... which is one of the reasons I'm trying to start some in-person games there. You can walk by the shelf and see 5 copies of Van Richten's Guide sitting there.



Went by the store today. Thought I would share a couple pics in case some thought I was exaggerating.
So we're a town of 60,000 people with not a huge gaming community. Do you think they went overboard with ordering?


----------



## payn (Aug 17, 2022)

Retreater said:


> Went by the store today. Thought I would share a couple pics in case some thought I was exaggerating.
> So we're a town of 60,000 people with not a huge gaming community. Do you think they went overboard with ordering?



Looks fairly typical, though my metro area is way way bigger than 60K.


----------



## Gammadoodler (Aug 18, 2022)

Retreater said:


> Went by the store today. Thought I would share a couple pics in case some thought I was exaggerating.
> So we're a town of 60,000 people with not a huge gaming community. Do you think they went overboard with ordering?



Without considering the other operating characteristics of the store, its kind of hard to say, especially in light of all the supply chain disruptions, inflation, etc. that's been going on for the last couple years.

Generally speaking, I haven't seen a lot of retail markdowns on D&D books, and there isn't really an obsolescence concern the same way there is with other published materials (yet). Holding low-volume inventory isn't great. If it never moves, it's definitely bad. But if there isn't a lot of competition for the shelf space, and the books get sold at retail eventually, it's probably ok. But that's a fair number of ifs.


----------



## Mezuka (Aug 18, 2022)

Gammadoodler said:


> Without considering the other operating characteristics of the store, its kind of hard to say, especially in light of all the supply chain disruptions, inflation, etc. that's been going on for the last couple years.
> 
> Generally speaking, I haven't seen a lot of retail markdowns on D&D books, and there isn't really an obsolescence concern the same way there is with other published materials (yet). Holding low-volume inventory isn't great. If it never moves, it's definitely bad. But if there isn't a lot of competition for the shelf space, and the books get sold at retail eventually, it's probably ok. But that's a fair number of ifs.



WoTC expects payements within the usual 30 days of purchase. If the store doesn't sell it comes out of profit they make on other products. That is not good.

The best way to operate is to set-up a pre-order system among your loyal customer base and buy a few extra units for the shelves.


----------



## Gammadoodler (Aug 18, 2022)

Mezuka said:


> WoTC expects payements within the usual 30 days of purchase. If the store doesn't sell it comes out of profit they make on other products. That is not good.
> 
> The best way to operate is to set-up a pre-order system among your loyal customer base and buy a few extra units for the shelves.



I agree you don't want slow-moving inventory on the shelves, and there are things you can do to prevent it. But, if you are going to sell it  eventually (within some reasonable operating window) at retail price, you recoup your costs and (presumably) make a profit. In isolation, it's a net win. 

The bad parts involve the books taking up space you could have used for other faster-moving inventory, whether the gap between paying WoTC and the eventual sale date causes short term cash flow problems, and if there are costs in excess of the expected profits relating to physically managing the inventory.

All of these bad parts are going to be particular to the store. 

It's not going to ever be good to buy stuff that sells slowly, but it doesn't have to be an egregious error. And considering the difficulty with getting some products on the shelves this past year, it's an understandable error to make.


----------

