# Hasbro CEO: "D&D is Really on a Tear"



## BrockBallingdark (Apr 21, 2015)

Every quarter, Hasbro holds an earnings call, which is a publicly available discussion of the company's status for that period. _Dungeons & Dragons_ is far too small an item to ever get a mention in that call, which namechecks enormous brands owned by the toy company.  However, this time around, D&D did get mentioned - Brian Goldner, President and Chief Operating Officer of Hasbro, noted that D&D "is really on a tear". While that's not a phrase I'm familiar with, it sounds positive!

You can read the full transcript of the earnings call here.

[lq]In fact, a raft of games including Dungeons & Dragons, which is really on a tear, Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE and OUIJA were all up in the quarter. And we're seeing great sell-through of our games.[/lq]

Games as a whole were up by 7% for the quarter (which includes _Magic: The Gathering, Monopol_y, etc.) - generally up in the US, but down outside it.

(Post promoted to news article and edited by Morrus)


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 21, 2015)

Impossible.  

People were saying 5e is vaporware.  That 5e might not even see the light of day, and if it did it would probably be in a close out sell for the brand. That it would be the 'Duke Nuke'em' of PnP RPGs, and even if it ever did  come out, by the time it did no one would care.  That the D&D brand was dead.  That all the Wizard's horses and all the Wizard's men aren't going to be able to put the brand back together again no matter what they say or do.  That what's done is done.   That WOTC would sell *a few* copies to people who _want_ it, but that no one is going to open up a 5E book and say, "Yeah, I _need_ this.  This is what my table is missing."  That the potential demand just didn't exist.  That the game will go on without WOTC, but it's not likely to be called 'D&D'. 

How can this news be true, given what people were saying?


----------



## Jester David (Apr 21, 2015)

Here's the actual document:
http://investor.hasbro.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=907255
With the transcript:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/308...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

D&D is mentioned on page 5 where he says:


> _Games was flattish. It was up in the U.S., down a little bit internationally, but we have a number of games that grew within the quarter. In fact, a raft of games including Dungeons & Dragons, which is really on a tear, Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE and OUIJA were all up in the quarter. And we're seeing great sell-through of our games. Our Games POS was up in the first quarter in the U.S., and up in many markets around the world. And so down a little bit internationally, but we view a lot of that as just timing on some of our new games initiatives._




D&D is not mentioned in the actual report (while MtG is), and D&D is just name-dropped the lengthy presentation. It's just part of a list of games that did better in Q1 2015 than in Q1 2014. While it's cool that he singled out D&D for an adjective ("on a tear"), D&D sales in Q1 2014 were likely... non-existent. And it's uncertain if he knows a new edition was released (he doesn't call out 5e). So he might just be comparing the numbers and seeing the *huge* spike in revenue without context. 

Still... that might work in favour of D&D as it's getting attention. They might give it some extra publicity or latitude. Or it could work out badly when the growth doesn't continue in 2016.
We'll see.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Apr 21, 2015)

It wouldn't surprise me if this is the best-selling edition by far.

Edit: In terms of launch, I mean.


----------



## delericho (Apr 21, 2015)

GX.Sigma said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if this is the best-selling edition by far.
> 
> Edit: In terms of launch, I mean.




WotC have said as much, so unless you believe they're lying I suspect you're in for a not-surprise. 

And it's no wonder it's doing well: it's a new edition, they've managed to produce an excellent game, and they're also getting the benefits of the end of their 4e mis-step (much as Coke did when they brought back Coke Classic). What remains to be seen, of course, is just how long it continues "on a tear".


----------



## transtemporal (Apr 21, 2015)

What does "on a tear" mean? Aren't tears bad?


----------



## LordWeh (Apr 21, 2015)

According to a quick google search, it means being on a winning streak, or having a sudden burst of energy. I'd not heard the expression before, either.

Still, good news for 5th =)


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

This is why all the doom and gloom threads are (in my view) ridiculous. So many posters seem unable to distinguish what they want to play their games from the commercial context that WotC/Hasbro cares about.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> This is why all the doom and gloom threads are (in my view) ridiculous. So many posters seem unable to distinguish what they want to play their games from the commercial context that WotC/Hasbro cares about.




Unless I am mistaken, such threads were one of the main reasons internet came into fruition...


----------



## Shiroiken (Apr 21, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> What does "on a tear" mean? Aren't tears bad?



"Tear" as in ripping, not "tear" as in eye moisture. It means that it's ripping up the competition (i.e. doing very well). American English
idioms


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 21, 2015)

Glad to hear 5E is doing well. It really is a fun game. The more I play it, the more I like it. It's fun to DM as well. Monster creation is the most interesting it has been in any edition I can remember. It's fun to make up a monster based on an idea that you create a rule for than to have to follow a rigid set of rules already in place. This game encourages you do have fun creating monsters as well as the lairs they reside in. 5E is an edition of D&D that fuels creativity in a way I haven't felt in ages.


----------



## Talmek (Apr 21, 2015)

This is good news for the genre (as well as my personal favorite tabletop game). Any news of increased sales or revenue means hesitation (from a business perspective) to discontinue the brand. I may be overly optimistic here but I'm really glad that D&D was even mentioned at all. I would have been worried if it had been excluded from the report completely, or worse if it had been named as a drag (losing investment) on their portfolio.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Apr 21, 2015)

The fact its even menioned is good news for D&D. Again, congrats to the team for their hard work. Cant wait to hear what 2015-16 has in store for us.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 21, 2015)

GX.Sigma said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if this is the best-selling edition by far.
> 
> Edit: In terms of launch, I mean.




Stop hedging!


----------



## CAFRedblade (Apr 21, 2015)

Shiroiken has the right of it. Pretty positive results.  
It's not a turn of phrase you see used very much in this day an age. 

Glad to see things doing well.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 21, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> Stop hedging!



Leaf my topiary out of this!


----------



## Charles Wright (Apr 21, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> Leaf my topiary out of this!




Lettuce stay on topic, here.


----------



## Zaran (Apr 21, 2015)

Maybe they can afford to hire some people who will actually give us more quality products to buy.


----------



## doctorhook (Apr 21, 2015)

Given the theory I've been expounding here especially over the past week, regarding 5E's trickle-out release schedule, I take this to be very good news. Successful 5E means more 5E in the future.


----------



## ZeshinX (Apr 21, 2015)

I imagine most its current success is the sales of the Core Rules.  Those, typically, always sell quite well at launch/early in its life (everyone "kicking the tires" of the new edition and such).  Thankfully, 5e is quite an excellent set of rules.  Easy to learn, quick to play, and most of all, fun as hell to play.

It's ability to stick around, its staying power, remains to be seen.  It's a great system, but the support for it up to now has been....well, there, but cloudy (to me).  Yes, WotC is determined to go with the story line thing, which is great for folks who like to use pre-built adventures...but those who prefer to build their own seem to be very much a secondary concern (again, seems that way to me).

Time will tell.  I'd like some options.  More backgrounds, more class options, setting books (no, the story line modules alone don't cut it for setting support)....well, time will tell.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 21, 2015)

Shiroiken said:


> "Tear" as in ripping, not "tear" as in eye moisture. It means that it's ripping up the competition (i.e. doing very well). American English
> idioms




More specifically, I am pretty sure it refers to a mad, sometimes violent, rush. Originally it did mean attacking without restraint or caution, but over time the concept of speed was added onto the original implication so that a vehicle can also be said to be going at a tear. Which just means it is going really fast, without any implication of violence. In the context of the original quote in this thread, success of sales is what is implied, not necessarily the destruction of the "enemy."  

I'm actually surprised at the number of people unfamiliar with the idiom.


----------



## jaycrockett (Apr 21, 2015)

They said the pop-a-matic was a gimmick.  They said it was a rip off of a classic, Parcheesi.  They said all the cool kids wanted the card based movement of Sorry.

Well my friends they were wrong.  Trouble is back.  The one true move-your-guy-around-the-board-to-home-base is getting it's props from the Hasbro investor call, and that can only mean good things for the future.


----------



## ad_hoc (Apr 21, 2015)

I just can't get my head around people saying that there is no support for the game.

It has been out for less than a year. I would probably like a supplemental book in 2 or 3 years. I would understand if they released one a year after release. But a few months? That is ridiculous to me.

I think they are going above and beyond with the free PDFs they are posting. I wouldn't have expected that.


----------



## Mercurius (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> This is why all the doom and gloom threads are (in my view) ridiculous. So many posters seem unable to distinguish what they want to play their games from the commercial context that WotC/Hasbro cares about.




I'm not sure what you mean by "doom and gloom threads" as most of the threads I've read on the topic don't seem to as much predict the demise of 5E, but bemoan the lack of product and news about future product. If that is what you are referring to, I don't see why it is ridiculous or why it is doom-and-gloom. People (including myself) want more product (within reason) because it is a great game, because what we've seen so far has been overall excellent, and because, gosh darn it, we like D&D books!

Furthermore, I don't think "what the people want" and the "commercial context that Hasbro/WotC cares about" are as separate as you imply, and in the long-run become more and more important. Clearly Hasbro/WotC isn't or shouldn't only be concerned about long-time players and grognards who want the wheel reinvented again, but they also shouldn't lose sight of the "bird in hand" as they reach out for the hypothetical "two in the bush." If they only plan on using D&D the RPG as a kind of reference point for more lucrative licensing and don't expand the RPG beyond the core +two story arcs a year approach, they aren't going to build and maintain the community loyalty that makes a game thrive. I personally don't see why they can't do both: creative lucrative licensing opportunities, but also expand the game itself. 



doctorhook said:


> Given the theory I've been expounding here especially over the past week, regarding 5E's trickle-out release schedule, I take this to be very good news. Successful 5E means more 5E in the future.




My hope is that what we're seeing is WotC taking a (probably wisely) conservative approach that will gradually expand outward as they establish a solid beach-head of popularity and stability. I have a hard time imagining that they won't gradually roll out more products. Probably (and hopefully) nothing like we've seen from 2E to 4E, but certainly more than the two story arcs a year approach.


----------



## delericho (Apr 21, 2015)

ad_hoc said:


> I just can't get my head around people saying that there is no support for the game.




That's probably because nobody is saying there is _no_ support for the game.

As for people saying there is _not enough_ support for the game, that should be easy enough to understand, based on a single fact: at this point in time there are _no_ announced products coming from WotC. You might well not agree that that's a problem, but surely you can "get your head around" it?


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 21, 2015)

I'm also amused at the number of people not familiar with the "on a tear" idiom but I guess it's distinctly American. It definitely means "it's ripping up the competition" but also means "it's ripping through the sales charts" in a business context. 

I'm more amused at the fact that the context of the quote clearly shows that to Hasbro D&D is directly equated with other games like Risk, Scrabble and Candy Land in terms of where it stands as a product. Which makes me imagine for a moment that just as there's a crew of 7 managing the D&D brand I now wonder if somewhere in Hasbro's corporate HQ there's a 7-man team working on the best way they can leverage Candy Land into a juggernaut, all the while glaring out the window in Renton's direction, grimacing in anger at the new high bar that has been set for ALL Hasbro titles this quarter.


----------



## Bugleyman (Apr 21, 2015)

If the CEO of Hasbro said it, you can take that to the *bank*.  

On a more serious note, It's nice that D&D seems to be doing well.  It's still at a significant competitive disadvantage until they figure out eBooks.  But they've only had what, five years? Gotta temper those expectations I guess...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 21, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> My hope is that what we're seeing is WotC taking a (probably wisely) conservative approach that will gradually expand outward as they establish a solid beach-head of popularity and stability. I have a hard time imagining that they won't gradually roll out more products. Probably (and hopefully) nothing like we've seen from 2E to 4E, but certainly more than the two story arcs a year approach.




And a conservative release schedule being *wise* is entirely the point.  There is a LOT of time to release books, as we haven't even reached the end of Year One yet.  

Here was the release schedule for 4E:

In June '08 they released Player's Handbook 1, Dungeon Master's Guide 1, and Monster Manual 1.  Nine months later they released Player's Handbook 2.  Two months after that, they release Monster Manual 2.  So at the end of Year One for 4th edition... they had already blown through the release of 5 core books.  DMG 2 was released in September '09.  Player's Handbook 3 was released in March '10.  And Monster Manual 3 was released in June of '10.

So in two years time in the life cycle of 4E... they had already blown through EIGHT different core rule books.  In TWO YEARS.  And this doesn't even include the five Powers books published in and around them all.  You want to know why 4E's life cycle was so short?  THAT'S the reason right there.  There was nothing worthwhile left to publish except a soft reboot with Essentials.

Right now, we have no idea if 5E will see this same amount of support.  My guess is when we look back on 5E from a decade or so in the future, it might end up getting up there.  The only difference being those eight core books (or publications on par with those kinds of books) are going to be spread out over Years One through Five, rather than entirely crammed into Years One and Two.  And yeah... that's annoying players who like a fast publication cycle because they now have nothing to read and instead are just stuck _playing the game_ instead... but from everything we've heard from the Powers That Be... that's the new paradigm for this newest edition and we all just gotta accept it.

But I do find it funny hearing the myriad of people who keep spouting here on the boards that if WotC doesn't publish faster that the game is going to die on the vine... cause I think it was proven quite conclusively that doing it the other way during 4E didn't work either.  And I would suspect that the men and women in the D&D department of Wizards also know this.


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 21, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> What does "on a tear" mean? Aren't tears bad?





Tears of joy?


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 21, 2015)

camazotz said:


> I'm more amused at the fact that the context of the quote clearly shows that to Hasbro D&D is directly equated with other games like Risk, Scrabble and Candy Land in terms of where it stands as a product. Which makes me imagine for a moment that just as there's a crew of 7 managing the D&D brand I now wonder if somewhere in Hasbro's corporate HQ there's a 7-man team working on the best way they can leverage Candy Land into a juggernaut, all the while glaring out the window in Renton's direction, grimacing in anger at the new high bar that has been set for ALL Hasbro titles this quarter.




Ooh, Candyland the Roleplaying Game....it's got potential.

Nah, forget updating the Realms, we have a whole sweet setting already ready to roll out!


----------



## Grainger (Apr 21, 2015)

jaycrockett said:


> They said the pop-a-matic was a gimmick.  They said it was a rip off of a classic, Parcheesi.  They said all the cool kids wanted the card based movement of Sorry.
> 
> Well my friends they were wrong.  Trouble is back.  The one true move-your-guy-around-the-board-to-home-base is getting it's props from the Hasbro investor call, and that can only mean good things for the future.




Yeah, 5e wasn't exactly in very good company in that statement, was it?


----------



## Maggan (Apr 21, 2015)

I choose to read good news as good news. Why borrow trouble?

/M


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2015)

I wonder how long before we can get a "no support" sub-board.  It might be better for everyone if the no support supporters could have a place to commiserate together, rather than post their lamentations in every other thread here...


----------



## jodyjohnson (Apr 21, 2015)

Grainger said:


> Yeah, 5e wasn't exactly in very good company in that statement, was it?




Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE.  Are you saying this is bad company?  

Those games are pretty much rites of passage in the US.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE.  Are you saying this is bad company?
> 
> Those games are pretty much rites of passage in the US.




Us board gamers are trying to change that to Catan, Carcasonne, Ticket to Ride, King of Tokyo, just to show people that games can be fun instead of mindless drek.


----------



## ZeshinX (Apr 21, 2015)

Agamon said:


> I wonder how long before we can get a "no support" sub-board.  It might be better for everyone if the no support supporters could have a place to commiserate together, rather than post their lamentations in every other thread here...




The lamentations are just as valid as the cheerleading.  Segregating them serves no purpose except to close the mind to variety and different views.

Disagreements are just as excellent as agreements.  Seeing a flood of super fun happy comments can be just as exhausting and tiresome as ultra poop gloomy ones.  The mix keeps it lively.

Just my take of course.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 21, 2015)

Grainger said:


> Yeah, 5e wasn't exactly in very good company in that statement, was it?






jodyjohnson said:


> Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE.  Are you saying this is bad company?
> 
> Those games are pretty much rites of passage in the US.




*Risk *- first published in France in 1957 as _La Conquête du Monde_, bought and released as _Risk_ by Parker Brothers in 1959. 

*Scrabble *- first published in 1938 as _Lexico_, sold and renamed as _Scrabble _in 1948, purchased by Hasbro in 1986.

*Trouble *- first sold in 1965 by Milton Bradley.

*The Game of Life* - originally created in 1860 by Milton Bradley, the modern version of the game was published in 1960.

*Candy Land* - first published in 1949 by Milton Bradley.

*Cluedo / Clue* - First published as _Cluedo _by Waddington's in 1949, simultaneously published in the United States as _Clue _by Parker Brothers.

The average age of the above list of games is 51.2 years. All of the above are still in print, and while there have been tie-in editions, spin-offs and variants for all of them, the rules for each all still virtually the same today as they were when they first saw print.

So here's an interesting question - if you were in charge of putting out an evergreen edition of Dungeons and Dragons that was intended to modestly sell the same core books for at least 51.2 years, what would your release schedule look like?


----------



## JeffB (Apr 21, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Us board gamers are trying to change that to Catan, Carcasonne, Ticket to Ride, King of Tokyo, just to show people that games can be fun instead of mindless drek.





Board game badwrongfun  snobbery?

I've had alot of fun with those games, especially with my kids. :shrug:


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2015)

JeffB said:


> Board game badwrongfun  snobbery?
> 
> I've had alot of fun with those games, especially with my kids. :shrug:




Now, now, no need to take my winky-faced post as dour seriousness.

I do not doubt you would have fun playing games with your kids and didn't mean to imply you couldn't. My bad.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 21, 2015)

ZeshinX said:


> The lamentations are just as valid as the cheerleading.  Segregating them serves no purpose except to close the mind to variety and different views.
> 
> Disagreements are just as excellent as agreements.  Seeing a flood of super fun happy comments can be just as exhausting and tiresome as ultra poop gloomy ones.  The mix keeps it lively.
> 
> Just my take of course.




Don't get me wrong.  Multiple threads interjected with posts saying "Ohmigosh, WotC is so very, very terrific!" would be just as bad.  But if that's a problem, it's not nearly on the same scale...


----------



## ZeshinX (Apr 21, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Don't get me wrong.  Multiple threads interjected with posts saying "Ohmigosh, WotC is so very, very terrific!" would be just as bad.  But if that's a problem, it's not nearly on the same scale...




No argument there (about scale).  It just tends to be easier to not mention/not notice what is good, being done well, etc. since if things are working/going well/done well, they tend not to be noticed or commented on, since that generally means it's "as it should be".  If something is perceived as not working/broken/missing/done poorly....well you can bet people will cry out.

I try to keep my comments as balanced as I can, to avoid being the "ultra poop gloomy" type of commenter.  I think 5e is a marvelous rule set, but WotC seems a tad uncertain what to do with it.  I'd fall into the "not supporting" camp, but not in terms of amount of product they have/haven't released.  It's just too early to clobber them over the head with ranting about how we don't have tons of options books, campaign setting tomes, etc.  That takes time (years).  My interpretation of "lack of support from WotC" is that up until now, with each edition, TSR/WotC has been quite communicative regarding their plans, especially regarding product calendars.  Not so much with 5e.  Of course, this is entirely subject to the interpretation of the individual reading WotC's media bytes.  I find their communications to be...well, to put it in game terms, a whole lotta fluff, not much crunch.

I'm also influenced by Paizo and Pathfinder.  In my view, THAT'S how you support a game, and WotC seems to be trying to get there via a rather...well, think of an inebriated fly trying to make its way anywhere, and that's kinda the way I see WotC with 5e right now.

Patience and time.  I suspect that's all it's going to take really.  Wouldn't hurt for them to hire a few more designers though.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (Apr 21, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And a conservative release schedule being *wise* is entirely the point.  There is a LOT of time to release books, as we haven't even reached the end of Year One yet.
> 
> Here was the release schedule for 4E:
> 
> ...




Then why did they come out with so many 3rd Edition books? It seemed like they were doing one book a month, (and towards the end, most of the books felt like they weren't even play-tested.) 4th Edition failed because it didn't have the support Hasbro/WotC were looking for. Some players/DM's really like 4th, and many players/DM's didn't. THAT is why it failed, not because of the release of content. Personally, I would like to see them go somewhat in the middle. Not have as many releases as 3rd or 4th, but maybe at least ONE book that isn't a story. Something like a MM2, an Oriental Adventures, Manual of the Planes, a campaign setting, etc., on top of the story books they are so fully behind. I personally am not saying I want 15 books released a year .... but something beyond just these bad storylines would be nice.


----------



## Nebulous (Apr 21, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE.  Are you saying this is bad company?
> 
> Those games are pretty much rites of passage in the US.




He mentioned Ouija too.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 21, 2015)

Nebulous said:


> He mentioned Ouija too.




That one is a rite, but not so much of passage, as summoning


----------



## jodyjohnson (Apr 21, 2015)

When I look at the history of D&D with Wizards of the Coast I see experimentation with release schedules building a results-based expectation level with core book and supplement sales.

3.0 was their first dip in the pool with a 2nd edition style release schedule  (numbers from a member of the brand team quote sales around 500,000 PHB).  Follow-up core books were Monster Manual 2, and Fiend Folio.  Plus a wide range of class splats.  The main lesson from TSR was to support only one setting heavily - FR.  Greyhawk was the default setting but only received minor support and the rest were licensed or received only token support.

3.5 was the experiment with the quick revision release which ended with 2 PHB, 2 DMG, and 3 extra Monsters Manuals (III, IV, V).  Plus enough supplemental books to fill a shelf.  Numbers from a member of the brand team quote sales around 350,000 PHB. Forgotten Realms continued to get content and Eberron was the new setting and got a full line of setting books.

4th was the experiment with the parsed out content but quick release schedule.  3 PHB, 2 DMG, 3 Monster Manuals all within 2 years.  We still got rehashes of the class splats plus most of the monster books.  They still released enough supplements to fill a shelf it was just crammed into 4 years instead of 5.  I don't know how many it sold overall, but I think it launched well.  Comments about alienating half the base might suggest that anywhere between 175,000 and 250,000 gamers still played it (assuming half the base of 3.0 or 3.5 PHB buyers).  And conversely 175,000 to 250,000 gamers (or more) found it anathema.  [Erik Mona lists 250,000 PF CRB sold as of March 2014).

4e also had the experiment with Setting support as Campaign book, Player book, and a module.  The Realms, Eberron, and Darksun got that treatment (DS was tweaked slightly - Guide, Monster book, module).  They also experimented with the mini-setting with Underdark and Neverwinter.

Essentials was the experiment with the easily accessible size and more traditional class 'powers' scheme and non-core 3 format (Rule Compendium,  2 Heroes PHB, a DM Kit, and Monster box).

After the Paizo Pathfinder experimental playtest in 2008 with 50,000 players over a year,  Wizards follows up in 2012 to develop 5e with a playtest of 175,000 players (which if the sales numbers are valid is roughly a third of the Wizards era D&D players) over 2 years.

They have full sales data on 3 full sets of class splats (3.0, 3.5, 4e) plus extensive data from DDI.  They have data from the full setting support of Forgotten Realms (3.x) and Eberron (3.5), plus the 4e run of the campaign three-some.

I find it interesting then that they went with the slow release schedule experiment (probably not 1e era slow) with limited splat.  It is a strategy they don't have sales data on.  But Mearls indicated that is the strategy the surveys show fans want and their hypothesis that splat reduces the lifespan of an edition may turn out to be true if 5e can last.

Or perhaps with 6th edition they may find the one plan to rule them all.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 21, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> I find it interesting then that they went with the slow release schedule experiment (probably not 1e era slow) with limited splat.  It is a strategy they don't have sales data on.




Yep.  And that makes sense, if their desire is to get out of the patterns seen with previous strategies.  I mean, if you want something *different* now, you don't use a strategy that is already known to not get you that.  You try something new.



> Or perhaps with 6th edition they may find the one plan to rule them all.




No such thing, in any business.  Static business plans fail when the market changes.  So, there will always be tinkering with how things are delivered.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 21, 2015)

ZeshinX said:


> I'm also influenced by Paizo and Pathfinder.  In my view, THAT'S how you support a game



Chop out every hardcover book outside the Core and Bestiary, and I'm with you. As it is, the PFSRD is a complete glut of content printed just because.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 21, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Then why did they come out with so many 3rd Edition books? It seemed like they were doing one book a month, (and towards the end, most of the books felt like they weren't even play-tested.) 4th Edition failed because it didn't have the support Hasbro/WotC were looking for. Some players/DM's really like 4th, and many players/DM's didn't. THAT is why it failed, not because of the release of content. Personally, I would like to see them go somewhat in the middle. Not have as many releases as 3rd or 4th, but maybe at least ONE book that isn't a story. Something like a MM2, an Oriental Adventures, Manual of the Planes, a campaign setting, etc., on top of the story books they are so fully behind. I personally am not saying I want 15 books released a year .... but something beyond just these bad storylines would be nice.




They came out with so many 3E books for the same reason why they came out with so many 4E books-- because they could and people bought them.  But the length of BOTH lines got shortened overall because all their biggest sellers were front-loaded on their schedule.  If the number of books you sell for a line steadily decreases over the length of that line... the further you push apart publication of each individual book the money you bring in gets spread out over a longer length of time.  You can either sell 100 books in Year One, 20 in Year Two, and 5 in Year Three... or 40, 30, 20, 10, 10, 10, and 5 over Years One through Seven.  And boom, your line has last more than twice as long.  Which for a lot of people the shortened schedule was the "explanation" they would give as to why 4E "failed".

"4E was only on the shelf for a couple years and then they started working on 5E!  Thus failure!"

Which begs the question whether the edition would still have been seen as a "failure" had it been on the shelves twice as long before 5E got started?  Even if they ended up selling the same amount of copies over the lifetime of either release schedule?

Now all this being said... do I think WotC could sell another book or two in and around what has already been scheduled and released and *not* cut much of the tail off at the end of 5E's lifespan?  Yeah, I think they probably could.  Maybe they'd lose a year if they did that, and would have to release 6E in Year Eight rather than Year Nine.  Maybe at that point not a big deal?

But considering none of us have _any idea_ what the current publish paradigm will result in, and how long the line can remain viable for WotC before they feel the need to start work on 6E... I refuse to accept people's claims that the paradigm is WRONG, and that WotC is making a MISTAKE.  Now maybe it is.  But at the same time, maybe it isn't.  We don't know.  And WotC doesn't know.  All they do know is that they don't want to do the same kind of release schedule they did for the two editions previous.  And thus... all any of us can do right now is just ride it out and see where it take us.  And then, come 2021 when 6E gets released, everyone can feel free to come back here and scream "I told you so!"


----------



## Grainger (Apr 21, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE.  Are you saying this is bad company?
> 
> Those games are pretty much rites of passage in the US.




I'm aware that they do very good business (here in the UK  most of them dominate the board games market), but as a board gamer, I can tell you that as games, it sucks that they're still the top sellers. They range from (arguably) passable to truly terrible designs. Modern board games moved past them eons ago, and continue to come out with dozens of exciting, innovative designs every year, providing the same good aspects of these games (e.g. trading, acquisition, conflict) but making them into easier to play experiences with more depth, and much better components. The aforementioned "classics" may have stood the test of time, but largely because people aren't aware that much better designs exist (it's easier for Hasbro to market the same old titles that everyone already knows), and 90% of their billion copies sit unplayed gathering dust in cupboards except at Christmas where they're pulled out to give board games a bad name yet again.


----------



## Grainger (Apr 21, 2015)

JeffB said:


> Board game badwrongfun  snobbery?
> 
> I've had alot of fun with those games, especially with my kids. :shrug:




Of course you can have fun with them, and it's great that you're spending quality time with your kids (as a gaming parent, I'm delighted to be raising a gamer). But have you tried well-regarded modern games? You'll probably have even more fun. They tend to be much better, and don't (unlike, say Risk or Monopoly) drag on for hours beyond their welcome.

For example, a great silly game to play with kids (or friends), to pick just one out of thousands of fantastic choices:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/97903/terror-meeple-city

Anyway, this is off-topic, so I'm not going to derail the thread any more. In my defence, board game fans feel as strongly about their hobby as RPG fans do!


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 21, 2015)

Grainger said:


> I'm aware that they do very good business (here in the UK  most of them dominate the board games market), but as a board gamer, I can tell you that as games, it sucks that they're still the top sellers. They range from (arguably) passable to truly terrible designs. Modern board games moved past them eons ago, and continue to come out with dozens of exciting, innovative designs every year, providing the same good aspects of these games (e.g. trading, acquisition, conflict) but making them into easier to play experiences with more depth, and much better components. The aforementioned "classics" may have stood the test of time, but largely because people aren't aware that much better designs exist (it's easier for Hasbro to market the same old titles that everyone already knows), and 90% of their billion copies sit unplayed gathering dust in cupboards except at Christmas where they're pulled out to give board games a bad name yet again.




It is astonishing how closely this parallels a lot of RPG gamers' complaints about D&D itself.


----------



## Grainger (Apr 21, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> It is astonishing how closely this parallels a lot of RPG gamers' complaints about D&D itself.




Well, maybe, but D&D 5e is actually a good game when compared to other modern games of the same type. But sure, I guess indie RPG fans probably feel similarly about it. I guess the main thing is to try what's out there and decide what you like.


----------



## doctorhook (Apr 21, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> My hope is that what we're seeing is WotC taking a (probably wisely) conservative approach that will gradually expand outward as they establish a solid beach-head of popularity and stability. I have a hard time imagining that they won't gradually roll out more products. Probably (and hopefully) nothing like we've seen from 2E to 4E, but certainly more than the two story arcs a year approach.



I agree. My point lately has been that I really believe WotC _would_ be releasing more books right now if they had the budget to develop them, and more fundamentally, if they thought those books would be suitably profitable. We know that 4E was ultimately not great for the brand, and I definitely feel that WotC has not been in a gambling mood with regards to 5E's release schedule; we got a starter set (cheap but with a strong adventure), three core books (top notch quality overall), then two outsourced adventure paths, and currently silence about what's next. In the past, we always new about some other book coming down the pipe within six months, and while I'm sure stuff currently is under development, the fact that they no longer want to announce their plans suggests they don't want to make any commitments until profitability is assured. (Obviously books are a diminishing and TTRPGing is a diminishing hobby, but IMO there's still more demand for new D&D books than they appear to be capitalizing upon for now.)



DEFCON 1 said:


> And a conservative release schedule being *wise* is entirely the point.  There is a LOT of time to release books, as we haven't even reached the end of Year One yet.
> 
> Here was the release schedule for 4E:
> 
> ...



Man, you forgot a whole bunch of stuff just in the first six months of 4E: Adventurer's Vault, Open Grave, Draconomicon 1, and Manual of the Planes, plus two Forgotten Realms hardcovers, not to mention _four_ 96-page adventures, all before the end of 2008. (Honestly, I'm not even sure that I'm not forgetting about some books.) Like you pointed out, 4E was released in June of that year.

I definitely do not advocate a return to this level of output, but to me it does feel like 5E has left us hanging.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Right now, we have no idea if 5E will see this same amount of support.  My guess is when we look back on 5E from a decade or so in the future, it might end up getting up there.  The only difference being those eight core books (or publications on par with those kinds of books) are going to be spread out over Years One through Five, rather than entirely crammed into Years One and Two.  And yeah... that's annoying players who like a fast publication cycle because they now have nothing to read and instead are just stuck _playing the game_ instead... but from everything we've heard from the Powers That Be... that's the new paradigm for this newest edition and we all just gotta accept it.
> 
> But I do find it funny hearing the myriad of people who keep spouting here on the boards that if WotC doesn't publish faster that the game is going to die on the vine... cause I think it was proven quite conclusively that doing it the other way during 4E didn't work either.  And I would suspect that the men and women in the D&D department of Wizards also know this.



I think you're oversimplifying here. 4E was a failure because of a bunch of factors, and their release schedule was only one part of that. Many of us want to buy more products exactly because we're enjoying 5E as much as we are (and in a couple cases, because it feels like certain options were not given the same breadth of development that others were). If we're standing here with our wallets open, what's wrong with asking for more?


----------



## doctorhook (Apr 21, 2015)

Halivar said:


> Chop out every hardcover book outside the Core and Bestiary, and I'm with you. As it is, the PFSRD is a complete glut of content printed just because.



This is basically what kept me from ever getting into PF: it had all the problems of 3E (including the bloat), but newer, more often, and more expensive. I didn't find that compelling.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 21, 2015)

Grainger said:


> I'm aware that they do very good business (here in the UK  most of them dominate the board games market), but as a board gamer, I can tell you that as games, it sucks that they're still the top sellers. They range from (arguably) passable to truly terrible designs. Modern board games moved past them eons ago, and continue to come out with dozens of exciting, innovative designs every year, providing the same good aspects of these games (e.g. trading, acquisition, conflict) but making them into easier to play experiences with more depth, and much better components. The aforementioned "classics" may have stood the test of time, but largely because people aren't aware that much better designs exist (it's easier for Hasbro to market the same old titles that everyone already knows), and 90% of their billion copies sit unplayed gathering dust in cupboards except at Christmas where they're pulled out to give board games a bad name yet again.




Eh, as a pretty avid gamer I have to both agree with you and disagree with you.  I do think there are games (many, many games), which offer better overall experiences. But of the ones listed, really only "Life" is what I would call a truly bad design (Candy Land, if meant for anyone older than 4 is also bad, but as its actually meant for four year olds, its fine for what it is - a random race game which teaches colors). The others are actually decent for what they are. 

There are plenty of mass-market games that come and go, but the evergreen are evergreen for a reason. Firstly, they are generally very easy to learn. That right there is a huge plus. Sure Risk devolves easily into a lopsided game, but you can learn it in about 5 minutes, which for a war game is pretty good. Clue is subject to roll and move, but other than that, as a deduction game it's solid. Scrabble in particular is hard to beat, imo for what it does, though I think Word on the Street might come really close to having higher mass-market appeal. Even Monopoly, so often derided, if (huge caveat) you play it as actually written (stop putting money in Free Parking people! It makes the game last forever...), offers an experience that can be pretty rewarding. 

Many "gamer's games" are actually fairly complex with a much higher learning curve than Scrabble or Risk. While there is reward, imo, for mastering such games, many people simply do not have the inclination. That being said, there are gateway games which have crossover to mass markets and being able to create such a game is actually a very big accomplishment. (Hello Alan Moon!)  

What we gamers need to do is learn to recognize such games (Ticket to Ride, Splendor, Settlers of Catan, Telestrations, King of Tokyo etc.) and convince our friends and family members to play them with us, and then go out and buy them. But learn to do so without condescension for the games they already know and might like.


----------



## Grainger (Apr 21, 2015)

Wicht said:


> There are plenty of mass-market games that come and go, but the evergreen are evergreen for a reason. Firstly, they are generally very easy to learn. That right there is a huge plus. Sure Risk devolves easily into a lopsided game, but you can learn it in about 5 minutes, which for a war game is pretty good. Clue is subject to roll and move, but other than that, as a deduction game it's solid. Scrabble in particular is hard to beat, imo for what it does, though I think Word on the Street might come really close to having higher mass-market appeal. Even Monopoly, so often derided, if (huge caveat) you play it as actually written (stop putting money in Free Parking people! It makes the game last forever...), offers an experience that can be pretty rewarding.
> 
> Many "gamer's games" are actually fairly complex with a much higher learning curve than Scrabble or Risk. While there is reward, imo, for mastering such games, many people simply do not have the inclination. That being said, there are gateway games which have crossover to mass markets and being able to create such a game is actually a very big accomplishment. (Hello Alan Moon!)
> 
> What we gamers need to do is learn to recognize such games (Ticket to Ride, Splendor, Settlers of Catan, Telestrations, King of Tokyo etc.) and convince our friends and family members to play them with us, and then go out and buy them. But learn to do so without condescension for the games they already know and might like.




I agree with a lot of your points, but I'd still argue that most of the games listed are quite poor. I'm not saying you can't have fun playing them, but they really have been superseded by better designs, which do what the aforementioned titles do but better. That the "classics" still sell better is, in my opinion, mainly to do with inertia and marketing, at least in the UK - I don't know about the US. The exception would be Scrabble, which does what it does perfectly if you like that sort of thing. I'd also disagree that these "classics" are particularly easy to learn, compared to equivalent modern games (yes, there are far more complex modern games, but that's by the by).

To be honest, when I ripped into those games, I didn't mean to offend anyone - this is a gaming forum, and I assumed awareness of how badly regarded those games are with board gamers. It was more of an in-joke than anything, that I though everyone would be in on. I didn't know there would be avid fans who would be offended. In short I'd say that if you like these games, well and good, but please do have an explore on boardgamegeek, or ask around at the next con you go to. I wager you'll be pleasantly surprised at the variety of great games on offer, and you won't (or hardly ever) will want to go back. But if you don't like then, then sure, go back to your favourites.


----------



## aka_pg (Apr 21, 2015)

I'd still love to see a D&D themed M:tG expansion!  Imagine casting Bigby's Crushing Hand or attacking with Orcus!  I won't hold my breath, however.


----------



## aka_pg (Apr 21, 2015)

Just realized that last comment might have seemed random.  I was responding somewhat to the Candyland as D&D setting.  How about a Ouija and Cthulhu tie-in?  OK... I'm done now.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Apr 21, 2015)

LordWeh said:


> According to a quick google search, it means being on a winning streak, or having a sudden burst of energy. I'd not heard the expression before, either.
> 
> Still, good news for 5th =)



It can also mean going on a drunken bender!


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 21, 2015)

I wouldn't mind a _Forgotten Realms_ book with areas giving specialized backgrounds and specialty priests.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 21, 2015)

Grainger said:


> To be honest, when I ripped into those games, I didn't mean to offend anyone - this is a gaming forum, and I assumed awareness of how badly regarded those games are with board gamers. It was more of an in-joke than anything, that I though everyone would be in on. I didn't know there would be avid fans who would be offended. In short I'd say that if you like these games, well and good, but please do have an explore on boardgamegeek, or ask around at the next con you go to. I wager you'll be pleasantly surprised at the variety of great games on offer, and you won't (or hardly ever) will want to go back. But if you don't like then, then sure, go back to your favourites.




Eh, I wasn't offended myself - just think its too easy to be dismissive without considering the actual good qualities of some classics... 

Also, do consider that most people think of Board Games as something to play with the kids, and that if this is your primary reason to game, then your needs are different. For example - Clue's (Cluedo if you prefer) deduction mechanism is actually a great introduction for children into that particular genre. Indeed, if one could figure out a good replacement for the roll and move, it would be a pretty decent introduction game for adults too. However, I would suggest that when, as should happen, you reach the point where everyone solves it at the same time, that one should consider expanding into slightly harder games like Mystery Express, or Mystery of the Abbey. But that last point assumes that one actually likes Board Games. 

So, anyway, I also agree with you that there are games that do the same things better and that gamers that like board games should look deeper. I would point them to The Dice Tower myself for entertaining reviews. (BGG is great but a bit daunting for newbies).

And since we are on the subject: Dice Tower's Top Ten "Better" Games


----------



## WackyAnne (Apr 21, 2015)

*New EE Bonds & Backgrounds from Adventurers League*



ZeshinX said:


> *snip*
> Time will tell.  I'd like some options.  More backgrounds, more class options, setting books (no, the story line modules alone don't cut it for setting support)....well, time will tell.




The Adventurers League created some new bonds & backgrounds for the Elemental Evil storyline, some fairly specific to the Expeditions adventures in Mulmaster on the Moonsea, but many useable and/or adaptable for more general use. Free for anyone to download:

http://dndadventurersleague.org/elemental-evil-bonds-and-backgrounds-for-mulmaster/

And don't miss the very recently released DM's supplement for Princes of the Apocalypse with new spells, magic items, and monsters (again, all free, relieving DMs from _having_ to buy the MM or DMG to run the campaign) 

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/PrincesApocalypse_AdvSupplementv1.0_PrinterFriendly.pdf


----------



## Zak S (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> This is why all the doom and gloom threads are (in my view) ridiculous. So many posters seem unable to distinguish what they want to play their games from the commercial context that WotC/Hasbro cares about.



I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:

"I'm sorry, internet, I was talking out of my ass. I can't be trusted, ignore me from now on."

?


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 21, 2015)

Zak S said:


> I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:
> 
> "I'm sorry, internet, I was talking out of my ass. I can't be trusted, ignore me from now on."
> 
> ?




You shouldn't ignore someone who admits they are wrong.

Now if they refuse to admit it....


----------



## jodyjohnson (Apr 21, 2015)

Zak S said:


> I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:
> 
> "I'm sorry, internet, I was talking out of my ass. I can't be trusted, ignore me from now on."
> 
> ?




When the POTUS during the State of the Union address mentions playing a rousing game of 5th edition D&D and the TV commentators and opposing party rebuttal both remark "That would be awesome!".  And then Washington DC becomes the hotbed of D&D in the nation.

Hypothetical Speaker of the House:  "Mr. President your policies are a disgrace!  Just like 4th edition.  But I would play a Ranger in your campaign - D&D that is."


----------



## Zak S (Apr 21, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> You shouldn't ignore someone who admits they are wrong.
> 
> Now if they refuse to admit it....



Good point. A person who admits they were wrong's way better than someone who doesn't.

But I think a healthy dose of "Ok, I've been wrong before so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt…" demonstrates even more self-knowledge.

Personally, I never claimed to have any idea how 5e was gonna go either way.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2015)

Grainger said:


> I'm aware that they do very good business (here in the UK  most of them dominate the board games market), but as a board gamer, I can tell you that as games, it sucks that they're still the top sellers. They range from (arguably) passable to truly terrible designs. Modern board games moved past them eons ago, and continue to come out with dozens of exciting, innovative designs every year, providing the same good aspects of these games (e.g. trading, acquisition, conflict) but making them into easier to play experiences with more depth, and much better components. The aforementioned "classics" may have stood the test of time, but largely because people aren't aware that much better designs exist (it's easier for Hasbro to market the same old titles that everyone already knows), and 90% of their billion copies sit unplayed gathering dust in cupboards except at Christmas where they're pulled out to give board games a bad name yet again.



 I'm sure that's all true from the dedicated hobbyist perspective - it's pretty true of RPGs as well as boardgames - but that's what people buy.  

Besides, the recent resurgence in boardgames has been marked by more modern games, more than old stand-bys hasn't it?  So Hasbro's classics are doing well with boardgames being more popular, but they aren't driving it, just along for the ride, perhaps?


----------



## Grainger (Apr 21, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Eh, I wasn't offended myself - just think its too easy to be dismissive without considering the actual good qualities of some classics...
> 
> Also, do consider that most people think of Board Games as something to play with the kids, and that if this is your primary reason to game, then your needs are different. For example - Clue's (Cluedo if you prefer) deduction mechanism is actually a great introduction for children into that particular genre. Indeed, if one could figure out a good replacement for the roll and move, it would be a pretty decent introduction game for adults too. However, I would suggest that when, as should happen, you reach the point where everyone solves it at the same time, that one should consider expanding into slightly harder games like Mystery Express, or Mystery of the Abbey. But that last point assumes that one actually likes Board Games.
> 
> ...




All fair points!

I totally agree about Clue/do - it's a good, staright-forward deduction game, but I just hate that it's marred by the pointless roll-and-move aspect that can be incredibly frustrating, and I wish they'd update that aspect of it.

I also agree about the family games/gamers difference - personally I tend to go for the easier games anyway, and I just think it's a shame that the default family games aren't some of these, rather than the old designs. Or, at the very least, I wish the list of staples was widened to admit some more modern designs. For example, Incan Gold is a really quick, easy to learn, easy to play game that supports lots of players, can be played by six-year-olds, and (IMO) is extremely fun. And that's just one out of hundreds of great easy-to-play modern games.

I'd recommend Shut Up and Sit Down as a review site, because it actually focuses on what you feel (or think) when playing the games, rather than fixating on the rules. Too many board games review sites think they need to laboriously explain all of the rules in their review with an opinion tacked on at the end, and they end up with boring reviews.


----------



## Grainger (Apr 21, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Besides, the recent resurgence in boardgames has been marked by more modern games, more than old stand-bys hasn't it?  So Hasbro's classics are doing well with boardgames being more popular, but they aren't driving it, just along for the ride, perhaps?




Yes, board games have had a big resurgence (relatively speaking; I don't think the sales of King of Tokyo is going to trouble Monopoly any time soon), and that's come from more modern games. Interesting point about Hasbro's classics being along for the ride - I don't know if this is the case. I've also seen it put down to the recession - people are staying in, and leaning on traditional things they may find comfortable (and if that's board games, then it's probably games from their childhood). This would all be speculation, though.


----------



## Mercurius (Apr 21, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And a conservative release schedule being *wise* is entirely the point.  There is a LOT of time to release books, as we haven't even reached the end of Year One yet.




Yes, agreed, but...  



DEFCON 1 said:


> Here was the release schedule for 4E:...




As [MENTION=58401]doctorhook[/MENTION] pointed out, your memory is rather selective - there were a lot more releases for 4E. Actually, both 3.5 and 4E seemed to go with the basic idea of one major release in the form of a hardcover every month, and one or two minor products to go along with.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Right now, we have no idea if 5E will see this same amount of support.




Yes we do. I think we can say, with a good deal of certainty, that 5E won't see the same amount of support as 2E, 3E, or 4E - and that's probably a good thing. But the folks at WotC have essentially said as much.



DEFCON 1 said:


> My guess is when we look back on 5E from a decade or so in the future, it might end up getting up there.  The only difference being those eight core books (or publications on par with those kinds of books) are going to be spread out over Years One through Five, rather than entirely crammed into Years One and Two.  And yeah... that's annoying players who like a fast publication cycle because they now have nothing to read and instead are just stuck _playing the game_ instead... but from everything we've heard from the Powers That Be... that's the new paradigm for this newest edition and we all just gotta accept it.




A couple things. One, doctorhook already pointed out how your numbers are a bit off - so these years don't really compute. I also think you're a bit cynical in there. Part of the reason people want some of the main sourcebooks to be published sooner than later is that certain styles of campaigns rely upon specific "secondary core books" - like Manual of the Planes, for instance. Even so, so what if they simply want to buy and read? This doesn't mean they aren't actually playing.



DEFCON 1 said:


> But I do find it funny hearing the myriad of people who keep spouting here on the boards that if WotC doesn't publish faster that the game is going to die on the vine... cause I think it was proven quite conclusively that doing it the other way during 4E didn't work either.  And I would suspect that the men and women in the D&D department of Wizards also know this.




I haven't been reading the boards that much so can't really speak to these alleged people spouting doom and gloom - I haven't seen much. Anyhow, what you say above exhibits a degree of the either/or fallacy. It doesn't have to be either bare minimalism or outright gluttony. There is a middle-ground possible, and given the lack of communication, I think it is a fair assessment to think that WotC is taking the bare minimalist approach in reaction to the outright gluttony of past editions. I personally think this is unfortunate if true, that a middle ground is the better route.



doctorhook said:


> I agree. My point lately has been that I really believe WotC _would_ be releasing more books right now if they had the budget to develop them, and more fundamentally, if they thought those books would be suitably profitable. We know that 4E was ultimately not great for the brand, and I definitely feel that WotC has not been in a gambling mood with regards to 5E's release schedule; we got a starter set (cheap but with a strong adventure), three core books (top notch quality overall), then two outsourced adventure paths, and currently silence about what's next. In the past, we always new about some other book coming down the pipe within six months, and while I'm sure stuff currently is under development, the fact that they no longer want to announce their plans suggests they don't want to make any commitments until profitability is assured. (Obviously books are a diminishing and TTRPGing is a diminishing hobby, but IMO there's still more demand for new D&D books than they appear to be capitalizing upon for now.




Yes, very well said. My guess is that we get a major release at GenCon - either a FR campaign setting or a major splat or, more conservatively but also more likely, the next story arc.



doctorhook said:


> I definitely do not advocate a return to this level of output, but to me it does feel like 5E has left us hanging.




Yes, agree - yet for some reason many people seem stuck in the either/or view.



doctorhook said:


> I think you're oversimplifying here. 4E was a failure because of a bunch of factors, and their release schedule was only one part of that. Many of us want to buy more products exactly because we're enjoying 5E as much as we are (and in a couple cases, because it feels like certain options were not given the same breadth of development that others were). If we're standing here with our wallets open, what's wrong with asking for more?




I just can't disagree with you, good doctor . 



doctorhook said:


> This is basically what kept me from ever getting into PF: it had all the problems of 3E (including the bloat), but newer, more often, and more expensive. I didn't find that compelling.




_Again_...more agreement. That said, I will say that I've bought tons of Paizo product because they're just damn good, high quality, with lots of stuff for reading pleasure and idea-mining.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 21, 2015)

Good on you DnD, a high five from the CEO - nice job!


----------



## Saplatt (Apr 21, 2015)

Zak S said:


> I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:
> 
> "I'm sorry, internet, I was talking out of my ass. I can't be trusted, ignore me from now on."
> 
> ?




Infinity and beyond.


----------



## Uchawi (Apr 21, 2015)

It really comes down to if you enjoy 5E, then buy it. For other like me, I hope success will prompt others to release something a little more complex, and level the playing field for martial versus caster classes for flexibility of choice. But the true test, regardless of what I think, is whether they can get over the initial tear of play testers and nostalgia folks buying it. What matters is long term success, and if it is successful then congratulations!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2015)

"Dungeons & Dragons, Risk, Scrabble, Trouble, Life, Candy Land, CLUE and OUIJA"

This just seems like such an odd, unrelated list, at first glance.  Sure, all owned by Hasbro, all 'games' (though very different games).  They are all 'old' games, though.  Two of them originally from the 19th century, only D&D less than 50 years old, and it the venerable 'first' RPG.



Grainger said:


> Yes, board games have had a big resurgence, and that's come from more modern games. Interesting point about Hasbro's classics being along for the ride - I don't know if this is the case. I've also seen it put down to the recession - people are staying in, and leaning on traditional things they may find comfortable (and if that's board games, then it's probably games from their childhood). This would all be speculation, though.



 Sure, but speculation is fun if you don't get too attached to it. 

All the games on the list being 'old,' could support the speculation that the recession is driving people back to traditional, cheap forms of in-home entertainment.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 22, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure, but speculation is fun if you don't get too attached to it.




The thing is, that's a big "if".  There is a well-known phenomenon that, once a person has taken a position publicly, it can be very difficult for them to acknowledge that it was incorrect, even if it didn't really mean all that much to them at the time they said it.  Admitting you were wrong, even in idle speculation, is not something people in general are very good at.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 22, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The thing is, that's a big "if".  There is a well-known phenomenon that, once a person has taken a position publicly, it can be very difficult for them to acknowledge that it was incorrect, even if it didn't really mean all that much to them at the time they said it.  Admitting you were wrong, even in idle speculation, is not something people in general are very good at.



What, even when posting anonymously on-line?


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 22, 2015)

Can I just call attention to the civility of this thread?

I don't know if it's the Grand Unifying Force of Fifth Edition, the current subscriber make-up of ENWorld, or the simple fact that we're all getting older, but I feel like I'm noticing a trend.  The sheer amount of "XP given to such-and-such poster" is crazy, and this thread isn't the only one.

So, thank you to everyone posting in this thread, and in the ENWorld forums, of late.  Apologies for misunderstandings, recognition of alternative viewpoints, appreciation for others' ideas...

I've been a regular here for years, but I have to say...  this is a pretty nice place to hang out again.  So, thank you.


----------



## doctorhook (Apr 22, 2015)

Shout out to my boy [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], with whom I am apparently one mind.



Zak S said:


> Personally, I never claimed to have any idea how 5e was gonna go either way.



Nothing is stopping you, friend. You have eyes, ears, experience, and opinions, haven't you? You're definitely correct that self-awareness is healthy, but it's natural to hope and speculate for the future, especially about one of your interests. We here talk about the future of the hobby because we care about it, that's all.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 22, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> While it's cool that he singled out D&D for an adjective ("on a tear"), D&D sales in Q1 2014 were likely... non-existent. And it's uncertain if he knows a new edition was released (he doesn't call out 5e). So he might just be comparing the numbers and seeing the *huge* spike in revenue without context.




I suspect that this might be the case. Having extremely low sales in Q1 and Q2 (mostly novels and such), and then suddenly the Starter Set, the PHB, MM, and HotDQ in Q3, and RoT and DMG in Q4 (and the MM was released at the end of Q3, so a fair percentage of its sales might have been in Q4). It would definitely look on the surface like D&D was on a tear.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 22, 2015)

Maggan said:


> I choose to read good news as good news. Why borrow trouble?




Because we are the internet, and we exist to destroy all that is joyful in the world with incessant negativity.


----------



## Mercurius (Apr 22, 2015)

hbarsquared said:


> Can I just call attention to the civility of this thread?
> 
> I don't know if it's the Grand Unifying Force of Fifth Edition, the current subscriber make-up of ENWorld, or the simple fact that we're all getting older, but I feel like I'm noticing a trend.  The sheer amount of "XP given to such-and-such poster" is crazy, and this thread isn't the only one.
> 
> ...




In other words, thank you [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] for giving us a game that there's so little to bicker about.

Or rather, damn it [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION]! You killed our nerdrage (and took its stuff)!


----------



## Talmek (Apr 22, 2015)

I must admit, I'm pretty stoked about the fact that things are "nice" here. As a matter of fact, it was negative interactions in the WotC forum that brought me here, and I've yet to be disappointed!

No, please, I'm begging you...don't be *that* guy...


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2015)

Grainger said:


> I'm aware that they do very good business (here in the UK  most of them dominate the board games market), but as a board gamer, I can tell you that as games, it sucks that they're still the top sellers. They range from (arguably) passable to truly terrible designs. Modern board games moved past them eons ago





Grainger said:


> I'd still argue that most of the games listed are quite poor. I'm not saying you can't have fun playing them, but they really have been superseded by better designs
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To be honest, when I ripped into those games, I didn't mean to offend anyone - this is a gaming forum, and I assumed awareness of how badly regarded those games are with board gamers. It was more of an in-joke than anything, that I though everyone would be in on. I didn't know there would be avid fans who would be offended.



Like [MENTION=6701829]Trickster Spirit[/MENTION] I found this pretty amusing, because the same line you run against the "trad" boardgames is the line frequently run against D&D - in the 80s by fans of process sim systems like Runequest, Rolemaster and (arguably) HERO, and more recently by fans of "indie" RPGs (who tend to have at least some overlap with 4e fandom, at least on these boards).



Grainger said:


> D&D 5e is actually a good game when compared to other modern games of the same type. But sure, I guess indie RPG fans probably feel similarly about it. I guess the main thing is to try what's out there and decide what you like.



I think that 5e mixes elements of "modern"/"indie" RPG design with elements of trad design. It's less "modern" than 4e was - I think a reasonable comparison is 13th Age, but they take slightly different approaches to a few key points, leading to divergence overall.

One thing I think it shows - which Mearls made quite a point of in some of his columns during the 5e playtest - is that, at least from the point of view of prospective RPG customers (and maybe game customers more generally?), design is not the be-all and end-all.


----------



## Zak S (Apr 22, 2015)

doctorhook said:


> Shout out to my boy @_*Mercurius*_, with whom I am apparently one mind.
> 
> Nothing is stopping you, friend. You have eyes, ears, experience, and opinions, haven't you? You're definitely correct that self-awareness is healthy, but it's natural to hope and speculate for the future, especially about one of your interests..




There's an important thing stopping me:

I do not ever want someone to think something that isn't true *just* because of something I said or wrote.

If I go "I am not sure about this but here's my prediction..." and someone takes my word as gospel and I'm wrong , that's their fault. I gave them every opportunity not to. I said I wasn't sure, which means even what I know doesn't guarantee it.

If I go "Ok, I consulted on 5e and much of what I know is NDA'ed and talk to lots of people who play D&D all the time I tell you what, this is what's gonna happen..." and someone believes me and I'm wrong, then it's partially my own fault for pretending I knew something I was only guessing about, despite having spent time with the problem.

A lot of people forget that while you and I and all the commenters may be jaded RPGers who take all pronouncements with a grain of salt, a lot of people who are new to the hobby (or the internet discussion of it) may simply believe what they read, especially if it is presented as fact or as seemingly informed by information they don't have access to.

Every time someone says something that isn't true, it not only adds to the possibility of someone making a mistake about that thing, it adds to the general noise factor--the degree of presumed salt you have to take when talking to people.

Ideally, there should be zero noise. You want to know what Caves of the Pig Minotaur is like, you come, you ask questions, you get 100% true answers and clear explanations of personal experience with the thing in question with total context and you waste no time because you can trust everything you hear.

And then--wonderfully--you can get off the internet and go do something else.

Every time there's something that isn't quite right, you're making people more skeptical and slowing own that process, introducing sludge into the system.

So I appreciate people who say only things that they can take to the bank and report guesses as guesses and only facts as certainties.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 22, 2015)

Maybe it's just my cynical or pessimistic side showing through, but am I the only one who feels a little concerned that the Hasbro CEO is noticing D&D?  It makes me start imagining things like a Michael Bay D&D movie -shudder-


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Maybe it's just my cynical or pessimistic side showing through, but am I the only one who feels a little concerned that the Hasbro CEO is noticing D&D?  It makes me start imagining things like a Michael Bay D&D movie -shudder-




Yeah, because turning D&D into a BILLION dollar movie franchise would just suck so hard.  :/


----------



## Zak S (Apr 22, 2015)

Pretty easy Gordian knot to untangle:

1. Good, big-budget D&D movie: Good.

2. Bad, big-budget D&D movie: Bad.

3. No big-budget D&D movie at all: not great, but, depending on POV, maybe better than 2, maybe not.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, because turning D&D into a BILLION dollar movie franchise would just suck so hard.  :/




Transformers may be a million dollar movie franchise, but it somehow managed to accomplish that with REALLY crappy films.  If they make D&D movies, I want them to make good ones, not special effects extravaganzas where one character actually carries a laminated card to explain to the audience why he can legally plow the protagonists underage daughter.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2015)

Sure, I'd love that too.  OTOH, the fact that those four movies have actually made more money than D&D has ever made in 40 years, means that I would much rather have successful than good, if I'm only allowed one or the other.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 22, 2015)

I'd prefer Michael Bay or latter day Peter Jackaon style D&D movies to no D&D movies, hands down.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Maybe it's just my cynical or pessimistic side showing through, but am I the only one who feels a little concerned that the Hasbro CEO is noticing D&D?  It makes me start imagining things like a Michael Bay D&D movie -shudder-




Michael Bay might make a cool D&D movie.


----------



## Grainger (Apr 22, 2015)

hbarsquared said:


> Can I just call attention to the civility of this thread?
> 
> I don't know if it's the Grand Unifying Force of Fifth Edition, the current subscriber make-up of ENWorld, or the simple fact that we're all getting older, but I feel like I'm noticing a trend.  The sheer amount of "XP given to such-and-such poster" is crazy, and this thread isn't the only one.
> 
> ...




Shut up!


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 22, 2015)

Well, that's great for the brand, I guess. Too bad I'm not into 5e.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Apr 22, 2015)

hbarsquared said:


> Can I just call attention to the civility of this thread?




Perhaps the civility is a matter of perspective. Having your own preferences slammed on the first page, and calls for anyone upset with a particular fact about 5e (low rate of new publications) to be sent to their own forum so they don't bother everyone else, don't really strike me as "civil." Or people saying that admitting you made an incorrect or unwise call in the past means that you should tell everyone to ignore what you say because if you're wrong once you're _obviously_ tainted forever and can't see the right of things.

Still, it's nice to know D&D is pleasing its corporate overlords. I generally agree with the idea that this is, almost certainly, people merely looking at the sales differences between "essentially nothing produced for ages" and "suddenly almost all the books that they have any current plans of publishing for 5e." That kind of viewing, especially if viewed solely as a year-over-year or quarterly increase, rather than as absolute dollar values each quarter, can easily give the casual reader an impression that doesn't really hold.

Or, to put it another way, edition launches _should always_ be "on a tear," and when production (effectively) ceases for ~2 years prior to that launch, it _should_ be a dramatic change compared to the prior several quarters!

But, again, this is a good sign for D&D's future as a published game. I dislike several elements of 5e *vehemently*, but if it's selling, it's keeping the game alive.


----------



## delericho (Apr 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Maybe it's just my cynical or pessimistic side showing through, but am I the only one who feels a little concerned that the Hasbro CEO is noticing D&D?




It's a little risky, because if what we're seeing is a sales spike and it suddenly collapses then it does so in full view of the Big Cheese, which isn't good.

But, on the other hand, if this _isn't_ just a sales spike, then having that attention is a very good thing.



> It makes me start imagining things like a Michael Bay D&D movie -shudder-




I'm inclined to think that the best hope for a good, or at least entertaining, D&D movie would be to cast Vin Diesel and the Rock and have them do whatever it is they've been doing with the last few "Fast & Furious" movies.

Everyone seems to try to do fantasy in the big epic, and dead serious, style of "Lord of the Rings", and almost nobody manages to make it work - why not go for unapologetically entertaining?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> Too bad I'm not into 5e.



I'm not really into 5e either, but I do like D&D, and I'm happy to see Mearls et al publish a successful game.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 22, 2015)

This looks to me like a classic PR move and it seems to be getting the results it was intended for. 

This is a new edition edition that is coming off the back of a very controversial previous edition followed by a lengthy period of no products so of course it's going to sell well in the beginning. You can't dissect the whole game if you don't own the books. I wouldn't look at this as a "see their approach is working" because it is just the new edition surge. 

We well see how it really pans out in about a year.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2015)

Zak S said:


> I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:
> 
> "I'm sorry, internet, I was talking out of my ass. I can't be trusted, ignore me from now on."
> 
> ?



Apparently better than this!


----------



## Iosue (Apr 22, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> This looks to me like a classic PR move and it seems to be getting the results it was intended for.




Ah, yes.  The old "get an investment firm representative to ask the CEO of the parent company specifically about non-Magic games' performance during an investors meeting conference call, so that the CEO of the parent company can, while mentioning a bunch of other games and describing the flattish growth in the Games division, can make a throwaway comment about how D&D is doing good, knowing that people will crawl through five pages of transcript, find the comment and report on it on a pro-am newsblog site."

It truly is a classic.


----------



## darjr (Apr 22, 2015)

Those sly PR folks! We should a known!


----------



## neobolts (Apr 22, 2015)

Zak S said:


> I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:
> 
> "I'm sorry, internet, I was talking out of my ass. I can't be trusted, ignore me from now on."
> 
> ?




I am thrilled that 5e is doing well and it has become my preferred edition. There's this rational fear that the stewards of D&D have a tendancy to screw up a good thing. So as outside observers, we end up on the internet speculating on the trajectory of D&D. As of right now, IMO they seem to be on a positive track but do wish they were more open about what's in the pipeline.



KarinsDad said:


> I suspect that this might be the case. Having extremely low sales in Q1 and Q2 (mostly novels and such), and then suddenly the Starter Set, the PHB, MM, and HotDQ in Q3, and RoT and DMG in Q4 (and the MM was released at the end of Q3, so a fair percentage of its sales might have been in Q4). It would definitely look on the surface like D&D was on a tear.




I would imagine that the CEO is aware of the cyclical nature of the core book products, and that it's that this cycle exceeded projections. I think that he's also looking beyond that and going off the fact that the mobile games and the MMO seem to be exceeding expectations, and that they've secured a number of promising licenses.



Iosue said:


> Ah, yes.  The old "get an investment firm representative to ask the CEO of the parent company to ask specifically about non-Magic games' performance during an investors meeting conference call, so that the CEO of the parent company can, while mentioning a bunch of other games and describing the flattish grown in the Games division, can make a throwaway comment about how D&D is doing good, knowing that people will crawl through five pages of transcript, find the comment and report on it on a pro-am newsblog site."
> 
> It truly is a classic.




You are my new hero.


----------



## KarinsDad (Apr 22, 2015)

neobolts said:


> I would imagine that the CEO is aware of the cyclical nature of the core book products, and that it's that this cycle exceeded projections. I think that he's also looking beyond that and going off the fact that the mobile games and the MMO seem to be exceeding expectations, and that they've secured a number of promising licenses.




I don't know how information flows upwards at your company, but every place I've worked, information is collated by worker bees below who put the best possible face on it and send it up. Where manager worker bees reorganize it and put the best possible face on it and send it up. Where VP worker bees, etc. By the time information gets to the CEO, it's no longer the original data. It's been massaged and sanitized by at least one layer of other people.

I'm not sure your assumption here is necessarily accurate. It might be, but it might not. Obviously, the CEO knows some information about a minor product line in his company, but for us, D&D is a big dot deal. For Hasbro (revenue $4 billion), it's a tiny line item (maybe revenue in the ballpark of 1% or 2%, maybe someone here knows).

I do know that most companies try to have product go out to the marketplace constantly. There might be some heavier sales times (like Christmas for a gaming company) and there are obvious surges like when new product is released, but even if you look at WotC, they released product basically every single month of last year. It just wasn't all D&D and even D&D wasn't just 5E (novels, miniatures, boardgames, etc.).


----------



## neobolts (Apr 22, 2015)

KarinsDad said:


> I don't know how information flows upwards at your company, but every place I've worked, information is collated by worker bees below who put the best possible face on it and send it up. Where manager worker bees reorganize it and put the best possible face on it and send it up. Where VP worker bees, etc. By the time information gets to the CEO, it's no longer the original data. It's been massaged and sanitized by at least one layer of other people.
> 
> I'm not sure your assumption here is necessarily accurate. It might be, but it might not. Obviously, the CEO knows some information about a minor product line in his company, but for us, D&D is a big dot deal. For Hasbro (revenue $4 billion), it's a tiny line item (maybe revenue in the ballpark of 1% or 2%, maybe someone here knows).
> 
> I do know that most companies try to have product go out to the marketplace constantly. There might be some heavier sales times (like Christmas for a gaming company) and there are obvious surges like when new product is released, but even if you look at WotC, they released product basically every single month of last year. It just wasn't all D&D and even D&D wasn't just 5E (novels, miniatures, boardgames, etc.).




Absolutely. I have no illusions that the CEO would know the detailed ins-and-outs of the D&D product line, but "core sales are cyclical and currently at the top of a cycle, also licensing is up" seemed plausible. More plausible IMO than that the CEO is ignorant of the basics regarding why D&D is up. Could be wrong...I'll admit I've also had bosses that knew nothing about broad operational trends.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, because turning D&D into a BILLION dollar movie franchise would just suck so hard.  :/




Only if it was directed by Michael Bay....


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2015)

delericho said:


> Everyone seems to try to do fantasy in the big epic, and dead serious, style of "Lord of the Rings", and almost nobody manages to make it work - why not go for unapologetically entertaining?




Sure.  Just not Michael Bay.  Giant explosions with American flags waving in the background doesn't scream fantasy to me.


----------



## delericho (Apr 22, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Sure.  Just not Michael Bay.  Giant explosions with American flags waving in the background doesn't scream fantasy to me.




I'm pretty sure that, plus giant transforming robots, plus Megan Fox, is _someone's_ idea of fantasy...


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 22, 2015)

For it to gain mention, it must be a materially notable portion of income for Hasbro in general.  So any time it gets mention, it cannot purely be relative to an earlier internal number.  To be mentioned, it must be relative to Hasbro in general.  Otherwise they could be accused of misrepresenting the financial picture of Hasbro to investors.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 22, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Sure.  Just not Michael Bay.  Giant explosions with American flags waving in the background doesn't scream fantasy to me.



Just replace them with Forgotten Realms specific flags.

"WATERDEEP!  F*** YEAH!"


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2015)

delericho said:


> I'm pretty sure that, plus giant transforming robots, plus Megan Fox, is _someone's_ idea of fantasy...




Transformers would be a lot better turned into a 2-3 minute montage, true.


----------



## neobolts (Apr 22, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Sure.  Just not Michael Bay.  Giant explosions with American flags waving in the background doesn't scream fantasy to me.




I'm picturing a terrible Bay remake based on the old cartoon rather than a campaign setting. But with really attractive people on a roller coaster and lots of misplaced humor about genitals and body functions. Also racially insensitive jive talking quasits.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2015)

neobolts said:


> I'm picturing a terrible Bay remake based on the old cartoon rather than a campaign setting. But with really attractive people on a roller coaster and lots of misplaced humor about genitals and body functions. Also racially insensitive jive talking quasits.




Great.  Thanks for that image.  You're as bad as Bay, stop ruining my childhood!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 22, 2015)

KarinsDad said:


> I don't know how information flows upwards at your company, but every place I've worked, information is collated by worker bees below who put the best possible face on it and send it up. Where manager worker bees reorganize it and put the best possible face on it and send it up. Where VP worker bees, etc. By the time information gets to the CEO, it's no longer the original data. It's been massaged and sanitized by at least one layer of other people.
> 
> I'm not sure your assumption here is necessarily accurate. It might be, but it might not. Obviously, the CEO knows some information about a minor product line in his company, but for us, D&D is a big dot deal. For Hasbro (revenue $4 billion), it's a tiny line item (maybe revenue in the ballpark of 1% or 2%, maybe someone here knows).
> 
> I do know that most companies try to have product go out to the marketplace constantly. There might be some heavier sales times (like Christmas for a gaming company) and there are obvious surges like when new product is released, but even if you look at WotC, they released product basically every single month of last year. It just wasn't all D&D and even D&D wasn't just 5E (novels, miniatures, boardgames, etc.).




Exactly!

Most CEO's and upper management are given reports that have been passed along. D&D could have just been one of the products that were put on the list without the CEO knowing just how well it's actually doing. 

I say D&D is doing good but I don't think it's doing as good as some of you seem to believe. New editions always sell so that's nothing new nor is it any kind of evidence that it's going to last until it's expected expiration date.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 22, 2015)

Ed_Laprade said:


> It can also mean going on a drunken bender!




Which would have been VERY appropriate for 5E if the intoxicated condition from the first playtest packet made it into the final rules. Drunk fighters RULE!!


----------



## AriochQ (Apr 22, 2015)

Just my personal opinion, but I think Hasbro is missing the boat on D&D.  The game is 'on a tear' yet staffing still seems inadaquate, the release schedule is abysmal, no open game license, and very few third party contracts.  I am not a CEO, but if I was I would be irrate that we weren't making more money off a product that is 'on a tear'.  They are literally leaving money on the table at this point.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 22, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> Just my personal opinion, but I think Hasbro is missing the boat on D&D.  The game is 'on a tear' yet staffing still seems inadaquate, the release schedule is abysmal, no open game license, and very few third party contracts.  I am not a CEO, but if I was I would be irrate that we weren't making more money off a product that is 'on a tear'.  They are literally leaving money on the table at this point.



Two things:
1) You're assuming that they are not happy with the amount of money (probably gobs) they are making. I bet their profit margins are huge, since they aren't printing fifteen bajillion splat books.
2) For the last couple editions, they pump n' dumped, and we now know, for certain, that this is an abysmal long-term growth strategy. This time they want to grow the fatted calf instead of killing it with premature market saturation.


----------



## AriochQ (Apr 22, 2015)

Halivar said:


> Two things:
> 1) You're assuming that they are not happy with the amount of money (probably gobs) they are making. I bet their profit margins are huge, since they aren't printing fifteen bajillion splat books.
> 2) For the last couple editions, they pump n' dumped, and we now know, for certain, that this is an abysmal long-term growth strategy. This time they want to grow the fatted calf instead of killing it with premature market saturation.




There is a  happy medium between the current scarcity of product and the saturation of prior editions.  I am willing to bet there are many who, like me, would be willing to spend some disposible income on a decent product related to their gaming hobby.  I run a home brewed campaign (set in Greyhawk since I am old school lol) so the adventures they have published are not relevent to me.  I know it sounds somewhat silly that I am complaining they won't take my money, but I would love to see some supplements specific to 5th edition.

For example, I would love a 5th ed. Rogues Gallery (like I said, I am old school).  Sure I can go online and pull sheets for 5th ed NPC's, but having them all in one book is sort of nice when you need one on the fly.  There are a ton of other things they could put out that people would be willing to purchase.  That would be nowhere near market saturation.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 22, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> For example, I would love a 5th ed. Rogues Gallery (like I said, I am old school).  Sure I can go online and pull sheets for 5th ed NPC's, but having them all in one book is sort of nice when you need one on the fly.  There are a ton of other things they could put out that people would be willing to purchase.  That would be nowhere near market saturation.



TBF, there's hasn't been a need for a Rogue's Gallery since the advent of the internet, and its attendant cornucopia of NPC generators (shameless plug: my sig has the very bestest OSRIC henchmen generator _on the planet Earth_). I visit each one (for variety), randomly pump out ten or so characters, and print them out to keep in a folder.


----------



## AriochQ (Apr 22, 2015)

Halivar said:


> TBF, there's hasn't been a need for a Rogue's Gallery since the advent of the internet, and its attendant cornucopia of NPC generators (shameless plug: my sig has the very bestest OSRIC henchmen generator _on the planet Earth_). I visit each one (for variety), randomly pump out ten or so characters, and print them out to keep in a folder.




Except nearly all the generators are 'generic'.  Since they are so tight fisted with OGL, there are no 5th ed. specific.  Could I go through and bring them up to 5th ed standards?  Sure, but I am no longer 17 years old.  I have a job, wife, family, etc.  I would rather spend $20 to open a book and have a 5th ed. ready NPC with a decently fleshed out personality and background ready to go.

That being said, not of that really relates to the larger point.  Hasbro is missing up on a chance to make money on a successful product and the CEO probably doesn't realize it.  If I owned stock in such a company, I would be very unhappy.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 22, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> Hasbro is missing up on a chance to make money on a successful product and the CEO probably doesn't realize it.  If I owned stock in such a company, I would be very unhappy.



Part of what I'm saying is that the community can do a lot of these things WotC _could_ be selling for free, and better than WotC can or will do (going by historical precedence). Now, this is an excellent argument for a near-future public license, which, having been obtained, will free WotC to focus on things that will grow the hobby and bring in new players. IMHO, these are official adventures (which I do not run, but are vital to grow the hobby) and organized play (which, from all reports, they are excelling at).

One of the nice things about being owned by a conglomerate owned by another conglomerate is that the D&D team is not answerable to shareholders who have zero interest in growing the hobby. True, a shareholder would like a pump n' dump, with the promise of a new edition to yield another profit spike. I am thankful the game is helmed by people who love the game, want it to grow, and are, for the moment, without high expectations from their owners' owners' owners.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 22, 2015)

Zak S said:


> I always wonder--how well does 5e have to do before all of the people who said it would go down because of this, that or the other reason come forward and go:






AriochQ said:


> Just my personal opinion, but I think Hasbro is missing the boat on D&D.  The game is 'on a tear' yet staffing still seems inadaquate, the release schedule is abysmal, no open game license, and very few third party contracts.  I am not a CEO, but if I was I would be irrate that we weren't making more money off a product that is 'on a tear'.  They are literally leaving money on the table at this point.




Heh.


----------



## AriochQ (Apr 22, 2015)

NPR just did a piece on how WoTC made an early decision to maximize long term profits over short term profits for MtG.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/03/11/392381112/episode-609-the-curse-of-the-black-lotus

Ideally, Hasbro with think similarly for D&D.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 22, 2015)

D&D books aren't collectables.


----------



## AriochQ (Apr 22, 2015)

goldomark said:


> D&D books aren't collectables.




You haven't seen my closet.  I still have my dice from the original boxed set c. 1977.  The corners on the d20 are so round it will roll for days!


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 22, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> You haven't seen my closet.



I haven't seen it, but I know Ice Man ain't in it anymore! *rimshot*


Um. Pretty lame. Even for me.


----------



## jhingelshod (Apr 22, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> What does "on a tear" mean? Aren't tears bad?




I parts of the UK 'going for a tear' is slang for having a bowel movement....doubt this was the intended meaning though?


----------



## Halivar (Apr 22, 2015)

goldomark said:


> D&D books aren't collectables.



The good ones are. You have no idea how long I searched for a mint condition Rules Cylopedia.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 22, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> Michael Bay might make a cool D&D movie.




I'm certain it would be cool.  Tansformers is cool.  The problem is that I want it to be good.  I have no doubt that a Michael Bay D&D movie would have excellent fireballs and lightning bolts and plenty of action.  South Park really nailed it, Michael Bay doesn't know the difference between plot and special effects.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I'm certain it would be cool.  Tansformers is cool.  The problem is that I want it to be good.  I have no doubt that a Michael Bay D&D movie would have excellent fireballs and lightning bolts and plenty of action.  South Park really nailed it, Michael Bay doesn't know the difference between plot and special effects.




If they would just use some of the novels, specifically the Drizz'zt novels, we would be good.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 22, 2015)

delericho said:


> Everyone seems to try to do fantasy in the big epic, and dead serious, style of "Lord of the Rings", and almost nobody manages to make it work - why not go for unapologetically entertaining?




I wouldn't mind "unapologetically entertaining" (I actually liked that James Franco movie, Your Highness).  Again, as long as it's good.

Besides, D&D doesn't have to do pure fantasy.  I'd be just as happy to see a Ravenloft horror film or a Spelljammer space pirates film as I would be to see a pure fantasy D&D film.  Again, as long as it's good.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 22, 2015)

In general, I agree: Michael Bay makes terrible movies. But the _first_ viewing of the _first_ Michael Bay Transformers, when that truck transformed into Optimus Prime and I heard Peter Cullins' voice again... I was 5 years old again, and for the rest of the movie I squealed like a little kid at Christmas. Even with 3 crappy sequels, for that one magical moment he gave me, I could never, ever condemn him. And to be honest, I think he could do the same thing with D&D.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2015)

jhingelshod said:


> I parts of the UK 'going for a tear' is slang for having a bowel movement....doubt this was the intended meaning though?




We use "going on a tear" in Canada, just not to be confused with "going for a rip," which apparently means going for a drive, but I hadn't heard the term until that hilarious song (which I won't link, as it's NSFW).  Probably an eastern thing...


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 22, 2015)

Halivar said:


> In general, I agree: Michael Bay makes terrible movies. But the _first_ viewing of the _first_ Michael Bay Transformers, when that truck transformed into Optimus Prime and I heard Peter Cullins' voice again... I was 5 years old again, and for the rest of the movie I squealed like a little kid at Christmas. Even with 3 crappy sequels, for that one magical moment he gave me, I could never, ever condemn him. And to be honest, I think he could do the same thing with D&D.




The first one is probably the "least worst" (I just can't bring myself to say "best" about any Michael Bay film).

Of course, it's not like Michael Bay is alone on my "nuh-uh, no way" list for D&D film directors.  With Shamalan's track record (and after seeing what he did to Avatar), I want someone to pimp smack him if he even tries to throw his hat in the ring.

I do think Guillermo Del Toro could do an amazing D&D movie; I'd especially like to see what he does with mind flayers.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2015)

Halivar said:


> In general, I agree: Michael Bay makes terrible movies. But the _first_ viewing of the _first_ Michael Bay Transformers, when that truck transformed into Optimus Prime and I heard Peter Cullins' voice again... I was 5 years old again, and for the rest of the movie I squealed like a little kid at Christmas. Even with 3 crappy sequels, for that one magical moment he gave me, I could never, ever condemn him. And to be honest, I think he could do the same thing with D&D.




I get that.  I had the exact same feeling seeing Spider-Man first swinging through New York and the LotR teaser trailer showing the Fellowship march across the screen.  My goosebumps had goosebumps.

I would just hope a new D&D movie, while being high action, would be a bit more cerebral than Mr. Explosions Are Cool is capable of.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 22, 2015)

I guess I'm one of the few that took _The Transformer_ movies for what they were: tent pole films with a cliché plot and amazing special effects. I never understood the hate for them. It's not like _The Transformers_ was based on a fantasy classic like _Lord of the Rings_ or even Harry Potter. It was based on a child's cartoon with simple moral lessons and characters. I would like a more from a D&D movie, but I'm not expecting some fantasy classic like _Lord of the Rings_. I'd be happy with something like the original _Conan_.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 22, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I do think Guillermo Del Toro could do an amazing D&D movie; I'd especially like to see what he does with mind flayers.



....I would be all "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" if they did that.

Though speaking of D&D movies being made by famous directors makes me wonder what, like, a Cohen Brothers D&D would look like (a madcap adventure for a pile of gold featuring actual horrible things!), or a Wes Anderson D&D (well-dressed cosplayers trading quips with erudite monsters?), or a Scorsese D&D (a group of thugs on the wrong side of the law can't bring themselves to trust each other) or a Nolan D&D ("Why do you keep returning to the dungeon?" "Because I need to FIND HER!")...

I think one of the strengths of the D&D brand is that I have played games in ALL those modes, and then some. I think that D&D doesn't need to rely on one vibe, it just needs to *be good*, and the rest will follow.

"Be good" might mean explosions and Megan Fox and a Beholder that talks in catchphrases, but....you know, for certain values of "good," that works, if it embraces the cornball and delivers some good action scenes. But even if it does that, it shouldn't be LIMITED to that.

Obvious choices would include Sam Raimi, Joss Whedon, and Peter Jackson...and even they would do very different kinds of D&D movies.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 22, 2015)

Agamon said:


> I would just hope a new D&D movie, while being high action, would be a bit more cerebral than Mr. Explosions Are Cool is capable of.



See, I think that would be a major mistake. While I like my campaigns serious and my plots intelligent and surprising, I still think the first rule is Fun. If the movie is not Fun, it will fail to make anyone say, "wow, there's a game behind this? I wanna play it!" The movie doesn't have to be fine film, or even a _good_ film to positively affect the brand.

Whether you love him or hate him, the proof is in the pudding: Michael Bay transformed D) the Transformers brand into a multi-bajillion dollar empire. Bad movies or no, kids are buying more of the brand's core product than ever. Oh, to be 5 again and walk through today's Target Transformers aisle. I'd have an aneurysm of joy.

I don't want a good D&D movie; I want _THAT_, and if a crappy but fun high-budget movie will give it to me then sign me up and being for it.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 22, 2015)

Halivar said:


> Whether you love him or hate him, the proof is in the pudding: Michael Bay transformed D) the Transformers brand into a multi-bajillion dollar empire. Bad movies or no, kids are buying more of the brand's core product than ever. Oh, to be 5 again and walk through today's Target Transformers aisle. I'd have an aneurysm of joy.
> 
> I don't want a good D&D movie; I want _THAT_, and if a crappy but fun high-budget movie will give it to me then sign me up and being for it.




We had a crappy D&D movie.  More than one.  I'd like a fun, yet good one, please. 

Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey were high grossing, too.  That doesn't necessarily equate to quality.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 22, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> NPR just did a piece on how WoTC made an early decision to maximize long term profits over short term profits for MtG.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/03/11/392381112/episode-609-the-curse-of-the-black-lotus
> 
> Ideally, Hasbro with think similarly for D&D.




Ah, that's exactly what they ARE doing. Thinking long-term.

Short-term profits over long-term: aggressive release schedule (4E)

Long-term profits over short-term: slow release schedule (5E)


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 22, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> I guess I'm one of the few that took _The Transformer_ movies for what they were: tent pole films with a cliché plot and amazing special effects. I never understood the hate for them. It's not like _The Transformers_ was based on a fantasy classic like _Lord of the Rings_ or even Harry Potter. It was based on a child's cartoon with simple moral lessons and characters. I would like a more from a D&D movie, but I'm not expecting some fantasy classic like _Lord of the Rings_. I'd be happy with something like the original _Conan_.




[Tangent]

The general premise was sound, the the problem with the Transformer movies were
* General focus on Sam and the human characters over the Transformers. In the first movie, I could accept seeing the war through a human's eyes, but often times the Transformers felt like side characters in their own story vs. the titular characters.
* The human focus means many of the Transformers (save a few like Optimus) are barely detailed (most of the Decepticons are a a black mess of snarling evil) or the barest minimum of a personality (such as the Racistbots in the second). 
* Of course, the humans aren't much better; the large ensemble cast means few get anything resembling depth or an arc. Sam and Mikayla tries, but both are so bland that few care. Besides, we're here for the transforming robots, not Sam's love life.
* There is a lot of "lowest common denominator" elements: T&A, explosions, body fluid humor, etc. 
* Oh, the plots of the second and third movie are really damn close. Like paint-by-numbers close. 

[/tangent]

I'm no snob, I like the Star Wars Prequels. But The Transformer movies were almost cringeworthy bad. Sadly, it wouldn't have taken much to fix these problems, but the fact they didn't (and doubled down) on them makes it really bad.


----------



## Eric V (Apr 22, 2015)

I am glad the game is doing well.  Hopefully this means people keep their jobs, get better security, benefits, etc.

I do find it weird that a game could be both "on a tear" while simultaneously not giving me something to spend my money on.

I'd like to spend more money on D&D.  I can't be the only one.  I find it weird that I don't even know what to look forward to spending my money on, especially for a game that is on a tear.

Eh, just my 2 copper bits (starting an Al-Qadim campaign soon!).


----------



## Derren (Apr 22, 2015)

Lets see it D&D is still "on a Tear" next year when the core book sales have died down and WotC new release strategy kicks in.
And keep in mind, after a year of nothing, any published book looks like a huge increase in revenue when you just look at the charts.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Exactly!
> 
> Most CEO's and upper management are given reports that have been passed along. D&D could have just been one of the products that were put on the list without the CEO knowing just how well it's actually doing.
> 
> I say D&D is doing good but I don't think it's doing as good as some of you seem to believe. New editions always sell so that's nothing new nor is it any kind of evidence that it's going to last until it's expected expiration date.




Again, this is not how it works.  This is not just some PR press release, it's their official quarterly earnings call with investors.  This is covered under FTC communications.  If he says anything which could lead to investors reasonably mistaking his comment for important revenue for the company and it's not, it becomes a massive stockholder lawsuit.  Everything he says has to be vetted by in house council.  NOTHING he says can be immaterial or misleading like that.  If he is mentioning it, it must be because it's material revenue increase FOR HASBRO, not relative to a prior WOTC number.  And it's definitely not just "something someone put in front of him".


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> There is a  happy medium between the current scarcity of product and the saturation of prior editions.




This assumes that this rate isn't the happy medium.  But for many, it is.  And for WOTC, they seem to think it is.  Two big hardback APs plus some minor products in between like minis and DM screens and such, is somewhere between zero and massive bloat.  It might be the happy medium in general - it's just not the point that makes you happy.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> D&D books aren't collectables.




If only that were true.  I mean you rarely want doubles (you still sometimes do), but man, it's sooooo collectible


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> D&D books aren't collectables.




Really?  Well heck then could you be a good lad and run down to ye olde corner game shoppe and pick me up a shiny new Moldvay boxed set? 

Can't find one you say? Only available as a collectible? 

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 23, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Really?  Well heck then could you be a good lad and run down to ye olde corner game shoppe and pick me up a shiny new Moldvay boxed set?
> 
> Can't find one you say? Only available as a collectible?
> 
> UNPOSSIBLE!!!!




By that rationale, anything that isn't readily available that is desired by a single person is a collectible, including asbestos insulation, lead paint, newspapers more than a week old, and so on.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Apr 23, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> By that rationale, anything that isn't readily available that is desired by a single person is a collectible, including asbestos insulation, lead paint, newspapers more than a week old, and so on.



if people still wanted to use those things, then you'd have an analogy.  As is, they are apples and oranges to compare those things to Moldvay's basic


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 23, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> if people still wanted to use those things, then you'd have an analogy.  As is, they are apples and oranges to compare those things to Moldvay's basic




People still want to use lead paint.  I've worked retail, and we had almost constantly updated do not sell sheets full of Chinese-manufactured children's toys that were discovered to contain lead paint.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 23, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> if people still wanted to use those things, then you'd have an analogy.  As is, they are apples and oranges to compare those things to Moldvay's basic




But you would not actually use the shiny new Moldvays Basic or it would not be a collectible......well unless you had *two* shiny new Moldvays because then you have just increased the rarity by taking another out of circulation.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 23, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Really?



D&D books aren't collectable like MtG cards are.

The natural order of the universe is restored.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Apr 23, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> People still want to use lead paint.  I've worked retail, and we had almost constantly updated do not sell sheets full of Chinese-manufactured children's toys that were discovered to contain lead paint.






Shasarak said:


> But you would not actually use the shiny new Moldvays Basic or it would not be a collectible......well unless you had *two* shiny new Moldvays because then you have just increased the rarity by taking another out of circulation.




what makes something collectible is a big enough demand for it to still give it a value.  I don't think you're gonna get much demand or be able to sell any old 2 week old newspaper for anything of real value.  The analogies you used Mecha are bad, sorry.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 23, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> what makes something collectible is a big enough demand for it to still give it a value.  I don't think you're gonna get much demand or be able to sell any old 2 week old newspaper for anything of real value.  The analogies you used Mecha are bad, sorry.




As I already mentioned, lead paint is still in demand (by manufacturers of cheap goods, not by most consumers).  I think the foreign manufacturing demand for lead paint is high enough that it surpasses the niche demand for individual D&D books.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> D&D books aren't collectable like MtG cards are.
> 
> The natural order of the universe is restored.





The best thing about collectable DnD books is that you just need to collect the one book and you are done!

Imagine if you had to keep on buying Players Handbooks until you got the rare DMs guide!


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> The best thing about collectable DnD books is that you just need to collect the one book and you are done!
> 
> Imagine if you had to keep on buying Players Handbooks until you got the rare DMs guide!




Imagine if the pages for each of the books came as loose-leaf ring-binder inserts in randomized boosters according to rarity.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 23, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Imagine if the pages for each of the books came as loose-leaf ring-binder inserts in randomized boosters according to rarity.




Imagine if real life players could only get randomised boosters by using "keys" that their characters found in their adventures in Dungeons!


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Imagine if real life players could only get randomised boosters by using "keys" that their characters found in their adventures in Dungeons!




Okay, I was going to reply with some kind of Golden Ticket joke, but now I'm just sort of staring off and thinking about a Willy Wonka campaign setting where Nerds are used as mounts instead of horses.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2015)

Let's be honest though. DnD books are not intended to be collectables. Moldvay was publishing a game to be played, not displayed. 

In the same way that cars are not intended to
Be collectables even if some do become that way. I don't foresee a big push to display my collection of mint condition Ladas.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> The best thing about collectable DnD books is that you just need to collect the one book and you are done!
> 
> Imagine if you had to keep on buying Players Handbooks until you got the rare DMs guide!




Or that rare PHB with that feat that lets you add your dextery bonus to damage and attack rolls!


----------



## billd91 (Apr 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Let's be honest though. DnD books are not intended to be collectables. Moldvay was publishing a game to be played, not displayed.




Intent doesn't really matter, in this case. Just about anything can become collectable - all you have to do is let time take its toll until they become scarce. Then, specimens in good shape are quite collectable.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 23, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Again, this is not how it works.  This is not just some PR press release, it's their official quarterly earnings call with investors.  This is covered under FTC communications.  If he says anything which could lead to investors reasonably mistaking his comment for important revenue for the company and it's not, it becomes a massive stockholder lawsuit.  Everything he says has to be vetted by in house council.  NOTHING he says can be immaterial or misleading like that.  If he is mentioning it, it must be because it's material revenue increase FOR HASBRO, not relative to a prior WOTC number.  And it's definitely not just "something someone put in front of him".




I think you might be a bit mistaken as to what I said. 

Nobody denies D&D has made money, it's a new edition and all editions make money. A lot of this is vague speech. We don't know the expectations that were put on D&D. Shareholders are not going to necessarily going to get a breakdown of what does what. If D&D was projected to hit a specific number and they surpass that then they can praise it as much as they want to unless they start using actual figures which then leads to one having to be precise. CEO's have people who work for them and who prepare all this stuff. He himself may not know the exact figures. Ever hear CEO's claim they didn't know what was going on? Well sometimes that is true. 

We don't know the ins and outs of the whole thing. He may have decided it was time for him to finally acknowledge D&D. There is no proof here that this edition's current model is working and that 5th edition is going to be a success. All it shows is what basically all the other editions have done and that is sell well in the beginning.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 23, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> There is a  happy medium between the current scarcity of product and the saturation of prior editions.



Perhaps this current state _is_ the happy medium! (Does anyone but WotC have a reliable supply vs demand graph for D&D books, from which the optimal rate of publication for optimal rate of return can be calculated?)



AriochQ said:


> I know it sounds somewhat silly that I am complaining they won't take my money, but I would love to see some supplements specific to 5th edition.



Sure. If WotC thought that the world was full of people with similar preferences, they would probably write and publish some books (subject to second-order feedback concerns they have about flooding the market - but if there were _enough_ people like you those concerns would be overridden too).

But maybe their data suggests that your desires aren't sufficiently widely held.

There are various products I would like to see (mostly 4e related) that I almost certainly never will, for similar reasons.

In the non-book-but-still-fantasy-related context, I would really like to see a Peter Jackson version of the Silmarillion, but it seems unlikely that I ever will. In all these cases, the cost of production is too great relative to the likely returns on the product.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> I think you might be a bit mistaken as to what I said.
> 
> Nobody denies D&D has made money, it's a new edition and all editions make money. A lot of this is vague speech. We don't know the expectations that were put on D&D. Shareholders are not going to necessarily going to get a breakdown of what does what. If D&D was projected to hit a specific number and they surpass that then they can praise it as much as they want to unless they start using actual figures which then leads to one having to be precise. CEO's have people who work for them and who prepare all this stuff. He himself may not know the exact figures. Ever hear CEO's claim they didn't know what was going on? Well sometimes that is true.
> 
> We don't know the ins and outs of the whole thing. He may have decided it was time for him to finally acknowledge D&D. There is no proof here that this edition's current model is working and that 5th edition is going to be a success. All it shows is what basically all the other editions have done and that is sell well in the beginning.




True. 5E seems a lot more well received than 4E. I remember these boards when 4E was released. The edition warring was insane. I haven't seen much edition warring at all on the board. Everything has been relatively quiet. People seem to like this edition of D&D. Heck, I returned from years of playing _Pathfinder_. I despised 4E. I left the game at that time when the 4E designers told me my loyalty to the game and opinion wasn't worth a damn. Mearls finally built a game for the fans using the novel approach of actually listening to the fans. He made a ton of right decisions. 

In 5E a lot of my concerns about 3E were addressed while keeping many of the things I loved about D&D. Mearls and the team made magic versatile, powerful, and fun again. They eliminated the insane crit damage that caused so many problems in 3E. They eliminated the "caster can do everything and then some" 3E caster that grew worse and worse as you leveled up, while still making casters feel like D&D casters. They condensed feats. They eliminated the ability to continually increase statistics to levels that caused problems. They incorporated the ability to create encounters with a wider threat range making for more interesting and varied options for DMs such as making an orc army still dangerous to level 20 characters. They eliminated the feel that all characters were the same that 4E introduced. Most importantly they listened to the community rather than dictated to the community like the 4E designers did. It still pisses me off when I think back to the lead 4E designer telling  D&D gamers that this was now D&D and what they felt didn't much matter. Pretty disappointing stance by WotC. I'm glad Mearls didn't have that attitude when designing 5E.

5E is a great version of D&D for players and DMs. Is it going to be perfect for everyone? No one has yet made that game. I think it definitely took D&D in the right direction. I think to coin a term from _Lord of the Rings_, it will show its quality in the years to come.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Besides, D&D doesn't have to do pure fantasy.  I'd be just as happy to see a Ravenloft horror film or a Spelljammer space pirates film as I would be to see a pure fantasy D&D film.




I can't see a Ravenloft film ever happening - there's nothing you can do with that that you can't do with public-domain sources, and "Dracula" has a rather bigger draw than "Ravenloft".

I could see Spelljammer happening, maybe. Though with the failure of "John Carter", I think it's now even more unlikely than it was. (That said, the failure of "John Carter" probably led to Disney buying Lucasfilm, and thus to us getting more "Star Wars", so it's not all bad.)


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> Just my personal opinion, but I think Hasbro is missing the boat on D&D.  The game is 'on a tear' yet staffing still seems inadaquate, the release schedule is abysmal, no open game license, and very few third party contracts.  I am not a CEO, but if I was I would be irrate that we weren't making more money off a product that is 'on a tear'.




A few years ago (2009) they had a much larger staff, a much fuller release schedule, and a license (admittedly, it was the GSL). And 4e wasn't "on a tear".

If I were a CEO, I would look at that, and look at the way things are now, and say, "good work, carry on."


----------



## Iosue (Apr 23, 2015)

I'm not especially a Ravenloft fan. But it has gobs of potential.  Vampires _and_ dark fantasy?  Get a decent actor to play a layered Strahd and people would eat that up.  You get your vampire fans, and your fantasy fans, and your action fans, and your horror fans -- just a whole lot of cross-demographic appeal.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2015)

Iosue said:


> I'm not especially a Ravenloft fan. But it has gobs of potential.  Vampires _and_ dark fantasy?  Get a decent actor to play a layered Strahd and people would eat that up.  You get your vampire fans, and your fantasy fans, and your action fans, and your horror fans -- just a whole lot of cross-demographic appeal.




Yeah, I get the appeal for WotC. But why would a studio pay licensing fees for the rights to the name "Ravenloft" when they could make the exact same film with Dracula instead, without any license and with greater name recognition?

(Which, in fact, they've already done - it's called "Dracula Untold".)


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> A few years ago (2009) they had a much larger staff, a much fuller release schedule, and a license (admittedly, it was the GSL). And 4e wasn't "on a tear".
> 
> If I were a CEO, I would look at that, and look at the way things are now, and say, "good work, carry on."




How do we know 4th edition wasn't on a tear after the initial launch?


----------



## Maggan (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> How do we know 4th edition wasn't on a tear after the initial launch?




Probably because it wasn't singled out by WotC with a comment during earnings call at the time. This time it was singled out, which could indicate a difference in performance.

/M


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> How do we know 4th edition wasn't on a tear after the initial launch?




Mostly what Maggan said, but also we know that 4e was doing sufficiently well in 2009 that they would proceed to release Essentials in 2010 and then drop the release schedule to almost nothing shortly thereafter.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> In the non-book-but-still-fantasy-related context, I would really like to see a Peter Jackson version of the Silmarillion, but it seems unlikely that I ever will. In all these cases, the cost of production is too great relative to the likely returns on the product.



From what I've read, cost is not a factor (at least, not the biggest factor). The big reason you likely won't see it is because the Tolkien estate won't license it, to the point that Jackson needed to be careful what non-Hobbit/LotR material he included in his movies.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 23, 2015)

Maggan said:


> Probably because it wasn't singled out by WotC with a comment during earnings call at the time. This time it was singled out, which could indicate a difference in performance.
> 
> /M




So just because it wasn't singled out it wasn't in a tear? 

I'm seeing loads of wishful thinking here. I know some of you want this edition to be the best of the best but from these comments we really don't know the full monty. 

He could have made that comment because they reached their targets even though they have such a small staff or maybe the CEO finally looked at D&D and decided to give it a mention. 

Products do extremely well all the time without the CEO specifically mentioning them. Do we even know if he is talking about the tabletop game? He could be talking about the boardgames and MMO.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Apr 23, 2015)

Does it matter?? It was mentioned, for us fans of the tabletop hobby, and of D&D (any edition) this is good news. But I guess we all need our Cassandras.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> He could have made that comment because they reached their targets even though they have such a small staff or maybe the CEO finally looked at D&D and decided to give it a mention.




Mistwell has already covered this. In an Earnings Call he _can't_ mention it unless it is a significant earner for Hasbro as a whole. Simply exceeding internal numbers isn't enough.

It is, of course, possible that D&D has always been doing spectacularly well and he's just never noticed before. But I for one find that hard to believe.



> Do we even know if he is talking about the tabletop game?




Not only do we not know that, I would be pretty sure he was talking about D&D as a whole - so the sum of the RPG, MMO, and anything else they've got going on.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 23, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> But you would not actually use the shiny new Moldvays Basic or it would not be a collectible......well unless you had *two* shiny new Moldvays because then you have just increased the rarity by taking another out of circulation.




I do in fact have 5 Moldvay basic sets.  One is referenced and played with and the others sit on the shelf in pristine condition. 



goldomark said:


> D&D books aren't collectable like MtG cards are.
> 
> The natural order of the universe is restored.




Collectible? I do not think it means what you think it means. D&D books are collectible just like comic books. Comic books are for reading entertainment but once you have read them then you still keep them. If I buy a module and play with it then I'm not going to discard it when we are done playing it. I will keep it on the shelf and add it to my collection. 

Magic cards aren't much different. You can buy them, play with them, and collect them. 



Hussar said:


> Let's be honest though. DnD books are not intended to be collectables. Moldvay was publishing a game to be played, not displayed.




Yes, and I still like to play it. It is no longer being published in paper form and there is still a demand for it, so it is NOW a collectible even if it wasn't published with the intention of being one.


----------



## Celtavian (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> So just because it wasn't singled out it wasn't in a tear?
> 
> I'm seeing loads of wishful thinking here. I know some of you want this edition to be the best of the best but from these comments we really don't know the full monty.
> 
> ...




It's not going to be the best of the best. Too many other options that older editions didn't have to compete against. It should be a solid edition that brings a lot of gamers back that moved to _Pathfinder_ or stayed with 3E.


----------



## Maggan (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Products do extremely well all the time without the CEO specifically mentioning them.




Historically on EN World, when discussing how D&D is doing the fact that it almost never is mentioned in the financial reports (I think it has happened once in the last 15 years or so) is taken as an indication that D&D is small fry and not worth bothering with.

It has been used as "proof" that D&D is in jeopardy from mishandling by Hasbro, and much angst has been bandied about over that fact. Many hope that D&D will be a strong performer for WotC, which could ensure that it is continued to be published. Now D&D is mentioned and it is mentioned as a strong performer, which makes some people happy because they think it is fun if D&D is doing well.

Taken together with Amazon rankings, data on Internet play, stats on amount of online chatter, activity on EN World forums, a pronounced abscence of scathing edition warring and now a mention in the financial report, some people are interpreting that as signs that D&D is doing well and that the launch has been successful.

I don't see why that is a problem.

/M


----------



## Halivar (Apr 23, 2015)

Maggan said:


> Historically on EN World, when discussing how D&D is doing the fact that it almost never is mentioned in the financial reports (I think it has happened once in the last 15 years or so) is taken as an indication that D&D is small fry and not worth bothering with.
> 
> It has been used as "proof" that D&D is in jeopardy from mishandling by Hasbro, and much angst has been bandied about over that fact.



Don't expect any retractions from the small number of posters who called 5E the "mothball" edition.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> I could see Spelljammer happening, maybe. Though with the failure of "John Carter", I think it's now even more unlikely than it was.




I see your "John Carter" and raise you one "Guardians of the Galaxy." 

With a talking raccoon and tree no less.


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I see your "John Carter" and raise you one "Guardians of the Galaxy."




I fold. Well played, sir.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 23, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Intent doesn't really matter, in this case. Just about anything can become collectable - all you have to do is let time take its toll until they become scarce. Then, specimens in good shape are quite collectable.




I doubt they ever published Detective Comics#1 and thought, "this will finance some kid's college education someday if he keeps it in good shape."


----------



## billd91 (Apr 23, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I doubt they ever published Detective Comics#1 and thought, "this will finance some kid's college education someday if he keeps it in good shape."




And there's the rub. If they *had* done so, collectors would have swooped in, bought them up, archived them to be protected from deterioration, and... not allowed natural attrition to wipe out most copies and raise the value of the protected specimens. Remember when comic publishers came out with collector's editions, die cut covers, and all that BS? Fanboys polybagged up the comics *certain* they'd have something of value. What are most of those worth? Not very much - because they were collectibles and were, therefore, collected rather than used and lost.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> Not only do we not know that, I would be pretty sure he was talking about D&D as a whole - so the sum of the RPG, MMO, and anything else they've got going on.



Actually, he was fielding a question about the Games division.  Things like Licensing and Entertainment are reported on separately.  So it's more likely that he was referring to just the game, though also including the board games.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 23, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> I think you might be a bit mistaken as to what I said.
> 
> Nobody denies D&D has made money, it's a new edition and all editions make money. A lot of this is vague speech. We don't know the expectations that were put on D&D. Shareholders are not going to necessarily going to get a breakdown of what does what.




Again, you're coming at this from a layman's perspective, and I am coming at it from the perspective of an in-house council for a public corporation that did these calls (which I was).  It doesn't matter what they might not do - the assumptions are in place, put there by law and the threat of lawsuits, that you must do things a certain way.  You can't guess what people might do - you assume they will take anything you say the worst possible way, and so you simply can't say anything that can be misconstrued different than reality.  So yes you keep it vague - but you don't say it at all if it's not a material change in revenue for the overall company.  Period.  It's not based on internal projections - unless you make those projections public knowledge.   It must be based on a general accounting criteria, and in this case it's just that it must be a materially important change for the positive in overall Hasbro revenue - NOT a projection, unless you mention it's based on a projection (which he does not).  If you beat projections, you have to say you beat projections, and you have to have previously mentioned what the projection is so people can see you beat it.  There are rules to these things.  Rules way more complicated than D&D rules.



> If D&D was projected to hit a specific number and they surpass that then they can praise it as much as they want to unless they start using actual figures which then leads to one having to be precise.




No, they cannot - unless they made those projections public which they did not (or in the very least they'd have to say "based on our projections" - it cannot be implied).  Seriously, if you don't know the rules involved with these things, don't guess at them.  They are way too complicated for you to guess at them and assume your guess is right.



> There is no proof here that this edition's current model is working and that 5th edition is going to be a success. All it shows is what basically all the other editions have done and that is sell well in the beginning.




Ah, so that is what this is about, you don't want to admit the business plan might be working? Why, because you said something in the past about it, or because you don't like the edition, or because you want them doing something else? Why is that idea something that seems to bother you?


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> (That said, the failure of "John Carter" probably led to Disney buying Lucasfilm<snip>)



Eh?


----------



## delericho (Apr 23, 2015)

wedgeski said:


> Eh?




Disney made "John Carter", which flopped mightily and led to them losing a bunch of money. They then went out and bought a _very_ similar property and proceeded to immediate announce a bunch of new films in the same vein.

Of course, I could be reading too much into things, again.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 23, 2015)

delericho said:


> I can't see a Ravenloft film ever happening - there's nothing you can do with that that you can't do with public-domain sources, and "Dracula" has a rather bigger draw than "Ravenloft".
> 
> I could see Spelljammer happening, maybe. Though with the failure of "John Carter", I think it's now even more unlikely than it was. (That said, the failure of "John Carter" probably led to Disney buying Lucasfilm, and thus to us getting more "Star Wars", so it's not all bad.)




I don't see John Carter as part of the barometer for the success or failure of a Spelljammer film.  Spelljammer is much more likely to be like the Pirates of the Caribbean films, only in space.

With regard to Ravenloft and licensing, Universal has their monster films and is going to make their own cinematic monster universe.  If you want a big-name vampire, Dracula is off the table.  You could go with an Anne Rice vampire if you wanted to, but you could also go for the less well-known Strahd or Jander Sunstar.

Also, Ravenloft has plenty of other darklords, and Azalin, Jaqueline Renier, and Soth all have good film potential.


----------



## AriochQ (Apr 23, 2015)

Dracula is public domain no?

I would rather see a Ravenloft, just because of the D&D tie in (and the fact that tons of Dracula films have been made already).


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 23, 2015)

Dracula is public domain in the US, but Universal is the studio going to court for the D&D film rights with Hasbro's backing, so it makes sense that they wouldn't want two separate, high-visibility franchises both featuring vampire lords going at the same time.


----------



## darjr (Apr 23, 2015)

Also the steam 5e play via fantasy grounds seems to have been a bit of a splash in video gaming circles.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 23, 2015)

Is a splash like a tear?


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 23, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Collectible? I do not think it means what you think it means. D&D books are collectible just like comic books. Comic books are for reading entertainment but once you have read them then you still keep them. If I buy a module and play with it then I'm not going to discard it when we are done playing it. I will keep it on the shelf and add it to my collection.




I think that is true.  DnD books are exactly as collectible as comic books (with a lower pool of collectors).


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 23, 2015)

AriochQ said:


> Dracula is public domain no?




Until Disney wants to make a Dracula movie.


----------



## darjr (Apr 23, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Is a splash like a tear?




Less like a rip and more like a bang!

It's opportunity knocking.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/22/8470473/dungeons-dragons-virtual-tabletop-fantasy-grounds

http://www.pcgamer.com/fantasy-ground-steam-dungeons-dragons/


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 24, 2015)

darjr said:


> Less like a rip and more like a bang!




So its the bomb or a bomb?


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Apr 24, 2015)

I have heard "on a tear" all my life.  It's a very common idiom around here (Texas).  Maybe it's a regional idiom.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Apr 24, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Until Disney wants to make a Dracula movie.




While I appreciate the sentiment here--particularly because I've had conversations on the topic with a friend of mine who was in law school, and has now passed his bar exam--I'm _fairly_ sure it doesn't work that way. That is, once public domain, always public domain. You can't take it back, _especially_ if it's not yours to begin with. Besides, Brahm Stoker died over 100 years ago anyway, which certainly meets "author's lifetime + 75 years."


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 24, 2015)

EzekielRaiden said:


> While I appreciate the sentiment here--particularly because I've had conversations on the topic with a friend of mine who was in law school, and has now passed his bar exam--I'm _fairly_ sure it doesn't work that way. That is, once public domain, always public domain. You can't take it back, _especially_ if it's not yours to begin with. Besides, Brahm Stoker died over 100 years ago anyway, which certainly meets "author's lifetime + 75 years."




Lifetime + 75 years is already ridiculous, so why not +100 years if you have a big enough lobby fund?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Apr 24, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Lifetime + 75 years is already ridiculous, so why not +100 years if you have a big enough lobby fund?




Well even if you did do that, he died in 1912, so you're still a few years short. But even if it weren't--Dracula never got copyright here in the US (Stoker failed to follow procedure, apparently), and in the UK and elsewhere it expired in 1962, 50 years after his death (which was the law at the time in the UK). It's permanently in the public domain. A particular *version* of it could be copyrighted--like how _Frozen_ is a unique retelling of _The Snow Queen_--but only to the extent that it is a unique retelling. As a simple example, the imagery and costuming are totally copyrightable things, but the idea of a shady vampire lord living in a remote European castle cannot.


----------



## transtemporal (Apr 24, 2015)

Shiroiken said:


> "Tear" as in ripping, not "tear" as in eye moisture. It means that it's ripping up the competition (i.e. doing very well). American English
> idioms




Right, gotcha! Like, "we're tearing the competition a new a hole!"

Or is it more mild than that?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 24, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> Right, gotcha! Like, "we're tearing the competition a new a hole!"
> 
> Or is it more mild than that?




Or it could mean they ripped their expectations a new hole.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 24, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> Right, gotcha! Like, "we're tearing the competition a new a hole!"
> 
> Or is it more mild than that?




Much more mild. Grandmothers can say it in polite company without the slightest blush.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 24, 2015)

We are over knitting the competition like a couple of gentle old rainbow farting unicorns?


----------



## delericho (Apr 24, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I don't see John Carter as part of the barometer for the success or failure of a Spelljammer film.




Well, I would have said "Flash Gordon", but there hasn't been one of those in _ages_. 



> With regard to Ravenloft and licensing, Universal has their monster films and is going to make their own cinematic monster universe.  If you want a big-name vampire, Dracula is off the table.




As mentioned, Dracula is public domain. Anyone can make a film featuring Dracula, even if the next studio down the road is also doing one. Which is why they keep making Dracula films (as well as The Three Musketeers, Sherlock Holmes, and anything by Shakespeare).



> Also, Ravenloft has plenty of other darklords, and Azalin, Jaqueline Renier, and Soth all have good film potential.




They're likely to want to keep Soth back from a potential Dragonlance film. In any event, none of the others have close to the recognition of Strahd, so they're less appealing draws. And, besides, there's very little in Ravenloft that isn't drawn very closely from public domain sources - and intentionally so, in fact.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 24, 2015)

delericho said:


> They're likely to want to keep Soth back from a potential Dragonlance film. In any event, none of the others have close to the recognition of Strahd, so they're less appealing draws.



I'm not sure it's really about _recognition_, though, so much as story potential.

Guardians of the Galaxy had pretty much zero recognition: I've got Adam Warlock comics on my shelf - which is where Gamora debuted, I'm pretty sure, and I own and have read the Marvel Heroic RP Annihilation book (which sets out all the "cosmic" Marvel characters) and the Guardians were barely on my radar as a potential movie subject. Yet the film seems to have done pretty well.

Admittedly, "from the studio that brought you the Avengers" is a big help. Was it _essential_? I don't know.

But from the point of view of doing a D&D movie, I would be looking for compelling/appealing stories and characters, rather than - or at least as much as - recognition.

(That might still speak against Strahd, because maybe a Dracula clone isn't compelling. But weaker conceptual starting points have led to relatively successful movies!)


----------



## delericho (Apr 24, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Guardians of the Galaxy had pretty much zero recognition: I've got Adam Warlock comics on my shelf - which is where Gamora debuted, I'm pretty sure, and I own and have read the Marvel Heroic RP Annihilation book (which sets out all the "cosmic" Marvel characters) and the Guardians were barely on my radar as a potential movie subject. Yet the film seems to have done pretty well.
> 
> Admittedly, "from the studio that brought you the Avengers" is a big help. Was it _essential_? I don't know.




With Guardians, that Marvel tie in was really important. The movie was also marketed _spectacularly_ well. And despite that, it was a pretty big risk.



> But from the point of view of doing a D&D movie, I would be looking for compelling/appealing stories and characters, rather than - or at least as much as - recognition.




I was coming more from a "who would pay for a license, when they can do just as well without" angle. In terms of story, yeah, Ravenloft has plenty of potential.

Of course, that's somewhat premature anyway - if there is a Ravenloft film, it must surely be some way after a more general D&D movie. So, really, the big questions are whether that is any good, and indeed whether it makes any money. If the answer to the latter, in particular, turns out to be "yes", then that opens the door for people asking, "what else do you have?"


----------



## pemerton (Apr 24, 2015)

delericho said:


> I was coming more from a "who would pay for a license, when they can do just as well without" angle. In terms of story, yeah, Ravenloft has plenty of potential.



Fair point. How much is a story worth, in licence fee/percentage terms? I have no idea: movie finance is not my field!


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 24, 2015)

delericho said:


> Well, I would have said "Flash Gordon", but there hasn't been one of those in _ages_.




They're making a new Flash Gordon.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 25, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> What does "on a tear" mean? Aren't tears bad?




It's commonly enough used in the western US as a term for a good thing.

Then again, in certain groups, so is "sick" (often written "sik," "sic," or "syk")...


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Then again, in certain groups, so is "sick" (often written "sik," "sic," or "syk")...




I am thankful I know no-one who writes "sick" in any of those fashions. Excepting "[sic]" which means something different.


----------



## Blackbird71 (Apr 28, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> What does "on a tear" mean? Aren't tears bad?




All right you young whippersnappers; since no one seems to quite get the meaning of this, I guess I'm going to have to step in.

As some have pointed out, "on a tear" is a good thing, but no one else seems to quite understand why.  Another meaning of the word "tear" (rhyming with "air", not the stuff that comes from your eyes) has to do with speed - in older times it was usually used to describe running, etc.  I still hear a variation of this used occasionally nowadays, such as when it is said that a car "tore" out of a parking lot, etc.  Dictionary.com gives the definition "to move or behave with force, violent haste, or energy".  

The phrase "on a tear" is based on this definition.  It is used to imply that something is taking off with speed or gaining momentum.  Saying that D&D is "on a tear" implies that it is selling rapidly.

And now you know.


----------



## transtemporal (Apr 28, 2015)

Blackbird71 said:


> And now you know.




Knowledge transferred, thank you Blackbird. So what does "living on a tear" mean? ;-)


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 28, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> Knowledge transferred, thank you Blackbird. So what does "living on a tear" mean? ;-)



It means you're halfway there.


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 28, 2015)

houser2112 said:


> It means you're halfway there.



If you take my hand, we'll make it.

I swear.


----------



## darjr (Apr 28, 2015)

Oh-oh, D&D's on a tear!


----------



## Wicht (Apr 28, 2015)

Blackbird71 said:


> All right you young whippersnappers; since no one seems to quite get the meaning of this, I guess I'm going to have to step in.
> 
> As some have pointed out, "on a tear" is a good thing, but no one else seems to quite understand why.  Another meaning of the word "tear" (rhyming with "air", not the stuff that comes from your eyes) has to do with speed - in older times it was usually used to describe running, etc.




From page 3....



Wicht said:


> More specifically, I am pretty sure it refers to a mad, sometimes violent, rush. Originally it did mean attacking without restraint or caution, but over time the concept of speed was added onto the original implication so that a vehicle can also be said to be going at a tear. Which just means it is going really fast, without any implication of violence. In the context of the original quote in this thread, success of sales is what is implied, not necessarily the destruction of the "enemy."


----------



## Agamon (Apr 28, 2015)

transtemporal said:


> Right, gotcha! Like, "we're tearing the competition a new a hole!"
> 
> Or is it more mild than that?




It's similar to a sports car "tearing down the highway".  Which is different than a bulldozer "tearing down the highway."  Clear as mud, right?


----------



## Halivar (Apr 29, 2015)

Agamon said:


> It's similar to a sports car "tearing down the highway".  Which is different than a bulldozer "tearing down the highway."  Clear as mud, right?



Which is different than "tarrying" down the highway, which the seven NPC's are most decidedly _not_ doing, neither are they running, joking loudly, or singing as they advance.


----------



## delericho (Apr 29, 2015)

Halivar said:


> Which is different than "tarrying" down the highway, which the seven NPC's are most decidedly _not_ doing, neither are they running, joking loudly, or singing as they advance.




Do they have any expression on their faces?


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 29, 2015)

camazotz said:


> Which makes me imagine for a moment that just as there's a crew of 7 managing the D&D brand I now wonder if somewhere in Hasbro's corporate HQ there's a 7-man team working on the best way they can leverage Candy Land into a juggernaut, all the while glaring out the window in Renton's direction, grimacing in anger at the new high bar that has been set for ALL Hasbro titles this quarter.




Milton Bradley is listed at http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/milton-bradley-company-history/ as having 2000 employees or so. So, maybe. Noting that MB is a different subsidiary of HasBro...


----------



## Halivar (Apr 29, 2015)

delericho said:


> Do they have any expression on their faces?



No. And it is plain they are not soldiers by their haphazard way of walking.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 29, 2015)

Halivar said:


> No. And it is plain they are not soldiers by their haphazard way of walking.




Nor are they dark elves nor are they eating cupcakes.  They don't whisper quietly to each other and don't truly appreciate unicorns.


----------

