D&D 5e has failed

[deaddmwalking]

So I don't believe that 40 million Americans play D&D at least annually. But it was in my news feed yesterday.

[SeekritLurker]

So I don't believe that 40 million Americans play D&D at least annually. But it was in my news feed yesterday.

Neither that article nor the Bloomberg one specifies Americans. I would believe 40 million worldwide.

[Previn]

So I don't believe that 40 million Americans play D&D at least annually. But it was in my news feed yesterday.

Nor should you. The 40 million number is people who have played D&D since 1974 (clarified by the WotC PR department).

[deaddmwalking]

So I don't believe that 40 million Americans play D&D at least annually. But it was in my news feed yesterday.

Nor should you. The 40 million number is people who have played D&D since 1974 (clarified by the WotC PR department).

Link?

Edit - The Bloomberg Article still says 40 million annually. It notes a correction on the same day as it was originally published, but it doesn't appear to be related to the number of players annually.

This site claims there is an estimated 13.7 million active D&D tabletop gamers world-wide in March 2019.

[Previn]

So I don't believe that 40 million Americans play D&D at least annually. But it was in my news feed yesterday.

Nor should you. The 40 million number is people who have played D&D since 1974 (clarified by the WotC PR department).

Link?

https://www.enworld.org/forum/showthrea ... -D-UPDATED!

Edit: I suspect that WotC has some pretty hard and fast numbers on how big its player base actually is based on surveys of player group sizes and having actual numbers of books sold. It should be pretty easy for them to get an acceptably accurate number of actual current players of 5e. Anything that's not basically a hard number or clearly stated means that WotC doesn't have numbers that show the game in a positive light. Using 40 million people have player D&D since it's inception vis how many are actually playing now takes me suspect they're still below the 6 million they cited in the lawsuit years ago, and haven't fully recovered from fracturing their player base with 4e.

[Orca]

So, here, WotC claims the following sales numbers for the Starter Kit (not the PHB):

2014: 126,870
2015: 91,190
2016: 123,990
2017: 185,580
2018: 306,670

Critical Role debuted in March 2015, Stranger Things debuted in July 2016, and D&D Beyond launched in August 2017.

Those numbers look to me to be consistent with an initially decreasing number of people buying the starter kit which got a huge and continuing boost from Stranger Things. If that series ever gets canned Mearls may have to do some explaining/excuses about sales numbers to his bosses at Hasbro.

[deaddmwalking]

It bothers me that apparently WotC's PR department 'reached out' but there is nothing we can see in their own words setting the record straight. The cynical part of my mind suspects they are doing it on purpose. As long as the wrong number in the Bloomberg article, people can cite it.

[tussock]

So, that's mostly new player groups exploring the game, or something for your kid that's cheaper than the set if they're interested.

What's the buy-though on that, what proportion of the $20 people get into the game enough for something like the $200 core rules giftset or expansion books beyond that?

If it's 10% and half play regularly, it's 15k new groups, which is better than a kick in the nuts but not even hundreds of thousands of books beyond the starter kits.

If it's 50% and 2/3 play regularly, now you're 100k new groups, which is still short of a million books, but better than 4e.

If it's 90% and 5/6 play regularly, now you're 230k new groups, and a million books sold just on the new groups, plus expansions for the old ones.


None of it looks anything like 1st edition, or 3rd edition sales, but it must be nice for Mike to have an upward trend line in anything at all for the first time in 16 years. Now all we need is to extrapolate sufficiently. This year, 500k, next year 800k, following over a million! Woo!

[saithorthepyro]

Mearls is being a lazy one this year, it's July and we only have had Unearthed Arcana for three months, and all 3 were rewrites of the Artificer. Either that Eberron book is eating all their limited attention, or Mearls has finally given up all pretense of actually caring about this edition.

[Stubbazubba]

They're starting to talk 6e, or 5.5 or 5th Essentials or something.

But unless there is a negative correlation between Starter Kits sold and core books sold, they have no real commercial reason to do so except that this was the idea back in 2012 when they mapped out the timeline of the next edition. All this new blood that's become fans in the streaming age will have their first new edition, and that's...well it's going to be difficult to predict, since that new audience came to the game through different channels than any previous generation.

[hogarth]

I still get a kick out of people declaring the death of 5E D&D back in 2014.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

If only. If only...

[K]

The lesson to be learned from 5e is that people wanted cleaner rules, nice things for fighting-people, and that min-max culture is bad for the hobby.

[WalkTheDin0saur]

I hope people want those things and charoppers get pretty far up their own ass sometimes, but I don't see how that follows from 5e.

[Prak]

I mean... a simpler rules set is easier to make cleaner (or make people think is cleaner). Hell, just think how much cleaner 3.5 would be if they had only said "grappling isn't a thing." It would be dumb, and people would make their own, but honestly, sometimes no official rules is better than bad official rules, at least from a company stand point.

I wouldn't, necessarily, say that min-max culture is bad. But, as said, yeah, charoppers can get pretty up their own asses, and people are constantly told that min-maxing is bad. The fact that you can ask three people what min-maxing is and get three definitions, two of which will actually be of charop and munchkining rather than min-maxing, does not help matters.

[Kaelik]

I genuinely have no idea what "cleaner rules" is supposed to mean.

Less text? As far as I can tell people don't actually know what 5e rules even say.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

More intuitive rules, perhaps? Things that don't require extrapolation or 45 minutes of arguing and citing books to conclude?

[hogarth]

The lesson to be learned from 5e is that people wanted cleaner rules, nice things for fighting-people, and that min-max culture is bad for the hobby.

I would add the lesson that churning out a million splatbooks is over-rated (except as a way to keep splatbook writers employed).

[Krusk]

More intuitive rules, perhaps? Things that don't require extrapolation or 45 minutes of arguing and citing books to conclude?

5e rules debates can't be solved by referencing rules. They are vague and contradictory. Running 5e, we argued about rules for 45 minutes, and then couldn't solve them. We just eventually decided that it was a pile of shit, and the DM would wing something. After two long campaigns we finally had every player agree that we should go back to 3.5.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Maybe 'cleaner rules' means rules that aren't vague and contradictory, then.

[Stubbazubba]

"Cleaner rules" means rules with fewer moving parts, I'd bet.

Good examples include (where ">" means is cleaner than, not necessarily better than:

• scaling proficiency bonus > individual skill points per level,
• advantage/disadvantage > stacking circumstantial modifiers,
• Crit-ing on every nat 20 and only nat 20 > varying crit triggers per weapon and crit confirm rolls,
• grapple being an opposed Athletics check > AoO, melee touch attack to grab, opposed grapple check, deal unarmed strike damage,
• no special rules for diagonal movement > special rules for diagonal movement,
• damage resistance/vulnerability being half damage or double damage, respectively > discrete damage resistance values, and
• (probably more contentiously) movement, Action, Bonus Action, Reaction > Move Action, Standard Action (that can be swapped for a Move Action), Swift Action, OR Full-Round Action + 5-ft. step, Immediate Action.

[Kaelik]

More intuitive rules, perhaps? Things that don't require extrapolation or 45 minutes of arguing and citing books to conclude?

Seems like "extrapolation" and "citing books" are the two opposite ends of a spectrum.

5e definitely requires lots of extrapolation.

Maybe 'cleaner rules' means rules that aren't vague and contradictory, then.

But then how would 5e prove that people like cleaner rules? They like the vague and contradictory rules!

[Dogbert]

I still get a kick out of people declaring the death of 5E D&D back in 2014.

Well it did. For all practical purposes it's a stillbirth.

The lesson to be learned from 5e is that people wanted cleaner rules

I guess a single sheet saying "suck the DM's cock" is as clean and concise as it gets.

, nice things for fighting-people,

and that min-max culture is bad for the hobby.

Also, how far you can get by on payola and how much people like to be lied to.

[WiserOdin032402]

5e has rules that are far more easily ignored because people can get the basics and ignore the specifics. 5e has an absurd amount of specifics but nobody cares. They just wanna roll their d20 in their casual beer n' pretzels TTRPG.

[zeruslord]

I would add the lesson that churning out a million splatbooks is over-rated (except as a way to keep splatbook writers employed).

I think there's demand for more 5e splatbooks than WotC has been putting out.The 3e/3.5 pattern of two splatbooks a month was falling apart by 2007, but the current pattern of two splatbooks and two adventure paths a year seems like leaving money on the table and creating lots of room for some of the streamers and youtubers to get their own publishing lines started, which might turn into pathfinder-style competition for the inevitable sixth edition.