Quote from: RPGPundit on January 20, 2021, 09:34:50 PM
Hasbro almost never sells ANY of its IP.  It will not sell D&D. This is a pipe dream.

They have released a few IPs that they had zero interest in. And have, mostly through WOTCs ineptitude, allowed a few IPs to slip through their fingers. Also mostly minor ones. They have acquired so much they barely have any idea what all they have.

Assuming the rights carried over from SPI to TSR to WOTC  to Hasbro. Then Hasbro may have the rights to SPIs whole line. And Avalon Hill.

Quote from: Omega on January 21, 2021, 05:08:46 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 20, 2021, 09:34:50 PM
Hasbro almost never sells ANY of its IP.  It will not sell D&D. This is a pipe dream.

They have released a few IPs that they had zero interest in. And have, mostly through WOTCs ineptitude, allowed a few IPs to slip through their fingers. Also mostly minor ones. They have acquired so much they barely have any idea what all they have.

Assuming the rights carried over from SPI to TSR to WOTC  to Hasbro. Then Hasbro may have the rights to SPIs whole line. And Avalon Hill.

Now we just need to wait for the D&D / Peppa Pig crossover event! /s

If I had to guess, I'd say "hasten," but that really is just a pure guess. I don't keep up with WotC or 5e, so my guess isn't informed by much of anything. And I don't really have a dog in the fight, in any case (i.e., I don't care what they do as I'm not part of their customer base and don't expect to become a WotC customer).

Going by what my 13 year old son says

Gen Z are very liberal on social issues. He thinks it's hilarious I have any issue with the gay couple in Star Trek: Discovery.

At the same time, they have utter contempt for Ctrl-Alt-Delete Woke censorship, and the anti-'white' racism of the PTB.

Take that as you may.

Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2021, 06:13:24 PM
Going by what my 13 year old son says

Gen Z are very liberal on social issues. He thinks it's hilarious I have any issue with the gay couple in Star Trek: Discovery.

At the same time, they have utter contempt for Ctrl-Alt-Delete Woke censorship, and the anti-'white' racism of the PTB.

Take that as you may.

Interestingly, I've read than Gen Z is actually a bit more conservative than millennials on average (I didn't dig deep into the article's definition of conservative). Apparently it's largely because most kids use their parents as a baseline and then go more liberal from there.

That matters because statistically conservatives have substantially more kids than liberals (I have no idea the % - but substantial) so most Gen Zs have a reasonably conservative baseline to go more liberal from.

I'd guess that at least some of that difference is just more of the rural/urban divide. (People in major cities are predominantly liberal, and people in major cities have fewer kids - rather than a major causal relationship between being liberal and having fewer kids.)

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 21, 2021, 10:40:57 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2021, 06:13:24 PM
Going by what my 13 year old son says

Gen Z are very liberal on social issues. He thinks it's hilarious I have any issue with the gay couple in Star Trek: Discovery.

At the same time, they have utter contempt for Ctrl-Alt-Delete Woke censorship, and the anti-'white' racism of the PTB.

Take that as you may.

Interestingly, I've read than Gen Z is actually a bit more conservative than millennials on average (I didn't dig deep into the article's definition of conservative). Apparently it's largely because most kids use their parents as a baseline and then go more liberal from there.

That matters because statistically conservatives have substantially more kids than liberals (I have no idea the % - but substantial) so most Gen Zs have a reasonably conservative baseline to go more liberal from.

I'd guess that at least some of that difference is just more of the rural/urban divide. (People in major cities are predominantly liberal, and people in major cities have fewer kids - rather than a major causal relationship between being liberal and having fewer kids.)

I suspect it's more about the youth traditionally liking to transgress boundaries, and the woke are right there throwing up ever more boundaries to transgress.

Quote from: TJS on January 22, 2021, 12:18:19 AM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 21, 2021, 10:40:57 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 21, 2021, 06:13:24 PM
Going by what my 13 year old son says

Gen Z are very liberal on social issues. He thinks it's hilarious I have any issue with the gay couple in Star Trek: Discovery.

At the same time, they have utter contempt for Ctrl-Alt-Delete Woke censorship, and the anti-'white' racism of the PTB.

Take that as you may.

Interestingly, I've read than Gen Z is actually a bit more conservative than millennials on average (I didn't dig deep into the article's definition of conservative). Apparently it's largely because most kids use their parents as a baseline and then go more liberal from there.

That matters because statistically conservatives have substantially more kids than liberals (I have no idea the % - but substantial) so most Gen Zs have a reasonably conservative baseline to go more liberal from.

I'd guess that at least some of that difference is just more of the rural/urban divide. (People in major cities are predominantly liberal, and people in major cities have fewer kids - rather than a major causal relationship between being liberal and having fewer kids.)

I suspect it's more about the youth traditionally liking to transgress boundaries, and the woke are right there throwing up ever more boundaries to transgress.

This right here.  Getting an earring or announcing you're gay might get a rise out of the most conservative parents.  But if you want to scandalize your teachers, administrators, the media, etc., declare that you like Trump and that sex is determined at birth...

Yup. The thing about youthful transgression is it's gotta be counter-cultural. The reason wokism has attracted the young is because, until recently, it has been counter-cultural.

These days though, a scrawny white boy self-identifying as a black transgendered lesbian satanist gets him a pat on the back from the establishment. Coming out as being proud to be a straight white male Christian is regarded with shock and horror.

I think something billed as a "50th Anniversary Edition" in 2024 is inevitable. It might just be 5e with new art and fluff text, a 5.5-ish rules clean up, or a new edition (though I'd expect it to be more like 1e to 2e than from 3.5e to 4e), but I figure the name of it HAS to be "50th Anniversary Edition" regardless because that term is just so damnably marketable.

Existing customers may put up with a certain degree of additional woke in it, but only because the draw of the D&D50 nostalgia factor. But woke is unlikely to be that big a draw to teenagers coming of age for whom wokist is the mainstream.

Again, that's why my own game system is superversive themed; heroes are heroic, virtues matter, classic fantasy hero tropes are encouraged rather than subverted.

I'm sure someone could use my system to put all their wokist stereotypes front and center using my system, but in my books they go unremarked on in the forms the woke want them to be (i.e. I reference changlelings as spies and assassins not as a non-binary sexual fetish).

That's also why I feel the need for my own system license. Not to protect any mechanics, but for content compatibility. Create Superversive content and you can use my trade dress and logos to market your supplement. Make subversive garbage and you can only reference "compatible with the R&R game system" in 10pt comic sans on the back cover.

While it is usually brought up as laughing matter (and to make fun of "the SJWs", as it is done here), it is not entirely accidental the liberal media, particularly in its online branches, is in a moral panic about "gamers" being violent right-wing extremists. Some of it is laughable bullshit and sleazy political denunciation... but they are not entirely wrong.  It is a fact of life that many younger gamers have drifted to the right or the far right. Why wouldn't they? Their demographic (young, usually white men) is subjected to a constant barrage of nagging disapproval aimed to break their spirit, and the dominant ideology of our time considers them a sort of enemy class that needs to be taken down a few notches, and kept down.

Now, as online communities go, leftist forums these days tend to be joyless pits of mutual denunciation and constant browbeating, where deviating one step from the constantly updated orthodoxy will get you shamed or socially ostracised. Right-wing ones have an anarchic sense of fun and mischief that's infectious, they tend to be welcoming big-tent affairs, and far less judgemental than lefty outfits.

The kids are alt-right? Imagine my shock!

Quote from: Mistwell on January 18, 2021, 10:37:47 PM
...I think when you're talking comic books, you're thinking superhero books. ...

What gave it away?

Was it the fact that I directly mentioned Marvel and DC comics who are known for their respective superhero universes? Perhaps when I mentioned the Marvel movie series in direct reference to their comic books? Did your genuine insider knowledge allow you to see through my subterfuge?

You seem a like real smart boy who can figure things out for himself. So you should be able to independently confirm the following then with your genuine insider knowledge.

Quote from: Superhero Comics HATE FACTS on January 18, 2021, 10:37:47 PM

The Below was current as of late 2017:

Marvel filed for bankruptcy in 1996.

In 2007 Marvel took in 45% unit market share. Marvel was on a roll, Iron Man came out the next year, which brought in $585 Million at the box office.

In 2009 it was bought for $4 Billion by Disney. An incredible turn around. Unfortunately, by then Marvel had become entirely converged.

What's more, the security of being owned by Disney allowed the Marvel executives to let their Social justice Freak Flag Fly. It would be hard to find a SJW cause that Marvel has not Relentlessly pushed. Everything from LGBTQ, Body-positive Obesity, feminism, and pushing comics that tried race/gender flipping a good chunk of their iconic characters.

When Marvel got pushback after introducing  Spider-Man replacement Miles Morales in 2011, Marvel Marvel's editor in chief Axel Alonzo responded "Simple fact is Marvel Comics reflect the world in all its shapes, sizes and colors. We believe there's an audience of people out there who are thirsty for a character like Miles Morales." Original Spider-Man creator Stan Lee voiced his support saying "Doing our bit to try to make our nation, and the world, color blind is definitely the right thing."

But whether doing their bit to impose color blindness on the world is right or not, their belief in the size of that audience was evidently misguided.

Six years later, Axel Alonso was out of a job, the most recent issue of Spider-Man featuring Peter Parker had sold close to a million units, while the Miles Morales version has seen one series after another shut down after 12 issues or so. After one year, Brian Michael Bendis' new comic chronicling the further adventures of Miles Morales had lost almost two-thirds of its readership.

As a result of its convergence, despite an almost ten-year string of successful movies that constantly advertised its famous characters to the public, Marvel as of 2017 was still the #1 seller but at a 39% unit market share. It was a comic industry in decline. Single issue sales declined 10.40% and graphic novel sales declined 9.38%, for a total drop of 10.09% over 2016. In fact July 2017 Sold 25% fewer comics than July 2016.

How did Marvel stay #1 in a declining market?

Because their closest competitor, DC comics had decided early on that they, under no circumstances whatsoever, would allow DC comics to become less woke than Marvel...

And as we have seen in the time of the Corona-Chan, when people have more time than ever to stay home and read:

Print book sales actually rose 8% in 2020:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/85256-print-unit-sales-rose-8-2-in-2020.html

Yet...

You have Marvel doing things like this late last year:
Disney Axes Two Top Marvel Employees In Latest Round Of Job Cuts:
https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/11/09/disney-axes-two-top-marvel-employees-marvel-in-latest-round-of-job-cuts/

And hear things like this being bandied about DC comics:
DC COMICS WILL CLOSE DOWN IN JUNE SAYS RUMOR
https://cosmicbook.news/dc-comics-closing-down-june

Get Woke - Go Broke, might actually be a thing...

Who knew?

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 20, 2021, 09:34:50 PM
Hasbro almost never sells ANY of its IP.  It will not sell D&D. This is a pipe dream.

Very true. Hasbro's fortune is built on the long tail and licensing of IPs. They are sitting on a treasure trove of various IPs that's either waiting to be licensed out or retooled in the future or just sat on to ensure others can't use it.

You'd have to see a collapse of Hasbro before IPs went on the market. Of course, that's quite possible in the future as with any major company. And before anyone says Hasbro is too big to fail, go read up on Sears, TWA, Woolworths and Pan Am.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 19, 2021, 07:08:32 PM
As I pointed out in our latest episode of Inappropriate Characters, I think that the sign of it is in the Candlekeep book. It's got every look of being absolute woke garbage, almost every adventure written by people with no real background in RPGs, full of woke signaling.

Candlekeep seems be a litmus test for them pushing the envelope beyond the woke-lite they have been slowly filtering into 5e.

After all, if people will buy a book with a combat-wheelchair accessible dungeon in it, what won't they buy?

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 19, 2021, 07:08:32 PM
Now, because of sheer inertia, it will probably still sell OK. But there will be a bunch of people who will buy it, regret it instantly, and then never buy another D&D book again.

As you said, due to the geek "completest" attitude, the next few books should sell ok.

This attitude will also slow any exodus from D&D.

D&D is a beloved game, and the Geek crowd tend to be very brand/IP loyal.

Many will be very reluctant to go to a different game even after the woke kicks into high gear.

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 19, 2021, 07:08:32 PM
So the decline will start after the next book from Candlekeep. It will be BECAUSE of the SJWs, and yet they will probably be able to successfully argue to the WoTC/hasbro execs that this wasn't the case ("candlekeep sold well!"), and that in fact the reason is because a new more Woke D&D edition is required. So unless Hasbro execs are way more intelligent than I think they are, the new edition will happen 1-2 years after the book after Candlekeep comes out. ...

I think this is a very good way for them to get a 6th edition made.

3e D&D to 4e was an eight year run.

4e to 5e was a six year run.

In 2024 at the 50th anniversary of D&D, 5e would have been out for ten years - two years longer than any other WOTC edition.

As the woke content goes up and the books sales go down post Candlekeep, the SJW's at WOTC will make the claim that 5e is on a downward life cycle and is beginning to get played out. Not because of "inclusive content". As that trend continues to play out they can easily make the pitch to launch 6e in 2024.

They will point to twitter and various internet fora (not this one) that going full woke is a must to keep all the "new players".

And if twitter is anything to go by, 6e will go in the opposite direction of 4e (3e + Heroclicks + MMO)  and be more of a blend of 5e + Dungeonworld + Fate.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the SJW's at WOTC will have three years to make their case.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 23, 2021, 06:57:50 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 20, 2021, 09:34:50 PM
Hasbro almost never sells ANY of its IP.  It will not sell D&D. This is a pipe dream.

Very true. Hasbro's fortune is built on the long tail and licensing of IPs.

The long tail really works.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 23, 2021, 09:40:16 PM
I think this is a very good way for them to get a 6th edition made.

3e D&D to 4e was an eight year run.

4e to 5e was a six year run.

In 2024 at the 50th anniversary of D&D, 5e would have been out for ten years - two years longer than any other WOTC edition.

It's certainly possible, but you need to consider the release schedule of the books. Both 3.x & 4e churned out books like crazy of various qualities. With 5e Hasbro pretty obviously wanted to focus upon fewer high-profit books, as opposed to WotC where the bulk of the books likely didn't make a lot. Revenue may have even been higher (due to the quantity of books) at least back in 3.x, but their margins were much lower.

By the end of the 3.x cycle, there was just too much stuff, so they basically HAD to do a new edition soon, as they couldn't keep piling new rules onto the pile. 4e was cut a bit sooner because it failed hard enough that D&D lost their market leader slot (and they also had a lot of quantity). But 5e is still both very profitable and doesn't have the mass of rules. They don't have a major business reason to roll the dice (pun intended) on a new edition being as successful as 5e, especially after 4e bombed.

And remember - Hasbro probably makes as much off the brand of D&D via merchandising (t-shirts/plushies/board games) and licensing (a piece of BGIII) than they do off the books themselves. I'd be surprised if they'd be willing to risk hurting the brand on a new edition, even though it would basically guarantee a solid initial sales number. (Like novel & video games sequels - how well the new edition of an RPG sells initially likely tells you more about the quality of the last one was than the current one.)

Of course - I'm talking out of my donkey - so I could certainly be wrong.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 24, 2021, 01:44:53 AM
...By the end of the 3.x cycle, there was just too much stuff, so they basically HAD to do a new edition soon, as they couldn't keep piling new rules onto the pile. 4e was cut a bit sooner because it failed hard enough that D&D lost their market leader slot (and they also had a lot of quantity). But 5e is still both very profitable and doesn't have the mass of rules. They don't have a major business reason to roll the dice (pun intended) on a new edition being as successful as 5e, especially after 4e bombed.

That is true. But for the SJW's at WOTC all that doesn't really matter.

The question is can they get the powers that be to accept the Narrative that they will be pushing.

The Narrative being that declining book sales are due to the longest ongoing WOTC D&D edition just running out of steam, and not in any way due to the increase of woke content and political activism that they have been pushing.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 24, 2021, 01:44:53 AM
And remember - Hasbro probably makes as much off the brand of D&D via merchandising (t-shirts/plushies/board games) and licensing (a piece of BGIII) than they do off the books themselves. I'd be surprised if they'd be willing to risk hurting the brand on a new edition, even though it would basically guarantee a solid initial sales number. (Like novel & video games sequels - how well the new edition of an RPG sells initially likely tells you more about the quality of the last one was than the current one.)

D&D as a brand is fairly edition agnostic.

Hasbro has only really stepped in when WOTC screwed the pooch with 4e.

And corporations can be incredibly short-sighted when the prospect of a healthy sales spike is dangled before their eyes...

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 24, 2021, 01:44:53 AM
Of course - I'm talking out of my donkey - so I could certainly be wrong.

We are all talking out of our donkey.

But history has shown that some peoples donkey's have proven more prescient than others.

And if woke setting elements and "inclusion/representation" really are selling points that attract new players, then the Blue Rose RPG would be bigger than it is.