D&D revenues increased 35% in 2020 over 2019; and online play is up 86% (for obvious reasons) "Revenue was up 35% in 2020 compared with 2019, the seventh consecutive year of growth, she said."

Quote from: Mistwell on January 25, 2021, 01:23:41 PM
D&D revenues increased 35% in 2020 over 2019; and online play is up 86% (for obvious reasons) "Revenue was up 35% in 2020 compared with 2019, the seventh consecutive year of growth, she said."

Your point?

The fact that 5e is currently riding high on a wave of success due to increased popular culture awareness is not in dispute.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 26, 2021, 12:15:32 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 25, 2021, 01:23:41 PM
D&D revenues increased 35% in 2020 over 2019; and online play is up 86% (for obvious reasons) "Revenue was up 35% in 2020 compared with 2019, the seventh consecutive year of growth, she said."

Your point?

The fact that 5e is currently riding high on a wave of success due to increased popular culture awareness is not in dispute.

I believe that his point was that this makes it less likely that Hasbro would be willing to risk the golden goose on a new edition just for an initial spike in sales, especially considering the issues with the previous edition (4e).

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 26, 2021, 12:34:39 PM
...
I believe that his point was that this makes it less likely that Hasbro would be willing to risk the golden goose on a new edition just for an initial spike in sales, especially considering the issues with the previous edition (4e).

Maybe he should articulate that instead of trying for a failed mike drop.

In 5e we are only now starting to see the heat on the lobster pot getting turned up.

Personally, I don't think we will really know how things will go down until we see what they will do for the 50th in 2024.

And the signs are there that the people currently in charge of WOTC are willing to walk the same path that Marvel and DC comics have.

Outside of post 4e layoffs, Hasbro has been rather hands-off when it comes to WOTC. And Hasbro has also shown a willingness to indulge woke pleadings, the release of Ms. Monopoly being a prime example.

Does having great sales now somehow make D&D immune to the future loss of market share due to alienated fans walking away as we have seen in other media when they have doubled down on the woke path?

Quote from: Jaeger on January 26, 2021, 12:15:32 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 25, 2021, 01:23:41 PM
D&D revenues increased 35% in 2020 over 2019; and online play is up 86% (for obvious reasons) "Revenue was up 35% in 2020 compared with 2019, the seventh consecutive year of growth, she said."

Your point?

The fact that 5e is currently riding high on a wave of success due to increased popular culture awareness is not in dispute.

What's in dispute is whether it's popular because of the game, or it's popular despite the game. The more years it increases in popularity despite other versions ending by now suggests it's not all outside factors in play here but that there might be something about the game itself which is helping increase the popularity of the game in society.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 26, 2021, 12:34:39 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on January 26, 2021, 12:15:32 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 25, 2021, 01:23:41 PM
D&D revenues increased 35% in 2020 over 2019; and online play is up 86% (for obvious reasons) "Revenue was up 35% in 2020 compared with 2019, the seventh consecutive year of growth, she said."

Your point?

The fact that 5e is currently riding high on a wave of success due to increased popular culture awareness is not in dispute.

I believe that his point was that this makes it less likely that Hasbro would be willing to risk the golden goose on a new edition just for an initial spike in sales, especially considering the issues with the previous edition (4e).

That too

Were not many of the earlier versions not motivated in part to "office political" reasons of one kind or another?

I believe 1st ed AD&D was partly developed to sever the ties the game had with Dave Arneson.

Similarly I believe 2nd ed AD&D was partly developed to sever ties to Gary Gygax, though there was work begun in the 2nd ed before Gygax was pushed out, I think Lorraine Williams saw actually releasing a new edition as a means to separate TSR further from him.

3rd ed D&D came out of WOTC's take over of the game.

4th ed D&D (cursed be it's name) came out of Hasbro's take over of WOTC.

5th ed D&D came out of the abject failure of 4th ed.

5th ed is currently doing well. I don't see woke-ism as being a strong motivator for Hasbro to invest in the development of a 6th ed. Besides, woke-ism can and is inserting itself into 5th ed just fine as it is.

I may have some of the above facts incorrect, but that's how I recall them without going into a deep dive. The only time it seems that we got a new edition that was not tied to office politics/new owners was when we got 5th ed, and 5th ed is in far better shape than 4th ed was.

I think it's perfectly possible that Hasbro keeps 5th ed going for many more years, with only a couple of significant releases each year to add in tweaks and gin up interest. It could be that Hasbro treats D&D development similar to how they treat games like Monopoly. Sure, there are custom versions of monopoly, but I can't recall that Monopoly has ever been fundamentally re-designed as had happened with D&D. If 4th ed had been a success instead of a failure I think it's possible that 4th ed could still be the current version and of the game.

If Hasbro ever sold off D&D (say to Disney with their mountains of cash) I think a new edition would almost be certain, but others have pointed out that Hasbro doesn't sell off their IP.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 26, 2021, 02:35:58 PM
What's in dispute is whether it's popular because of the game, or it's popular despite the game.

D&D has always been the RPG market leader barring a few big missteps by the IP holders.

No one is disputing that. Not sure what argument you are making here.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 26, 2021, 02:35:58 PM
The more years it increases in popularity despite other versions ending by now suggests it's not all outside factors in play here but that there might be something about the game itself which is helping increase the popularity of the game in society.

It's popular because 5e as a system was well received by its base, and had landed at a time where popular culture outside of WOTC's control has made playing D&D cool.

Great timing and very good for D&D.

Design wise and systematically 5e is nothing special. But it does have the very marketable qualities having D&D on the cover and not sucking!

And in a time when pop cultural embraces D&D, and new people are joining the RPG hobby, not sucking as a game system is a very good quality for D&D to have!

Quote from: Jaeger on January 26, 2021, 05:30:33 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 26, 2021, 02:35:58 PM
The more years it increases in popularity despite other versions ending by now suggests it's not all outside factors in play here but that there might be something about the game itself which is helping increase the popularity of the game in society.

It's popular because 5e as a system was well received by its base, and had landed at a time where popular culture outside of WOTC's control has made playing D&D cool.

All companies have influences that are beyond their control in the market - but they still have *influence* on the market beyond just the quality of the core product. That's why advertising is widely considered important, for example.

Besides advertising, there are interviews and other public relations, licensing, book publishing, tie-in games, artwork, and other deals that influence how the brand is perceived. Sure, there is stuff beyond their control - but they also have significant influence. Given that the topic is about WotC's behavior as a company, I think those things are important.

They probably have private survey data that is better than anything we see - but I suspect they're pretty satisfied with the results from advertising and PR, and will try to keep going along roughly the same lines until sales start to falter.

I suspect going woke is done less with the intention to appeal to people but more with the intention of avoiding what they perceive as negative publicity.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 26, 2021, 02:25:57 PM
...the release of Ms. Monopoly being a prime example. [of Hasbro going woke]

Lol - do you know how MANY versions of Monopoly there are? Per a quick Google search, there are 1,144 versions. I don't think that one being "woke" (I didn't actually look at it) means much of anything.

Heck, there are versions of popular college sports teams. That doesn't mean that Hasbro hates smaller less popular colleges. It just means that Monopoly editions are Hasbro going scattershot - because making a new version costs them almost nothing.

They put new names for the properties, have a few mediocre pieces of art, and maybe have new pieces (though not always). It is very cheap to make a new edition, and Hasbro has chased every trend with them. It's not as if Ms. Monopoly is replacing the default game.

If you are actually upset by Ms. Monopoly, you are a very fragile person.

You are discussing two different things.

There are thousands of "re-themed" versions of Monopoly.  Exact same game with names changed around.

Ms. Monopoly is actually a different implementation of the game with different rules.  Very similar, but a different game.  It's also incredibly lowly rated.

You can check it out on BoardGameGeek if you feel like it:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/289363/ms-monopoly

Quote from: Two Crows on January 27, 2021, 03:08:16 PM
You are discussing two different things.

There are thousands of "re-themed" versions of Monopoly.  Exact same game with names changed around.

Ms. Monopoly is actually a different implementation of the game with different rules.  Very similar, but a different game.  It's also incredibly lowly rated.

You can check it out on BoardGameGeek if you feel like it:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/289363/ms-monopoly

Unless it's actually replacing the normal game of Monopoly permanently, my point stands. I really doubt that execs were even involved in yet another version of Monopoly. It was just someone on the Monopoly team trying for a low-hanging fruit cash-grab.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on January 27, 2021, 01:53:08 PM
If you are actually upset by Ms. Monopoly, you are a very fragile person.

I just read a review of Ms. Monopoly. Apparently the only thing that's different is that women get $240 when they pass Go, while men only get $200.

When handicapping horses in a race, the fastest horse has to carry more weight. The slower, less capable horses carry less weight. The idea is to create, or at least approach, a level playing field, by providing a penalty to those with natural advantages so the less capable can keep up.

The game is literally giving men a handicap when they compete against women. Which leads to the obvious and blatant implication that men are superior to women, and need to be handicapped when playing with poor, slow women.

I don't think I could deliberately design a more misogynistic set of rules.

And it's supposed to be feminist.

There is more than just different amounts of money for Passing Go.
Many of the Community Chest cards have been altered, and pay differently to Men then Women, for example. 

The best way to see the relation of the two games to each other would be something like BECMI vs. AD&D (but in board game terms).  They co-exist, and are very similar, but they are not the exact same game.