WotC WotC can, and probably should support multiple editions of D&D.

[Clint_L]

When I typed "it was a factor" it should not have been construed to mean that I was arguing it didn't matter. As far as I understand it, in the aggregate, TSR was still making a profit overall on their RPG sales even if one or more product lines didn't make them any money. One of the biggest problems TSR had was with their practice of factoring and the use of Random House as an informal bank. Without factoring or using Random House as an informal bank, TSR probably would have chugged along for a few more years.

These are really the same issue.

Overall, TSR was losing money on RPG sales. That doesn't mean every book was unprofitable - the core books were still probably making money even in the lean years. But they were publishing a ton of other books that were losing money, and that business model basically developed because of the Random House deal. Essentially, they were publishing a lot of those different settings because they needed a constant stream of publications to keep the Random House advances (which were really basically loans) going, but in doing so were exacerbating a feedback loop that was spreading their own diminishing consumer base between rival versions of the game.

So the more they published, the more they needed to keep publishing, even while a huge number of books were being returned unsold.

Edit: This is likely why WotC has been so conservative with the 5e publishing schedule, and why they are reluctant to give most settings more than one or two books. They don't want any setting to become, in effect, its own version of the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Dragon Dice wouldn't have been as big a problem without factoring. Because of the way TSR set up their finances, they couldn't deviate from the plan no matter what happened during the year. They knew they were over producing Dragon Dice but they had no choice but continue. Wow. Lorraine Williams is just like Paul Maud'dib when he realizes the Freman jihad will happen no matter what he does.

More like they over ordered the initial run to get the better price per unit. But they ordered something like X10 the demand.

 

[ECMO3]

I think they do support old editions. They still sell digital copies of old editions all the way back to at least AD&D 1E.

If by support you mean reprint new copies of old editions in paper - I don't think that would be profitable.

I also don't think it is going to be profitable to hire more staff to convert new adventure content to older editions. I think the payoff there is minimal as players can do that relatively easy.

This is espcially true when new adventure content from WOTC is hit or miss. We have had some great 5E adventures from WOTC and we have had some real stinkers. VEOR was heavily marketed, and although I have not looked at it (I am going to be playing it as a PC) everyone I have talked to has said it is a disappointment. Would there be value and more importantly profit in converting that to 1E or 2E or 3E? I doubt it.

Also if they did support only one legacy version, I think 1E would be the one to support, not 3E. 1E is the only version that was more popular than 5E is (at least in print sales), it is the version that the OSR movement is centered on and in terms of current players, I would bet it remains the most popular version other than 5E.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think they do support old editions. They still sell digital copies of old editions all the way back to at least AD&D 1E.

If by support you mean reprint new copies of old editions in paper - I don't think that would be profitable.

I also don't think it is going to be profitable to hire more staff to convert new adventure content to older editions. I think the payoff there is minimal as players can do that relatively easy.

This is espcially true when new adventure content from WOTC is hit or miss. We have had some great 5E adventures from WOTC and we have had some real stinkers. VEOR was heavily marketed, and although I have not looked at it (I am going to be playing it as a PC) everyone I have talked to has said it is a disappointment. Would there be value and more importantly profit in converting that to 1E or 2E or 3E? I doubt it.

Also if they did support only one legacy version, I think 1E would be the one to support, not 3E. 1E is the only version that was more popular than 5E is (at least in print sales), it is the version that the OSR movement is centered on and in terms of current players, I would bet it remains the most popular version other than 5E.

OSR is more centered on B/X.

 

[teitan]

Maybe....

They could make a Basic D&D for new players and kids

And have an...I don;t know, lets say Advanced D&D for experienced gamers and adults

Wonder if that could work?

They did. It's on their website as a free pdf. There is also the Essentials boxed set.

 

[MGibster]

I don't actually run any kind of company, but whenever we want to start some new at work we have to make a business case for it. i.e. How is this going to help the company? What's the cost of creating and publishing a different edition of D&D versus the expected return on investment? I suspect the ROI wouldn't be very high. WotC kind of wants us to experience D&D in their walled garden. How does a different edition of D&D help with that?

 

[Lanefan]

I looked at Roll20 stats two months ago and this is what i gathered.

On 4/8/24 0001 Hours (12am) there were 1000 games on offer (including mature only games) [At least this is how many games it showed 34 Pages. 30 games per page and the 34th page had 10 games.]

81% Official DnD systems (5e, 4e, 3e, 2e, 1e, od&d) [771 are 5E, 39 are 4e, 3e, 2e, 1e, od&d; 523 [511 5E] have a cost, 287 [260 5E] are free to play]
8.5% Pathfinder 1&2e (50 games or 60% PF1E, 35 games or 40% PF2E)
2.6% Call of Cthulhu (any edition)
1.7 % WOD systems
1.4 % Star Wars (any system)
1.1 % Savage Worlds
1.0 % Old School Essentials
.9% Apocalypse World Systems
.7 Traveler (any edition)
.6% Dungeon Crawl Classics

99.5%
.5 % All other games.

Now this is not representative of actual play since many games are TotM and perhaps are organized elsewhere (discord, reddit, etc) But its good to see the biggest vtt's numbers.

The bolded both shocks and saddens me: of the 771 5e games in progress at the time of that snapshot, 511 were pay-to-play.

Of the 39 non-5e D&D games, 12 were pay-to-play; still a surprisingly high ratio but nowhere near that of 5e.

 

[mamba]

Okay. Look at the TTRPG industry. Just about the only big company that produces a single game and no others is WotC. Just about every other company produces multiple game lines, sometimes but not always with significant overlap in genre. Green Ronin, EN Publishing, Cubicle 7, Goodman Games, Mongoose, Free League, Modiphius, Runehammer, Evil Hat, Paizo, Necrotic Gnome, etc.

and this somehow shows that WotC’s approach is wrong? WotC’s market share and profit margin beg to differ…

Can they afford to? Sure. Does it make sense to? Much harder to answer…

 

[Lanefan]

OSR is more centered on B/X.

If WotC were to do a second side-along edition (which I've been saying they should for ages) I'd like to see it be a hybrid of BX and 1e, arrived at by stripping out the bits of 1e that very few tables ever used and simplifying some other bits a little, while keeping the idea of discrete subsystems rather than unified mechanics.

 

[mamba]

Maybe....

They could make a Basic D&D for new players and kids

And have an...I don;t know, lets say Advanced D&D for experienced gamers and adults

Wonder if that could work?

that is what starter sets are for these days