I am an older player (50s) and I own a lot of the content in both print and digital form. I am a bit confused by the whole under monetized thing with DnD because I have personally been hungry for more content. So to me it seems like there is more money to be had by Hasbro if they put out stuff that is cool that people want to buy.
For whatever their flaws I felt 5e had some real winners.
Tyranny of Dragons- flaws, but you got to oppose Tiamat
Storm Kings Thunder - giants rampaging through the land.
Out of the Abyss- Demon lords AND the Underdark!
Curse of Strahd- a solid retake on a classic.
Descent into Avernus- go to hell and potentially drive Mad Max vehicles.
Now when Van Richten’s Guide came out I figured it would soon be followed by a pretty epic hardback of a horror adventure akin to Ravenloft. Same with Spelljammer. I thought there would be a big space pirate adventure that would involve world hopping quests to exotic locales that would be similar in scope to the adventures above. It just seemed to me those would be sure fire sellers and make Hasbro money.
Yet I have not been seeing that. It has been a long time since I got that excited feeling about a product like seeing Zariel on the cover. Why the change in strategy? Did those previously publications not sell well?
Because my spending in DnD *has* decreased, but it’s mainly because I have been less excited about recent offerings. However, I have ranted to one of my DnD buddies, “Those accountants are going to kill that company. Where is the cool stuff?”
And he responded with, “They have the actual sales data. Maybe what you think sold well are money losers and they wanted to stop the bleeding…”
I concede the point. Maybe Descent into Avernus didn’t sell well, for example. Maybe nickel and diming 3rd party providers is what they need to make money. I mean if creating what I considered cool content before was working, wouldn’t they have rinsed and repeated with Spelljammer and Van Richten? Anyone have any insight on how books sold?
They meant the brand was undermonitized. They could be slapping a D&D logo on a lot more things, like the movie coming out this year, baulders gate 3, toys, clothes, etc.
The issue is that out of a average group of five or six friends playing D&D, the person being the DM tends to be the "whale," buying most or all of the content, and a few of the others maybe buying only a PHB or a splat-book that interests them.
WotC sees this reality and would like to begin making offerings that cater to those other four or five players. While they might not buy books at the same rate as DMs, they may be interested in custom digital content like virtual minis in VTTs, or wearable merch, or maybe nicer dice.
Importantly, when Hasbro/WotC says D&D is under-monetized, they are not saying the game isn't making money, just that they are not catering to enough of their fans to make the amount of money that they could.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
But if the whale buyers have been making them money why the change in strategy. I understand the ‘let’s *also* make money off the non-whale players’ but it seemed like their entire strategy has changed rather than get tweaked. I will confess that some of this is sour grapes. I really would have liked to see Van Richten translate into a zombie or mummy campaign or Spelljammer lead into something like an epic quest to find the body of a dead god in the astral sea. And I just haven’t seen it. Why not continue the output aimed at whales?
Sorry, a bit of venting I suppose. Obviously I don’t know about managing a product line, but it seems like if what you have been doing is working (making a profit) you don’t lose focus on it while you add other elements. Instead it felt like the whole strategy shifted.
Adventure books do not sell as well as sourcebooks. They never have. Adventure books are strictly DM books, while many players also buy sourcebooks, and not every table plays Wizards' prebaked adventures. Many tables play their own homebrew games and thus never have a need for adventure books. This is a reality of the game, and why Wizards has been trying to get away from "Pure Adventure" books. They're including sourcebook information in Adventure books whenever they can in a bid to get more people to buy their worst-performing products, save it doesn't really work because the issue is not everybody wants a long-winded weaksauce adventure alongside their source information.
They meant the brand was undermonitized. They could be slapping a D&D logo on a lot more things, like the movie coming out this year, baulders gate 3, toys, clothes, etc.
Correct, but I think the individual subscriptions to DND Beyond, without the ability for a DM to share content AND the potential for predatory microtransactions in-line with their integrated VTT offering will be one of their most significant revenue streams.
But if the whale buyers have been making them money why the change in strategy.
Because they want to make MORE money.
The company is run to by moneymen to make their shareholders, not by game fans to make gamers happy.
It can be both. Iirc, they said they find about 20% of the customers, DMs, do the bulk of the purchasing. In general, it’s far more cost effective for a business to maintain an existing customer than it is to create a new customer. So the recognition of who is spending how much creates multiple options. They could try to find ways to get more money out of the 80%. However, it also means they know who their primary customer base is, and that they should target products to the 20% who are already proven buyers. Like I said, it’s probably a bit of both going forward, at least in terms of books.
Adventure books do not sell as well as sourcebooks. They never have.
Well, they don't sell as well as core books, and they probably can't. There are 20+ published adventures, and most gaming groups won't ever use more than 2-3 of them. People do buy adventures that they don't use, for one reason or another, but in the end, adventures are going to average significantly less than one copy per gaming group, because an adventure you don't plan to run is useless. The same applies to settings -- if you aren't planning on using a setting, you probably don't buy it.
A non-core sourcebook that covers some edge case might not sell as well as a reasonably popular setting or adventure, though.
Adventure books do not sell as well as sourcebooks. They never have. Adventure books are strictly DM books, while many players also buy sourcebooks, and not every table plays Wizards' prebaked adventures. Many tables play their own homebrew games and thus never have a need for adventure books. This is a reality of the game, and why Wizards has been trying to get away from "Pure Adventure" books. They're including sourcebook information in Adventure books whenever they can in a bid to get more people to buy their worst-performing products, save it doesn't really work because the issue is not everybody wants a long-winded weaksauce adventure alongside their source information.
Building on what Yurei said, all of which is accurate, both Wizards and various fan polls have acknowledged the most popular type of game is Homebrew by a large margin - sometimes as high as 50% of games are homebrew. Below that, you have folks who homebrew the story within existing D&D worlds. Adventures are a fraction of what remains - which gives an idea of how relatively minor they are in the grand scheme of things.
Personally, I much prefer adventure books with some meat in them which I can use as inspiration for homebrew or small scale adventures like Candlekeep which give me a lazy DMing day since they can be shoehorned into an existing campaign. I expect, based on the data out there, most folks would agree on that.
“Adventure books do not sell as well as sourcebooks. They never have. Adventure books are strictly DM books, while many players also buy sourcebooks, and not every table plays Wizards' prebaked adventures. Many tables play their own homebrew games and thus never have a need for adventure books. This is a reality of the game, and why Wizards has been trying to get away from "Pure Adventure" books. They're including sourcebook information in Adventure books whenever they can in a bid to get more people to buy their worst-performing products, save it doesn't really work because the issue is not everybody wants a long-winded weaksauce adventure alongside their source information.”
See if this is true then essentially the campaigns/adventures are *not* profitable or at least not profitable *enough*. But since there are only so many sourcebooks they can make before they become redundant this backs Wizards/Hasbro into a corner. If the adventures are not money makers then what does Hasbro sell us? They go after the OGL to try to figure out how to collect licensing fees for the sale on digital widgets like online minis apparently…
And if Yurei is right, that is the reality Wizards faces and their current strategy of the OGL makes sense. I had thought things like Descent into Avernus and Dragonheist sold better…sigh
“Adventure books do not sell as well as sourcebooks. They never have. Adventure books are strictly DM books, while many players also buy sourcebooks, and not every table plays Wizards' prebaked adventures. Many tables play their own homebrew games and thus never have a need for adventure books. This is a reality of the game, and why Wizards has been trying to get away from "Pure Adventure" books. They're including sourcebook information in Adventure books whenever they can in a bid to get more people to buy their worst-performing products, save it doesn't really work because the issue is not everybody wants a long-winded weaksauce adventure alongside their source information.”
See if this is true then essentially the campaigns/adventures are *not* profitable or at least not profitable *enough*. But since there are only so many sourcebooks they can make before they become redundant this backs Wizards/Hasbro into a corner. If the adventures are not money makers then what does Hasbro sell us? They go after the OGL to try to figure out how to collect licensing fees for the sale on digital widgets like online minis apparently…
And if Yurei is right, that is the reality Wizards faces and their current strategy of the OGL makes sense. I had thought things like Descent into Avernus and Dragonheist sold better…sigh
You already answered this question - rather than release products like “Mediocre and Linear Fetch Quest Masquerading as a Real Campaign” (Avernus) they release things like the (as far as I have seen very well reviewed) recent Dragonlance book - something which has a campaign for those who want a premade campaign, but which also has a bunch of setting information for those who want to homebrew. This hybrid model makes sense both for Wizards’ bottom line and for the customer who gets a product they might actually want to use.
The idea they could run out of content to cover is a little silly. They have large swaths of the Forgotten Realms they could cover, including areas far away from the Sword Coast which have historically been ignored. Different regions of Dragonlance. The incredibly complex world of Eberron 5e has only dipped its toes into. Dark Sun. More on Spelljammer (which I agree has some issues in its first 5e release). Magic the Gathering planes galore. Small, forgotten settings like Ghostwalk. Making up new planes.
They have plenty of space in which to work - they can easily make these hybrid Adventure + Sourcebook type of product for decades and not cover the same ground twice.
See I liked Avernus. Yeah, it needed some work, but had some fun elements. I have Dragomlance digitally, but have yet to get it print and really look at it. I read all of Dragonlance (including the short story stuff) back in the day.
If this is the route they are going I suppose that will work. But I liked the full book adventures. As some of you pointed out, however, other game companies will have like one adventure. So they likely are *not* big money makers.
Thanks for the insight.
In some ways it is like the comic book industry where it used to be hardcore fans who read for a continual narrative, but the real money was in constantly going back to ‘New Issue No. 1’ or crossover events. The selected few who prefer their former can’t give the sustained growth investors want I suppose.
I think it comes down to what you mean by "sells well." Did one out of 100 adults play a D&D adventure last year. No. D&D is a brand known to most Americans. They can sell more shirts than they currently do. I think as a brand D&D hasn't been creating marcketable ip with 5e. Compare Final Fantasy, Disney, and Critical Role with D&D. Final Fantasy has Chocobos, Moogles, and Cactuars. Disney has Baby Yoda, Mando, and BB8. Critical Role has Fearne, Jester, and FCG. With the movie they are going to try some things out. Owlbears, Mimics, and Chris Pine.
In some ways it is like the comic book industry where it used to be hardcore fans who read for a continual narrative, but the real money was in constantly going back to ‘New Issue No. 1’ or crossover events. The selected few who prefer their former can’t give the sustained growth investors want I suppose.
Those “selected few” hardcore fans are, for the overwhelming most part, greatly enjoying this change. As the data consistently shows, the vast number of hardcore fans want to homebrew, either in their own world or in one of Wizards’, and this new type of book is better for them. Sure, there were some hardcore fans who liked canned adventures - but it is fairly clear that the majority of hardcore fans either did not buy these products or bought them while wishing they had more lore and setting substance to them.
This change is hardly the same as the comics industry—comics had been suffering a long death when they switched to the business model you discussed due to a number of factors (barrier to entry due to long story, the fact other forms of media were more readily available, etc.). They forsook their shrinking customer base to focus on customer acquisition, riding a bubble of folks who wanted to own a multi-million copy of the next Action Comics No. 1. In doing so, they both alienated their existing customers and their new ones when the bubble spectacularly (and predictably) popped.
Wizards is in a very different position - their game is very much on the rise, with factors like an accessible edition, Stranger Things, Critical Role, and a global pandemic really helping them expand. After several years of this growth, they are not focused as much on customer acquisition (as comics were) and more on customer retention. That means focusing on things the majority of customers want, including these new hybrid books which are clearly designed to appeal to both the (mostly intermediate) players who like adventures and the larger group (containing most hardcore players) who want setting information.
The situation is completely opposite in both motivation (retention versus acquisition), reason (maintaining large growth versus stopping massive customer loss) effect (appeal to player base’s wants versus appeal to potential new customers) from the comic situation. It would be far more apt to call them foils to one another rather than analogous.
As one of the “whales” that runs a modified FR campaign I recognize 3 groups of “source” books: Core (PHB, MM, DMG, etc), adventures (which may or may not have much setting info) and campaign books (which may have classes/feats/etc or not. Core books, today, are written as setting agnostic as possible, which is fine as I have a need for the mechanics. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that WOtC stop publishing such books (although a hiatus until 6e comes out I can accept). I see 7-9 volumes for 5e which means 1/yr basically. Many of the adventure books of 5e have setting lore for the FR (at least for the region where the adventure takes place) so I was accepting of that. Some, like Spelljammer, start in FR and then move off into the new setting or into setting agnostic areas like the abyss. Campaign books are a different story. Some like Radiant Citadel could be linked into an ongoing campaign fairly easily while others like Dragonlance can’t. I get that they can’t cover updates to every setting every year but the last true FR campaign books were SCAG (2015), Elminster’s FR (2012) and the FR campaign and players guides (2008) the last 3 of which were 4e books. I really would like a decent 5e update.
Part of the issue with acknowledging that GM's spend the most money is that there isn't really a way to change this up since pretty much any materials a player will want to use will ultimately be things that a GM is going to spend money on.
Part of the issue with acknowledging that GM's spend the most money is that there isn't really a way to change this up since pretty much any materials a player will want to use will ultimately be things that a GM is going to spend money on.
The only way I can see them having total control on who buys what...and let us hope this never happens...is if they go totally electronic. Where you have to buy your books via DnD Beyond or through another means and take away physical copies altogether. If someone wants to play then they would have to have something online.
I am an older player (50s) and I own a lot of the content in both print and digital form. I am a bit confused by the whole under monetized thing with DnD because I have personally been hungry for more content. So to me it seems like there is more money to be had by Hasbro if they put out stuff that is cool that people want to buy.
For whatever their flaws I felt 5e had some real winners.
Tyranny of Dragons- flaws, but you got to oppose Tiamat
Storm Kings Thunder - giants rampaging through the land.
Out of the Abyss- Demon lords AND the Underdark!
Curse of Strahd- a solid retake on a classic.
Descent into Avernus- go to hell and potentially drive Mad Max vehicles.
Now when Van Richten’s Guide came out I figured it would soon be followed by a pretty epic hardback of a horror adventure akin to Ravenloft. Same with Spelljammer. I thought there would be a big space pirate adventure that would involve world hopping quests to exotic locales that would be similar in scope to the adventures above. It just seemed to me those would be sure fire sellers and make Hasbro money.
Yet I have not been seeing that. It has been a long time since I got that excited feeling about a product like seeing Zariel on the cover. Why the change in strategy? Did those previously publications not sell well?
Because my spending in DnD *has* decreased, but it’s mainly because I have been less excited about recent offerings. However, I have ranted to one of my DnD buddies, “Those accountants are going to kill that company. Where is the cool stuff?”
And he responded with, “They have the actual sales data. Maybe what you think sold well are money losers and they wanted to stop the bleeding…”
I concede the point. Maybe Descent into Avernus didn’t sell well, for example. Maybe nickel and diming 3rd party providers is what they need to make money. I mean if creating what I considered cool content before was working, wouldn’t they have rinsed and repeated with Spelljammer and Van Richten? Anyone have any insight on how books sold?
They meant the brand was undermonitized. They could be slapping a D&D logo on a lot more things, like the movie coming out this year, baulders gate 3, toys, clothes, etc.
The issue is that out of a average group of five or six friends playing D&D, the person being the DM tends to be the "whale," buying most or all of the content, and a few of the others maybe buying only a PHB or a splat-book that interests them.
WotC sees this reality and would like to begin making offerings that cater to those other four or five players. While they might not buy books at the same rate as DMs, they may be interested in custom digital content like virtual minis in VTTs, or wearable merch, or maybe nicer dice.
Importantly, when Hasbro/WotC says D&D is under-monetized, they are not saying the game isn't making money, just that they are not catering to enough of their fans to make the amount of money that they could.
But if the whale buyers have been making them money why the change in strategy. I understand the ‘let’s *also* make money off the non-whale players’ but it seemed like their entire strategy has changed rather than get tweaked. I will confess that some of this is sour grapes. I really would have liked to see Van Richten translate into a zombie or mummy campaign or Spelljammer lead into something like an epic quest to find the body of a dead god in the astral sea. And I just haven’t seen it. Why not continue the output aimed at whales?
Sorry, a bit of venting I suppose. Obviously I don’t know about managing a product line, but it seems like if what you have been doing is working (making a profit) you don’t lose focus on it while you add other elements. Instead it felt like the whole strategy shifted.
Adventure books do not sell as well as sourcebooks. They never have. Adventure books are strictly DM books, while many players also buy sourcebooks, and not every table plays Wizards' prebaked adventures. Many tables play their own homebrew games and thus never have a need for adventure books. This is a reality of the game, and why Wizards has been trying to get away from "Pure Adventure" books. They're including sourcebook information in Adventure books whenever they can in a bid to get more people to buy their worst-performing products, save it doesn't really work because the issue is not everybody wants a long-winded weaksauce adventure alongside their source information.
Please do not contact or message me.
Because they want to make MORE money.
The company is run to by moneymen to make their shareholders, not by game fans to make gamers happy.
Correct, but I think the individual subscriptions to DND Beyond, without the ability for a DM to share content AND the potential for predatory microtransactions in-line with their integrated VTT offering will be one of their most significant revenue streams.
It can be both.
Iirc, they said they find about 20% of the customers, DMs, do the bulk of the purchasing.
In general, it’s far more cost effective for a business to maintain an existing customer than it is to create a new customer. So the recognition of who is spending how much creates multiple options. They could try to find ways to get more money out of the 80%. However, it also means they know who their primary customer base is, and that they should target products to the 20% who are already proven buyers.
Like I said, it’s probably a bit of both going forward, at least in terms of books.
Well, they don't sell as well as core books, and they probably can't. There are 20+ published adventures, and most gaming groups won't ever use more than 2-3 of them. People do buy adventures that they don't use, for one reason or another, but in the end, adventures are going to average significantly less than one copy per gaming group, because an adventure you don't plan to run is useless. The same applies to settings -- if you aren't planning on using a setting, you probably don't buy it.
A non-core sourcebook that covers some edge case might not sell as well as a reasonably popular setting or adventure, though.
Building on what Yurei said, all of which is accurate, both Wizards and various fan polls have acknowledged the most popular type of game is Homebrew by a large margin - sometimes as high as 50% of games are homebrew. Below that, you have folks who homebrew the story within existing D&D worlds. Adventures are a fraction of what remains - which gives an idea of how relatively minor they are in the grand scheme of things.
Personally, I much prefer adventure books with some meat in them which I can use as inspiration for homebrew or small scale adventures like Candlekeep which give me a lazy DMing day since they can be shoehorned into an existing campaign. I expect, based on the data out there, most folks would agree on that.
“Adventure books do not sell as well as sourcebooks. They never have. Adventure books are strictly DM books, while many players also buy sourcebooks, and not every table plays Wizards' prebaked adventures. Many tables play their own homebrew games and thus never have a need for adventure books. This is a reality of the game, and why Wizards has been trying to get away from "Pure Adventure" books. They're including sourcebook information in Adventure books whenever they can in a bid to get more people to buy their worst-performing products, save it doesn't really work because the issue is not everybody wants a long-winded weaksauce adventure alongside their source information.”
See if this is true then essentially the campaigns/adventures are *not* profitable or at least not profitable *enough*. But since there are only so many sourcebooks they can make before they become redundant this backs Wizards/Hasbro into a corner. If the adventures are not money makers then what does Hasbro sell us? They go after the OGL to try to figure out how to collect licensing fees for the sale on digital widgets like online minis apparently…
And if Yurei is right, that is the reality Wizards faces and their current strategy of the OGL makes sense. I had thought things like Descent into Avernus and Dragonheist sold better…sigh
If you look at RPGs other than D&D (and Pathfinder), most of them publish either zero or one adventure.
You already answered this question - rather than release products like “Mediocre and Linear Fetch Quest Masquerading as a Real Campaign” (Avernus) they release things like the (as far as I have seen very well reviewed) recent Dragonlance book - something which has a campaign for those who want a premade campaign, but which also has a bunch of setting information for those who want to homebrew. This hybrid model makes sense both for Wizards’ bottom line and for the customer who gets a product they might actually want to use.
The idea they could run out of content to cover is a little silly. They have large swaths of the Forgotten Realms they could cover, including areas far away from the Sword Coast which have historically been ignored. Different regions of Dragonlance. The incredibly complex world of Eberron 5e has only dipped its toes into. Dark Sun. More on Spelljammer (which I agree has some issues in its first 5e release). Magic the Gathering planes galore. Small, forgotten settings like Ghostwalk. Making up new planes.
They have plenty of space in which to work - they can easily make these hybrid Adventure + Sourcebook type of product for decades and not cover the same ground twice.
See I liked Avernus. Yeah, it needed some work, but had some fun elements. I have Dragomlance digitally, but have yet to get it print and really look at it. I read all of Dragonlance (including the short story stuff) back in the day.
If this is the route they are going I suppose that will work. But I liked the full book adventures. As some of you pointed out, however, other game companies will have like one adventure. So they likely are *not* big money makers.
Thanks for the insight.
In some ways it is like the comic book industry where it used to be hardcore fans who read for a continual narrative, but the real money was in constantly going back to ‘New Issue No. 1’ or crossover events. The selected few who prefer their former can’t give the sustained growth investors want I suppose.
I think it comes down to what you mean by "sells well." Did one out of 100 adults play a D&D adventure last year. No. D&D is a brand known to most Americans. They can sell more shirts than they currently do. I think as a brand D&D hasn't been creating marcketable ip with 5e. Compare Final Fantasy, Disney, and Critical Role with D&D. Final Fantasy has Chocobos, Moogles, and Cactuars. Disney has Baby Yoda, Mando, and BB8. Critical Role has Fearne, Jester, and FCG. With the movie they are going to try some things out. Owlbears, Mimics, and Chris Pine.
Those “selected few” hardcore fans are, for the overwhelming most part, greatly enjoying this change. As the data consistently shows, the vast number of hardcore fans want to homebrew, either in their own world or in one of Wizards’, and this new type of book is better for them. Sure, there were some hardcore fans who liked canned adventures - but it is fairly clear that the majority of hardcore fans either did not buy these products or bought them while wishing they had more lore and setting substance to them.
This change is hardly the same as the comics industry—comics had been suffering a long death when they switched to the business model you discussed due to a number of factors (barrier to entry due to long story, the fact other forms of media were more readily available, etc.). They forsook their shrinking customer base to focus on customer acquisition, riding a bubble of folks who wanted to own a multi-million copy of the next Action Comics No. 1. In doing so, they both alienated their existing customers and their new ones when the bubble spectacularly (and predictably) popped.
Wizards is in a very different position - their game is very much on the rise, with factors like an accessible edition, Stranger Things, Critical Role, and a global pandemic really helping them expand. After several years of this growth, they are not focused as much on customer acquisition (as comics were) and more on customer retention. That means focusing on things the majority of customers want, including these new hybrid books which are clearly designed to appeal to both the (mostly intermediate) players who like adventures and the larger group (containing most hardcore players) who want setting information.
The situation is completely opposite in both motivation (retention versus acquisition), reason (maintaining large growth versus stopping massive customer loss) effect (appeal to player base’s wants versus appeal to potential new customers) from the comic situation. It would be far more apt to call them foils to one another rather than analogous.
As one of the “whales” that runs a modified FR campaign I recognize 3 groups of “source” books: Core (PHB, MM, DMG, etc), adventures (which may or may not have much setting info) and campaign books (which may have classes/feats/etc or not. Core books, today, are written as setting agnostic as possible, which is fine as I have a need for the mechanics. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that WOtC stop publishing such books (although a hiatus until 6e comes out I can accept). I see 7-9 volumes for 5e which means 1/yr basically. Many of the adventure books of 5e have setting lore for the FR (at least for the region where the adventure takes place) so I was accepting of that. Some, like Spelljammer, start in FR and then move off into the new setting or into setting agnostic areas like the abyss. Campaign books are a different story. Some like Radiant Citadel could be linked into an ongoing campaign fairly easily while others like Dragonlance can’t. I get that they can’t cover updates to every setting every year but the last true FR campaign books were SCAG (2015), Elminster’s FR (2012) and the FR campaign and players guides (2008) the last 3 of which were 4e books. I really would like a decent 5e update.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Part of the issue with acknowledging that GM's spend the most money is that there isn't really a way to change this up since pretty much any materials a player will want to use will ultimately be things that a GM is going to spend money on.
The only way I can see them having total control on who buys what...and let us hope this never happens...is if they go totally electronic. Where you have to buy your books via DnD Beyond or through another means and take away physical copies altogether. If someone wants to play then they would have to have something online.
I loved Shadow of the Dragon Queen. I also really liked the Ravenloft and Wildemount sourcebooks.
I really like D&D, especially Ravenloft, Exandria and the Upside Down from Stranger Things. My pronouns are she/they (genderfae).