On the issue of "5.24 is the best selling set of books in D&D's history"... I don't actually put a lot of weight on that, because expected sales for a game with the popularity of D&D in 2024 are simply larger than they were in 2014
This is key, without knowing how much the player base has increased comparing just sales numbers is a meaningless metric for anything other than patting themselves on the back. Wotc took over production and distribution and are the only ones with these numbers and I haven't seen them refer to this, though it's absence is curious given how powerful an effect it would have on the sales numbers actual value to investors.
It is not necessary to lie when concealing the truth only requires leaving out key information that few will notice.
i love how it seems like individual people come across as more interested in the financial side of things then the shareholders...
anywho with all the talk about sale numbers, financial figures and such i cant help but wonder as a player (solely interested in entertainment value), why should those financial things matter - positive or negative... all that matters to me personally is if the content available works for me (and my table), which i can say the dnd 2024 content does
it may not be to everyones liking due to nostalgia for previous editions, or what seems like a dislike for change but again that shouldnt matter that much just because someone likes or dislikes something doesnt mean the next person will feel the same
yet i do believe alot of the doom talk is just people trying to influence people towards other company games and sites (similar to poaching players), while making it appear as if things a worse then they might actually be
those that focus on comparing one thing to another (whether it in the past or present) will always find issues with something usually it all bottles down to personal feelings which change per individual, recommend taking everything with a grain of salt and coming to own conclusions based of the game and the game alone
yet i do believe alot of the doom talk is just people trying to influence people towards other company games and sites (similar to poaching players), while making it appear as if things a worse then they might actually be
Also don't forget, certain, ah, political figures have recently talked about wanting to buy D&D.
i love how it seems like individual people come across as more interested in the financial side of things then the shareholders...
anywho with all the talk about sale numbers, financial figures and such i cant help but wonder as a player (solely interested in entertainment value), why should those financial things matter - positive or negative... all that matters to me personally is if the content available works for me (and my table), which i can say the dnd 2024 content does
I agree - to the individual player, the sales figures absolutely should not matter. What should matter is your own opinion, your own experiences, and the recommendations and experiences of friends you trust to provide honest-non-biased views.
The sales matter for a different element of the conversation. Certain elements on this thread are making claims beyond their personal experience, extrapolating their own dislike of 5.24 (for whatever reason) to "everyone hates 5.24." That is obviously a silly position to take, especially given the number of folks on this thread who have stated things they love about 5.24 from their own, personal-level experiences.
However, since they raised the conversation to the aggregate level, that pivots the discussion from "do you love 5.24 personally?" to "is 5.24 loved on an aggregate level?" There are one of two pieces of data available showing popularity on an that level. Sales data is one piece of that - with large sales showing a large popularity and interest, that is continuing to be high, even as word of mouth spreads reviews of whether folks should buy into the 5.24 rules. The other piece of data is the wide-ranging responses to the 2024 playtest surveys - tens of thousands of participants, with content that made it into the final game scoring at least 80% approval, and often as high as 90% or more approval.
None of that necessarily matters to any single individual in their determination of whether they love 5.24 - unless that individual is avoiding 5.24 because they falsely believe the doomsayers that "everyone hates 5.24" - but it is relevant to the greater conversation of "as an aggregate whole, is 5.24 popular or, as some claim, a miserable failure.
I know I would much rather talk about all the things I like about 5.24 - bastions returning from way earlier editions, fixes to certain long-standing problems, the clear fact that they looked at some common homerules and added them to the game, etc. - but I also am not super fond of the misinformation and claims of doom and gloom that folks are making without any real evidence to support their auguries - especially since the data we do have is all positive data.
You know something I genuinely love in D&D 2024? Wild shape for druids. IMNSHO the 2014 rules offered an overpowered version, especially for Moon druids. 2024 version is MUCH more balanced. And I like the change extended to other shapeshifting spells that the hit points from the new shape are temporary hit points, which solves a lot of the problems I had with Wild Shape and polymorph in the 2014 rules.
i love how it seems like individual people come across as more interested in the financial side of things then the shareholders...
anywho with all the talk about sale numbers, financial figures and such i cant help but wonder as a player (solely interested in entertainment value), why should those financial things matter - positive or negative... all that matters to me personally is if the content available works for me (and my table), which i can say the dnd 2024 content does
it may not be to everyones liking due to nostalgia for previous editions, or what seems like a dislike for change but again that shouldnt matter that much just because someone likes or dislikes something doesnt mean the next person will feel the same
yet i do believe alot of the doom talk is just people trying to influence people towards other company games and sites (similar to poaching players), while making it appear as if things a worse then they might actually be
those that focus on comparing one thing to another (whether it in the past or present) will always find issues with something usually it all bottles down to personal feelings which change per individual, recommend taking everything with a grain of salt and coming to own conclusions based of the game and the game alone
If the statement is "I don't like 5e24" then fine, nobody is going to argue against that. (They might ask what you don't like about it, and steer you towards elements that address your complaints, but at the end of the day your preferences are your preferences.)
But if on the other hand the statement is "5e24 failed" or "5e24 is dying" then obviously the sales figures and investor call are going to come out to refute that. Because we've moved beyond personal opinion to misinformation at that point.
You know something I genuinely love in D&D 2024? Wild shape for druids. IMNSHO the 2014 rules offered an overpowered version, especially for Moon druids. 2024 version is MUCH more balanced. And I like the change extended to other shapeshifting spells that the hit points from the new shape are temporary hit points, which solves a lot of the problems I had with Wild Shape and polymorph in the 2014 rules.
Honestly, Moon Druids are in an awkward place in ‘24 now imo. Dialing back their soaking was nice, but between losing the elemental forms and a lot of the old giant beasts being reclassified to other types, their pool of late game options is pretty small without additional books, and the performance is iffy since lots of the attack mods fall short for the tiers.
Polymorph isn’t so bad off, but True Polymorph got messy with the shift to temp HP since it can be argued now that the “permanent” duration will seemingly be overridden by the temp HP expiring on a Long Rest.
i love how it seems like individual people come across as more interested in the financial side of things then the shareholders...
anywho with all the talk about sale numbers, financial figures and such i cant help but wonder as a player (solely interested in entertainment value), why should those financial things matter - positive or negative... all that matters to me personally is if the content available works for me (and my table), which i can say the dnd 2024 content does
it may not be to everyones liking due to nostalgia for previous editions, or what seems like a dislike for change but again that shouldnt matter that much just because someone likes or dislikes something doesnt mean the next person will feel the same
yet i do believe alot of the doom talk is just people trying to influence people towards other company games and sites (similar to poaching players), while making it appear as if things a worse then they might actually be
those that focus on comparing one thing to another (whether it in the past or present) will always find issues with something usually it all bottles down to personal feelings which change per individual, recommend taking everything with a grain of salt and coming to own conclusions based of the game and the game alone
To address this question, from the perspective of an individual who has actually taken the time to study and even provide feedback on the new rules set, even started new players and veteran hobbyists with the new rules, and most agreed they preferred the older rules.
That, and the fact that yes little is to be liked or even loved about the changes simply because the changes made are in-line with “house-rules” from a designer who has had a significant amount of time to learn the actual 50 years of how the game has evolved, and the decision to develop the new rules set was to make them more like 4e.
The personal experience of others is the feedback we DM/GM’s are getting from players about their experiences with the new rules, and we are just echoing that feedback on the one place where not so wonderful always positive feedback can be made.
If the new rules were doing so well, and are loved so much how come on every investor call and in every investor report, the actual ability to communicate with evidence just how more successful the new rules are to the former has not only been lacking, but the former reports that were invaluably detailed by individual subsegments and sub-holdings of Hasbro’s company, which allowed “public” love to be given to the game, has been condensed into a blob of general information that can easily hide bad news.
The doomsayers can say all they want, when the attitude towards those “doomsayers” is turned against those who want what is best for the game, company who owns be-damned, and treated like biased ignorant fools, Again, Where is the love for a set of rules by a corporation that doesn’t care, and that people who want a “Real D&D” experience, not a video game.
Real D&D has always been, doing the most with the least you are given. Now, the game has become lost love for the new because it brought back old memories of the struggle the game and it’s rules has had over 50 years.
Personally, I know how edition changes go, seen and been through all but the fact remains I still love the “Game”, but the different rules are a different story. Some where good, some questionable, and some that just wasn’t well thought out.
[ The total average element of 2024 based on just the numbers that Crawford stated in all the feedback videos, where certain parts received a 90 percent positive feedback ( which was the changes to parts of the mechanics such as Surprise, Weapon Mastery, and things that caused larger “Rules as ?” Debates.), to the latter parts of the feedback having to accept as low as a 55 percent positive feedback rate for proposed changes. That said, the best guess on overall acceptance of the new rules can be seen as the average response from just what could be reported, and the love of the new rules is only 60 percent of the community that will ever “invest significant money into a ‘Niche Hobby’ that appears the same as a ‘Video’ game’”.
Thing is we expect the game and it’s rules to only change every 10 years, not every 5. Hard to love something that changes it mind whenever it is not happy with how much success it currently has.
The rules are just as much a victim of corporate “incompetence” as are the people who love the hobby, and the love is fading. ]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Then in this case I'm grossly insensitive and I'll leave it there so the conversation as to why people either have love or hate.
Your argument was that because D&D offers 'for the most part 0 value outside of entertainment'—something that isn't even true provided the proven therapeutic and educational benefits of playing role-playing games—it needn't be made more affordable or more accessible to those in need.
You were asked about the costs of movie tickets. Whether theaters should no longer allow pensioners or students in for less. Because going to the movies has 'for the most part 0 value outside of entertainment.'
Why is it always one rule for Wizards of the Coast but different rules for others? Apparently capitalism is only a bad thing when those with whom one disagrees are singing its praises. I reckon most people on these forums probably have no time for commentators whose content is largely geared towards defending it. But they sound just like them.
Let's put those predictions in the same box as the prediction that Tasha's would be a failure and would be WotC's "New Coke" and the that prediction that the "OGL debacle" would be the end of WotC because everyone would leave for other games forever.
Tasha's. A supplement comparable to those old Unearthed Arcana books.
It sold very well.
The sales figures for the 2024 core books come absolutely nowhere near those for that book.
Let's put those predictions in the same box as the prediction that Tasha's would be a failure and would be WotC's "New Coke" and the that prediction that the "OGL debacle" would be the end of WotC because everyone would leave for other games forever.
Tasha's. A supplement comparable to those old Unearthed Arcana books.
It sold very well.
The sales figures for the 2024 core books come absolutely nowhere near those for that book.
Whether Sigil lives or dies from this those devs knew it was a job with an end point as many have posted it is the industry standard in the line of work. It is not the same as other types of layoffs.
As many others have posted here. All those journalists and YouTubers and media analysts who report on the industry and have reported this mustn't know what they're talking about.
For those having trouble finding the information about D&D in that document or don't want to click the link.
The numbers are available to show where both books landed on best seller lists. And they are far behind those for Tasha's. A statement as abstract as the one given is not evidence of performance.
Folk, a reminder again that the topic of the post is the 2024 Core rules. Discussions of what D&D is as a whole would be better off in it's own thread and discussions of other TTRPGs would be better as a new thread in Adohand's Kitchen.
Well, the issues are closely related to the core rulebooks because all the negative stuff Hasbro and WOTC did and are still doeing, are bleeding into all of the 2024 Core Rulebooks. Hard to keep them separated when leadership of the company is killing the immersion with stuff from reality and very bad decisions, includeing driving out core audience?
I do not think they are driving out the "core" audience though. Sure there are a lot of people that claim they hate it, but yet they are still here. People like to complain about things.
So the best selling game is the one no one plays. Yup.
Short answer.. Yeah.. kind of. I mean I think it's an exaggeration to say "no one plays it", even if that is true in my local area. But yeah, compared to 2014, it's shocking how few people are playing 2024. It doesn't match up with the proposed "best-selling D&D of all time", which I will remind you is the exact same thing WotC said about 4th edition. It took about 2 years before D&D fans and supporters of 4th edition were willing to accept that the game was not only doing poorly, but was outright failing as a product. I predict it will be the same with 2024.
Again bringing it back to the OP's topic. The problem with 2024 edition is that it's fundamentally the same game, essentially a reprint. The fact that people buy the product is not surprising at all. When D&D gets a new edition, every D&D fan is going to buy it. But when you realize that playing 2024 is the same as playing 2014 which you have already played the crap out of, essentially you end up in a place where you where before the new edition was launched.
Aka... waiting for a new edition. In the absence of a new edition (or an edition you want to play as the case was with 4th edition and to a degree 2nd edition), you seek out other games.
The success of all of these kick-starters and alternatives to D&D would not be successful if we were in 2014 and Wizards just launched 5th edition as a new game no one has played before. I mean during that period, there was no way to launch a successful alternative to D&D, EVERYONE was on the 5e D&D train.
That is not happening right now, 2024 is not having that impact, in fact, quite to the contrary, its because of the release of 2024 that all of these others games are so successful. They are offering something new and D&D is not currently, nor will offer anything new for many years to come. Its going to be 5th edition for at least another 3-5 years so as a D&D player, if you not excited about continuing to play the same old 5th edition, you are looking at other games and that is precisely what I think is happening right now.
You are correct, there are more people using 2014 rules then 2024 right now. the main reason of that is people do not want to change rules in the middle of a campaign. As campaigns end i beleive we will start seeing an influx of people switching over. Just looking at StartPlaying.games i see more seats for 2024 games then 2014.
I’m not sure “reading the tea leaves” is a step up from doomsaying. And considering how well the new core 3 have sold according to all informed reports, somehow I think the “community” isn’t experiencing the same weather you are. If you don’t enjoy ‘24 that’s fine, but I’ve seen a lot of enthusiasm for various new elements introduced like Bastions and Weapon Mastery.
If by 'informed reports' you mean statements as abstract as 'these are our best selling books ever' ...
The numbers say otherwise.
Not even the PHB hit best seller lists as well as Tasha's did.
Has that even ever happened before?
That is like an edition's Unearthed Arcana outselling the next's PHB.
Not even the PHB hit best seller lists as well as Tasha's did.
That's because the books got reclassified so they don't even show up on the same charts, the people seeing tiny sales for D&D 2024 were looking in the wrong place. Which, sure, could have been intended to hide something, but given that they did it before any of the 2024 books were released, it probably wasn't.
Their rankings on best seller lists say otherwise.
If the 2024 PHB has outsold Tasha's it's because of duplicated hybrid (physical-digital) sales. Which don't give us an accurate indication of how well it has been received.
The PHB for an edition—the baseline for playing the game—shouldn't just 'outsell' a supplement comparable to Unearthed Arcana. It should sell exponentially more.
if the internet is telling the truth - there was no OGL/SRD before wotc acquired dnd so for all the hate it gets for trying to change the OGL, personally am curious where is the love for them creating it to begin with, surely it helped grow the creator community to what it is today (for better or worse)
The OGL was the worst and best thing to ever happen to the industry.
1: it allowed creatives a chance to get their work out to the world and make some money and created New games and content for us all to enjoy.
2: It created alot of entitled people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is key, without knowing how much the player base has increased comparing just sales numbers is a meaningless metric for anything other than patting themselves on the back. Wotc took over production and distribution and are the only ones with these numbers and I haven't seen them refer to this, though it's absence is curious given how powerful an effect it would have on the sales numbers actual value to investors.
It is not necessary to lie when concealing the truth only requires leaving out key information that few will notice.
i love how it seems like individual people come across as more interested in the financial side of things then the shareholders...
anywho with all the talk about sale numbers, financial figures and such
i cant help but wonder as a player (solely interested in entertainment value), why should those financial things matter - positive or negative...
all that matters to me personally is if the content available works for me (and my table), which i can say the dnd 2024 content does
it may not be to everyones liking due to nostalgia for previous editions, or what seems like a dislike for change but again that shouldnt matter that much
just because someone likes or dislikes something doesnt mean the next person will feel the same
yet i do believe alot of the doom talk is just people trying to influence people towards other company games and sites (similar to poaching players),
while making it appear as if things a worse then they might actually be
those that focus on comparing one thing to another (whether it in the past or present) will always find issues with something
usually it all bottles down to personal feelings which change per individual, recommend taking everything with a grain of salt and coming to own conclusions based of the game and the game alone
Also don't forget, certain, ah, political figures have recently talked about wanting to buy D&D.
I agree - to the individual player, the sales figures absolutely should not matter. What should matter is your own opinion, your own experiences, and the recommendations and experiences of friends you trust to provide honest-non-biased views.
The sales matter for a different element of the conversation. Certain elements on this thread are making claims beyond their personal experience, extrapolating their own dislike of 5.24 (for whatever reason) to "everyone hates 5.24." That is obviously a silly position to take, especially given the number of folks on this thread who have stated things they love about 5.24 from their own, personal-level experiences.
However, since they raised the conversation to the aggregate level, that pivots the discussion from "do you love 5.24 personally?" to "is 5.24 loved on an aggregate level?" There are one of two pieces of data available showing popularity on an that level. Sales data is one piece of that - with large sales showing a large popularity and interest, that is continuing to be high, even as word of mouth spreads reviews of whether folks should buy into the 5.24 rules. The other piece of data is the wide-ranging responses to the 2024 playtest surveys - tens of thousands of participants, with content that made it into the final game scoring at least 80% approval, and often as high as 90% or more approval.
None of that necessarily matters to any single individual in their determination of whether they love 5.24 - unless that individual is avoiding 5.24 because they falsely believe the doomsayers that "everyone hates 5.24" - but it is relevant to the greater conversation of "as an aggregate whole, is 5.24 popular or, as some claim, a miserable failure.
I know I would much rather talk about all the things I like about 5.24 - bastions returning from way earlier editions, fixes to certain long-standing problems, the clear fact that they looked at some common homerules and added them to the game, etc. - but I also am not super fond of the misinformation and claims of doom and gloom that folks are making without any real evidence to support their auguries - especially since the data we do have is all positive data.
You know something I genuinely love in D&D 2024? Wild shape for druids. IMNSHO the 2014 rules offered an overpowered version, especially for Moon druids. 2024 version is MUCH more balanced. And I like the change extended to other shapeshifting spells that the hit points from the new shape are temporary hit points, which solves a lot of the problems I had with Wild Shape and polymorph in the 2014 rules.
If the statement is "I don't like 5e24" then fine, nobody is going to argue against that. (They might ask what you don't like about it, and steer you towards elements that address your complaints, but at the end of the day your preferences are your preferences.)
But if on the other hand the statement is "5e24 failed" or "5e24 is dying" then obviously the sales figures and investor call are going to come out to refute that. Because we've moved beyond personal opinion to misinformation at that point.
Honestly, Moon Druids are in an awkward place in ‘24 now imo. Dialing back their soaking was nice, but between losing the elemental forms and a lot of the old giant beasts being reclassified to other types, their pool of late game options is pretty small without additional books, and the performance is iffy since lots of the attack mods fall short for the tiers.
Polymorph isn’t so bad off, but True Polymorph got messy with the shift to temp HP since it can be argued now that the “permanent” duration will seemingly be overridden by the temp HP expiring on a Long Rest.
To address this question, from the perspective of an individual who has actually taken the time to study and even provide feedback on the new rules set, even started new players and veteran hobbyists with the new rules, and most agreed they preferred the older rules.
That, and the fact that yes little is to be liked or even loved about the changes simply because the changes made are in-line with “house-rules” from a designer who has had a significant amount of time to learn the actual 50 years of how the game has evolved, and the decision to develop the new rules set was to make them more like 4e.
The personal experience of others is the feedback we DM/GM’s are getting from players about their experiences with the new rules, and we are just echoing that feedback on the one place where not so wonderful always positive feedback can be made.
If the new rules were doing so well, and are loved so much how come on every investor call and in every investor report, the actual ability to communicate with evidence just how more successful the new rules are to the former has not only been lacking, but the former reports that were invaluably detailed by individual subsegments and sub-holdings of Hasbro’s company, which allowed “public” love to be given to the game, has been condensed into a blob of general information that can easily hide bad news.
The doomsayers can say all they want, when the attitude towards those “doomsayers” is turned against those who want what is best for the game, company who owns be-damned, and treated like biased ignorant fools, Again, Where is the love for a set of rules by a corporation that doesn’t care, and that people who want a “Real D&D” experience, not a video game.
Real D&D has always been, doing the most with the least you are given. Now, the game has become lost love for the new because it brought back old memories of the struggle the game and it’s rules has had over 50 years.
Personally, I know how edition changes go, seen and been through all but the fact remains I still love the “Game”, but the different rules are a different story. Some where good, some questionable, and some that just wasn’t well thought out.
[ The total average element of 2024 based on just the numbers that Crawford stated in all the feedback videos, where certain parts received a 90 percent positive feedback ( which was the changes to parts of the mechanics such as Surprise, Weapon Mastery, and things that caused larger “Rules as ?” Debates.), to the latter parts of the feedback having to accept as low as a 55 percent positive feedback rate for proposed changes.
That said, the best guess on overall acceptance of the new rules can be seen as the average response from just what could be reported, and the love of the new rules is only 60 percent of the community that will ever “invest significant money into a ‘Niche Hobby’ that appears the same as a ‘Video’ game’”.
Thing is we expect the game and it’s rules to only change every 10 years, not every 5. Hard to love something that changes it mind whenever it is not happy with how much success it currently has.
The rules are just as much a victim of corporate “incompetence” as are the people who love the hobby, and the love is fading. ]
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Your argument was that because D&D offers 'for the most part 0 value outside of entertainment'—something that isn't even true provided the proven therapeutic and educational benefits of playing role-playing games—it needn't be made more affordable or more accessible to those in need.
You were asked about the costs of movie tickets. Whether theaters should no longer allow pensioners or students in for less. Because going to the movies has 'for the most part 0 value outside of entertainment.'
Why is it always one rule for Wizards of the Coast but different rules for others? Apparently capitalism is only a bad thing when those with whom one disagrees are singing its praises. I reckon most people on these forums probably have no time for commentators whose content is largely geared towards defending it. But they sound just like them.
Tasha's. A supplement comparable to those old Unearthed Arcana books.
It sold very well.
The sales figures for the 2024 core books come absolutely nowhere near those for that book.
That speaks well for Tasha's.
It looks real grim for the new books.
The 2024 players has outsold Tashas
As many others have posted here. All those journalists and YouTubers and media analysts who report on the industry and have reported this mustn't know what they're talking about.
The numbers are available to show where both books landed on best seller lists. And they are far behind those for Tasha's. A statement as abstract as the one given is not evidence of performance.
I do not think they are driving out the "core" audience though. Sure there are a lot of people that claim they hate it, but yet they are still here. People like to complain about things.
You are correct, there are more people using 2014 rules then 2024 right now. the main reason of that is people do not want to change rules in the middle of a campaign. As campaigns end i beleive we will start seeing an influx of people switching over. Just looking at StartPlaying.games i see more seats for 2024 games then 2014.
If by 'informed reports' you mean statements as abstract as 'these are our best selling books ever' ...
The numbers say otherwise.
Not even the PHB hit best seller lists as well as Tasha's did.
Has that even ever happened before?
That is like an edition's Unearthed Arcana outselling the next's PHB.
That's because the books got reclassified so they don't even show up on the same charts, the people seeing tiny sales for D&D 2024 were looking in the wrong place. Which, sure, could have been intended to hide something, but given that they did it before any of the 2024 books were released, it probably wasn't.
Mearls has gone public with how poorly he sees 2024 doing.
Providing the rather grim numbers for where the books landed and went in subsequent weeks on best seller lists. Compared to Tasha's.
Why would he do that?
Is he 'uninformed' if we are supposed to believe what is 'informed' is the most abstract of statements?
Their rankings on best seller lists say otherwise.
If the 2024 PHB has outsold Tasha's it's because of duplicated hybrid (physical-digital) sales. Which don't give us an accurate indication of how well it has been received.
The PHB for an edition—the baseline for playing the game—shouldn't just 'outsell' a supplement comparable to Unearthed Arcana. It should sell exponentially more.
The OGL was the worst and best thing to ever happen to the industry.
1: it allowed creatives a chance to get their work out to the world and make some money and created New games and content for us all to enjoy.
2: It created alot of entitled people.