So, I've been playing D&D since the late 70's. I really started getting into it n the mid 80's, when my family began a campaign with my older sister at the helm. That was Basic, I was playing AD&D. Then came 2e, and later Player's Option, also called 2.5 by some. It was decades between editions, though. Then, 3.0, and 3.5 came out- in relatively quick succession. 

3.0 was a paradigm shift in not only D&D, but in RPG's in general. With the advent of the internet and the SRD and OGL, D20 changed how the game was advanced by third parties. It opened a universe of creativity. However, the dark underbelly of Hasbro and WOTC became apparent--- remember the shafting that the Codemonkeys got, and the rigmarole that ensued with Paizo at the end of their run with Dungeon and Dragon magazines. They set up their partners so that they can't continue to publish beyond what they themselves publish. That means when they abandon an edition, everybody has to abandon it with them. And they make sure all of the bigger players toe the line.

WIth the last few edition changes, WOTC has gone scorched earth on it's partners, piling dirt on them and generally screwing them as much as possible. This has backfired in a few cases, mainly Pathfinder; Paizo has become a major contender on the platform. I'm beginning to see signs of that old familiar modus operandi again, the forced shift to a new edition, damn the masses and what the players want. Maybe, damn what the WOTC publishers and writers want- Hasbro has the last say apparently. 

I'm not just being a negative jerk here- it's history and I didn't write it. I assume most in the industry have less harsh words (most, not all), but that's because they have to work with these guys. I'm frankly a bit upset, though, and I'll tell you why. 

For the first time in about three decades, WOTC is actually releasing NEW books.

Not re-published, repackaged, converted old books, but actual new material- and some of it is amazing. Tahsa's, Xanathar's, Mordy's- these are fabulous! I really want to see the trend continue with this new jolt of creativity. I know, basically- WOTC is using the fanbase for inspiration to create this stuff, which is fine by me. It's a community endeavor, right? 

So, do we really NEED a 6e? No; 5e is just hitting it's stride if you ask me, and the books are still selling. Do we need a 5.5? Probably not, but it would be acceptable to me to repurchase the core books if the material were switched up. There are plenty of core subclasses and alternatives out there that would make it worth the effort for WOTC to re-write. 

So, has dndbeyond actually looked at the history associated with WOTC's partners, and have they been smart in the deals they've made, or will they become another Code Monkey Publishing, putting huge efforts into supporting D&D only to have Hasbro and WOTC screw them to force the players into compliance? I've basically re-purchased at least four, maybe as many as six books, along with both boxed sets- what is going to happen to those purchases?

I'm not psychic, I'm smart, and I learn from the past. Any comments?

I'm not going to do a forum search, but I believe it was expressed some time ago that DDB = 5e. That if another edition comes out, they are not going to move to it. Whether WOTC then says, "If you don't move off of 5e we are pulling your license," is not clear.

As for your purchases -- what will happen to them is like with any website. When DDB goes belly-up (or loses its D&D license, same thing), you will lose access to any electronic materials. This is why I always purchase the physical books no matter what. Only necessary with D&D... with all other games, you can get the PDFs, though I almost always buy physical books anyway because 1. I like them, and 2. it supports the other game designers. With D&D, I don't buy it to support WOTC (far from it; I think very poorly of them as a company) but as a hedge against their historical behavior, which you have summarized above.

As to whether we "need" a 6e -- I don't think WOTC cares what we need. They only care what they can sell. If they think the time is ripe to make us buy thousands of dollars of new books, they'll put out a new edition. They won't care if this screws DDB/Fandom, and they won't care if some players don't like it, as long as enough players do to buy what they are selling.

As for me: I will not be moving on to 6e. Unlike you, I have been quite displeased with the direction D&D has been going in the last 12-18 months. I have disagreed with many of their editorial decisions; I have zero interest in most of the supplements they have been putting out (e.g., more crossover crap from Magic: The Gathering), and I thought Tasha's was anything but fabulous (an abomination is more like it). I've basically called a personal halt to any new WOTC purchases, both because I see nothing announced on the horizon that I want, and because I am becoming increasingly unwilling to support WOTC with my wallet. I'd rather spend that money on companies that are putting out product I like, and who display at least a modicum of respect for me as a consumer (or indy designers who do likewise). I'm more likely to pre-order and buy Coleville's Kingdoms and Warfare or Shawn Tomkin's sci-fi sequel to Ironsworn than I am to buy any more from WOTC.

So... As long as this site is usable for 5e -- and does not force me into a post-Tasha paradigm with my characters -- I will continue to use it. Once 5e is no longer available here, or once they alter the character sheets and stuff so that I can't do things the pre-Tasha way, I'm gone. I have zero loyalty to either this site or WOTC, given what's gone on both here, and with WOTC, over the last year+.

This is exactly what I expect from WOTC, and Hasbro in their dealings with their partners. I know that they've been sued twice recently for bad faith in contracts. The company seems to think they have a huge advantage. And, they do. 

As long as DDB is protected from shenanigans that would place them in a bad position and force them to cut us off, I'll continue to play 5e and pay my dues here, because it's convenient for me. I use a couple of pieces of software that use the site for character updates and such, and my players are here as well. 

Tasha's was pricey for the content, I agree on that. But, it wasn't a re-mix of the UA or tome of magic. I enjoyed Xanathar's quite a bit.

 the designers have been extremely careful in designing a system that will not suicide itself from uncontrolled options

I'm not sure how one can make this statement in the face of Tasha's, which is all about options, many of them what I'd imagine would qualify as "uncontrolled."

BTW, the only MTG product crossovers I'm interested in are the Plane Shift supplements. They might make for a fun excursion and offer a fun planar adventure. Honestly, I really only liked Ixalan for my use, but I could see short hops in the others, ALA SG1.

I genuinely believe we all felt this way when WOTC decided on the abomination called 4e. But , they did it, and probably hurt their business more than they would have liked. It's the only edition I don't own.

I don't think 5e was the reason for the popularity of D&D right now; rather spotlights like Stranger Things and references in pop culture. Those have done wonders for the game. I do however agree with your sentiment concerning the complexity of other games- even 3e or 3.5.

Are we really getting new books and not converted material?  I mean, I'd say that the MtG Planeshift and Wildermont stuff is new; those are settings that D&D has never covered before, though I'm leery to call "how to model MtG, Rick and Morty, or anyone else's works in D&D" as new. But Eberron? The majority of published adventures? Most of that seems like its just old stuff to me. Xanathar's Tasha's were PHB2 and PHB 5.5e by different names to me; Volo's was MM 2, Mordenkeinen was Races of the ???? mixed with MM3.  

I mean, they're good books, but I'm really hesitant to call anything outside of Critical Role really new. 

Maybe an upcoming Feywild book would be different, but even then, we'll have to see if the material is different from the 4e Feywild info (two books, a few Dragon magazines). 

Dungeons and Dragons is in a unique place right now.

It is far and away, the most popular TTRPG ruleset by several country miles.  It's the oldest game out there and the yardstick by which all other systems are judged/measured, whether that's fair or not.  Many non-gamers don't even know systems other than D&D exist.  Like it or not, D&D is the face of tabletop gaming, and its Fifth Edition is attracting new players by the truckloads thanks to widespread adoption by online streamers of every stripe.  This has resulted in a huge ballooning of 5e's popularity and a system successful enough to produce all the new material Leon mentioned, as well as a thriving (for now) ecosystem of third-party publishers covering variations on 5e nobody would ever have gotten without the core edition's success.

Buuuut...

This means a fundamental rift in the game's audience.  Modern players want a modern game; they want a game that fits their needs and ideals and empowers them to have the kind of fun they want to have.  Many are looking to emulate the more theatrical, story-driven games from popular streamer groups, and many more are looking for ways to make D&D fit modern aesthetics and ideals the game has, historically, been super mega ultra turbo dogshit at handling properly.  This has led to a lot of revisions in overall approach, with Wizards/Hasbro changing the way new books are written and new lore is created to fit the desires of all those lovely New Fans and their New-Fan-Money that D&D has historically never had and doesn't really know what to do with but would sooner die than do without now.

But all the players who were ardent D&D fans before this edition?  The folks who played 3.5, or even earlier?  They hate this new approach.  To them, the wildly problematic elements of D&D's lore are not offensive, they're historic.  They're part and parcel of the essential identity of the property and excising or correcting them is turning D&D into Not D&D.  It's the core of their most popular argument against the new rules centralized in Tasha's Cauldron (which, for the record, is a mediocre book at best and I really wish Wizards would stop with these lazy scrapbooks of random options), i.e. "will you PLEASE just go play a different game?!"  They're not (usually) trying to be gatekeeping ******** (with a couple of notable exceptions I'm going out of my way not to name here...but you all know who they are) - they just can't understand why someone would want to play this game if they don't like the way this game is built, grandfathered-in problematic core assumptions and all, and legitimately think modern folks would be happier with a built-for-purpose modern game that doesn't have all that baggage they feel is an essential part of the True D&D Experience.

They might even be right, if another game had even a single thousandth of a percent of the support D&D 5e does.  D&D 5e is, for all intents and purposes, the only game in town.  Nobody writes material for other games.  Nobody makes useful tools for other games.  Hell, many FLGS's don't even stock other games - -good luck finding a GURPS book, a copy of SWADE, a Genesys book, or anything else at a great many local stores.  You might find a Star Wars TTRPG book if a Star Wars movie's released recently, you may find one or two Pathfinder books somebody behind the counter mistook for D&D books, and occasionally an FLGS will get in singleton semi-random shipments of various one-off books, but a significant percentage of such stores stock D&D and only D&D because D&D is what sells.  Ergo, D&D is what people play, even if they may not otherwise want to.

It's not great.  It is, in fact, shyte.  There should be a greater diversity of games people can run.  But it's reality, which means everybody gets to be frustrated in a different way.  6e won't fix that.  Neither will going back to 3.5e and shedding ninety-five percent of the userbase.  The only thing that stands a real chance of fixing it is for other games to find the same degree of widespread support and success D&D 5e has, which is basically impossible.  The closest competitor is Pathfinder, and Pathfinder is just D&D spelled differently from a company who decided not to tolerate Wizards' shit several years ago.

C'est la vie.

The implication that the entirety of 4e publications were " re-published, repackaged, converted" is just not true at all. That edition was far more fresh and innovating, and it contributed a lot more to the development of 5e then some would care to admit.

Not making a quality judgement here, but 5e much more strongly references legacy content. It's strength is not at all how fresh and new its ideas are, but rather how it manages to appeal to such a wide audience. The newest books are the first attempt to do something new, and you can see how well that's being received.

Dungeons and Dragons is in a unique place right now.

It is far and away, the most popular TTRPG ruleset by several country miles.  It's the oldest game out there and the yardstick by which all other systems are judged/measured, whether that's fair or not.  Many non-gamers don't even know systems other than D&D exist.  Like it or not, D&D is the face of tabletop gaming.

I don't disagree with most of what you've said, except that this is nothing new. D&D has always been what 99% of RPG players have played. To the vast majority of gamers from 1974 to today, playing tabletop RPGs == playing D&D. In high school, many of the nerds played D&D, but I think my group was the only one that played Champions, too. And notice -- too. Not instead of. We added other RPGs into the rotation over the years, but until late college (after we discovered, and greatly preferred, Rolemaster), D&D was always in the rotation.

It may be the case that a lot more people know about or care about D&D now than did before, the the fact that D&D has more players than all the other RPGs combined is not a new phenomenon. It has been true since forever. Similarly, the fact that D&D has more support (both in terms of the content it puts out, and especially in terms of 3rd party support) -- this is also nothing new. Back in the 1980s, if you could find a gaming store, the RPG section would have all the D&D books, the boxed sets (basic, expert), a couple of rows of all the typical/popular modules, and if you were lucky, behind all the D&D stuff, misfiled, etc., would be a dusty old copy of some other game box or some adventure for another RPG. If you were lucky. Even back in the day, I had to mail-order nearly all of my Champions adventures direct from Hero Games because I could not find them in my local game shops (such as they were).

I think you are right about the new players vs. old guard, in general... but I think there is a big unknown out there. A lot of the new players are playing D&D right now because it is a fad. It's hip. It's the trendy thing to do. So they are doing it. For now... for this year, maybe for the next few years. But are they going to stick around for the long run, the way people who've been playing it for years have done? The old guard may be annoying to the new folks in how they (we) want to keep things the old traditional way, but the old guard is reliable. D&D exists today because we bought the stuff back in 1e, 2e, 3e days -- all those editions the new folks wave a dismissive hand at. In theory, the "old guard" people are money in the bank for WOTC... as long as they don't make us so mad that we walk away. If they do that, will the new players stick around loyally to replace us? I'm not saying the new players won't... I'm saying we don't know. There is no history yet, the way there is for the old guard.

Making a switch to attract a bunch of new people with a "more modern" version of an older RPG, at the expense of the old guard who liked it the original way, is risky. Ask Sonly Online Entertainment. They tried it with Star Wars Galaxies, and went from around 120,000 subscriptions a month to less than 50,000.  Most of the old players left, and the new people who were attracted to the new shiny, were not invested in the game - so they played one character to level cap and walked away. Whereas the old guard had been invested in building player towns, running large guilds, building a merchant empire, and all the other things that basically got negated by the infamous "New Game Experiences." 

Now, does that have to be D&D's fate? No. But my point is, we just don't know, because not enough time has passed yet, just how long the new players will stick around, and how loyal they will be, compared to the old guard.

Lets not turn this into another grognard versus modern player argument. I'm sick to death of them, and they're nothing but vitrol and bile. 

I think WOTC certainly has made some mistakes, but 5e wasn't one, sure Tasha's was half-baked at best, and it felt like they tried to copy Xanathar's success, I also feel like a lot of stuff got the axe for 5e,( Psionics, fey, large player races, the list goes on. ) but I think it has turned out well so far, and I wouldn't forsee WOTC talking about anything 6e for at least 5 or 6 years, and there's still a lot of stuff WOTC could make for 5e that people would buy. and, plus, the system's far easier and more accessible than ever before, and it is, as Yurei said, the face of TTRPG's everywhere, your local comic book store will likely have some D&D sourcebooks, but nothing else, maybe some Pathfinder books marked down to practically nothing ( which brings a tear to my eye ), but ultimately not much else.

Also influencers, Mercer, Coleville, and everyone else on the web spreading knowledge of D&D, Critical Role, The Chain, and streams like these have done so much for the game for which I am happy, but I think the Matt Mercer effect/Mimic effect has and can still affect the game negatively, but these effects affect so few people and the influencer's and streams have done so much for the game that it ultimately doesn't matter. 

The splatbooks are good but we could use a few more classes, as there are still more than couple concepts WOTC hasn't explored yet/ hasn't done a whole lot with (Psionic, Gunslinger, Gish, Shapeshifter, and Summoner, I'm looking at you), and if a lot of DM's Complain, don't publish it or have a little grey box that you have to read to your DM before you play it.

Ultimately I like 5e, but as have I never played any other editions, I can't do a comparison, but this just my two cents.    

That argument seems sound enough on the surface, BW - but it's also incredibly dismissive of any new players, and if it's held to be true then frankly there's no point in ever publishing new material again.  You're basically saying there's no point in trying to pull in new players because only a small fraction of those will ever stick with the property, while the Old Guard will be there, loyal and forever.

Except they won't be.  Please do pardon the morbidity, but y'all will die eventually along with the rest of us, and it's impossible to ever manufacture more 'Old Guard' pre-5e players who've been playing since the eighties.  You are a finite, nonreplenishable resource with extremely high maintenance requirements, and furthermore you already have the game you actually want.  Old Guard are often quite fond of saying that they can go back to their preferred edition any time they like and do not need to purchase new books.  Heck, you've said yourself that you're done supporting Wizards in this edition because they're not adhering faithfully to fifty years of built-up lore.  You've recused yourself from their customer pool and claimed - with perfect truthfulness and with good cause - that you don't need their shit anymore; why should they bother marketing products to you?

if your argument is true - that appealing to new players is a fool's errand and only books and products which faithfully fulfill the desires of the Old Guard are worth publishing?  Then D&D is already dead.  Its shambling corpse will continue until there is no Old Guard left, and then it will fall into dust in your graves alongside you while newer games which decided not to actively alienate new players take over the flag position.  I imagine nobody here really wants that.

Now yes, Old Guard players can adopt new players into their groups and perpetuate their traditions...but let's be realistic, BW.  That process takes many, many years, it requires an enormous investment on the part of the new player who is expected to fully and completely absorb fifty years of esoteric lore before he (and yes, it'll pretty much always be a 'he', and furthermore very specific types of 'he') is considered an Acceptable Playing Buddy.  it's a process with an exceptionally high failure rate, since failing to absorb those fifty years makes the player unsuitable as an Old Guard pseudo-replacement, and furthermore the player in question is also at risk of bouncing into the F&%#ing New Guy camp of those fad-y New Wave players you're otherwise so dismissive of.  For most Old Guard gaming groups, it's almost impossible to truly replace one of their number with a new player, and they certainly cannot do so faster than Old Guard players retire from the gaming hobby in general.  And their game will die with them.

Is that truly the direction we want D&D to go?

Quote from BioWizard >>

Dungeons and Dragons is in a unique place right now.

It is far and away, the most popular TTRPG ruleset by several country miles.  It's the oldest game out there and the yardstick by which all other systems are judged/measured, whether that's fair or not.  Many non-gamers don't even know systems other than D&D exist.  Like it or not, D&D is the face of tabletop gaming.

I don't disagree with most of what you've said, except that this is nothing new. D&D has always been what 99% of RPG players have played. To the vast majority of gamers from 1974 to today, playing tabletop RPGs == playing D&D. In high school, many of the nerds played D&D, but I think my group was the only one that played Champions, too. And notice -- too. Not instead of. We added other RPGs into the rotation over the years, but until late college (after we discovered, and greatly preferred, Rolemaster), D&D was always in the rotation.

It may be the case that a lot more people know about or care about D&D now than did before, the the fact that D&D has more players than all the other RPGs combined is not a new phenomenon. It has been true since forever. Similarly, the fact that D&D has more support (both in terms of the content it puts out, and especially in terms of 3rd party support) -- this is also nothing new. Back in the 1980s, if you could find a gaming store, the RPG section would have all the D&D books, the boxed sets (basic, expert), a couple of rows of all the typical/popular modules, and if you were lucky, behind all the D&D stuff, misfiled, etc., would be a dusty old copy of some other game box or some adventure for another RPG. If you were lucky. Even back in the day, I had to mail-order nearly all of my Champions adventures direct from Hero Games because I could not find them in my local game shops (such as they were).

I think you are right about the new players vs. old guard, in general... but I think there is a big unknown out there. A lot of the new players are playing D&D right now because it is a fad. It's hip. It's the trendy thing to do. So they are doing it. For now... for this year, maybe for the next few years. But are they going to stick around for the long run, the way people who've been playing it for years have done? The old guard may be annoying to the new folks in how they (we) want to keep things the old traditional way, but the old guard is reliable. D&D exists today because we bought the stuff back in 1e, 2e, 3e days -- all those editions the new folks wave a dismissive hand at. In theory, the "old guard" people are money in the bank for WOTC... as long as they don't make us so mad that we walk away. If they do that, will the new players stick around loyally to replace us? I'm not saying the new players won't... I'm saying we don't know. There is no history yet, the way there is for the old guard.

Making a switch to attract a bunch of new people with a "more modern" version of an older RPG, at the expense of the old guard who liked it the original way, is risky. Ask Sonly Online Entertainment. They tried it with Star Wars Galaxies, and went from around 120,000 subscriptions a month to less than 50,000.  Most of the old players left, and the new people who were attracted to the new shiny, were not invested in the game - so they played one character to level cap and walked away. Whereas the old guard had been invested in building player towns, running large guilds, building a merchant empire, and all the other things that basically got negated by the infamous "New Game Experiences." 

Now, does that have to be D&D's fate? No. But my point is, we just don't know, because not enough time has passed yet, just how long the new players will stick around, and how loyal they will be, compared to the old guard.

 I think you're missing the mark by a country mile.

Catering to the "old guard" is how the comic book industry got into such dire straights from the 1990s onward. By definition, the old guard is a shrinking demographic. You might have more money because you're more established than younger players. My uncles played in high school and college in the 1980s, and they're all comfortably retired now, but there are fewer and fewer of your generation with every passing year. You and yours are not the future of the hobby.

Interest in anything naturally waxes and wanes over time. But right now, D&D (and TTRPGs in general) are more popular than ever before. They're also more accessible than ever before. They're not stigmatized like before. These are all good things. Maybe the younger, newer players and DMs won't all stick around. But some will, and we're better for it.

The only way the hobby will survive is by appealing to and generating interest from the younger generations.

As one of the "new players" in question, I must say that I very solidly disagree with you, BioWizard. I've been playing D&D for almost I year now. I don't play it because it's "trendy" or "fashionable." I don't care about that stuff. I play D&D so that I can have fun with my group and help to build an enjoyable roleplaying experience. If every single person in the world besides my group decided that D&D was suddenly "unfashionable," I wouldn't care at all, as long as D&DBeyond remained up and running (which is unlikely, but this is hypothetical). I've devoted dozens of hours to playing D&D with my friends, and dozens more to setting up my campaigns and preping for sessions. And I will continue doing so for long after D&D stops being "trendy."

Mechanically, 4E wasn't a bad edition. It had a number of really neat ideas, in fact, and plenty of DMs (like me) still use things like minions or skill challenges in their 5E games. After 8 years of 3E (and it was 8 years, 3.5 changed a lot less than AD&D's Skills & Powers did) I certainly didn't like 4E much and the system had plenty of flaws too, but objectively it wasn't bad - I'll play 4E over any of TSR's offerings, to be honest. WotC also learned a lot from the failings of that edition, both in terms of system and in terms of how 5E is developed and published and how revenue is generated. 4E wasn't a choice for more money either, 3E's publishing model had painted them in a corner and they needed to change something. Don't forget WotC pretty much saved D&D from becoming an obsolete niche RPG entirely fueled by nostalgia, they learned from TSR's mistakes too.

WotC is not a flawless company by any stretch of the imagination. They made lots of mistakes along the way getting to where they are now, in terms of business decisions, ethical decisions, and conceptual choices for D&D. But they also got a bunch of stuff right, and as far as I can tell they usually learn from those mistakes eventually. Which makes me believe a new edition in the near future is very unlikely. They've seen what happens when a new edition is pushed on a fandom that isn't done with the previous one yet, and 5E is still growing every year. Growing substantially too. The risk/reward ratio doesn't favor making the jump, and I'm sure WotC knows this.

I doubt Wizards is gonna make a 6e any time soon. Maybe in like a few years, but nowhere soon. I'd say really only if there is a decline in players then they will consider it. 5e is a system that a bunch of people like, and is easy to get into. Maybe when the game gets very bloated with features and expansions, and Wizards runs out of ideas, although saying it's D&D, a game with endless possibility, I doubt that will happen for a bit.

Quote from LeonStratton >>

 

Tasha's was pricey for the content, I agree on that. But, it wasn't a re-mix of the UA or tome of magic. I enjoyed Xanathar's quite a bit.

What in Tasha's wasn't dealt with in some form in older sourcebooks then? 

Just some food for thought about the new elevated position WotC occupies in the Hasbro infrastructure.  When was the last time Hasbro changed the rules to Monopoly?  As long as WotC can demonstrate they have strong sales of its entry rules sets (essentials, basic, or PHB and Cores) and those entry consumers continue buying new supplemental content, I don't see WotC design study having a strong case of saying "we need to change the rules to a new edition" to the business managers Hasbro installs with oversight over the design studio.  Why take a new edition risk on a proven sales maker?  

Now Hasbro does do well selling different editions of Monopoly, or Clue, but those editions are from our hobby's standpoint reskins or alternate/expanded lore than what in TTRPG is considered an edition.  As Tasha's and Xanthar's become the way more and more folks say "the game is played" (and marketing proof supports it, "i.e. surveys say everyone plays with Xanathars and Tashas, but really both books only amount to 30% of our PHB sales") I do foresee different formats to the rules, consolidating some of the options of Xanathars and Tasha's into a deluxe core rule sets or what have,you; but given how WotC business is governed compared to the rules governed by smaller craft or boutiqued game studios where new editions are an essential aspect of continued existence/relevance (looking at you, Chaosism, and I see you R Talsorian, maybe Steve Jackson, though do they really TTRPG outside its nostalgia markets anymore?).  5e just occupies a very very different space than I'd say any TTRPG ruleset. And I write this as someone who runs 5e games because I'm asked to.  D&D in all its iterations aren't actually my favorite rulesets, and until recently my favorite rule sets have actually been "dead rules" that haven't been supported by an actual publishers in a couple of decades.  Also not saying I don't like playing 5e, I actually do.

As one of the "new players" in question, I must say that I very solidly disagree with you, BioWizard. I've been playing D&D for almost I year now.

You're proving my point.

Motivation aside, there is simply not sufficient data to determine whether you, or anyone else in the same boat as you, will still be playing D&D or any RPGs 10 years from now. There is data to suggest I will be, since I have been playing RPGs in one form or another continuously from 1981 until today.

I have a 40 year (man, has it been that long?) record of being a gamer, and buying gaming product that entire time in one form or another (not always hardcover, not always electronic). That history suggests I won't stop being a gamer any time soon. We don't have that kind of data on you.

Doesn't mean you'll cut and run in 6 months... but we simply don't know. Including you don't know. Because you haven't done it yet.