With all of the changes lately (Dragon, Dungeon, and Dragonlance having their licenses pulled from the creators) I've been thinking about the future of D&D as a whole. Mostly, I am a bit skeptical that something like D&D can even survive in a large corporate environment in the modern world.
Let's face it, D&D is not a mainstream interest and never will be. It doesn't matter how you advertise it or how great the books are (or look) or whether they are paper or PDFs, or anything else. The bald fact is that pen and paper RPG's are the sort of thing that appeals to maybe 1 in 100 people, at best. We aren't talking Halo or WoW here, the sort of thing that pretty much every teenage boy can get into. We're talking a niche market like model trains. That's the nature of the product.
So with that in mind, it seems unlikely to me that D&D can ever be successfully supported by a large corporation. It will simply never make enough money to jusify itself, and the corporation will always be in the position of either squeezing the customers dry or keeping the game going pretty much as a favour.
Someone (I think maybe Sebastian?) suggested in another thread that what is likely to happen is that D&D will eventually be canned and the OGL will mean that there will be five or six different third party versions, each surviving solely on it's version of D&D. The niche game will be being produced by niche compaines, not groups like Hasbro. This sounds to me like a reasonable idea. I mean TSR couldn't keep afloat on D&D alone and they invented it.
I think that it's sad, but with the world becoming more and more globalized niche products will be dumped by large corporations and either fall into the hands of niche companies, or fade away entirely and be replaced by different versions, also produced by niche companies.
In 20 years the game called Dungeons & Dragons may be a nothing but a memory, but there will be several small games with different names almost exactly like it.
But meh, I'm no businessman so what do I know? Anyone else got thoughts on the long term future of D&D?
I think that it would be like trying to solve X + Y = 23(Z) right now . . . i.e. we don't really have enough data to try and figure out anything for sure, so pretty much everything is wild speculation at this point.
I think that it would be like trying to solve X + Y = 23(Z) right now . . . i.e. we don't really have enough data to try and figure out anything for sure, so pretty much everything is wild speculation at this point.
Wild speculation is fine. That's kind of what I'm after.
I'm just burned out on speculation, especially without much to back it up. I could say that I'm worried that the next step will be to axe all FR stuff except for Drizzt novels, but I don't have much to base that on except the fact that RAS books sell well. Has the thought crossed my mind? Yup. Does it do me much good to worry about it? Not really.
I guess my point is that there is plenty to be upset about with the facts at hand. WOTC has pulled the licence from two companies (Paizo and MWP) that have done a good job at presenting quality material that satisfied a desire within the gaming community. WOTC has also done very little except to give us vague outlines about a digital initiative, and they have not really address the fears that fans may have about the future of D&D in general, or of specific campaign settings.
Right now, nothing would really shock me. I'm just waiting to have some solid information to react too. I'm upset with WOTC, but I'm not ready to say I'd never buy anything from them again (for example, if I say that, am I helping to put the last nails in the coffin of FR RPG products?)
What do we know about the future? Well, it all depends on how much you trust what has been officially stated. At the D&D experience this year we got this:
"I'm surprised it took this long for someone to ask that. It's going to come at some point. It's a long ways away. You'll get an announcement when that happens, but it's a long ways away. We have a lot of good stuff coming out through 2008."
Ryan Dancey had this to say, and I'm inclined to agree to a point with what he says here:
I think there's a good chance, probably 50/50, that we'll see a 3.75 kind of release in 2007 or 2008. A new set of core books, revised, but basically the same game we already have. I think that product will not be called "4th Edition", nor will it be marketed as 4th Edition. There are powerful forces inside WotC that believe (not without quite a bit of market research and product experience to back them up) that gamers will buy a "revision" to a games' core rules every 3-4 years and that not inducing those purchases is just leaving money on the table.
We also know from a PC Gamer interview that was done a few years back that at least the executives at Hasbro have clearly stated that they don't view D&D as automatically referring to a tabletop RPG, but rather as a "brand." They were hoping that the D&D RTS game and games like Demonstone would take off moreso than they did. Its evident that they find value in the name, as D&D has high name recognition, but they are frustrated that they can't seem to captilize on that name recognizion more than they do.
Finally, we know that WOTC has spent a lot of time and effort putting the novels and games under one department, and they have put a lot of time into developing the "delve format" and the new monster entry format in the monster books.
Putting all of this together, I'm still saying that we are more likely to not see 4th edition for a few years yet. I agree with Dancey that there will likely be a new release of the Core books, with new art and with errata added in (perhaps with the official demise of polymorph), but not a full blown 4th edition. While it wasn't under WOTC, D&D did this during 2nd edition when they released the Player's Option books. I think they have put a lot of effort into polishing the current edition to just scrap it now, and as Monte Cook points out, unless is WAY differnt than 3.5, what is the incentive to move from OGL rulebooks? And if it is way different, it will take a lot of time to convince players to adopt this new format.
As far as the digital initiative goes, I have no idea, but I think that there will be monthly fees involed, that there will likely be online character generation or character sheet storage, and a virtual desktop, similar to something like Fantasy Grounds.
I think there will be an online "magazine" called Dragon, although weather its a downloadable PDF or a separate section of the website only accessable by subscribers, I couldn't tell you.
One thing I am starting to wonder is if all setting specific material might not end up in electronic format as part of a subscription service, leaving only the "core" books as physical rulebooks. This is a great mystery to me, and its the Campaign settings that seem to be the biggest question mark to me right now.
I guess I had a little bit of speculation left in me after all . . .
As if I hadn't said enough . . .
As far as the "revised 3.5 rulebooks theory," my guess would be something like they did with 2nd edition, i.e., when these come out, there won't be any mention of "3.5" on them, they will just say "Dungeons and Dragons" on them, and we'll not see any mention of specific edition numbering until they are ready to roll out 4th edition.
And as to why I'm still resistant to say this is all an excuse to roll out 4th edition? Well, beyond the quote at the D&D Experince saying that 4th edition is a long way off and that 2008 is solidly "3.5," I just haven't seen much support for 4th edition, and a lot of people still staunchly opposed to it. They have to have people convinced they need it before they roll it out, and they haven't even tried yet. They "sold" 3rd edition and 3.5 for at least a year before they came out, with articles and explanations of what was going on.
I'm not saying I'm absolutely right, but I'm trying to analyze what we actually know rather than jumping to worst case scenario. But given that I've been completely blindsided twice in the last week with announcements, I could be very far off base.
|
We also know from a PC Gamer interview that was done a few years back that at least the executives at Hasbro have clearly stated that they don't view D&D as automatically referring to a tabletop RPG, but rather as a "brand." They were hoping that the D&D RTS game and games like Demonstone would take off moreso than they did. Its evident that they find value in the name, as D&D has high name recognition, but they are frustrated that they can't seem to captilize on that name recognizion more than they do.
This is very true. I am sure the business side of D&D is frustrating, at least how they are running it. Hasboro has to see that there is a demand for fantasy products, not just the D&D RPG, but fantasy in general. Science fiction and fantasy writing has merged over the last decade and seems to be running strong, Magic: The Gathering was (is?) wildly popular, Hollywood jumped on board with Narnia and Lord of the Rings (with great success), animae is growing in popularity, Neverwinter Nights, Oblivion and the colossus WoW remain extremely popular not to mention the rebirth of our favorite tabletop RPG. There is clearly a market out there for fantasy. But we all know for every good fantasy product there are many, many bad ones. Fantasy consumers are a fickle lot. They want what they want, not something else.
This is important, so I will say it again: we D&D players want what we want, and not something else.
This is where the problems arise between Hasboro and the "D&D market". D&D is not a "brand" except in a strictly marketing sense. It is a PnP game. It is played PnP (and with growing popularity via the internet with Fantasy Grounds or the like) because the players/consumers want it that way. Thus far it has not translated well to a movie or to a CRPG or (gads) an MMO or RTS because the medium of presentation is so different from the PnP experience that the experience is no longer D&D but is instead some other form of fantasy. In some cases this other form of fantasy is great, but it is no longer D&D. Marketing a game/book/movie/novel as D&D because it has some iconic D&D themes or locations or whatnot makes it a "Dungeons and Dragons product" in name only (e.g. Neverwinter Nights with the exception of PW and DM-guided adventures). Hasboro is misguided if they think they can produce a "D&D-branded product" that will somehow capture the audience of D&D and not yet be the D&D we know and love. This is why DDO and the like will not do well. So much has to be given up to make D&D fit a new medium that it is no longer D&D and the company attempting this ends up alienating the very consumer base upon which they are planning to capitalize.
Putting on the marketing hat for a moment, here is my advice for Hasboro in use of the "D&D brand".
D&D fans are a rabid lot. We may be few in number but we shell out big money for our hobby for high quality products that make the game we love better. If Hasboro wants to capitalize on their D&D brand, do the following:
(1) Publish top-quality standalone and AP adventures with high quality artwork, writing and web supplements
(2) Produce pre-painted plastic miniatures using both the collector/blind approach (lower price) and "transparent packs" that leave no ambiguity as to their contents (higher priced)
(3) Revive the Greyhawk setting and maintain the FR setting
(4) Produce and publish a top-quality, robust net-based remote tabletop tool to allow virtual tabletop gaming. Make this free to encourage viral marketing and increase play around the world.
(5) Do "something" with the rules. The approach of building ever more precariously balanced rulesets is a bad one, but I admit that I am not sure how to go about fixing it.
D&D will be kept alive as long as people continue to play it, regardless of corporate support. Perhaps it will eventually fall to a small, niche company, perhaps it will grow synergistically off WoW and LotR and whatever else is to come. Who knows?
As far as WotC/Hasbro, they're acting like pompous idiots, yes. I had an uncle who was a computer program writer. He'd been in the business for years; you'd be hard pressed to find someone who knew the machines better. However, his corporate bosses would never listen to him. They would come down and tell him to do this, change that, don't do this, and have it done by Thursday. He would try to explain to them why that was a terrible idea, or why that just couldn't be done. Their response was to always just stare blankly and/or say, "I don't understand that stuff, that's your job. Just get it done." They were totally out of touch with their own coporate entity, both in production, and probably in marketing/consumer base (the company was Xerox, and my uncle also told me that their stock plummeted from $73 to $3 in a few months once, so I'm guessing the latter also applies).
You're most likely getting the exact same thing with WotC/Hasbro, but compounding. Some twit with a "degree" in marketing or business decides to interpret the data this way or that way, then he either convinces the higher ups that listen to him or he is the higher up calling the shots, and down the chain of command the order goes. At each level, the person just commands their subordinate to do what they're told, because it's all about getting what the boss says done. Eventually, it gets to WotC, and the process starts all over. By the time it gets to the hands of the D&D game designers and book writers, their hands are probably tied pretty tight.
I could be completely off base or wildly exaggerating, but given the corporations' actions over the last week, I'm growing more and more suspicious that that's the case.
This isn't just Hasbro/WotC's issue. Lots of corporations grow so bloated that they lose contact with parts of themselves and their clients. Perhaps it's worse for Hasbro/Wotc because they mainly shell out action figures and card game crap for little kids, whose parents just buy it for Little Bobby to give him something to do and no one cares if it's low quality and certainly no one gets upset over it and they can do whatever they want to squeeze a buck out of them and why the hell are these gamer geeks getting so upset? It still says D&D, but now it's electronic and shiny, so why aren't they happy? Fix this, WotC! Then WotC makes some dumb decision to please Papa Hasbro and everyone's happy except the people buying the stuff.
Guess what? That's bad business, you jackasses.
No, corporations aren't evil. A lot of them just stupid.
|
Thus far it has not translated well to a movie or to a CRPG or (gads) an MMO or RTS because the medium of presentation is so different from the PnP experience that the experience is no longer D&D but is instead some other form of fantasy. In some cases this other form of fantasy...
D&D has done very well in computer games, traditionally. The Gold Box games were classic hits of the genre comparable to Ultima in popularity; the original Neverwinter Nights (the MMO version of the Gold Box engine) likewise. Neverwinter Nights (the 2002 version) did extremely well, and NWN2 is showing promise. It's when you get into games that pull D&D away from its core competency - being a role-playing game centered around small parties of adventurers - that it starts to fall down. DDO: Stormreach is a non-concern because it strays too far - much too far - from the core focus of both the D&D system and Eberron. Instead of an Eberron MMORPG - which could be concentrated awesome - it chooses to be a thin imitation of World of Warcraft, on which are placed the terminology of Eberron and D&D. Needless to say, players decided that given a choice between real WoW and ersatz WoW with a thin candy shell of D&D, to choose the real thing.
|
|
D&D has done very well in computer games, traditionally. The Gold Box games were classic hits of the genre comparable to Ultima in popularity; the original Neverwinter Nights (the MMO version of the Gold Box engine) likewise. Neverwinter Nights (the 2002 version) did extremely well, and NWN2 is showing promise.
Yes I absolutely agree with you on this. The gold box games were great for their time (ahh Pool of Radiance...), and I did give a nod to NWN because it captures the game as well, especially the 2002 (Aurora engine?) when played PW or with a DM. And I am playing NWN2 right now, so that is something...
I stand corrected on the CRPG front.
|
|
I'm inclined to believe that D&D IS a brand and that the OGL is the modern version of D&D for roleplayers.
Wizards attention seems to be on the cancellation (non-renewal) of D&D branded products, Perhaps they wish to take the D&D logo into a more main stream situation. Convert the RPG market side of it into a cheap digital version while pumping more into the Miniatures, card games, and video games market using the D&D logo. This would not work well right now because of the constrictions presented by the current ruleset; take D&D Online for example, the rules are so complex that to create a digital version is mind bogglingly hard.
A 4th edition aimed purely at the miniatures, card games, and video games would boost the D&D presence in the main stream and could easily see D&D fighting for position in Toys'R'Us along side Monopoly and Scrabble! but to call it 4th edition would be wrong.
I believe Hasbro (not Wizards) are looking to remove the roleplaying persona from D&D entirely by severing ties to the D&D market with the OGL rules. Instead you will play Forgotten Realms OGL, Ravenloft OGL, and Dragonlance OGL. D&D will be something completely different. Then Wizards can continue to provide the roleplaying market without tying the D&D logo to a dying horse.
It may seem a travesty but these things happen all the time, sometimes for the best, sometimes not. D&D is an institution but it is a dieing breed with the strength of online RPG games like WoW and Everquest. While die hard fans would like to see D&D live forever as it has done for the past 30 years eventually the cost of dead tree books and the demand for NEW content will prove bad business resulting in the eventual death of tabletop RPGs. Things need to change or this is exactly what will happen. I, like most people, wish it hadn't happened so soon.
|
|
I'm inclined to believe that D&D IS a brand and that the OGL is the modern version of D&D for roleplayers.
...
I believe Hasbro (not Wizards) are looking to remove the roleplaying persona from D&D entirely by severing ties to the D&D market with the OGL rules. Instead you will play Forgotten Realms OGL, Ravenloft OGL, and Dragonlance OGL. D&D will be something completely different. Then Wizards can continue to provide the roleplaying market without tying the D&D logo to a dying horse.
It stings to hear you call FR a dying horse (I guess that makes Greyhawk dead) but you raise a very good point. To me D&D is an PnP game, not a brand to be pasted on The Next New Thing (collectable edition, of course). I guess I am just showing my age and stubbronness when I refuse to admit it. *sigh*
This rant may come across a bit cynical and impatient. I do not mean to insult anyone so, please, nobody take umbrage. I’m just venting…
…gamers will buy a "revision" to a games' core rules every 3-4 years
Along with other similar comments in this post I can only reply that this fits in with “planned obsolescence” just like any other product. Makers design something to wear out after a while, or intentionally cycle it out of production for “new and improved” versions that aren’t really all that new or improved (frequently worse than the original). Yet, the market (consumer) bites often enough (and profitably enough) that companies continue doing it. It’s nothing new and won’t stop any time soon. Whether it’s automobiles, laundry detergent, or hobby materials, recycling product is more profitable than developing new ones. Look at Hollywood, for heaven’s sake; all those “remakes” coming out of there boggle the mind.
The bald fact is that pen and paper RPG's are the sort of thing that appeals to maybe 1 in 100 people, at best
I agree. Even if that’s the extent of RPG popularity in the world nowadays, it’s still a lot more than played when I was getting started in the mid-70’s. Thirty years of viral infection by exposure has spread the game around to the point that, from my view point, gamers are crawling out of the woodwork. That “limited market share” translates into hundreds-of-millions of Dollars/Pounds/Yen/Franks/Marks/Pesos/Whatever every year and as a supply-and-demand market force it is huge compared to the original TSR product.
…it seems unlikely to me that D&D can ever be successfully supported by a large corporation.
I tend not to agree with this. It already is. It has been since before TSR got bought up by WotC. It can continue to be so, provided that the money-grubbers feel they’re getting sufficient return on their investment (profit). It’s up to the consumers to determine whether that happens. If the company produces junk, don’t buy it. Send the message of what you want with your wallets. They’re good enough at getting this message that they won’t produce junk long. This information loop can take time, but we can speed up the information feedback by using the internet and other forms of high-speed communication to let them know much faster than in the past. Pressure them and don’t accept crap.
…executives at Hasbro have clearly stated that they don't view D&D as automatically referring to a tabletop RPG, but rather as a "brand."If this is what they really think, they’re insane.
D&D is not a "brand" except in a strictly marketing sense. It is a PnP game.
Precisely what will keep the game alive for a long time. Tabletop PnP RPG’s (particularly D&D) are the heart-and-soul of gaming and anyone involved with the industry (buying or selling) who doesn’t get that is so clueless as to make me want to cry. It’s Bozo’s like this that end up causing all the trouble with bad product, bad marketing, bad development decisions, ad nauseum. On-line games like WoW, Evercrack, et al, can be fun, but they are not (and never will be) acceptable substitutes; change-of-pace add-ons, perhaps, but not substitutes. Don’t worry about them, they’re no threat.
D&D will be kept alive as long as people continue to play it, regardless of corporate support. Perhaps it will eventually fall to a small, niche company, perhaps it will grow synergistically off WoW and LotR and whatever else is to come. Who knows?
Very true. TSR started out as a small “niche company” and grew into a major-money concern. They screwed up and made the game too large, too complex, and too costly to entice new players easily. Their propensity for revising and reprinting retooled material already extant (like the “Handbooks”) is mostly what cut their throat (we will not dwell on all the lawsuits Gygax caused and lost, or all the egotistical, consumer-alienating articles he wrote…). The point is that whether it stays “major market” or “small niche” is irrelevant. Gaming is a genie that will not go back in the bottle. There will always be a market and, as a consequence, there will always be someone to satisfy the demand and capitalize. No fear.
.From what I’ve read in this post, the major problem seems to be some angst about business decisions made for profit reasons that the consumers don’t like. Unless someone can organize a major protest/boycott (or whatever) to pressure the license-holders into putting things back the way they were, this is just whining. I’ve seen more change in the RPG market than most of you (30+ years playing) and I can tell you that this is nothing new. This kind of thing runs in cycles and you, as an individual, are inconsequential to the profiteers. You have to hit them as a group (a very large group) or they will ignore the noise.
The next problem seems to be a strong degree of insecurity about losing a well-loved hobby. I had some of this same concern when I found out that D&D had been sold to WotC. But, time has shown that, no matter how little I might like the 3x products, they are popular with a lot of people and the game goes on. Don’t begrudge the business people, or future gamers, the experience of evolution. If you’ve already lost the perspective, go back to the “Old Gamers/Young Gamers” thread and read about all the old-time stuff that’s no longer around; stuff you don’t really even recognize, and then ask yourself, “What’s the likelihood that the stuff I like now will still be around in another 30 years?” I say the odds are pretty low. Just because you will not get a guarantee that what comes will be something you will like doesn’t mean that the game will die out. It will evolve and continue…never fear.
I’ve said that more than once, here: “no fear”, “don’t worry”, “they’re no threat.” The concept of RPG gaming is alive and well. The plethora (overabundance) of products attempting to capitalize should be encouraging not discouraging. Would that many companies try to cash in if their research said there wasn’t enough money in it to make the risk worth while? I don’t think so. The genre might schism a bit…MMORPG’s (as one example) and PnP’s truly do attract a much different market. There’s some cross-over, yes, but in general to two audiences are very different. Those who understand, appreciate, and enjoy PnP gaming just don’t find the same level of social interaction, character development, story depth, etc., in MMORPG games. I know, I’ve tried two and wasn’t thrilled either time. It’s just not the same.
We, the RPG community (particularly the PnP gamers), have the responsibility to keep our hobby alive, not the corporations. They want to make money. They don’t care who buys and who doesn’t just as long as it’s enough of us for them to make a profit. They’ll produce whatever sells. We must make sure they produce what we want. Want MMORPG’s? Then buy them and play them. Play the good stuff and give the company feedback. Stop playing the crap, which will either improve or go away. The same goes for PnP’s. It is the consumer that drives the market. Stop griping and drive it, or…as my father used to say, “S%&t, or get off the pot!”
Thanks for your patience.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm just burned out on speculation, especially without much to back it up.
Agreed. I'm exhausted from trying to puzzle this out, and, on top of that, when I see what someone like Ryan Dancey says, I realize that I'm fishing outside my pond of expertise. I can speculate with the best of them, but he's an actual insider and he's on the business side. I put his musings (as well as those of Peter Adkinson) above most of the non-business people that have been speculating (including Monte). And the quote you posted above:
I think there's a good chance, probably 50/50, that we'll see a 3.75 kind of release in 2007 or 2008. A new set of core books, revised, but basically the same game we already have. I think that product will not be called "4th Edition", nor will it be marketed as 4th Edition. There are powerful forces inside WotC that believe (not without quite a bit of market research and product experience to back them up) that gamers will buy a "revision" to a games' core rules every 3-4 years and that not inducing those purchases is just leaving money on the table.
Sounds pretty sensible. I am constantly posting on these boards that it is ridiculous for people to spout off about how they would never "throw away" all the money they spent on 3e books given that they did just that when 3.5 was released. There's absolutely no difference between replacing Sword and Fist with Complete Warrior and replacing Complete Warrior with Complete Sword and Fist 4e. I find it absolutely hilarious that 3.5 was accepted so heartily, 3.0 was rejected so soundly, and yet somehow, 4.0 is different from that edition change.
The naming thing sounds right too. 3.75 is way too clunky. WW did a similar naming convention when the relased "Revised" versions of their various WoD books rather than a new 3rd Edition.
Mabye it would be a good thing if D&D passed from WotC's hands and into the hands of a small niche company that actually cared about the game and viewed it as something othere than just a way of making money. We shall see...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Someone (I think maybe Sebastian?) suggested in another thread that what is likely to happen is that D&D will eventually be canned and the OGL will mean that there will be five or six different third party versions, each surviving solely on it's version of D&D. The niche game will be being produced by niche compaines, not groups like Hasbro. This sounds to me like a reasonable idea. I mean TSR couldn't keep afloat on D&D alone and they invented it.
I said that, but it was in the context of what would happen if the D&D P&P line failed due to a boycott. The point I was trying to make is that a successful boycott won't bring back the licenses that have been revoked, it'll just convince WotC/Hasbro that there's not enough money in tabletop gaming to justify producing so many products.
The DL announcement spooked me, and still spooks me a bit (it's a generic world and suffers all the flaws of not having been created specifically as a setting for a game, I can't see why WotC wants it back), but I'm not sure that I think D&D will eventually be canned.
I follow computer games in a few magazines and on a few websites. DDO did try to be a different type of game to WoW, In that it pretty much forces one to play as a party. That is something that is peculiar to D&D, which does not lend itself to solo play as readily as a skill based system like World of Darkness does. The problem is that the market for the game does not want that.
I don't think D&D geeks are really the market for a computer MMORPG.
We generally are too sophisticated to be satisfied with the shallowness of the experience. That may be an example of the brand being paramount.
I would love for WotC to have some or other version of Glasnost.
It literally means transparency.
They seem to have created an us VS them with the unsubtlety of the announcement. I believe that most of their staff are actually us.
This century is moving toward openness and honesty as the internet compels us to. The orwellian big brother is real, but we are all little brothers and sisters with cellcams. If governments cannot keep their dirty laundry hidden any more and companies frequently have memos go public, the consumer ends up in a position of remarkable power. It is anachronistic for the process of a decision to be as opaque as this one was.
Hasbro does not associate D&D with the same rich web of associations as we do. For proof, go to the Hasbro site. Here are the top product searches:
Candy Land
G.I. Joe
Milton Bradley
Monopoly
My Little Pony
Parker Brothers
Playskool
Tiger Electronics
Transformers
Our little puddle is not in the top ten.
Now search the site for D&D or use this URL:
http://hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=ps_results&prevpage=default&keyw ord=d%26D&go.x=7&go.y=13
You will find that they sell miniatures sets, the basic box and a few prints. There is no f.a.q and worse still, no link to Wizards.com . It is as if our hobby were of no consequence to them.
The evolution of D&D will be crowdsourced more than it is.
It will happen on the long tail, where niche markets are still profitable ones.
This is a rambling and incoherent post, written at 1:15 am after grading student writing. I apologise if the frayed threads of my specualtions don't quite tie together. I will revisit this later and try to say what I mean to.
|
So with that in mind, it seems unlikely to me that D&D can ever be successfully supported by a large corporation.
My Current veiw: STAP is being considered as preissues of pathfinder therefore I can say I'm playing pathfinder instea of D&D... until wizars keeps screwing up enough so that Paizo can buy it from them (which seems to be creeping closer and closer)
Hasbro properties.
Interestingly enough, MtG is the top seller, according to wikipedia.
A Aggravation Ants in the Pants Attacktix Axis and Allies
B Baby Alive Battle B-Daman Battleship Battlestar Galactica
Beyblade Big Ben Blythe Boggle
Boohbah Bop It BRATZ Bulls Eye Ball
Busy Basics - Playskool
C Candy Land Cartoon Network Charles Wysocki ChatNow
Chutes and Ladders Clue Connect Four Cool Crew - Playskool
Cootie Cosmic Catch Cover-to-Cover
D Designer's World Disney Disney Narnia Don't Break the Ice
Don't Spill the Beans Dream Life Duel Masters Dungeons & Dragons
E e-Gift Cards Easy-Bake Electronic Catch Phrase Elefun
F Flypaper Foldin' Art Fun For The Family - Playskool Furby
FurReal Friends
G G.I. Joe Ghost Rider Gift Cards Giga Pets
Gloworm - Playskool Guess Who? Guesstures
H Hallmark Hangman Heroscape Hi-Ho! Cherry-O
Hungry Hungry Hippos
I I-Dog Idaten Jump ION Educational Gaming System - Playskool
J Jenga
L LazerTag Let's Play Together - Playskool Lite-Brite Littlest Pet Shop
Lord of the Rings Lucky Ducks
M Magic: The Gathering Mall Madness Marvel Massively Mini Media
MEMORY Milton Bradley Mission: Paintball Monopoly
Mousetrap Mr. Potato Head - Playskool My Little Pony My Play Favorites - Playskool
Mystery Date
N Nerf Net Jet Nickelodeon
O Old MacDonald Had a Farm Operation Original Memory Game Outburst
P Parcheesi Parker Brothers Perfection Pictionary
Play-Doh Playskool Pokemon Pretty Pretty Princess
Puppy Surprise - Playskool Puzz 3D
R Risk Robosapien Jr. - Playskool Rook Rubik's Cube
S Scattergories Scrabble Secret Central Sesame Street
SHOUT About... Shrek Silly Sports Simon
Sit 'N Spin - Playskool Sorry Spider-Man Spin Pop
Spirograph Sproing Star Sisterz Star Wars
Stratego Game Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go! Super Soaker
T Taboo The Game of Life The Simpsons Tiger Electronics
Tinkertoy Titanium Series Die Cast TJ Bearytales - Playskool Tonka
Tooth Tunes Toy Story and Beyond Transformers Trivial Pursuit
Trollz Trouble TV Now Twister
U Upwords
V VCamNow VideoNow VideoNow Jr. - Playskool
W Weebles - Playskool Whac-a-Mole Wheel Pals - Playskool Woodboard Puzzles
X Xevoz
Y Yahtzee
Z Zoombox
Customer Service | Where to Buy | Corporate Information | Email Updates | Recalls | Careers | Wish List | Site Map
© 2007 Hasbro. All rights reserved. All audio, visual and textual content on this site (including all names, characters, images, trademarks and logos) are protected by trademark rights, copyrights and other rights owned by Hasbro or by Hasbro’s licensors, licensees, suppliers and accounts. Click here for details. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use.
Krypter wrote this on the "Late breaking news, Dragonlance...." thread.
I reproduce it here without his permission because it seems germane to this thread.
quote
You're missing the point if you protest that WotC won't get you to buy your book collection all over again. From their statements it seems they're trying to widen the market, not deepen it; go after new customers, not existing ones. Putting out more and more specialized books and going after smaller and smaller slices of the market (Drow compendium) runs into diminishing returns and is a losing strategy. It's what killed TSR.
It's a little like the difference between the PS3 and the Wii. One is chasing the hardcore market (and doing poorly) while the other is chasing the mainstream market (and doing phenomenally well). WotC wants to be Nintendo, not Sony, and they're willing to piss off a lot of existing core gamers to do it. After all, we've already bought the books, so our money is in their bank. They want to chase new customers.
I don't really blame them as it's the only way this business will survive.
/quote
A 4th edition aimed purely at the miniatures, card games, and video games would boost the D&D presence in the main stream and could easily see D&D fighting for position in Toys'R'Us along side Monopoly and Scrabble! but to call it 4th edition would be wrong.
I work at Toys R Us - We carried 3rd ed. (rign next to all the rest in the game section). It was a boxed version
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2312456&cp=&sr=1 &f=Taxonomy%2FTRUS%2F2254197&origkw=dungeons+and+dragon&kw=dung eons+and+dragon&parentPage=search
Still availbe on our Web Site as you can see.
On-line games like WoW, Evercrack, et al, can be fun, but they are not (and never will be) acceptable substitutes; change-of-pace add-ons, perhaps, but not substitutes. Don’t worry about them, they’re no threat.
I agree with everything you wrote.
Everything except for this.
WoW, Evercrack, et al, are large money makers. They can, will, and do, suggest to WoTC they should aim for this kind of market.
Depending on WoTC's choices, this could be detrimental to the PnP style game.
I am not saying WoTC will make the harmful choices. But it isn't outside the realm of possibility.
Hasbro does not associate D&D with the same rich web of associations as we do. For proof, go to the Hasbro site. Here are the top product searches:
Candy Land
G.I. Joe
Milton Bradley
Monopoly
My Little Pony
Parker Brothers
Playskool
Tiger Electronics
TransformersOur little puddle is not in the top ten.
Now search the site for D&D or use this URL:
http://hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=ps_results&prevpage=default&keyw ord=d%26D&go.x=7&go.y=13
You will find that they sell miniatures sets, the basic box and a few prints. There is no f.a.q and worse still, no link to Wizards.com . It is as if our hobby were of no consequence to them.
The evolution of D&D will be crowdsourced more than it is.
It will happen on the long tail, where niche markets are...
your right it's not in the top ten, and if you noticed the Milton Bradle items are ALSO not listed just the brand itself (same with tiger Electronics). Part of that was WOTC staying WOTC which is why they have thier own web site, logo, and etc. If not then your D&D book would have a Hasbor logo on the Back not a WotC one. The Basic box set and Miniatures games fall under Games (hobby) nich and the D&D books fall under Books (hobby) Whic his why they can be found at Books stores and why places like Toys R Us and Target don't carry them. (the Basic game was designed to fill the nich). IF there was a way to package the books more in a game format then places like Toys r Us and Target might carry them, (is it now they wouldn't last a week in a Toys R Us with out getting destroyed doing neither WotC or Toys R Us any good)
Thank you very much for the illuminating response. I really appreciate learning when I am wrong about something. That said, I think it would have been polite of them to at least provide a link to Wizards.
I suppose i'm not very concerned with what will be published in the future...There is a rediculous amount of content available to work with right now. I'd suggest that one could spend a lifetime working with the campaign settings, character options, mini rules, etc...and never need anything new. BUT, I, like all of you, am still interested in what is currently being published weather we ever use it or not is not a consideration there.
My point is that D&D in general is already heavily supported as a game simply due to the length of time that it has been supported since the red box. It can certainly stand alone without ever having anything additional published, and we gamers will never run out of new and exciting material to use due largely to the broad nature of the published products. Statistically speaking, each published product starting from the red box until the last published D&D product exponentially increases the number of unique scinarios that one can game under (caveot: if you ascribe to the idea that there are only a handful of story possibilities anyway, then you're already retelling all the same stores over and over and over).
Anyway, don't conflate your interest in new and exciting products (because i have that interest too) with your ability to play or cease playing the game itself. They are mutually exclusive ideas.
As ever,
ACE
My disappointment with Paizo, Wizards and Hasbro began when Code Monkey Publishing lost its license to continue the development of e-Tools and to issue downloadable digital versions of the various rules supplements. While I have learned how to 'fat finger' new spells, new magic items and other things into the 'House Rules' section of e-Tools, several of my less technical adept gaming companions seem lost without the ability to download the digital versions of the rules supplements. Also, my capacity for purchasing a new set of books after each "new" edition premieres is slowly coming to an end: I bought nearly all of the Second Edition rules supplements to more fully enjoy the game. When the Third Edition was announced, I thought "finally, all the spells and other what not in one book!"; I now have the rules supplements for both 3rd edition and 3.5 edition. I am approaching the age of 60 and I would prefer that my personal library in my senior years consist of something other than D&D books that have been made obsolete by an endless procession of new editions.
3rd ed, 3.5 ed, 3.6 ed, 3.7 ed, 3.74 ed, 3.78 ed, 3.80 ed, 3.82 ed and so on
Hasn't D&D been dead before? It dropped off my radar for almost a decade before version 3.0 was released. I'm just happy that the OGL is out there or we would have no recourse but to subscribe to this digital magazine WOTC mentioned.
Yeah, i'd agree with fire on that statement.
I see nothing wrong with speculating about the future. Like most, I think the future of paper & pencil is integrated into our laptops. I'm sure you've fantasized about each player having a laptop LAN together for maping purposes, while the DMs laptop has the master map and current positions and conditions of all players PC. Example: player 1 is dwarf, player 2 is half-elf, and player 3 is human. In our game, the dwarf is the only PC with the vision benefit; our gaming table does not distinguish between low-light and regular vision - doubling the distance for one player slows the game down and is typically forgotten by the DM anyways. With the laptop and maping tools, this feature is integrated into the half-elfs character, and his map shows double the torchlight distance. Viola! Half-elfs are playable again! This would also do wonders for vision-imparing spells darkness, invisibility, obscuring mist, and the like.
If something like this already exists, by all means, fill me in. As for as having all adventures in pdf format - I'm not so keen on that due to superior convienince of paper. That said, searchable pdf core rule books should be supplies with all books sold.
Wild speculation is fine. That's kind of what I'm after.
Here's my wild speculations:
The main reason why WotC is craving back their licenses is that the next version of D&D won't be OGL. WotC has done their math, added the numbers up and concluded that many existing gamers (and most new gamers) will follow the official brand and the 3.5 OGL market will starve to death, die off - or at least be insignificant beeps on the corporate revenue radar.
WotC won't put themselves in a situation where outside companies controls licensed content and releases new content using alternative or outdated rules. The worst-case scenario is that one of the previous license-holders might sue WotC because a new non-OGL version of the rules diminishes the value of the obtained license.
I don't think that WotC has the next real version of D&D ready and waiting. The real 4.0 will have to be more than a simple rules revision. It'll have to contain elements that reach well into the next decade – both with regards to audience, market and technology.
Some GM's are using laptops now - that usage will surely grow over time. LCD panels are dropping in price. OLED panels might be even thinner and cheaper down the line. Producing a touch-sensitive 20-inches "live" OLED battlemap might have seemed far-fetched a few years ago but in a few years time it might be entirely possible. Combine with more mini-centricness, an easier learning curve - shake and stir.
So what does WotC have now - or at least for 2008? I guess that they have a coherent set of rules (3.5 and the most popular content from the Complete books like Swift & Immediate actions). They'll use Star Wars Saga to test some of the simplifications that they're planning for the next revision (skill consolidation - perception skill, perhaps a more uniform hp distribution, more hp at level 1 and possibly even the end of iterative attacks).
They - too - do have a Greyhawk license that Erik Mona still thinks that he might be able to buy. Why isn't Erik just forgetting everything about the long-neglected Greyhawk license? Especially after the Dungeon and Dragon incident? Has he received some kind of hint from WotC that Greyhawk might be up for grabs at some point in the not-so-distant future?
WotC needs a damn good reason for the gaming community to explain why the next revision of the D&D rules isn't OGL. And WotC needs more than just minor tweaks to sell a new revision of the same rules.
You could successfully argue that the current default setting in D&D is pretty bland and boring and - apart from a few articles in Dragon and a few adventures in Dungeon (and that reprint of Greyhawk Ruins) it's absolutely unsupported by now. An unsupported core setting can't be good for business.
WotC also have a Forgotten Realms lineup that seems a bit suspicious. A somewhat apocalyptic 3-adventure series - and at the end of the year: a book on the history of the Realms. And then theres the fact that the Forgotten Realms core-book that hasn't been touched since forever. FR has to be a part of this whole operation.
My prediction is that we'll get a 3.8 edition of D&D in 2008. WotC will explain that it can't possibly be OGL because the default setting has been changed from Greyhawkish to Forgotten Realms (the Red Wizard PrC in the 3.5 DMG might have been for testing such waters).
If the next revision of D&D is announced at GenCon 2007, then these products might still sell pretty decent as lots of DM's and players will want to read up on Realmslore and/or end their current adventuring with a bang.
If D&D gets a new core setting, then WotC could license Greyhawk to Paizo and thus keeping the leash on them (and make Erik Mona really-really happy). Of course Greyhawk won't be released until the 3.8 edition is a success.
I think that the 2008 release of D&D will have some initial support for that Digital Gaming Initiative - but software development takes time and effort so I really don't expect much to be ready. An online character generator and vault, a meeting point, perhaps a trading place for minis, all the content from every Dungeon and Dragon issue downloadable as PDF (not free, you'll probably have to buy each old article) and possible a few more elements -- and it will evolve into a subscription-based service.
How is that for wild speculations?
/ Henning
Wild speculation is fine. That's kind of what I'm after.Here's my wild speculations:
WotC won't put themselves in a situation where outside companies controls licensed content and releases new content using alternative or outdated rules. The worst-case scenario is that one of the previous license-holders might sue WotC because a new non-OGL version of the rules diminishes the value of the obtained license.
In most cases if you hold a license to produce something for someone else you have to use the current set of rules. The Current d20 rules state that you have to use the most current set of rules (3.5) not 3.0 So I don't think that is a factor. I do feel that SW SAGE is the test of something that is coming (like that Modern is next summer and 3.75 (?) will be the summer after that). I do think that FR is dead as of the end of this year, is jsut wasn't selling that well (RPG wise VS the novels that are still doing well). I would Love to see GH come out strong with 3.75 (or what ever is next) but I think it's going to be Ebberon.
Thank you very much for the illuminating response. I really appreciate learning when I am wrong about something. That said, I think it would have been polite of them to at least provide a link to Wizards.
Hasbro does make lots of bad decisions, but looking around it's REALLY hard to find and big company that doesn't drop the ball alot these days
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
WotC won't put themselves in a situation where outside companies controls licensed content and releases new content using alternative or outdated rules. The worst-case scenario is that one of the previous license-holders might sue WotC because a new non-OGL version of the rules diminishes the value of the obtained license.
There's no grounds for such a suit. WotC has no obligation to update the OGL with the most recent set of rules. No obligation = no cause of action. Saying that a company could sue for that is like saying McDonalds could sue BK for their new breakfast sandwhich because it harms McDonalds' sales. BK owes McDonalds no obligation not to cause BK harm through competition. The OGL doesn't change that scenario.
|
|
There's no grounds for such a suit. WotC has no obligation to update the OGL with the most recent set of rules. No obligation = no cause of action. Saying that a company could sue for that is like saying McDonalds could sue BK for their new breakfast sandwhich because it harms McDonalds' sales. BK owes McDonalds no obligation not to cause BK harm through competition. The OGL doesn't change that scenario.
Gah there you go again Sebastian. Everytime you drop into your lawyer mode you make me want to quit my job and go get my JD.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There's no grounds for such a suit. WotC has no obligation to update the OGL with the most recent set of rules. No obligation = no cause of action. Saying that a company could sue for that is like saying McDonalds could sue BK for their new breakfast sandwhich because it harms McDonalds' sales. BK owes McDonalds no obligation not to cause BK harm through competition. The OGL doesn't change that scenario.Gah there you go again Sebastian. Everytime you drop into your lawyer mode you make me want to quit my job and go get my JD.
I'd hate to be accused of contributing to anyone's slide into the darkside, but it's not a bad gig, all things considered.
You could successfully argue that the current default setting in D&D is pretty bland and boring and - apart from a few articles in Dragon and a few adventures in Dungeon (and that reprint of Greyhawk Ruins) it's absolutely unsupported by now.
I'd like to see this statement argued.
As ever,
ACE
My prediction is that we'll get a 3.8 edition of D&D in 2008. WotC will explain that it can't possibly be OGL because the default setting has been changed from Greyhawkish to Forgotten Realms (the Red Wizard PrC in the 3.5 DMG might have been for testing such waters).
Don't forget the pushing of Undermountain-related stuff more recently. Plus the bonus publicity of Neverwinter Nights.
My prediction is that we'll get a 3.8 edition of D&D in 2008. WotC will explain that it can't possibly be OGL because the default setting has been changed from Greyhawkish to Forgotten Realms (the Red Wizard PrC in the 3.5 DMG might have been for testing such waters).Don't forget the pushing of Undermountain-related stuff more recently. Plus the bonus publicity of Neverwinter Nights.
We are getting a Greyhawk book and Undermountain. Neither has the setting Logo on the Book. as far as Never winter nights , Ebberon has a MMO - Nothing is "safe" at this point
Creative Director
|
You could successfully argue that the current default setting in D&D is pretty bland and boring and - apart from a few articles in Dragon and a few adventures in Dungeon (and that reprint of Greyhawk Ruins) it's absolutely unsupported by now.I'd like to see this statement argued.
As ever,
ACE
In Dungeon, at least... the core D&D setting's been the setting for 3 adventure paths. That's, of course, not counting all the other ones we've set in the same realm... which basically accounts for all the ones that aren't set in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. And since Dungeon's popularity has more or less been steadilly rising for the past few years, and since the Adventure Paths are the most popular feature Dungeon's EVER run... I'd say that the default D&D setting is anything but bland and boring.
You could successfully argue that the current default setting in D&D is pretty bland and boring and - apart from a few articles in Dragon and a few adventures in Dungeon (and that reprint of Greyhawk Ruins) it's absolutely unsupported by now.I'd like to see this statement argued.
As ever,
ACE
Look at it from a player new to this game and look at the default setting artifacts that are left in the D&D books. What's there?
A few wizard names in the spell descriptions, a few magical items and about a page with some names of gods, their symbols and about a sentence about their ethos.
Nothing about the history of those wizards, nothing about the organization of worshippers, nothing about evil villains, nothing about the geography or history of Greyhawk in the core books. The core books are just rules with a few sentences about a core setting.
Not much to build on for players or GM's. Selecting a god is about all you can do with the default setting described in the core rules.
I would certainly describe the current default setting *in the core books* as not-very-inspiring, boring and bland. My litmus test is that it doesn't make much difference if it's there or not.
If a new gamer want to know more, he'll have to get his hands on a book from 2000 -- and will probably have to buy that one used.
I'm not at all arguing that Greyhawk is bland and boring - just that its inclusion in the core rules is, and I would love to see Greyhawk get a decent treatment by true lovers of that setting.
/ Henning
In Dungeon, at least... the core D&D setting's been the setting for 3 adventure paths. That's, of course, not counting all the other ones we've set in the same realm... which basically accounts for all the ones that aren't set in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. And since Dungeon's popularity has more or less been steadilly rising for the past few years, and since the Adventure Paths are the most popular feature Dungeon's EVER run... I'd say that the default D&D setting is anything but bland and boring.
I do agree that Paizo has done a wonderfull job to keep Greyhawk alive and vibrant. Adventure Path, Core Beliefs... I fully acknowledge and appreciate your effort and dedication. But there must be people inside WotC that doesn't feel the same love towards Greyhawk.
My wild speculations goes along the lines that WotC will try to inject a lot more setting into the core rules. PrC's, affiliations, gods, geography, villains... If there isn't enough crunchy rules to change to justify a 3.75, then adding some more detailed setting-flavor might be an option. Especially if it also seems to make an non-OGL release unavoidable.
Such material might help players to create PC's that are much deeper rooted in the setting and with an included backstory that'll support the role playing. No more "I'm just another barbarian from the... uhm... plains... ya' know... tribes north of here or something...".
/ Henning
My wild speculations goes along the lines that WotC will try to inject a lot more setting into the core rules...
My speculation is very different. I think they'll continue to expunge GH content from the core rules -- I fully expect Mordenkainen's name to be a thing of the past with 4/e.
In a silly move, Eberron will continue to be WotC's flagship campaign, and FR will fade. In the end, WotC will not be supporting a traditional setting, hurting D&D's popularity (not to take anything from Eberron, which looks great, but it veers dramatically from traditional swords & sorcery).
Just my fears :/
Jack
Look at it from a player new to this game and look at the default setting artifacts that are left in the D&D books. What's there?A few wizard names in the spell descriptions, a few magical items and about a page with some names of gods, their symbols and about a sentence about their ethos.
Nothing about the history of those wizards, nothing about the organization of worshippers, nothing about evil villains, nothing about the geography or history of Greyhawk in the core books. The core books are just rules with a few sentences about a core setting.
Not much to build on for players or GM's. Selecting a god is about all you can do with the default setting described in the core rules.
I would certainly describe the current default setting *in the core books* as not-very-inspiring, boring and bland. My litmus test is that it doesn't make much difference if it's there or not.
If a new gamer want to know more, he'll have to get his hands on a book from 2000 -- and will probably have to buy that one used.
/ Henning
I'm really not even sure where to begin for a counterpoint. I suppose i'd advise reading the post that I mentioned above regarding every single publication since the red box as being usable material (includcing back issues of Dungeon and Dragon). Heck, even other d20 systems can be integrated with D&D core rules to create the game. I completely agree that if a new gamer wants to get his/her hands on gaming resources, they'll want to get the core texts for 3.5 (or whatever version they want to play). And it would be dissippointing if publishing D&D suppliments would end because we are gaming enthusiests...not because it is necessary to publish more material to be able to game. I suppose terms like "bland" and "boring" are qualitative, but i suspect that one would be hard pressed to find many gamers who share that sentiment...
As ever,
ACE
My opinion is simple. WotC rented licensing rights to the various publishing companys to keep the brands (Ravenloft and Dragonlance) alive while it concentrated on revitalizing D&D. Both brands were very successful for Soveign Press and Sword and Sorcery. Once WotC/Hasbro had their feet firmly planted, they decided to pull the game systems back into themselves. I would be very surprised if any of the products that WotC has pulled ever become dead. I would almost gamble on the fact that we will see WotC producing products with the Ravenloft and the Dragonlance name within the next year. Heck, they did redo Castle Ravenloft already.
Just my 2 coppers.
D&D needs to to stay "pen and paper" without the "pen and paper."
On a minor note, there is the mildly mysterious Rules Compendium that's supposed to release later this year. I'd think this would be a great platform for a 3.75 type edition. Really, I'm not sure what else it would be, by default if nothing else.
It could be some kind of a decoy. Sitting in the list of product and assuring gamers that the sky isn't falling and that 3.5 will live on at least for a couple of years more.
Then at the announcement at GenCon: "Ya' know, fellow gamers, the fact that we felt that it was neccesary to put out a rules compendium that explained the rules was really the tipping point that made us realize that what you all really needed was a new set of core rules. Which is what we're presenting to you today".
Naaa... That's probably too speculative.
/ Henning
See what you started, KnightErrant? You wanted rampant speculation; you got it!
Bah. As was said by someone in the overlong thread above (I had to skip most of it), the genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in. WotC made some shocking, stupid decisions this past week. The world isn't ending, D&D isn't going anywhere.
I love D&D and WoW. I have met quite a few WoW players (in-game) who also love D&D. Yes, there are far more who have never played it, but there may be a higher conversion rate than you all are thinking. I personally feel D&D will benefit from this new wave of games, movies, and even books like Harry Potter.
There is a market for D&D, and there will always be a market for D&D.
Considering I didn't start playing until 3.0, I missed out on all that fun pre-new-edition doom and gloom, but for those who were around during that time, how much of this is more or less a repeat?
There is a market for D&D, and there will always be a market for D&D.
I would never argue otherwise. However, to be fiscaly viable, the said market and its associated revenue must justify the investment. Because paper and pencil has been played since the mid '70s by no means gaurantees its survival in the future.