I believe Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D.


4th Edition

301 to 350 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Jester David wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I KNOW the story and the history behind it.

I've ALSO heard the side that no one else normally hears from others who ALSO have looked at those numbers.

Such as?

GreyWolfLord wrote:

In this specific instance though, I'm not talking about the various campaign lines, I'm talking specifically about the best selling item for D&D and how double lines (AD&D and D&D lines) actually can be seen as the parallel to when the AD&D and TSR started getting into VERY hot water.

One of the things is that the core rules ALWAYS sold (something I believe that was tried to push in 3e to 4e where rules were placed over fluff supplements) as opposed to the items that you are discussing.
Paizo has reasoned one reason NOT to split the line is that splitting the line decreases profits, however, in the case of D&D and AD&D I don't feel this is true. If they looked at the numbers it would be obvious that the D&D redbox was actually one of the biggest sellers among the lines, and if surveys and other items were seen, it would be shown that it was the single biggest introductory item in the history of D&D.
Furthermore, the D&D line could almost be seen as something that was supplementary in sales for the AD&D line, and when the redbox line was discontinued (though they tried to replace it with a basic set that really didn't do the same thing) there can be seen an alternate parallel with decreasing sales for the lines overall.
It's interesting that though the fracturing of campaign worlds is always touted, this little item where the parallel lines item is constantly ignored and the excuse which is applied to CAMPAIGN worlds as opposed to rules systems, is used as the excuse instead (an excuse which doesn't really hold water in regards to the TSR with the D&D BECMI and AD&D lines, one of which was discontinued by the time of TSR's decline).

The catch is doubling products does not double profits.

Books have production costs. Even if you share art (which Basic and Advanced didn't) you still...

Well, Gygax was one who knew the real story of some of the things (which is especially pertinent during the 81 and 83 periods which are the release periods of the B/X and BE portions of BECMI boxes, as well as obviously the Holmes release), and there are some accountants I know who also have looked at the books or were actually ONSITE at the time things were happening in the early 90s. Frank Mentzer has also done a much more LIMITED comment on the success of the redbox on another site though that's not as detailed as some of the other items I've run into with the actual dynamics, markets and financials.

They have an interesting take on things, and what's more, the ones I've talked to were more business than hobby and have been pretty accurate at predicting what's going wrong and what's gone wrong at businesses.

Their take (which I listed a few months back in another thread) is a VERY different take on the entire TSR problems, though it in no wise goes counter to the ones you've heard from those that were at WotC, it shows that what they stated is actually rather limited and doesn't portray the entire picture at times. If I recall (I'd have to look back at what they said when I talked to them) it more boils down to additional factors in there with the inability to adapt to changing markets, or changing in a bad way. It's something that happens in EVERY business every decade or so and is one vicious circle (and the reason I listed it was that it's a very big possibility to affect Paizo unless they take care in regards to it). It was predicted to affect WoTC (and whether it is a cause and affect, or was bound to happen anyways could be debatable) D&D and that's actually exactly what happened to a degree.

There's also a more brief and limited account of the profits TSR was bringing in during the 80s and 90s that's on the internet that is an account from TSR guys (not the WotC ones by the way, and NOT Ryan Dancey). I would imagine that one's far more accessible to those who are all internet enthusiasts these days rather than hard logging talking.

However, it even the internet comments dispels a LOT of myths that some people discuss around here about how well WotC's money making D&D was compared to TSR's D&D during the heydays of TSR's moneymaking (and some of it is actually rather surprising, as you would imagine they were making hands over fist money during the fad period...but it's not close to how much I thought it would be considering the numbers that supposedly came from that era).

As for the doubling your profits...you actually CAN double your profits if something is done correctly.

In fact, sometimes you can more than double the profits depending on what happened. I don't think it was a coincidence between Paizo getting a LOT bigger and the BB being released...IMO of course.

It got a LOT of people (self included) who at the time would never have given PF a second glance the same way the Red Box did with D&D and then had the transition to AD&D. These types of customers (who then become loyal subscribers and other) I don't think are lost to Paizo.

Another way to look at it (though I think the Redbox was probably MORE profitable than the BB is) is through the eyes of console makers. When they are first released, you would be hardpressed to think they make a profit. In fact, most of the time they are sold at a loss.

However, the eyes are towards the future of the product and the other items sold around it. The consoles themselves can be seen as loss leaders at the time of release, to return even greater profits later on. In fact, the ratio is MORE than a double of the profits typically...as an issue which is probably not lost upon the PS4, XBone, and Wii-U marketers.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Their take (which I listed a few months back in another thread) is a VERY different take on the entire TSR problems, though it in no wise goes counter to the ones you've heard from those that were at WotC, it shows that what they stated is actually rather limited and doesn't portray the entire picture at times.

We're very aware that the proliferation of campaign settings was only a small part of the problem. It's just the one that came up in this discussion.

I'd like to read the other thread you mention. Can you point me to it?

I will note that when Lisa was doing her analysis, she gained access to information that was not commonly known to a lot of TSR employees, even those who one might think would be exposed to such things. Which is to say that some of the people who were there at the time have a very inaccurate picture of what was really going on in the business, especially in the Lorraine Williams era.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This conversation reminds me of a time here at my job where a male programmer went on and on explaining the intricacies of a few blocks of code to one of our other programmers who happened to be a woman.

The funny thing is that SHE WROTE those blocks of code and pretty much almost everything he was going on about was wrong. She's had a very different motivation and mandate for doing what she did that he presumed.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, Gygax was one who knew the real story of some of the things (which is especially pertinent during the 81 and 83 periods which are the release periods of the B/X and BE portions of BECMI boxes, as well as obviously the Holmes release), and there are some accountants I know who also have looked at the books or were actually ONSITE at the time things were happening in the early 90s. Frank Mentzer has also done a much more LIMITED comment on the success of the redbox on another site though that's not as detailed as some of the other items I've run into with the actual dynamics, markets and financials.

They have an interesting take on things, and what's more, the ones I've talked to were more business than hobby and have been pretty accurate at predicting what's going wrong and what's gone wrong at businesses….
In fact, sometimes you can more than double the profits depending on what happened. I don't think it was a coincidence between Paizo getting a LOT bigger and the BB being released...IMO of course.
It got a LOT of people (self included) who at the time would never have given PF a second glance the same way the Red Box did with D&D and then had the transition to AD&D. These types of customers (who then become loyal subscribers and other) I don't think are lost to Paizo.

Two very different things are being discussed here: the Red Box and the entire BECMI product line.

The Red Box was undoubtedly a success, but did it *need* to be a separate game line? That's the question. What if, instead of directing people to Expert and the other BECMI boxes after Basic, it directed people to the AD&D PHB? That was people who loved the Red Box easily moved to a compatible product.

This is what Paizo did, and what D&D 5 is kinda doing with its Starter Set. Rather than have a two different competing RPGs that overlap in audience and compete against each others for players and sales, there's one RPG with two possible entry points.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Another way to look at it (though I think the Redbox was probably MORE profitable than the BB is) is through the eyes of console makers. When they are first released, you would be hardpressed to think they make a profit. In fact, most of the time they are sold at a loss.

However, the eyes are towards the future of the product and the other items sold around it. The consoles themselves can be seen as loss leaders at the time of release, to return even greater profits later on. In fact, the ratio is MORE than a double of the profits typically...as an issue which is probably not lost upon the PS4, XBone, and Wii-U marketers.

Consoles and RPGs are very, very different businesses.

You can afford to sell consoles at a loss because people *need* to buy the games. The console is useless without the game and there's a good chance people will buy multiple games. And, as the technology improves, the cost of making the consoles goes down and they become increasingly profitable. And because consoles are so expensive you're incentivised to spend more to make that purchase worthwhile. It's undesirable if a $400 purchase ends up being a waste of money, so you buy a few $60 games.

RPGs are different as you don't need accessories or side products. You can play for years with just the core rulebooks. Not everyone who buys a Starter Set will graduate to the core rulebooks or buy adventures, let alone numerous splatbooks/accessories. Some might just try the Starter Set and decide it's not for them. And because the Starter Set is cheap, its easier to just accept the product as money wasted rather than making the extra effort or purchases to keep playing.
Selling a Starter Set at a loss just means losing money: there's no guaranteed follow-up product to recoup the loss and if the product is a success you lose an increasing amount of money.
The alternative is the free online SRD of 3e/PD or the free PDFs of 5e's D&D Basic. Which isn't making you money - being comparable to a console in that regard - but it isn't increasingly costing you money.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On a somewhat related note, this is Year 3 for WotC being absent from the Dealers Hall of GenCon. I recall conversations in '13 along the lines of "Yeah, well wait until 5th edition comes out! They're gonna OWN that Hall!".

My group and I have an easygoing disagreement going on. They think Paizo will eventually buy the trademark of D&D when Hasbro decides to get out. I disagree with them; I don't think Paizo would want to dilute the brand awareness of Pathfinder by trying to maintain both brands.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Deathdwarf wrote:
On a somewhat related note, this is Year 3 for WotC being absent from the Dealers Hall of GenCon. I recall conversations in '13 along the lines of "Yeah, well wait until 5th edition comes out! They're gonna OWN that Hall!".

I'm sure they're in the same area they were in last year, near all the Magic play.


Deathdwarf wrote:
My group and I have an easygoing disagreement going on. They think Paizo will eventually buy the trademark of D&D when Hasbro decides to get out. I disagree with them; I don't think Paizo would want to dilute the brand awareness of Pathfinder by trying to maintain both brands.

Even with no intention of trying to maintain both brands, Paizo might be interested just for some of the IP (Beholders, Mind Flayers, etc.). Of course, I doubt Hasbro would sell for anything approaching what Paizo would be willing/able to pay.

Personally, I'd love to see the D&D brand in new hands whatever the specifics, but I seriously doubt it will happen. D&D will likely never escape Hasbro's bony talons.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

I think Hasbro seems to have gotten out of the "selling brands" business after Hasbro Interactive/Infogrames/Atari. I suspect that they'd rather mothball a brand they don't wish to actively support instead of selling it.

Sovereign Court

Though they might license a brand out.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
I think Hasbro seems to have gotten out of the "selling brands" business after Hasbro Interactive/Infogrames/Atari. I suspect that they'd rather mothball a brand they don't wish to actively support instead of selling it.

Besides Paizo and Pathfinder is its own brand now. Most players of D&D are well aware of Pathfinder. Not sure that Pathfinder becoming D&D is really needed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hasbro isn't known to get rid of a brand, whether they do anything with it or not. Once they have it, it is their's forever. So don't expect them to sell the D&D brand off to someone else. If they ever decide to quit doing anything with it, away it goes, never to be seen or heard from again until someone gets a pang of nostalgia and makes something for it to capture the nostalgia of the people who used to play it.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Though they might license a brand out.

They might licence an aspect of a brand. If the RPG fails they might licence out the tabletop RPG. But that'll probably cost more than the majority of RPG publishers would be willing to pay.

They're already licensing out the RPG's adventures. It'd be easy to keep the core book sales to themselves and licence accessories.

WotC might opt for a scorched earth tactic. If they fail at the RPG, why should they let someone else succeed? That just makes them look bad.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Pan wrote:
Though they might license a brand out.
They might licence an aspect of a brand. If the RPG fails they might licence out the tabletop RPG. But that'll probably cost more than the majority of RPG publishers would be willing to pay. They're already licensing out the RPG's adventures. It'd be easy to keep the core book sales to themselves and licence accessories.

Well they licensed Star Wars to FFG so I'm sure they would find a company and figure they would be willing to agree on. Though making core themselves and licensing out from there makes a certain amount of sense. However....

Jester David wrote:
WotC might opt for a scorched earth tactic. If they fail at the RPG, why should they let someone else succeed? That just makes them look bad.

I honestly don't think Hasbro/WOTC would care what the TTPRG community thinks. So why not let someone else deal with it? As long as the money is coming in. In fact, if the books, video games, movies, TV, t-shirts, and flamethrowers take off, the possibility of licensing out the TTRPG are even more likely.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Pan wrote:
Though they might license a brand out.
They might licence an aspect of a brand. If the RPG fails they might licence out the tabletop RPG. But that'll probably cost more than the majority of RPG publishers would be willing to pay. They're already licensing out the RPG's adventures. It'd be easy to keep the core book sales to themselves and licence accessories.
Well they licensed Star Wars to FFG so I'm sure they would find a company and figure they would be willing to agree on. Though making core themselves and licensing out from there makes a certain amount of sense. However....

They didn't licence out a Star Wars to FFG because they don't own Star Wars. WotC licenced it from Lucasarts and when that licence expired FFG licenced it.

Pan wrote:
Jester David wrote:
WotC might opt for a scorched earth tactic. If they fail at the RPG, why should they let someone else succeed? That just makes them look bad.
I honestly don't think Hasbro/WOTC would care what the TTPRG community thinks. So why not let someone else deal with it? As long as the money is coming in. In fact, if the books, video games, movies, TV, t-shirts, and flamethrowers take off, the possibility of licensing out the TTRPG are even more likely.

The CEO doesn't care what gamers or the community think. But I doubt he wants another company doing what he couldn't or succeeding where he failed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:


The CEO doesn't care what gamers or the community think. But I doubt he wants another company doing what he couldn't or succeeding where he failed.

You sort of assume that the massive company which is Hasbro (or even the pretty successful WoTC division) actually value the tabletop industry to care enough that another company is doing "well". And even then I don't even know if Paizo, as successful as the company is, makes anywhere near enough to make Hasbro blink


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think if the WotC CEO managed to license the TTRPG and have it more successful than when it was produced in-house, he'd point out what a successful strategy that licensing decision was.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think if the WotC CEO managed to license the TTRPG and have it more successful than when it was produced in-house, he'd point out what a successful strategy that licensing decision was.

This is exactly my experience with CEOs. They care more about making the right moves for the company and making it successful anyway possible. Often that includes admitting failures and pointing out their good decisions in response.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think if the WotC CEO managed to license the TTRPG and have it more successful than when it was produced in-house, he'd point out what a successful strategy that licensing decision was.
This is exactly my experience with CEOs. They care more about making the right moves for the company and making it successful anyway possible. Often that includes admitting failures and pointing out their good decisions in response.

Good CEOs yes. The CEO at WotC doesn't appear to be good:

http://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Wizards-of-the-Coast-Reviews-E4718.htm


The glassdoor comments, positie or negative, have similar critics: doesn't understand tech, bad marketing and risk adverse. All stuff the community has been aware of for a while.


Jester David wrote:
Pan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think if the WotC CEO managed to license the TTRPG and have it more successful than when it was produced in-house, he'd point out what a successful strategy that licensing decision was.
This is exactly my experience with CEOs. They care more about making the right moves for the company and making it successful anyway possible. Often that includes admitting failures and pointing out their good decisions in response.

Good CEOs yes. The CEO at WotC doesn't appear to be good:

Glass Door Reviews


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Pan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think if the WotC CEO managed to license the TTRPG and have it more successful than when it was produced in-house, he'd point out what a successful strategy that licensing decision was.
This is exactly my experience with CEOs. They care more about making the right moves for the company and making it successful anyway possible. Often that includes admitting failures and pointing out their good decisions in response.

Good CEOs yes. The CEO at WotC doesn't appear to be good:

http://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Wizards-of-the-Coast-Reviews-E4718.htm

Bad CEOs take credit for decisions that work well also.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Paizo has reasoned one reason NOT to split the line is that splitting the line decreases profits, however, in the case of D&D and AD&D I don't feel this is true. If they looked at the numbers it would be obvious that the D&D redbox was actually one of the biggest sellers among the lines, and if surveys and other items were seen, it would be shown that it was the single biggest introductory item in the history of D&D.

That's not a comparable situation since the split between D+D and AD+D was part of Gary Gygax's scheme to cut Dave Arneson out of TSR's profits. TSR's entire history seems to be dominated by someone putting the knife in the back of someone else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Mankind's entire history seems to be dominated by someone putting the knife in the back of someone else.

FIFY. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

Besides if Paizo did obtain the brand D&D the first smart thing to do would be bury the D&D brand and keep on promoting Pathfinder. Make PF the only game in town that is 'D&D-like' (and resourced to a high level). In time there will be people who treat PF as we now treat D&D and again in time only RPG history buffs will ever know that PF came out of this little known game called D&D.

Shadow Lodge

Or people would just continue to call it D&D.

Just because a company tries to bury something, that doesn't mean it will stay buried.

Had a New Coke lately?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Paizo would balk, and balk hard, at trying to bury D&D. (In a possibly far-off hypothetical future where Paizo would be able to buy it.)

That'd be like, I dunno, Nintendo buying the Megaman series from Capcom and then trying to bury it.

It'd be both a travesty AND self-destructive.

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:
That'd be like, I dunno, Nintendo buying the Megaman series from Capcom

I would be more like Nintendo buying XBox from Microsoft after the XBOne launch.

Cuz you know that Microsoft will keep pushing it, especially to gamers that already bought a PS4.

Liberty's Edge

Zhangar wrote:

I think Paizo would balk, and balk hard, at trying to bury D&D. (In a possibly far-off hypothetical future where Paizo would be able to buy it.)

That'd be like, I dunno, Nintendo buying the Megaman series from Capcom and then trying to bury it.

It'd be both a travesty AND self-destructive.

Bury is likely too strong of a word, I should have used "phase out". Less support for the D&D brand and wind down parts of the machine creating/printing D&D. Having two completing products in your own line is seldom good business as its splits your own client base. 4e was a good example of this, it split WotC's client base and allowed the growth of Pathfinder.

To say Paizo needs the D&D brand to grow further is like saying a fish needs a bicycle. The Paizo team have done an amazing job creating out of the ashes of 3e/OGL a new brand, that I contest in the circles of those who still play pen & paper fantasy RPG's, as well known as D&D. Sure in this hypothetical case of Paizo obtaining the D&D brand, D&D as a descriptor will still live on for sometime to come, however the game its doesn't have too. What is D&D? If defined by a set of rules then one could argue that as 1e was the only D&D penned by the original authors in that case D&D died when 2e came out. Not saying it did just asking the philosophical question, what is actually D&D?

S.


Vic Wertz wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Their take (which I listed a few months back in another thread) is a VERY different take on the entire TSR problems, though it in no wise goes counter to the ones you've heard from those that were at WotC, it shows that what they stated is actually rather limited and doesn't portray the entire picture at times.

We're very aware that the proliferation of campaign settings was only a small part of the problem. It's just the one that came up in this discussion.

I'd like to read the other thread you mention. Can you point me to it?

I will note that when Lisa was doing her analysis, she gained access to information that was not commonly known to a lot of TSR employees, even those who one might think would be exposed to such things. Which is to say that some of the people who were there at the time have a very inaccurate picture of what was really going on in the business, especially in the Lorraine Williams era.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I was being overworked this weekend (in a matter of speaking).

Here's a pointer to the earlier discussion I started on the subject

Old thread is old

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In that thread, you say:

"In 1997 it wasn't that the main RPG line wasn't making money, but that they were spending more money on project than those projects were bringing in. Hence, you may spend 20K on writing, and 15K on printing, but only sell 10K worth of material. But this wasn't the real reason for the problems, but that it was actually more of a trend."

My understanding is that some of the decision makers were kept largely in the dark about product costs.

Shadow Lodge

Zhangar wrote:
That'd be like, I dunno, Nintendo buying the Megaman series from Capcom and then trying to bury it.

Nintendo already has the superior arm-cannon equipped warrior.


Vic Wertz wrote:

In that thread, you say:

"In 1997 it wasn't that the main RPG line wasn't making money, but that they were spending more money on project than those projects were bringing in. Hence, you may spend 20K on writing, and 15K on printing, but only sell 10K worth of material. But this wasn't the real reason for the problems, but that it was actually more of a trend."

My understanding is that some of the decision makers were kept largely in the dark about product costs.

I'm not certain if all the decision makers were or were not, but it was evident to some that this was occurring.

I'm recalling the discussion with another person from some months ago, but if I remember correctly, this type of activity was mentioned but typically ignored by the higher ups at the time.

I've heard that some decisions were even arbitrary (changing the cover so it looks cool, but ramping up the production price at the time so there was no way for it to turn a profit with how they priced it).

Others could be seen directly in regards to these things, but ignored. I don't think the some of the major decision makers were ignorant of it per se, but perhaps thought themselves above certain people and things.

There were at least a few TSR folks that had a good idea what was going on (they put up a site which didn't go half as in depth as the conversation I had, but it's a decent overview of their side of the story) in regards to TSR's financial history that they put up on the internet. I wish I could find it but I can't seem to locate it now, but they had a much more abbreviated version of financials of the TSR episodes.

I'm not sure if the head of the company was paying any heed to anything to tell the truth, but there were at least a few that saw that aspect of it during the 90s.

Most of the stuff from the 80s is biased (I'll admit that). I'm not certain the records were the best kept then, but supposedly around the mid 80s TSR started to hit financial difficulties and other items. Be aware that the ones I got the information from are in the Gygax camp (I still trust the information, however) as are some of the numbers I've seen from that time period. However, it is biased towards one side of the story.

I also understood that 2e, at least temporarily, brought TSR up to speed and it wasn't looking all that dark for a time.

However, the all time D&D best seller (according to one person heavily involved and invested into it) was the red box, at least at the time for TSR.


Kthulhu wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
That'd be like, I dunno, Nintendo buying the Megaman series from Capcom and then trying to bury it.
Nintendo already has the superior arm-cannon equipped warrior.

Huh, fair enough.

Maybe Namco buying Street Fighter from Capcom and trying to bury that would've been a better metaphor.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
Deathdwarf wrote:
On a somewhat related note, this is Year 3 for WotC being absent from the Dealers Hall of GenCon. I recall conversations in '13 along the lines of "Yeah, well wait until 5th edition comes out! They're gonna OWN that Hall!".
I'm sure they're in the same area they were in last year, near all the Magic play.

Thanks Vic for keeping an open and informative mind in this thread, I appreciate the candor from your personal standpoint even though you have a vested interest in one more so now. Deathdwarf - it looks as though you lost the bet last year and need to pay up :) have fun at GenCon though, I hope to make there one day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
If you don't want to be a money farming tool, make your own rules up and get your friends to play with you.

Well, it worked for me...

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

Or people would just continue to call it D&D.

Just because a company tries to bury something, that doesn't mean it will stay buried.

Had a New Coke lately?

Seeing as the whole thing about "New Coke" was switching from cane sugar to HFCS, basically, I'd say most Coke drinkers probably have. ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:


Seeing as the whole thing about "New Coke" was switching from cane sugar to HFCS, basically, I'd say most Coke drinkers probably have. ;-)

That's been debunked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


Seeing as the whole thing about "New Coke" was switching from cane sugar to HFCS, basically, I'd say most Coke drinkers probably have. ;-)
That's been debunked.

And done so here for the curious.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D I'm not sure letting WotC produce the very well thought out (not perfect, but what is?) 5e D&D was the correct move. Unlike 4e, 5e seems to have cemented rather than polarized the D&D crowd. Or perhaps they just want us all in on place when Hasbro lets the hammer fall? Sneaky darn evil corporates.

4e killed my long time D&D group (fact), 5e brought it back together (fact).

S.


The weird thing, to me, is how much this is like the whole "New Coke" "Coke Classic" debacle, where, when all was said and done, coke was new whether you liked it or not.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:

If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D I'm not sure letting WotC produce the very well thought out (not perfect, but what is?) 5e D&D was the correct move. Unlike 4e, 5e seems to have cemented rather than polarized the D&D crowd. Or perhaps they just want us all in on place when Hasbro lets the hammer fall? Sneaky darn evil corporates.

4e killed my long time D&D group (fact), 5e brought it back together (fact).

S.

Yeah, funny how people actually like this edition better than 4th. And pretty much everyone who liked 3rd better has Pathfinder. Win win.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
If Hasbro wanted to sink D&D...

I'm not aware of anyone who is suggesting they want to sink D&D; only that they may do so inadvertently.

If I had to bet, I'd guess that 5E will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them. Their management team certainly seems to be circa 1990 or so.

But the truth is that we'll never know how 5E would have gone under different circumstances, because it isn't possible to go back and test it. All I know right now is:

1. 5E seems to be successful so far; and
2. I will not play it, because it doesn't meet my requirements. Whether it would under different ownership I cannot say.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them.

I take it you mean others at WotC - the design team of 5e ARE WotC also. I give them huge credit for what they have achieved. I am sure that WotC management above were aware and supportive of this creation. I find it difficult to believe that 5e is a product of after-hours and weekend work.

S.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
will be a success in spite of WotC, but certainly not because of them.

I take it you mean others at WotC - the design team of 5e ARE WotC also. I give them huge credit for what they have achieved. I am sure that WotC management above were aware and supportive of this creation. I find it difficult to believe that 5e is a product of after-hours and weekend work.

S.

Whomever is making decisions like:

* PDFs are bad, mmmmkay?
* Trickle of mediocre adventures
* No (usable) license

Which I assume is WotC mgmt, but could be Hasbro.

In any event, I think the designers came up with a good product; I just think they're being hamstrung by very poor (and very obviously poor) management.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Whomever is making decisions like:

* PDFs are bad, mmmmkay?
* Trickle of mediocre adventures
* No (usable) license

Which I assume is WotC mgmt, but could be Hasbro.

In any event, I think the designers came up with a good product; I just think they're being hamstrung by very poor (and very obviously poor) management.

I've made a habit of jumping on your posts and singling out one word lately - take my word for it that I'm genuinely just curious and not picking minutiae...

Have you read the adventures for 5E? Or is 'mediocre' based on some consensus view? I dont think they're mediocre at all. Granted they're not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I think they do a great job of fulfilling the role they're designed to fill.


Steve Geddes wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Whomever is making decisions like:

* PDFs are bad, mmmmkay?
* Trickle of mediocre adventures
* No (usable) license

Which I assume is WotC mgmt, but could be Hasbro.

In any event, I think the designers came up with a good product; I just think they're being hamstrung by very poor (and very obviously poor) management.

I've made a habit of jumping on your posts and singling out one word lately - take my word for it that I'm genuinely just curious and not picking minutiae...

Have you read the adventures for 5E? Or is 'mediocre' based on some consensus view? I dont think they're mediocre at all. Granted they're not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I think they do a great job of fulfilling the role they're designed to fill.

I've read (and run the beginning of) Lost Mine of Phandelver (not bad, but wholly inferior to, say, Burnt Offerings) and Hoard of the Dragon Queen (just terrible). I haven't read further, because I refuse to patronize a company which offers no eBook support in 2015. However, even if the (two?) adventures released since were great, there are still far too few.

5E would have been a wonderful opportunity to revive Dungeon (in PDF, of course), but for whatever reason they completely missed the boat. Frankly, some of their missteps have been so egregious that they strain credulity, especially after the 4E debacle; sometimes it feels like I'm watching the Keystone Cops of the RPG world. At first it was funny, but now it's just...sad. I wish they'd just sell D&D already, because they clearly see the RPG itself as the red-headed stepchild of the brand. :/


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cheers. Just different tastes, I guess.

The Electronic suppport that WotC are offering is pretty far ahead of the field, in my view. The Elemental Player Guide free PDF is pretty sensational. Plus it comes as Print-On-Demand - as a kind of mirror of your position, I wont read anything if it's electronic only (free or not) but I was glad I picked that up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Cheers. Just different tastes, I guess.

The Electronic suppport that WotC are offering is pretty far ahead of the field, in my view. The Elemental Player Guide free PDF is pretty sensational. Plus it comes as Print-On-Demand - as a kind of mirror of your position, I wont read anything if it's electronic only (free or not) but I was glad I picked that up.

The thing is, D&D is literally the only modern RPG that I can't get as some sort of e-book (I understand that this is the case with the Star Wars stuff as well, but being licensed, that's understandable). Further, WotC's stated reason for no electronic availability -- piracy -- is completely nonsensical to the point of being insulting. In fairness, I'm probably blowing the issue out of proportion, but I just have no patience left for dealing with Hasbro/WotC's shenanigans after watching them completely botch 4E (which I really liked). It probably also doesn't help that I feel like I've seen this show before, having watched the slow car accident that was the music industry's response to MP3s...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


The thing is, D&D is literally the only modern RPG that I can't get as some sort of e-book (I understand that this is the case with the Star Wars stuff as well, but being licensed, that's understandable). Further, WotC's stated reason for no electronic availability -- piracy -- is completely nonsensical to the point of being insulting.

Other licensed games are available on PDF even if Star Wars isn't. It certainly isn't an industry standards - though, you're right, it may be a standard of the Star Wars license.

And I totally agree on the piracy reason. That justification told me that the person in charge of that decision didn't know what they were talking about or just doesn't want to tell me the other reasons.

bugleyman wrote:
In fairness, I'm probably blowing the issue out of proportion

There are times you do sound like a broken record. ;)

Though, truly, I don't read your posts nearly as much as I used to because, at least in some threads, I know what they're going to be about...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Cheers. Just different tastes, I guess.

The Electronic suppport that WotC are offering is pretty far ahead of the field, in my view. The Elemental Player Guide free PDF is pretty sensational. Plus it comes as Print-On-Demand - as a kind of mirror of your position, I wont read anything if it's electronic only (free or not) but I was glad I picked that up.

The thing is, D&D is literally the only modern RPG that I can't get as some sort of e-book (I understand that this is the case with the Star Wars stuff as well, but being licensed, that's understandable). Further, WotC's stated reason for no electronic availability -- piracy -- is completely nonsensical to the point of being insulting. In fairness, I'm probably blowing the issue out of proportion, but I just have no patience left for dealing with Hasbro/WotC's shenanigans after watching them completely botch 4E (which I really liked). It probably also doesn't help that I feel like I've seen this show before, having watched the slow car accident that was the music industry's response to MP3s...

Yeah, sorry. I seem to have edited out a whole bunch of that last post - my point was mangled pretty badly. I understand your view (and agree it should be possible to download a PDF of the core rule books). The "different tastes" comment was in regards to the adventures. Far from mediocre, I thought hoard of the dragon queen was a great railroad adventure hitting a whole bunch of traditional D&D tropes.

I find it ironic, given their position on PDFs of the core books, that their PDF support in other, non core areas is so far ahead of the market. The elemental player guide is basically a mini-splatbook. The production values are high, it was free and there's a print on demand option.

301 to 350 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / I believe Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.