TBH, I don't doubt there will be a 4E at some point. What I find confusing is the constant release of books supporting 3.5E that continue to be churned out every month. Surely people are going to stop buying these if there's talk of a 4E?
There have been a few extras that have found their way into the game, such a Swift and Immediate Actions; will these become core? How do you decide what the core characters will be when there have been so many others in the numerous supplements? How can we be satisfied with the core feats when we may have been using many others? This is all assuming 4E is similar to 3.5E.
However, I'm opening up this thread to ask: What will 4E be like?
|
TBH, I don't doubt there will be a 4E at some point. What I find confusing is the constant release of books supporting 3.5E that continue to be churned out every month. Surely people are going to stop buying these if there's talk of a 4E?
There have been a few extras that have found their way into the game, such a Swift and Immediate Actions; will these become core? How do you decide what the core characters will be when there have been so many others in the numerous supplements? How can we be satisfied with the core feats when we may have been using many others? This is all assuming 4E is similar to 3.5E.
However, I'm opening up this thread to ask: What will 4E be like?
Hi Isa. I certainly reckon stuff like immediate ad swift actions will be in there. Offhand, I can't think of much else which seems a new "core" mechanic. And in a sense, I think lots of people would be annoyed if 4E turns out to be a compilation "Gretest Hits" of 3.5.
|
Another thing that would be annoying, is if they repeat the confusion from 2003, when it was unclear which products/adventures/articles were 3rd Ed, and which were 3.5.
All it takes is a note on the contents page, and a line or two in the introduction.
You can understand third-party publishers being annoyed at having their work in progress invalidated or needing to be re-worked, and you can forgive them for not pre-empting the change, but when it's WOTC in-house products, you do have to wonder if the right hand knows what the left is doing...
While I do not doubt that there will eventually be a 4th edition of D&D, I hope that that event does not happen for another six or seven years, at least. When 3rd edition appeared, I bought every new source book offered for 3rd edition. When edition 3.5 came out, I continued to buy every new book that was compatible with 3.5. (My DMs are the primary beneficiaries of my shopping lust.) With each new source book, I am stunned by a new list of character classes, feats and spells to consider. More than anything else, what I could use right now is a Complete Feat Compendium, as well as a Complete Character Class Compendium. These two new compendia do not need to published as (shudder) conventional books: keeping them as downloadable (for a fee, say $10 per download) PDF files would be fine (assuming that the Paizo staff does the editing of the files). This way, I would be able to simply visit Paizo on a monthly basis and see if I needed to download a new set of compendia.
I'd like to see Wizards put out a 3.5.1 edition with the erratta worked into the books. To the greatest degree possible, I'd like to see the page numbers kept the same so that existing magazine references and mastery of flipping through the books will stay valid.
I'd hope that by the time we see a 4th edition, it will take advantage of some of the possibilities of technology to aid gaming while preserving the tabletop core and feel. Books are traditional and good, but there are just some things that you can handle better with a computer.
4e - and I have no doubt it will be released one day - will make such great improvements to 3rd edition that only the must stubborn and miserly of players will refuse to convert. Three core rulebooks after eight years is not a major purchase, in the grand scale of things.
Grappling will be made much more straightforward, because nobody uses it otherwise. Consider how often you've just had the monster full attack because you couldn't be bothered working out how Improved Grab or Constrict work.
Polymorph will be fixed from the outset, finally. Min/maxers will add up the maths and find that it's actually balanced for its level. We may see a return to polymorph self and polymorph other, since as you know from true strike, spells a wizard can only cast on himself are less powerful than those he can use to buff a fighter. (It's perhaps wishful thinking that they'll keep polymorph, since I don't like how Andy's split it into a one-spell-per-monster trick. I'm hoping "polymorph has a limit to how much of each ability score it can bestow of the new form, which increases with level", or "needs a material component different for each monster, perhaps monster bones specially prepared by the caster himself", with shapechange a kind of "true polymorph".)
High level play is going to be much smoother and more enjoyable, to counter how many people say the game drags a bit at high level. High level evocations will be sorted out, and conjurations in general will get a helping hand.
It's still going to keep the basic tenets of the game. Three core books, class-based, fantasy races, d20-based rolls.
It's also going to make some innovative changes that nobody really expected, but everyone quite likes.
It may or may not divorce the setting from Greyhawk entirely, although it may list "sample deities" in the Cleric section.
|
|
Hi Johnathan,
Is all that a prediction from 'the inside', or just a gamer's wish-list?
If you are 'in with the in-crowd', then it's heartening to see you are probably thinking along the same lines as me...
Yes I would expect the new action types but I would also look for the polymorph revisions to make an appearance.
Hardly the best basis for a 4th ed.
THREADJACK ALERT!!!!
Grab a coffee (preferably a jug of espresso) before reading this stream of conciousness that boiled out of my id...
As far as I am concerned, the polymorph 'cure' has just led to even more confusion, eg the Trollform (sp?) spell, from PHB2 giving the target 30 temp hp; is that instead of, or on top of regeneration? The errata in PHB2 states that, 'unless stated otherwise' the target of a polymorph-type spell gains 'all special abilities' of the new form. Huh?
What classes as a 'special' ability? Is that 'special' as in a narrow definition in the SRD, or 'special' in the sense of 'whatever cool ability a human normally doesn't have'?
It is limited to powers related to the new form?
If so, which powers are these?
Is a dragon's energy resistance purely related to its hide, or its 'magical nature'?
Is an elemental's DR due to its form, or its ties to another plane?
Is an ape's Climb bonus (and speed) purely due to its long, gripping arms, or is it (at least partly) a learned, ie mental ability?
Should a wizard with new wings have the knowledge to use them, or should he plummet to the ground like a new-born chick?
The above spell alone caused half an hour of debate, resulting in a different definition from everyone involved, and this was for a limit of one form.
This issue has been covered on the WOTC website, where such spells have been banned from tournaments, and most shape-shifting monsters have been re-worded to have one or more fixed alternate forms, but this does nothing to address the problem of PC/NPC spellcasters.
You shouldn't have to waste half the session leafing through a stack of monster books, picking every creature's powers to bits, to min/max the optimum build or justify whether the last round's action was legal.
I know, the smart answer will be "Don't let the players take that long. Give them a minute to make their choice, then stick with it." Or "Make a short-list between games."
You shouldn't have to do this between games. My life is busy enough, without trying to memorise the powers (and the power types) of several hundred creatures.
Players shouldn't be reading the Monster Manuals at all (and, yes, I am speaking as a player, as well as DM).
What is the point of pitting the PCs against a rare, little-known creature, if the players are allowed to declare their intention to polymorph, demand to know what book the creature is in, and then read up its capabilities?
I'm sure there are groups that do this, as I know players who would try this every time if they believed they could get away with it. They may slap themselves on the back for their 'ingenuity', but whatever they think they're playing, it isn't D&D.
This just leads to the 'arcade' style of play, and DMs who have to slap ten templates on every creature to give their players any surprises.
It leads to druid PCs being created from level 1 as geriatrics, despite the fact that most high-level PCs would still be in their twenties. "Let's have a bonus to all my mental stats. Who cares if I've got 3 Str, I'll be in wild shape most of the time." (this is an example from my own game...thankfully a guest player sitting in for one session).
Why should your game be held hostage every time a new monster book comes out? Why should DMs have to be afraid that an unchecked game designer may have created an unbalanced creature with multiple immunities and powers, that immediately becomes the 'default' shape for every PC?
Why do we need a spell (or wild shape) that causes the game to come crashing to a standstill, that requires pages of clauses, errata and legalese, but still fails to address the issue?
What's wrong with a spell (or ability) that does "x"?
Bull Strength gives "+4 Strength". It doesn't say "Pick a famous bodybuilder/wrestler, spend half an hour arguing about how much he could bench-press, then give yourself that Str score".
Expeditious Retreat says "Increase your speed by X". Not "Pick a famous sprinter, have him disallowed because of a drugs ban, argue he should be allowed because the tests are fallible, argue about his personal record time, then give yourself that speed".
Why should the player have to refer to a DM book, to pick a creature from a list? Why not keep the PHB open, and pick from a list of spell effects? Both the above spells could be visualised as 'shapeshifting'; growing new muscle and bone, for a wide torso and thick 'bull-neck', or springy 'cheetah-feet'.
That's certainly how I see druidic effects in my mind's eye.
That way, the players need only relax at home with the books they are intended to have, dreaming up combos from a 'shopping list', paid for with build points that increase with caster level. The combos don't have to match any existing creature, though straying too far from a racial norm would tend to give the game away to an observer that 'all is not as it seems'.
Eg. "I want to fly round the tower at night. I can afford dire bat wings, darkvision, blindsense, but I'll keep my own Str, so I'll be a poor flyer, OR I can drop the blindsense, pump my Str up by 6, and be average flyer. Hmmm.....decisions".
Any thoughts?
Hell if there's anyone from Paizo or WOTC reading this far, I'll do the work myself just for a byline and minimum page rate, if it means streamlining the game for millions of players and saving my campaign grinding to a halt at mid-level!
|
They'll most certainly revise the magic system in some way. Maybe it'll get more flexible like the psionics system with spell points or something like that.
Or they'll base it on the popular Warlock mechanic.
I expect them to offer different player races like the changeling from Eberron. I doubt that they'll make radical changes like it is speculated in the EN-World thread like getting rid of DMs and something like that. I wouldn't bet on it, but this would change the foundations of role-playing in such a drastic manner, that it could be risky.
I for sure wouldn't want to replace the DM with drawing cards or something like that.
Maybe they'll make miniatures more important and in a way that makes it difficult to play without. I can't imagine how this might look like but it seems to be a fact that they're making way more money with the miniatures than with the RPGs. Maybe we won't be able to buy books without miniatures or something like that...
TBH, I don't doubt there will be a 4E at some point. What I find confusing is the constant release of books supporting 3.5E that continue to be churned out every month. Surely people are going to stop buying these if there's talk of a 4E?
There have been a few extras that have found their way into the game, such a Swift and Immediate Actions; will these become core? How do you decide what the core characters will be when there have been so many others in the numerous supplements? How can we be satisfied with the core feats when we may have been using many others? This is all assuming 4E is similar to 3.5E.
However, I'm opening up this thread to ask: What will 4E be like?
You can also find tons and tons of discussion on this very topic on ENWorld. (I don't feel bad about referencing another board here because the Dungeon staff regularly posts there.)
4/e won't be released in my little world. As far as I'm concerned, 3.5 got enough right to just leave it be.
I'll be playing 3.5 for the rest of my D&D career.
Jack
crotchety curmudgeon :)
I'd like to see Wizards put out a 3.5.1 edition with the erratta worked into the books. To the greatest degree possible, I'd like to see the page numbers kept the same so that existing magazine references and mastery of flipping through the books will stay valid.
I like this idea as well. I think there is enough that could be improved to allow for a redo of the 3 core books but would be unhappy to have all the rest of the books made obsolete.
4/e won't be released in my little world. As far as I'm concerned, 3.5 got enough right to just leave it be.
I'll be playing 3.5 for the rest of my D&D career.
Jack
crotchety curmudgeon :)
I think you're right, Tat. TBH, although 3.x was released in 2000 and it's now 6 years old, I've played relatively little of it due to family commitments. Forking out more money, although it's been argued here as a comparatively small amount for what you get from it, just isn't worth it when I actually think about how much me and my friends play. Us aging gamers have got the money to spend but not the time to learn new systems and play them as much as we want.
3.5 works and I like having a choice of bolt-ons. I think I'll stretch it out as much as I can.
I'm holding out hope that there won't be a 4/e.
WotC (or more likely Hasbro) seems to really resent the manpower and research that goes into something like a new version of the game.
By contrast, they seem to love the minimal investment required for minis, and the resulting profit margin. Hopefully they'll be happy to keep milking D&D 3.5 for miniatures revenue.
Regards,
Jack
|
Yeah, I wouldn't expect 4e for a while. From my highly dubious and untrustworthy sources (which, of course, I trust implicitly :) ) D&D is barely turning a profit for WoTC. They are supposedly just now reaping the financial benefits of the edition changes, so I don't think they would invest millions in new art, R&D, and new products just to wait four more years for the cash flow to become positive once again.
Then again, this gaming business is just a racket. It's not about the spirit of gaming. The bottom line is that if it is profitable to release a 4e soon, WotC will do it, if not, they won't.
M:TG and miniature sales are some of WoTC's most profitable product lines, so if there is a 4E, you can probably expect a D&D3.5E/M:TG CCG/Miniature game hybrid. That sounds ridiculous, but I guarantee some R&D manager at WoTC has done extensive research/prototyping on just such a game.
M:TG and miniature sales are some of WoTC's most profitable product lines, so if there is a 4E, you can probably expect a D&D3.5E/M:TG CCG/Miniature game hybrid. That sounds ridiculous, but I guarantee some R&D manager at WoTC has done extensive research/prototyping on just such a game.
I can't wait to see D&D Atogs, and their accompanying small, medium, large, huge, etc. minis!
Then again, this gaming business is just a racket. It's not about the spirit of gaming. The bottom line is that if it is profitable to release a 4e soon, WotC will do it, if not, they won't.
I agree completely, though what you describe isn't a bad thing -- it's just the way things are.
Many RPGs are peculiar, in the sense that they were started by people who just loved gaming, and those people/companies continued to drive the market for a long time (TSR, Marc Miller, Chaosium, White Wolf, lots of others).
Hasbro, on the other hand, is willing to tolerate only so much fun from WotC -- if it doesn't make lots of money, it's gone.
My two cents,
Jack
Then again, this gaming business is just a racket. It's not about the spirit of gaming. The bottom line is that if it is profitable to release a 4e soon, WotC will do it, if not, they won't.
Um.... No.
It is all about the spirit of gaming. The people who work on these projects get paid a decent, livable wage when they're lucky. Richard Garfield may be set for life, but most designers are working their butts off for this job because it's one they love and they know that if they left someone else would be willing to take their spot, and probably for less money. This is the way all artistic careers have gone in the modern age. Outside of WotC and a few other 'big' game companies, most designers are doing this in their spare time, working a different day job, tucked away scribbling whenever they can get away with it because this is what they love and this is their release from everyday life, too.
Many crap books get turned out, not because the writers aren't in the spirit of the game, but because the people who write them are the ones fanatic enough about the spirit of the game to put the rest of their life on hold while they write. Not all of the people this crazy are also good writers, or taking the time to think their ideas through.
Some books get written "not in the spirit of the game" because the author is burnt out. He's gotten a job doing what he always wanted to do - write game stuff - and then found out that it can be every bit as much of a grind some days as being an accountant or a banker. He's desperately turning out words to meet his contract because he was sure once that this is what he wanted to do, and now that he's gotten his big break, he's desperate not to blow it, even though his heart isn't in it all of the sudden.
Some books get turned out "not in the spirit of the game" because they looked great on the drawing board, or they were needed to fill a niche in some series, or yes, sometimes just because it was known that they would sell, and quality was a secondary concern. Someone who worked their way up the company heirarchy precisely because they had been passionate about the game and worked their tail off for it for years running when other people would be happy to fill their shoes said something like, "If we're producing the Book of Vile Darkness then we also need to produce the Book of Exalted Deeds." Then people in the staff meeting nodded along because this made sense, and a little while later they assigned a team of writers to it. By the time the writers discovered that pinning down the concept of "Good" is nearly impossible, and presenting a "Good" that everyone can agree on is without watering down opinions of what Good is is harder yet, not to mention that it rarely makes for a compelling story (or more important to a game, a compelling story fragment that will grab a DM such that he makes it his own and works it into his game) it was too late, the project had a deadline, the authors were committed, and hope springs eternal that someone can find a way to salvage the idea that made sense as a proposal.
In all these cases I guarantee that these books, and the writing that does not always succeed in being brilliant, had nothing to do with the authors "not being in the spirit of the game." Behind every D&D book there's an author or a team of authors who are trying to scrape out a living doing what they love and what they've loved since childhood. These guys are pouring their all into the books, whether they've worked their way up to having a permanent post at WotC and their own 8' x 8' cublicle, or whether they're working out of their home office setting other life priorities aside while they pour the endless hours of writing in, just to know that they contributed something to the game. They're finally getting the chance to write, for real, for the game they love, and despite all obstacles, you can bet they're trying as best they can.
So does WotC sometimes turn out cash cows? Sure. Something has to pay the bills while the authors turn out book after book, striving for that rare spark of genius that leaves its mark on the game. It's not because they don't love it.
Then again, this gaming business is just a racket. It's not about the spirit of gaming. The bottom line is that if it is profitable to release a 4e soon, WotC will do it, if not, they won't.
Um.... No.
It is all about the spirit of gaming. The people who work on these projects get paid a decent, livable wage when they're lucky...
Um... No -- at least with Hasbro/WotC.
With respect, I think Hasbro has held a course that cares nothing for the spirit of gaming. Fortunately, most of the writers & designers they hire do, but Hasbro won't pay them for a cool product -- only a profitable one; a look at the Star Wars RPG line will demonstrate that.
With other companies and game lines this is often not the case, but the moment Hasbro bought WotC, things changed for D&D -- we can see it in lots of ways, from product line support to RPGA policy.
My two cents (again) :)
Jack
|
|
Um.... No.It is all about the spirit of gaming. The people who work on these projects get paid a decent, livable wage when they're lucky. Richard Garfield may be set for life, but most designers are working their butts off for this job because it's one they love and they know....
This only reinforces my point. You're taking my statement as an affront to the artists and authors who produce these games.
The fact is, authors, designers, etc. do not own WoTC. They do not have the ultimate say in whether a 4e comes out or not. The stockholders and officers of WoTC and Hasbro review accounting data, demand curves, production costs, cash flows etc etc etc and determing if there will be a fourth edition or not. Did you think I was saying that the writers working on the game were in on the racket? I certainly didn't mean to imply that. They are probably the biggest victims. They pour their hearts and souls into these games and then get told 'turn out another sourcebook by next month or we'll find someone who can'.
You make the point that they get paid peanuts, but that they work like fiends just to keep their crappy jobs because they love the games that much. Again this reinforces my point. If the gaming business was about the spirit of the game, they wouldn't be running the equivalent of a D20 sourcebook sweatshop.
or yes, sometimes just because it was known that they would sell,...
Yes, and unfortunately this is the problem. WoTC hired a few high-level designers who could help them create a business plan that would generate steady revenue by releasing silly updates and various throwaway sourcebooks. Every time a new book comes out, there are a handful of wildly unbalanced spells or feats. Every powergaming player wants to use them, and feels it necessary to buy the book and bring it to the gaming table to prove that it's a real official rule.
I think the tone of this has made it sound like I think there's some huge conspiracy out there to fleece gamers of their money. There is not of course, but that doesn't mean that WoTC isn't trying to turn a profit at our expense.
Some books get turned out "not in the spirit of the game" because they looked great on the drawing board, or they were needed to fill a niche in some series, or yes, sometimes just because it was known that they would sell,...
I don't blame the designers for this too much. They can pick what they work on with the caveat that someone several paygrades above them will have to approve it at some point.
|
|
By the way, Magic the Gathering has been suffering from this for the past ten years. Every couple years, a slew of new rules and rule changes comes out, forcing regular players to buy a bunch of new cards in the new edition that take advantage of the new rules. If that isn't a cleverly disguised scam, I don't know what is.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
By the way, Magic the Gathering has been suffering from this for the past ten years. Every couple years, a slew of new rules and rule changes comes out, forcing regular players to buy a bunch of new cards in the new edition that take advantage of the new rules. If that isn't a cleverly disguised scam, I don't know what is.
You clearly don't follow Magic. A slew of new cards come out every year because that's the way the business works not because of rules changes. Not only that - people want more cards. They like building new decks, they like collecting them, they like playing. Not all of us are above such petty pleasures. The rules changes have been beneficial and do not require new compatible cards. The most powerful cards in the game remain the ones printed in the original core set. The rules changes have done nothing to make those cards obsolete, and in fact they rise in price every year.
I'd be curious to hear about some alternate perpetual business model that Wizards of the Coast should be implementing. I sorta thought producing and selling books was their core business.
The funny thing about gamers is they're like sports fans. They think because they understand the game they understand the business behind the game. Hasbro doesn't give a flying f*#% about the content of the books WotC produces. They aren't sitting there with red pens striking out the good stuff and telling the authors to make the game worse. The executives don't actually show up at WotC and micromanage the company to the point of telling them how much toilet paper to stock in the men's room and how large the bonus should be to a half-orc's strength bonus.
Here's the dirty secret: it's in Hasbro's interest to have WotC produce a good product and have long term revenue. Despite the conventional gamer wisdom, Hasbro does not exist solely to alienate its customers and punish them for enjoying WotC products.
|
Here's the dirty secret: it's in Hasbro's interest to have WotC produce a good product and have long term revenue. Despite the conventional gamer wisdom, Hasbro does not exist solely to alienate its customers and punish them for enjoying WotC products.
I see your point. But I think in a country where Chuck E. Cheese's is a national chain, it is dangerous to assume profitability and quality product go hand-in-hand.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I see your point. But I think in a country where Chuck E. Cheese's is a national chain, it is dangerous to assume profitability and quality product go hand-in-hand.
Here's the dirty secret: it's in Hasbro's interest to have WotC produce a good product and have long term revenue. Despite the conventional gamer wisdom, Hasbro does not exist solely to alienate its customers and punish them for enjoying WotC products.
I agree, but I think it's just as dangerous to assume that they are mutually exclusive. Trust me - once people start posting that idea dogmatically, I'll argue against it also.
|
|
You clearly don't follow Magic. A slew of new cards come out every year because that's the way the business works not because of rules changes.
The funny thing about gamers is they're like sports fans. They think because they understand the game they understand the business behind the game.
Contradiction?
The business of games, the business of anything is to make money. My main point is this: if the data shows that releasing a fourth edition of D&D will be more profitable than continuing the 3.5E line, then 3.5E will be discontinued and 4E will be released.
I'd be curious to hear about some alternate perpetual business model that Wizards of the Coast should be implementing. I sorta thought producing and selling books was their core business.
If by 'core' you mean a secondary business purchased to supplement their massive income from CCG's, then yes that is their core business.
Hasbro doesn't give a flying f@#% about the content of the books WotC produces. They aren't sitting there with red pens striking out the good stuff and telling the authors to make the game worse. The executives don't actually show up at WotC and micromanage the company to the point of telling them how much toilet paper to stock in the men's room and how large the bonus should be to a half-orc's strength bonus.
Who said they did? For someone who writes with such a smug tone, you rely too much on the use of hyperbole to back up your logic. Do executives go through the PHB line by line editing? No, no one thinks they do. At some point does a game designer have to go before an executive who knows jack squat about the game and tell them why xxx book should be published and why gamers will want to buy xxx book? Yeah probably.
Here's the dirty secret: it's in Hasbro's interest to have WotC produce a good product and have long term revenue. Despite the conventional gamer wisdom, Hasbro does not exist solely to alienate its customers and punish them for enjoying WotC products.
Are they trying to punish anyone? Umm no. Are they using us to make a buck? They sure are just like everyone else is in a capitalist economy. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but if you think the potential release of a new edition of D&D is based on anything other than the effect on the company's income, you are mistaken.
The most powerful cards in the game remain the ones printed in the original core set. The rules changes have done nothing to make those cards obsolete, and in fact they rise in price every year.
Except for the rules that ban various cards from official play. I think those rules certainly made some cards obsolete. The rules have changed drastically. I was watching a small tournament that happened to be going on the last time I popped in the local gaming store. The game is barely recognizable from when I began playing in revised. The changes to interrupts are a perfect example of what I'm getting at.
Not only that - people want more cards. They like building new decks, they like collecting them, they like playing. Not all of us are above such petty pleasures.
I'm not sure how you are distorting what I said into an attack on the people who enjoy "such petty pleasures". The cards these days cost about 8 times what they cost when I first began playing. It's not due to inflation or rising costs, it's due to business strategists at WoTC studying the demand curve models they created and determining that maximum revenue is earned at the sale price of four dollars for a pack of cards and thirty or forty dollars for a D&D supplement.
Here's the dirty secret: it's in Hasbro's interest to have WotC produce a good product and have long term revenue.
I'd have to disagree with you there. They make the most money from the core rulebooks, not all the silly expansion supplements they release. Once sale of core rulebooks begins to wane, you'll see a new edition of the core rulebooks come out that forces everyone who wants to stay current to purchase them.
Here's the real dirty secret: the average D&D player doesn't buy all the supplements. He buys the core books and perhaps a couple others. Once he owns the core books, he's not going to buy any more. The solution: make a new version of the core books so he buys them to replace last year's.
WoTC doesn't get much long term revenue from the release of a new edition. That's why there was a 3e. The old 2e books weren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore. Once 3e sales started to drop off we magically had 3.5e to change a few integral rules.
Here's the real dirty secret: the average D&D player doesn't buy all the supplements. He buys the core books and perhaps a couple others. Once he owns the core books, he's not going to buy any more. The solution: make a new version of the core books so he buys them to replace last year's.
WoTC doesn't get much long term revenue from the release of a new edition. That's why there was a 3e. The old 2e books weren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore. Once 3e sales started to drop off we magically had 3.5e to change a few integral rules.
I'm not looking at WotC's balance sheets, but I'm dubious of this analysis of the profitability of the core rulebooks. The core books were written by a team of dozens of professionals over the course of years. I don't know what WotC's balance sheets look like, but I know that computer game programming companies have a similar production model in terms of number of employees assigned to a product and time allowed to write it in, and their costs are in the millions per product shipped. The core books are hardback, and better bound than most non-D&D game books I have experience with. I don't know what their profitability per book sold is, but I'm guessing that it works out to only a few bucks each, at which rate it's going to take a bit of time to pay back the millions TSR/WotC/Hasbro invested in producing them. Take into account also that of the core three books, the average player buys only the PHB. Only DMs need the MM and DMG.
But let's imagine for the moment that you're right. The average player only buys a few books and WotC is turning them out just to make a buck. Roleplaying is one of the cheapest hobbies out there, in terms of hours of entertainment per dollar spent. A typical group of 5 could play for a year for 250$, working out to about 25 cents per person/hour of entertainment.
To make that math explicit:
5 copies of the Player's Handbook: 150$
1 copy of the Monster Manual: 30$
1 copy of the Dungeon Master's Guide: 30$
1 year subscription to Dungeon Magazine: 40$
Total: 250$ (Ok, I left out dice.)
Person/Hours of entertainment:
5 people x 4 hours per session x 52 weekly sessions for the year
Total: 1,040 person/hours of entertainment.
$250.00/1,040person/hours < $0.25/person/hour.
So when I see people complaining that an industry where the average worker is turning in such long hours with so little (financial) reward to produce such excellent values in a product is just a scam... I get a little peeved. What if WotC did try to get you to buy a new core set every year, instead of every 5 or 10 years? That would really be a scam, huh? Nevermind that you'd still be getting your entertainment ten times cheaper than your group spending the same time at the movies, or twenty times cheaper than meeting up for sushi once a week. I mean, you'd pay as much for a single high-end video card to let your PC run the latest video games without calling it a scam, just for one player in the group's PC, not to mention the cost of Blizzard or Id Software's latest product.
So WotC/Hasbro is making a profit off these books?
Good.
They deserve it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not going to bother doing a point by point response. I'll just boil down to the essential element:
You're wrong.
If I had to guess, I'd say you're either in college right now or a recent gradute. You've got a certain amount of academic understanding of business and your arguments have more heft than is typical for this topic by this audience. That being said, your conclusions are driven by emotion and not reason. Objectively, you don't understand subsidiaries, business ownership, the effect of ownership on management, the way business decisions are actually made, or the forces that drive a company.
In sum: you are marginally more informed and coherent than the typical gamer discussing business, but your arguments are ultimately emotional and show a lack of understanding of business.
Sorry for not continuing the substantive debate, but it's just not productive. I'm arguing evolution, you're arguing intelligent design. There can't be a meeting of the minds.
Seriously. To me, a scam means that someone's making money they don't deserve. I want to meet the fatcat Hasbro exec who's funding his Porsche payments and his trophy wife's elective surgery bills off the sales of DMGs and Candyland.
I met Steve Jackson briefly at a recent DragonCon and played in one of his games. If that man has a hobby more expensive than collecting out of print legos, I didn't pick up on it. He certainly wasn't wearing an Armani suit. I also got the chance to chat with one of Rein-Hagen's latest business partners a few times. If he had any money that wasn't being poured into his latest game launch, it didn't show.
"..why, I haven't bathed in 3-weeks.." ~ another gaming-related Ren & Stimpy quote.
4e just tells me that I'm getting even older than I already am. I've had huge hinderances to gaming since I turned about 30 and it's not getting any easier finding players (most have turned-coat and have moved on to greener, and even more isolated from their local community, computer RPG's).
4E will spell the end for a lot of gamers. Geezers aren't going to fork out another $975 for games. They're going to be like those people who refused to leave 1E or 2E. Their groups and themselves will wither and die on the vine and even more people will leave this hobby.
I don't see anything that 4E can produce being able to bring in new gamers to our dying hobby. By dying hobby, I mean..have you been to any local game conventions lately anywhere? I hear numerous dealers and convention organizers talking about the diminished attendence, lack of 'enthusiasm', and woe-is-us talk. LARPing has all but disappeared (into the night) and we all know what happened to "role-playing" classic-type games. They've had their chance. They're extinct. The world has moved on to what I affectionately call "LOOT & LEVELS," which is about all players care about anymore (maybe that's influenced by my stint with Living Greyhawk though..but even home games...man, it's sad).
Loot & Levels can be had with any edition..but most importantly, it can be had without leaving the comfort of your own computer room. Sad really. I hope DUNGEON takes a hint and continues to work to make their scenarios "ADAPTABLE" to people who develop ONLINE GAMES..or they'll struggle too. I mean, why miss out on a MILLION player market for a couple of measly 'thousand' tabletop gamers..it only makes sense..right Paizo? 4E or not, adventures are necessary!
Me? I'm going to game until I'm dead..I may only get the chance once every couple of months but DAMIT, I'm sticking it out until the last mitochondria in my heart stop producing ATP. I don't have the patience to be a xenophobic-computer gamer. I NEED PEOPLE! Perhaps a captive audience at the old-farts home will do..they'll all be too blind to read their monitors anyways..gonna need some really big d20's though..kind of like those "LARGE PRINT" books ;)
4E..[cussing] why does it have to come down to this?
jh
..
I have fantasies about being able to program a game that can be flexible enough to incorporate Dungeon adventures. The problem is, I don't know if I want to do it myself and make it a browser-based game, or just make a darn NWN module out of it. :)
|
|
That being said, your conclusions are driven by emotion and not reason.
What are you talking about? When in doubt whip out the conservatism vs liberalism argument?
Are you talking about me or baudot? I fail to se the part where I've espused conclusions 'driven by emotion not reason'. I think you are confusing my posts with someone else's. That, or you are reading my posts with a tone that is not present.
Sorry for not continuing the substantive debate, but it's just not productive. I'm arguing evolution, you're arguing intelligent design. There can't be a meeting of the minds.
Well of course neither of us is going to convince the other. One of us will be proved right; it's simply a matter of time. There doesn't have to be a meeting of the minds. I'm interested in hearing anyone's opinion and bandying the ball back and forth. If you don't want to play along, just don't respond. Don't post a thinly veiled insult claiming that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that I'm too emotional to listen to reason.
Objectively, you don't understand subsidiaries, business ownership, the effect of ownership on management, the way business decisions are actually made, or the forces that drive a company.
Hmm actually that's more or less my specialty. I've been a practicing CPA for years now, and I do a lot of consulting for newer companies that can't figure out why they're not turning a profit. My partners and I determine what business segments get the axe altogether, what parts are worth keeping.
The point I was making is that 4E will come out when it is most profitable to WoTC. How is that an emotional, uninformed argument?
I have fantasies about being able to program a game that can be flexible enough to incorporate Dungeon adventures. The problem is, I don't know if I want to do it myself and make it a browser-based game, or just make a darn NWN module out of it. :)
DMFTodd uses Klugewerks for his game. I guess you just upload the maps (the blank ones from here) and run it like that. I guess it's pretty simple.
jh
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Try searching for the words "racket," "scam," "victim," or "sweatshop." The emotional arguments are in that neighborhood.
If your point is that WotC will produce 4e when it's most profitable, you're doing a pretty poor job of communicating that point. Here's what I've taken away from your posts so far:
Hasbro = evil.
Hasbro enslaves its poor writers and produces broken gaming materials just to make money (see the poorly cited example of Magic the Gathering).
This environment is destroying the spirit of gaming (whatever that "spirit" is).
Some better way for running a gaming company exists (although specifics have yet to be provided).
Now, if your point is actually something like: "WotC is a business. It makes and sells a product. It wants to sell more product to make more money. 4e is inevitable under this business model. Because of the open gaming license, consumers will be able to purchase new 3e supplements and the widespread network effect of having so many gamers playing 3e, the bar is that much higher for the new edition. Producing a high quality 4e product is important to keeping the D&D line going. In my opinion, the WotC management will fail in the task of producing a quality 4e because..."
After that point, you present coherent arguments (note, this does not include arguments of the form "WotC wants designers to produce broken stuff to create an arms race and force its customers to buy more books." This is not a coherent argument, it assumes that WotC is so stupid that it can't forsee the damage it does to its brand employing such a strategy. It also assumes the great majority of us out there that believe the books are generally balanced are stupid.)
Now, if this is the discussion we're having, I would point to WotC's record with Magic as an indication of its potential for success in launching 4e. That game has consistently grown for the past decade or so. Each set is not more degenerate and broken than the last, though there are particular sets and particular cards that sometimes push the curve a little too far. Because the people that make Magic are not idiots, they realize that a power spiral would kill the game and try to keep it relatively balanced from set to set. They don't always achieve that balance, but it's not for lack of trying.
Furthermore, assuming that Hasbro only cares about short term profits and therefore wants WotC to create broken books that sell faster, then why hasn't the power spiral killed Magic yet? By your reasoning, the Magic line could make a ton of money by slipping in broken cards in every set to drive up sales (or better yet, release a set that's so broken all the old sets are obsolete). Now, I admit, they put in powerful cards in every set, and they put in material in every D&D supplement that's at the upper end of the power curve, but I dispute the argument that they create extremely broken products to inflate demand. They push the curve, they keep it interesting, but they don't intentionally break either game for short term gain.
Anyway, if that's the sort of rationale discussion you want to have, cool, I'll have it. Alternately, if you have knowledge of a better business model for publishing tabletop rpgs, I (along with every other geek on the planet) would love to hear more. But all this stuff about the products being a scam is insulting. I stand by statements, with or without their veils.
|
|
Sebastian, I get the feeling that you've been browsing forums like this for so long that you've developed an 'I've seen it all' attitude. Obviously you have lumped everyone who has an opinion about WoTC/Hasbro into two groups: those who think WoTC is evil and hate/criticize everything they do and the typical fanboi apologist who would find something positive to say even if a WotC executive just took a dump on their head.
You have put me in your Hasbro is evil group.
Try searching for the words "racket," "scam," "victim," or "sweatshop." The emotional arguments are in that neighborhood.
Any argument that makes use of any of those words is emotional? Again, mistake my tone for something it is not.
Perhaps I was unclear or made a poor choice of words. I did not mean scam/racket in the sense that the Nigerian emails are a scam/racket.
If your point is that WotC will produce 4e when it's most profitable, you're doing a pretty poor job of communicating that point.
I thought these statements I made communicated my point rather consisely.
The bottom line is that if it is profitable to release a 4e soon, WotC will do it, if not, they won't.
I think the tone of this has made it sound like I think there's some huge conspiracy out there to fleece gamers of their money. There is not of course, but that doesn't mean that WoTC isn't trying to turn a profit at our expense.
The business of games, the business of anything is to make money. My main point is this: if the data shows that releasing a fourth edition of D&D will be more profitable than continuing the 3.5E line, then 3.5E will be discontinued and 4E will be released.
Are they using us to make a buck? They sure are just like everyone else is in a capitalist economy. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but if you think the potential release of a new edition of D&D is based on anything other than the effect on the company's income, you are mistaken.
WoTC doesn't get much long term revenue from the release of a new edition. That's why there was a 3e. The old 2e books weren't exactly flying off the shelves anymore. Once 3e sales started to drop off we magically had 3.5e to change a few integral rules.
I don't know if you just briefly scanned what I was saying before replying, but I think I was fairly clear in communicating the main point I was trying to make.
Hasbro = evil.
Hasbro enslaves its poor writers and produces broken gaming materials just to make money (see the poorly cited example of Magic the Gathering).
This environment is destroying the spirit of gaming (whatever that "spirit" is).
Some better way for running a gaming company exists (although specifics have yet to be provided)
I said none of those things. You lumped me in with the vast majority of posters that you view as idiots and responded without giving what I had to say due consideration.
WotC isn't destroying the 'spirit' of gaming. I never said that or tried to imply that. I said (or rather attempted to communicate) that their business decisions are based on accounting data rather than based on the 'spirit' of traditional game evolution.
At what point did I say that there is a better business strategy out there? You made that up. I can make an observation about a possible flaw in the current system without having to give a solution.
You think there will be a 4E released eventually and that it will be as successful as their CCG products. Where have I said that I think 3.5E or a potential 4E is failing?
"WotC wants designers to produce broken stuff to create an arms race and force its customers to buy more books." This is not a coherent argument, it assumes that WotC is so stupid that it can't forsee the damage it does to its brand employing such a strategy.
I don't think the strategy is that blatant, but yes, in general I think that is the basic underlying strategy. Online games, MMO's in particular, employ similar stratgies. In that context, this phenomenon is called 'mudflation'. If you want to stay current, you have to buy the expansions that introduce all the newer, bigger, badder equipment/enemies.
The flaw that I perceive in your logic is that you believe doing so damages their brand. I don't think so. I'd be willing to wager that WotC/Hasbro's business plan is to treat each edition of their D&D IP as an asset with a useful life of five to six years. Once the asset has been fully depreciated, they'll roll out a new edition with all the usual tie-in supplements.
It also assumes the great majority of us out there that believe the books are generally balanced are stupid.
Well you're definitely wrong on this point. You are obviously a very sensitive person. If someone does not agree with you, they do not necessarily think you are stupid.
The expansions are not balanced. Sure, most of the stuff is probably kosher, but there's always a couple of new feats, a new spell, or prestige class ability that lets someone bypass core rules without the proper balancing disadvantages. Where do all the powergamer/munchkins get their best material? In all the unnecessary expansions WotC rolls out the door every couple months.
I ran a game where I had to disallow almost all non-core materials at the table. It was getting quite ridiculous. Second level characters were equipped with masterwork, quicksilver-filled weapons that granted +1 to-hit +2 dmg. Every time something like that happened I had to track down the rule, make sure the players were applying it properly (which was rare), and decide whether I wanted to allow it into the game. It was a shame I had to make a blanket ban on non-core materials in my game, because occasionally there was a diamond in the muck.
|
|
Just to add my two cents to this post:
Personally, I would prefer a 4E that is essentially a new and improved 3E instead of something completely different. That way, my hordes of splat books won't be rendered entirely obsolete.
Agreed. I would much prefer that 4E be like the upgrade from 1E to 2E. All the old 1E materials were more or less still usable. Conversion on the fly was very manageable. Now, trying to convert 2E to 3E in the middle of a session is much more difficult.
|
|
The arguments about editions often end up being about the WotC business model. I have very little insight into the economics of the game, but in the terms of the "broken" rules and their issuance I suspect c0ck-up rather than conspiracy. I don't think it is a policy to create unbalanced supplements to keep the "munchkins" (don't get me started) or whoever happy, but simply a lack of play-testing and poor development of ideas.
I have no idea how much time they get to develop these things, but I suspect Baudot's analysis is broadly correct: a concept comes up, and it is chucked around at a meeting and finally approved, probably in committee between the developers and the "suits" (I would be a suit in any organisation, so it's not an attempt at denigration). It gets put into a schedule, the marketing cranks up and the jobs are allocated. But because it is a creative process, it possibly doesn't turn out as anticipated, or the idea was duff in the first place, or it doesn't have the best or right developer for the project, so the quality of the product is variable. By then, of course, it is too late: the company is committed to releasing the product.
If there is an issue, maybe the vetting process isn't sufficiently effective - maybe the suits don't intefere enough to shoot down dodgy ideas. Maybe the process is too rushed. Maybe the ideas haven't been pre-developed enough prior to proposal. Who knows (well, maybe someone at WotC)? But I don't see it as deliberate.
While I take Doc's pedigree as a CPA and all, as a consultant you maybe don't sit around enough in companies as an employee/cog and see how well-intentioned people can really make a mess of things. I know when I was in public practice as an auditor, I had no idea - and nor do our external auditors or most of the consultants who have breezed in.
It's not a question of strategy, but execution. I think possibly your professional bias (and, I acknowledge, I don't know precisely what you consult in) is to see it as a strategic issue (like surgeons propose to cut you open when you need an asprin) and maybe miss the lower level delivery issues. But then again, I'm an auditor, so I see a quality control issue instead.
Personally, I would prefer a 4E that is essentially a new and improved 3E instead of something completely different. That way, my hordes of splat books won't be rendered entirely obsolete.
Me too.
But that would invalidate the point for Hasbro/WotC, which is to force us to buy more stuff. Like it or not, that is what they're in the business of doing :)
On the other hand, I've come to believe that D&D is now simply a vehicle to maintain interest in minis (and their sinful profit margins). If right, a new version isn't in their interest -- too much time, effort, money, and potential for angering the market. Which would be great for us :)
Regards,
Jack
Ah the 4e discussion.
I have been thinking about this one for a while, ever since 3.5 came out and I resisted buying the clearly better gaming books for a while.
Those of you posting here might want to go and check out Monte Cooks discussion of 4th edition D&D on his website:
Part I
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_154
Part II
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_155
It is specifically discussing the Open Gaming License and it's future (something that has not yet reared it's ugly head in this discussion yet, but consider that the dissaperance of the Open Gaming License is a strong possibility for any 4th edition of D&D). But he does come around to discuss 4th edition.
I think that the best point he made was that one of the things that made 3rd edition so great was the expectations were so low, as D&D had been more or less morbund for almost a decade, and the quality of the product was so high. This is no longer the case. Expectations now are high, proabbly unreasonably high, but that is because 3rd edition and 3.5 were and are so good. Add to this a much lower chance of a higher quality product (as the bar has been raised as it were, plus as mentioned earlier, cutbacks in the number of writers and developers on projects at WOTC) and so a 4th edition will almost invalriably feel like a let down compared to 3rd edition or even 3.5.
My personal biggest worry, is that Hazbro/WOTC might look more towards that most famous of table top minature companies for a business model, Games Workshop. I mean I stopped playing Wahammer Fanatasy Battle in 2nd ed (10 years ago now) and just walked into a store the other day and say some players playing the now well developed 6th edition of the game (4 editions in 10 years or so, not a good sign). And let me tell you, 1 edition is really no better (and sometimes worse) than previous editions. They don't even ever go in and try to change the basic rules, the stat blocks for Games Workshop games have remained virtually unchanged in 20 years. I would hate to see WOTC go down that road of new editions for profit only. I fear though that as has been mentioned, even if I assume that Hasbro has all the best intentions in the world, they still must answer to their shareholders, and that means profit for it's own sake and a short term view of said profits, a big problem for all US companies today, in my opinion.
Anyhow go read the Montecook articles, they are really good.
Then again, this gaming business is just a racket. It's not about the spirit of gaming. The bottom line is that if it is profitable to release a 4e soon, WotC will do it, if not, they won't.
Such is life in the business world. You're right about the spirit of the game. It's been exorcised for years now.
M:TG and miniature sales are some of WoTC's most profitable product lines, so if there is a 4E, you can probably expect a D&D3.5E/M:TG CCG/Miniature game hybrid. That sounds ridiculous, but I guarantee some R&D manager at WoTC has done extensive research/prototyping on just such a game.
The end is nigh. I like Magic. I like D&D (though not the current one). I really like collecting the D&D minis. Brand separation is a good thing. Genetic brand mixing typically only results in abominations, which is fine if you like abominations, but I need 2 black and 3 generic first.
I'm not interested in 4th edition. 4.5 I might buy though.
|
|
I can't help but agree with the Monte Cook arguement. It makes sense and the articles are well worth reading.
Further, D&D might have had a ten year life cycle in regards editions, but this is unusual for the gaming idustry, where three to five year life cycles of editions are standard and in some cases with radical redesigns.
As a lot of posters above pointed out, WOTC is a business and we are the consumer. Push come to shove, they have market research and faith in the fact we're going to buy it, even if we buy it eventually. It's up to us to validate thier business decisions or not to.
I can't help but agree with the Monte Cook arguement. It makes sense and the articles are well worth reading.
Further, D&D might have had a ten year life cycle in regards editions, but this is unusual for the gaming idustry, where three to five year life cycles of editions are standard and in some cases with radical redesigns.
As a lot of posters above pointed out, WOTC is a business and we are the consumer. Push come to shove, they have market research and faith in the fact we're going to buy it, even if we buy it eventually. It's up to us to validate thier business decisions or not to.
Yah I posted the Monte cook articles because they do make so much sense, and because they are also clear, concise writing about the industry from a serious industry insider, a man who has worked in it for 15+ years, and had a hand in the birth and development of 3rd ed.
Many former roleplayers I am aware of have turned to computer games for their fix. I do think that roleplaying is a dying artform, but hopefully it will be reinvigorated in the future (I don't know how or when or why, I just hope). I am quite certain that 4e will do nothing to help this cause. They just need to keep revising 3.5 until they have it perfected. Of course, having an interest in game design means that I will be buying 4e if it comes out. That's just the way it is.