Under this argument, D&D 3.0 was not convertable from 2
There was a 2e->3e conversation guide.
And all the changes can be made mid-game. The specifics might change, but the characters would remain the same, and so would the world.
What really gets me about this quote is that I feel the EXACT same way about 2nd Ed save for the rules-intensive part.
Yeah. If you take out all the tables that could just as well be replaced by a single table, and taken all the restrictions out of the game, the rules shrink to half their size.
I love 3e's "tools, not rules" approach. While 2e goes "you cannot do that." (and not just weird stuff, often it's very general stuff), 3e says "you can do that, but you take these penalties" (and that's more for weirder stuff, normal things are usually easier to accomplish, and without penalties).
I never got the "GMs are only entertainers now" - 3e certainly in no way hindered me from ruling the table with an Iron Fist, and it doesn't forbid you granting an enemy powers it's "not supposed to have", like a spellcaster who has fly (in fact, the DMG has advice about tailoring classes and the like to your needs).
3e just tries to make an inherently complete system you can use to describe an "actual" world without having to resort to handwaving all the time.
Leaving gaps in the rules and saying "you can just do what you want" is a cop-out. Why am I buying a bunch of rulebooks if I don't get anything out of them?
Give me rules. Rules are good. Rules are there so you think before you break them. Makes for a more credible game world.
And frankly, while I won't let myself be dominated by the players, I won't go and do one NPC-only thing after the other. I hate that as player, and I consider it "The Dark Side" (the easy, seductive way, but not the way that leads to a better game) as a GM. "Yeah, she attacks four of you and pushes you all into those cells." "Whoa, that's a kickass power, how can I get it?" "You can't, it's for Plotty McGuffin only." "Why?" "Because I say so."
3e also relies very little on dissociated mechanics - mechanics that just cannot be explained within the game worlds, and are just there because it's a game.
NPC-Onlies and dissociated mechanics make me feel like I'm not roleplaying. It's like playing chess. "The pawn moves one square forward, or two from the start. He can only strike diagonally, and there's that passing strike thing" "Why?" "Because that's how chess is played".
Nothing against chess, but it's not a roleplaying game.
PDF sales maybe?
Or are you using another definition to state that?
I laughed out loud. Really. I don't use the cutesy abbr. like Lol and similar, because they are often complete b&%#*#&$. I laughed for a while, and woke my wife when I read this post. Thank you.
Yeah. (SNIP!)
True, all dat.
:D
Peace,
tfad
2. Can TRPG players accept the new status of their hobby?
What new status? It was a niche market in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and has remained so in the 2000's. About the only thing that's changed is that Science-Fiction and Fantasy in general have become more mainstream.
If Hasbro/WotC wants to chase after the Blizzard Online model for big profits, that doesn't mean the death of table-top RPGs. It just means that other companies (for whom a 6% ROI, instead of 20+%, is acceptable) will take over for supplying the niche market if they stop.
|
Under this argument, D&D 3.0 was not convertable from 2
There was a 2e->3e conversation guide.
And all the changes can be made mid-game. The specifics might change, but the characters would remain the same, and so would the world.
This is true, I remember labouring over changing my 2nd Edition ranger into 3rd edition rules. In fact, I think I still have the guide somewhere in hard copy.
To counter the arguments that 4th Edition is different from 3rd Edition because it allows the DM freedom to add things to NPCs as needed:
This is true to a point. Certainly one of the design considerations of 4th Edition involved this, and the core books make efforts to promote such behaviour on the part of the DM. However, 3rd Edition specifically allows DMs to do this as well (both the MM and DMG give instructions for a DM to add abilities to adversaries as necessary to provide a challenge/logic/variety to the game.
As houstonderek said, when I run a 3.5 game if I want my gnoll wizard to fly across the cliff, he does so. If the players ask "how did he do that?" I tell them they don't know, or make a Spellcraft check and then give them a realistic answer.
I strongly feel the problem is that the 3rd Edition rules were so cohesive, people felt handcuffed by them - they were afraid to bend the rules despite encouragement in the core books, as if giving one wizard the ability to fly when needed would destroy the entire structure.
Really, what has more impact on your game?
|
What new status? It was a niche market in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, and has remained so in the 2000's. About the only thing that's changed is that Science-Fiction and Fantasy in general have become more mainstream.
If Hasbro/WotC wants to chase after the Blizzard Online model for big profits, that doesn't mean the death of table-top RPGs. It just means that other companies (for whom a 6% ROI, instead of 20+%, is acceptable) will take over for supplying the niche market if they stop.
It is worse than a niche market.
It is a niche market with overhead, and the consequent high prices that requires for products.Then add in a shrinking customer base and still rising production costs.
6% ROI, month-to-month cash reserves, and a one product failure margin may not be all that inviting to publishers either.
It is worse than a niche market.
It is a niche market with overhead, and the consequent high prices that requires for products.
Then add in a shrinking customer base and still rising production costs.
Are production costs really rising much faster than inflation? I doubt it.
|
|
So if you were to accept this argument (and you may very well disagree, but for the sake of discussion, go with the premise), what currently marketed RPG is the oldest, in that you could have a character that begun under its original rules set, and could be updated with rules updates to the current rules set, maintaining continuity?
Call of Cthulhu?
Runequest?Traveller?
(Those last two are suggestions; I haven't seen how close their current incarnations are to their first editions. Anyone able to confirm?)
|
|
Are production costs really rising much faster than inflation? I doubt it.
Publishers use Chinese printers.
There is an American law just clarified that prohibits the use of any protected material in any product. That means all those Chinese printers now have to certify they are not using endangered rainforest trees and the like.From everything I have heard, yes, printing costs really are rising much faster than general inflation and other costs.
That does not include the fact that there is not a standard COLA raise to all products across the board every year.
|
|
Call of Cthulhu?
Runequest?
Traveller?(Those last two are suggestions; I haven't seen how close their current incarnations are to their first editions. Anyone able to confirm?)
Call of Cthulu, yes, probably around 99% full character and system compatibility from first to current edition.
Runequest, I never played.
Traveller, it depends on whether you consider all of the intermediary incarnations.
Revised Traveller was 100% compatible with LBB Traveller to the point that they are not treated as separate editions in general discussion.
MegaTraveller was about 90% compatible with LBB Traveller with characters.
Traveller New Edition was probably around 75% compatible with MegaTraveller, with a conversion table provided.
Traveller 4 was around 75% compatible with both TNE and MT, though in different ways.
Gurps Traveller is under 50% compatible with MT and LBB.
Mongoose Traveller is around 90% compatible with LBB.
Traveller 5 is said to be reasonably compatible from preliminary comments.
All have significantly lower overall system compatibility compared character compatibility though. Vehicle and ship designs, which are an important part of the game, would require much more work than converting a character.
Since the OP only linked the ENWorld news and not Dancey's original post:
His comment can be found here as first comment to the blog post.
Much more interesting is a post he makes a little later where he states what we can learn from PHB2 being sold out - this is a sign that 4e is selling poorly, (here), the internal decision maker does not believe in the product.
|
|
His comment can be found here as first comment to the blog post.
Also note his second response in the comments:
"I think the root cause is the end of classic D&D style tabletop roleplaying as a viable business in its current format. There are two paths forward - abandon it and leave RPG play to the internet and non-commercial interests, or hybridize it and find a way to bring technology to the tabletop and make it new for the future. The longer WotC trys to stay with a dead format the more stress they will put the business through. I don't think 4E, per se, had any effect on this at all, positive or negative.RyanD"
He has expressed the same concept in other places for years.
(I really do have a basis for my dire predictions of the end of TRPGs.)
And note this one as well:
"60 copies a day? Whoo-doggie! That's 1,800 copies a month! :)
We sold 300,000 copies of the 3E PHB in 30 DAYS. I have a screen shot of Amazon with the 3E PHB in the #1 slot. If I was running the D&D business and I produced a high-profile core rulebook that sold 1,800 copies a month, I'd pretty much have to tender my resignation - unless THAT'S THE NEW NORM. Which it probably is. Which says a lot more about tabletop roleplaying as a business than it does about the WotC team as business people.
RyanD"
Of course that is apparently only considering Amazon sales, but the basic point remains, along with his general suggestion that WotC is deliberately shorting the print run to avoid overstocking. (With a possibility of attempting to create buzz and bump demand via scarcity.)
He has expressed the same concept in other places for years.
(I really do have a basis for my dire predictions of the end of TRPGs.)
That's the great thing about predicting catastrophe; as long as you keep doing it consistently, you're bound to be right eventually and then you can say: "See? I told you so!" ;-)
My prediction: An enormous earthquake is going to hit California. You heard it here first!
|
|
That's the great thing about predicting catastrophe; as long as you keep doing it consistently, you're bound to be right eventually and then you can say: "See? I told you so!" ;-)
My prediction: An enormous earthquake is going to hit California. You heard it here first!
Which begs the question as to whether or not TRPGs have been in decline for years.
Which of course makes the charge of such an ad hominem that is equally bound to be right eventually: "See? I told you he would be wrong!"
With electronic publishing coming into it's own, it's possible for even small companies to realize profits that would be impossible with print media (not having to worry about unsold print runs removes a large element of risk). Even with print (or print + PDF) publishers, there's plenty of opportunity for profit; the issue is what metric you measure it against.
IMO, Hasbro/WotC is judging the success of 4e against 3e's initial release. They've set themselves up for "failure" because their goal is unrealistic (expecting to "catch lightning in a bottle" for the second time in 10 years, third counting Magic: The Gathering).
I may be wrong, but in the limited life-time of the RPG market there seems to be an 8-12 year cycle of innovation > exploration > stagnation > innovation. I'm sure that 4e was WotC's attempt to kick-start the cycle; which it has, even if not the way WotC probably intended. Even if 4e itself may not be as big a success as WotC wanted, the amount of innovation among other companies puts me in mind of the late 80's.
The trends for niche markets have been moving toward online sales (and/or electronic media) and away from "brick-and-mortar" stores for the past 15-20 years. However, predicting "the death of table-top RPGs" is (IMO) alarmist and premature. As long as there is a demand and someone can make a profit supplying that demand, then a market will exist.
Which begs the question as to whether or not TRPGs have been in decline for years.That's the great thing about predicting catastrophe; as long as you keep doing it consistently, you're bound to be right eventually and then you can say: "See? I told you so!" ;-)
My prediction: An enormous earthquake is going to hit California. You heard it here first!
"We just had a massive earthquake!"
"I've been saying we'd have a massive earthquake soon for 50 years now! I must have been right all along!"
And note this one as well:
"60 copies a day? Whoo-doggie! That's 1,800 copies a month! :)We sold 300,000 copies of the 3E PHB in 30 DAYS. I have a screen shot of Amazon with the 3E PHB in the #1 slot. If I was running the D&D business and I produced a high-profile core rulebook that sold 1,800 copies a month, I'd pretty much have to tender my resignation - unless THAT'S THE NEW NORM. Which it probably is. Which says a lot more about tabletop roleplaying as a business than it does about the WotC team as business people.
RyanD"
Of course that is apparently only considering Amazon sales, but the basic point remains, along with his general suggestion that WotC is deliberately shorting the print run to avoid overstocking. (With a possibility of attempting to create buzz and bump demand via scarcity.)
Dancey is off his rocker here.
First, that wild estimate of 60 copies a day was made weeks after release. Sales for the first month are going to be much higher than that would indicate.
Second, he's comparing the 3rd Edition PHB to the 4th Edition PHB2.
Third, his Amazon.com screenshot means absolutely nothing. When the 3rd Edition PHB was released, Amazon had only been around for half a decade. It hadn't "caught on" in the consumer consciousness, except, perhaps, in particularly internet-savvy populations like that of tabletop gamers. For a more accurate measure, take a look at the USA Today bestseller ratings. The PHB2 did better than the 3rd Edition PHB in terms of peak position on that list.
Dancey has a massive, double-bladed axe to grind with WotC, and it shows. He is incapable of giving an even-handed assessment of the industry because his unfortunate vitriol clouds it. Just look at the way he refers to WotC's actions in his original post as theft, even though that's been shown to be patently false.
|
|
"We just had a massive earthquake!"
"I've been saying we'd have a massive earthquake soon for 50 years now! I must have been right all along!"
Is that like the Italian guy who predicted the earthquake but was a week off on the due date?
He was threatened with imprisonment if he continued "alarming" people, and now how many are dead?Great comparison!
|
|
Dancey is off his rocker here.
Start with an ad hominem, okay.
First, that wild estimate of 60 copies a day was made weeks after release. Sales for the first month are going to be much higher than that would indicate.
Except the 4E PHB II is already sold out.
Second, he's comparing the 3rd Edition PHB to the 4th Edition PHB2.
Which is still a core rulebook, which contains critical classes and races that people were demanding since the first 4E PHB came out, and which 4E is supposed to be doing incredibly.
Third, his Amazon.com screenshot means absolutely nothing. When the 3rd Edition PHB was released, Amazon had only been around for half a decade. It hadn't "caught on" in the consumer consciousness, except, perhaps, in particularly internet-savvy populations like that of tabletop gamers. For a more accurate measure, take a look at the USA Today bestseller ratings. The PHB2 did better than the 3rd Edition PHB in terms of peak position on that list.
If Amazon is more important now then it would suggest sales should be even higher now.
Since it affects tabletop gamers disproportionately, it should be higher still now.Peak position does not equate to duration. A quick sellout is not as profitable as an "evergreen" product, which is something else he made clear.
Dancey has a massive, double-bladed axe to grind with WotC, and it shows. He is incapable of giving an even-handed assessment of the industry because his unfortunate vitriol clouds it. Just look at the way he refers to WotC's actions in his original post as theft, even though that's been shown to be patently false.
And back to the ad hominem.
That's the great thing about predicting catastrophe; as long as you keep doing it consistently, you're bound to be right eventually and then you can say: "See? I told you so!" ;-)
My prediction: An enormous earthquake is going to hit California. You heard it here first!
Which begs the question as to whether or not TRPGs have been in decline for years.
Which of course makes the charge of such an ad hominem that is equally bound to be right eventually: "See? I told you he would be wrong!"
I didn't say he was wrong. I think he's right, and he has good insights to make.
However, my point is that in any process with a certain amount of variability, there will naturally be high points and low points. So unless someone can make a specific prediction (e.g. "WotC will be out of business by Christmas" or "The 4E PHB will sell half as many copies as the 3.0 PHB"), it's not terribly impressive to me.
|
|
I didn't say he was wrong. I think he's right, and he has good insights to make.
However, my point is that in any process with a certain amount of variability, there will naturally be high points and low points. So unless someone can make a specific prediction (e.g. "WotC will be out of business by Christmas" or "The 4E PHB will sell half as many copies as the 3.0 PHB"), it's not terribly impressive to me.
That is pretty much impossible when dealing with business secrets like sales figures.
Likewise some things will never happen while others are rapidly becoming inevitable. (WotC will never be out of business contrasted with the possibility of it being out of the business of publishing D&D books.)When dealing with business, inevitability is hard to pin down. (How long until they stop hoping for a turnaround?)
And then when you do give a more precise date, people insult you anyway. (Like saying 4E is coming in 2008 back in 2006 and being called various names.)
As for this, what he has said has been borne out so far.
WotC has made a major move to digital.
The TRPG industry as a whole is seeing a much greater digital focus.
Just because he cannot give a firm date for when WotC will fold tabletop D&D does not indict the value of the general prediction. It is like any other market forecast, and should be viewed and treated as such.
|
|
Dancey has a massive, double-bladed axe to grind with WotC, and it shows. He is incapable of giving an even-handed assessment of the industry because his unfortunate vitriol clouds it. Just look at the way he refers to WotC's actions in his original post as theft, even though that's been shown to be patently false.
SELF EDIT:
I had a very snarky response about liking evidence that agrees with you and dismissing anything that doesn't. It was rude and beautiful, but likely would have led to flamefest 09. So I deleted it.
The funny thing about opinions is that without credentials (like Dancey has) or evidence, an opinion is little more than hot air. I have noted that your most common choice of support for your opinions or basis for dismissing others is Amazon sales ranks. Yet Mr. Dancey's rankings don't count why?..... Oh RIGHT. Gotcha. So to recap, Dancey's industry experience (credentials) and Amazon sales ranks (evidence) should be disregarded because of your credentials (??) and evidence (??) that he is a biased and incorrect source. Hey now, it seems some of my snark snuck back in anyway. sorry about that. But lets try for a little consistency here, shall we?
You can love 4ed and still admit to its warts. Trust me, I'm an expert on such matters. Just ask my wife :)
You can love 4ed and still admit to its warts. Trust me, I'm an expert on such matters. Just ask my wife :)
White out covers both but doesn't get rid of the underlying problem.
;P
Apparently no one has ever heard of disgruntled ex-employees and therefore said ex-employee of WotC obviously has not exterior motives for blasting his former employer and is obviously not biased at all.
|
Eh?
Dancey is widely lauded by a number of industry notables as one of the brightest minds the industry had at the time.
Dancey is largely responsible for the ressurection of D&D as a hobby with the OGL, and in listening to his various interviews shows a deep, holistic, and insghtful awareness of the various statistics and information he as his various teams had access to about the hobby in general.
Dancey, as a VP and Brand Manager was responsible for bringing the Star Wars RPG back as a viable RPG IP.
Dancey, is still approached by journalists and bloggers for his insights even though he's not actively involved in the industry anymore.
And that's just the stuff off the top of my head.
And his experience still isn't good enough to present, or back up, a decent argument around here? Geeze. Tough crowd.
They probably think Bill Gates doesn't know a thing about Business, and Steve Jobs doesn't know a thing about marketting too.
Here's the bazillion dollar question, from where I'm sitting at least- would that be a good thing or a bad thing?Heh.
Indeed it is.
It is a dual question though really.
1. Does it matter if a game called "D&D" exists?
2. Can TRPG players accept the new status of their hobby?
These are intersting questions.
1. Depends on what you are talking about. If you try to explain to an outsider what your doing on a Sat. Night, 9 times out of 10 you explain it "its a game like D&D, except....." on the other hand, anyone who is into 'gaming' for any amount of time knows of, if not prefers, 'other'games'. In other words gamers need the game, not the name.
2. What new status? Collectively we are outsiders to some extent. How many of us have friends we have drinks with or work with, then a whole other set of friends we game with. The loss of the name only effects those who for lack of better description are 'loyal' to the D&D name only, whatever edition.
I can almost see the names Dragonlance, FR, Ravenloft, Dark Sun whatever out-living the name DnD. As I said the 5e will be a computer game of some sort, but DnD might end up being a sort of 'operating system' for the computer game, while the setting names will be the world you play in. In such a marketing sytem people will not say my DnD character is.... like the do with their WOW character, but instead will say my Dragonlance character is......".
Here's the bazillion dollar question, from where I'm sitting at least- would that be a good thing or a bad thing?Heh.
Indeed it is.
It is a dual question though really.
1. Does it matter if a game called "D&D" exists?
2. Can TRPG players accept the new status of their hobby?These are intersting questions.
1. Depends on what you are talking about. If you try to explain to an outsider what your doing on a Sat. Night, 9 times out of 10 you explain it "its a game like D&D, except....." on the other hand, anyone who is into 'gaming' for any amount of time knows of, if not prefers, 'other'games'. In other words gamers need the game, not the name.
2. What new status? Collectively we are outsiders to some extent. How many of us have friends we have drinks with or work with, then a whole other set of friends we game with. The loss of the name only effects those who for lack of better description are 'loyal' to the D&D name only, whatever edition.
I can almost see the names Dragonlance, FR, Ravenloft, Dark Sun whatever out-living the name DnD. As I said the 5e will be a computer game of some sort, but DnD might end up being a sort of 'operating system' for the computer game, while the setting names will be the world you play in. In such a marketing sytem people will not say my DnD character is.... like the do with their WOW character, but instead will say my Dragonlance character is......".
I tried to toss my two cents in on this topic earlier, but I think most post got eaten.
1.) No, not in the slightest. People have been playing role playing before Dungeons and Dragons and will continue to do so after Dungeons and Dragons ceases to exist, or more likely, mutates/evolves into a form that I am completely unfamiliar with. People sitting around a table saying "let's pretend", with or without miniatures, rules or dice, will never go away.
2.) I'd have to agree with Andre here. There are always going to be people who don't care for the direction a beloved hobby/pasttime has taken. I personally do not care for 4th ed, an old friend of mine hates the fact that the Montreal Expos no longer exist, my wife thinks rap has become laughable now that everyone wants to be a gangsta. That said, I still play roleplaying games, my friend still likes baseball, my wife still listens to the radio. Sure, there is a bit of a sting to the pride overall, but its just pride. If you are really into something on a fundamental level, any surface changes that are not TOO extreme won't affect your devotion. In fact, it will probably turn you into more of a zealot.
I'm not at all sure that I wouldn't mind trying to explain what I'm doing on gaming night with D&D having faded on the cultural horizon.
"What am I doing? I'm playing a game called Pathfinder. What, you've never heard of it? Why...you might want to stop by some time..."
|
|
Maikurion has the answer to the first.
More, I think the thousands of people who play games other than D&D do not tell casual passersby they are playing D&D instead of Traveller, Gurps, World of Darkness, Hero, or whatever they might be playing.
For the second, that status is similar to that of wargamers or old style miniature gamers (Warhammer excluded so far), or even us cribbage players.
With the possible demise of the 800 lb. gorilla of D&D (and WotC) we will not merely be a niche hobby, but a marginal fringe hobby that continues only through prestige priced (and hopefully quality) physical products or digital products.
Oriced?
Sam, I wished for you to show up in a certain thread, and it happened.
That and I got minis today and ordered RotFL 1. So happy.
Well, I was, to be honest.
I'll try to be selective...and not post the spell in too many threads...
I'm not at all sure that I wouldn't mind trying to explain what I'm doing on gaming night with D&D having faded on the cultural horizon.
"What am I doing? I'm playing a game called Pathfinder. What, you've never heard of it? Why...you might want to stop by some time..."
That would be a nice world, nice world indeed.
"I see skies of Blue........"
oh, sorry lost in the bliss of the moment.
Another question I like to hear some feed back on would be....
1. If Hasbro keeps the DnD name.
2. And 5e isn't a computer game, the way I think it'll be.
Can anyone see a time in the hobby where the 800lbs. gorilla simply isn't important anymore?
Example: The industry as a whole was moved to have PDF sales in responce to the 800lbs. gorilla. This was a smart move, because they got people who wanted to protest, and maybe gained new players in the process, but it wouldn't have happaned had the gorilla not pulled PDF's.
TTFN DRE
Dancey is off his rocker here...First, that wild estimate of 60 copies a day was made weeks after release. Sales for the first month are going to be much higher than that would indicate.
Start with an ad hominem, okay...
Dancey has a massive, double-bladed axe to grind with WotC, and it shows. He is incapable of giving an even-handed assessment of the industry because his unfortunate vitriol clouds it. Just look at the way he refers to WotC's actions in his original post as theft, even though that's been shown to be patently false.
And back to the ad hominem.
Neither comments contain an ad hominem argument.
|
So if you were to accept this argument (and you may very well disagree, but for the sake of discussion, go with the premise), what currently marketed RPG is the oldest, in that you could have a character that begun under its original rules set, and could be updated with rules updates to the current rules set, maintaining continuity?Call of Cthulhu?
Runequest?
Traveller?(Those last two are suggestions; I haven't seen how close their current incarnations are to their first editions. Anyone able to confirm?)
GURPS almost certainly as well. Their mechanics and system have essentially remained unchanged since the 80s. The latest edition is more of a clean up of rules options than a total redo of the system.
I could easily take a character developed in the 80s and update him and play now.
GURPS almost certainly as well. Their mechanics and system have essentially remained unchanged since the 80s. The latest edition is more of a clean up of rules options than a total redo of the system.
I could easily take a character developed in the 80s and update him and play now.
I think that this misses what is happening.
Like "4th Edition" or not, the game system of 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons are not what - essentially - dethroned WoTC as the Industry leader.
No. That was the highly restrictive and punitive Game System License. Consider Necromancer Games was all set to publish under the new rules, and even Paizo had considered adapting to 4th Edition. But when they saw the GSL, their plans abruptly changed.
And, then Hasbro/WoTC's further business decisions since then have only helped to hasten the process.
|
|
I think that this misses what is happening. Like "4th Edition" or not, the game system of 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons are not what - essentially - dethroned WoTC as the Industry leader. No. That was the highly restrictive and punitive Game System License. Consider Necromancer Games was all set to publish under the new rules, and even Paizo had considered adapting to 4th Edition. But when they saw the GSL, their plans abruptly changed. And, then Hasbro/WoTC's further business decisions since then have only helped to hasten the process.
I think you've really hit the nail on the head. For me, if Paizo had decided to go 4e, I would have, too.
|
|
I think that for the foreseeable future WOTC will be the market leader in the RPG industry. They quite simple have two extremely valuable assets. They have the most recognized product name, D&D, and they have access to resources and money no other RPG publisher is even close to having. Simply put their budget alone gives them a tremendous advantage.
I do, however, see the Industry leader status as having already substantially changed in both RPG and Tabletop minis playing.
Paizo has become the most innovative published in the industry. As long as they continue what they do best, innovate and create interesting new products, they will continue to be so. The Tabletop minis industry was dominated by Gamesworkshop and Warhammer. While they are still the market leaders, the innovation and industry leader is definitely Privateer Press with Warmachine, Hordes and Monstertropolis.
I think that if Privateer Press were to focus on RPGs they could give even Paizo a run for their money, which would be amazing for the industry! Their out of print books for the Iron Kingdoms setting sells for about $150 each on Amazon, IF you can even find them.
A very easy comparison of the RPG industry is to look at the computer operating system industry.
Microsoft is the market leader. Windows is the most widely used OS in the world with a staggering 80% market share. That said, they have failed to produce a truly innovative operating system in over a decade. Their highly acclaimed Vista was such a complete failure that they are rushing a Windows 2009 to market later this year.
Comparatively, Apple has less than a 20% market in the operating system, and yet their OS is by far the most innovative, stable and user friendly system ever created (to date). Nearly all other computer companies copy the products that Apple produces and markets them for the Windows market. The most popular Windows OS, Windows XP, is easily a decade behind the innovations found in the Mac OS X system.
Now all of that taken into account, the true RPG industry and marketing leader has to be Blizzard. The MMORPGs were birthed by D&D and the traditional RPG industry. And whether you like it or not, WoW has done more for our RPGs than anyone else, by simply making the concept of RPGs mainstream.
There is a natural link between the two that will drive innovation in both. Some things work on paper and pencil games that will never translate to computer. There are things in the computer games that CAN enhance the paper and pencil version. Failure to learn what works in the MMORPGs and use that innovation is quite simply a quick recipe to failure. It is very much like saying "I want to make a fantasy RPG, but I refuse to consider elements of classical fantasy literature to do so."
|
|
I think that this misses what is happening. Like "4th Edition" or not, the game system of 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons are not what - essentially - dethroned WoTC as the Industry leader. No. That was the highly restrictive and punitive Game System License. Consider Necromancer Games was all set to publish under the new rules, and even Paizo had considered adapting to 4th Edition. But when they saw the GSL, their plans abruptly changed. And, then Hasbro/WoTC's further business decisions since then have only helped to hasten the process.I think you've really hit the nail on the head. For me, if Paizo had decided to go 4e, I would have, too.
Essentially, the heads of WOTC were afraid of the OGL and wanted to move away from it. They were afraid that the OGL would allow other publishers to use their IP to create a product that would cut into their market share, or allow other publishers to beat WOTC to press with a product.
Their response then was to close the possibilities by using a more restrictive GSL. Which I am sure WOTC executives hoped would end the threat of the OGL.
However, by reacting so poorly, they in effect caused to happen exactly what they feared. There is no doubt that Pathfinder will take some market share from D&D. Interestingly Pathfinder would not exist were it not for the actions of WOTC.
And what has dethroned WOTC as Industry leader (as far as innovation and quality goes) is a series of very bad marketing decisions going back years. Quite simply they have programmed a large number of their consumers to doubt the quality and motives behind any of their decisions, all through their own actions and a failure to understand their current consumer base.
I DO suspect that their overall goal is not immediate success but future survival. They have sacrificed a large number of older established players to embrace younger or less experienced players. Seems short sighted, but in the long run, 10 years from now, the new players introduced to the industry through 4E will be the dominant consumer of products.
You make two interesting, and in my opinion correct, points here.
Essentially, the heads of WOTC were afraid of the OGL and wanted to move away from it. They were afraid that the OGL would allow other publishers to use their IP to create a product that would cut into their market share, or allow other publishers to beat WOTC to press with a product.
Their response then was to close the possibilities by using a more restrictive GSL. Which I am sure WOTC executives hoped would end the threat of the OGL.
And, conceptually, the idea of a "slightly" more restrictive license was not the problem. Most other publishers conceded that WoTC does have the right to protect their IP. What did so much damage to WoTC's status was the extreme nature of their more restrictive license. (...though the delay in getting it to the people who needed it did not help.)
I DO suspect that their overall goal is not immediate success but future survival. They have sacrificed a large number of older established players to embrace younger or less experienced players. Seems short sighted, but in the long run, 10 years from now, the new players introduced to the industry through 4E will be the dominant consumer of products.
This is also very possible. But, even this may not help them if the quality is not there.
But "firing the current establish gamer base" is also fraught with peril, will Hasbro let the game survive long enough to "cash in" on that future customer base?
|
|
GURPS almost certainly as well. Their mechanics and system have essentially remained unchanged since the 80s. The latest edition is more of a clean up of rules options than a total redo of the system.
I could easily take a character developed in the 80s and update him and play now.
I think that this misses what is happening.
Like "4th Edition" or not, the game system of 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons are not what - essentially - dethroned WoTC as the Industry leader.
No. That was the highly restrictive and punitive Game System License. Consider Necromancer Games was all set to publish under the new rules, and even Paizo had considered adapting to 4th Edition. But when they saw the GSL, their plans abruptly changed.
And, then Hasbro/WoTC's further business decisions since then have only helped to hasten the process.
No, I agree 100%. I was just replying to the inquiry about what RPGs have essentially remained unchanged over the years.
I'll be honest, the mechanics of a game mean very very little to me. As long as the mechanics allow me to have fun I will play that system.
I switched from Basic to AD&D. When 2E came out I switched to GURPS White Wolf and Palladium. I was reluctant to embrace 3E due to poor expectations, but when I tried it I loved it (though there have always been areas I wanted changed).
I was preaching for 4E about a year before it was announced. I went to the GenCon when it was announced only because I expected the announcement. I was SO excited to hear D&D was getting a new facelift.
But rather than fix the things that needed fixing, they took the 2E route and screwed it all up for me. Now, if the companies that were producing the products I liked had gone with 4E I am sure I would have enjoyed it. As long as I could have fun the mechanics are irrelevant.
But this time, there was a two fold reason I left D&D. One the mechanics do NOT seem to produce a game that is enjoyable to me. Two, the companies making the products I want to play are using a different mechanics from D&D (namely Pathfinder).
All that said, I STILL think the best mechanics in the industry is GURPS by far. Yet the products being published that I want to play are using Pathfinder. So, GURPS and D&D are abandoned for the games I will have fun with.
BTW I am beginning to think that any D&D version with an even number to the edition is doomed! lol Only play the odd numbered editions! lol
I switched from Basic to AD&D. When 2E came out I switched to GURPS White Wolf and Palladium. I was reluctant to embrace 3E due to poor expectations, but when I tried it I loved it (though there have always been areas I wanted changed).
I was preaching for 4E about a year before it was announced. I went to the GenCon when it was announced only because I expected the announcement. I was SO excited to hear D&D was getting a new facelift.
But rather than fix the things that needed fixing, they took the 2E route and screwed it all up for me. Now, if the companies that were producing the products I liked had gone with 4E I am sure I would have enjoyed it. As long as I could have fun the mechanics are irrelevant.
But this time, there was a two fold reason I left D&D. One the mechanics do NOT seem to produce a game...
I actually feel that 4th Edtion was "too soon." As Pathinder is demonstrating, 3.x's life-cycle was not "done."
|
|
You make two interesting, and in my opinion correct, points here.
Essentially, the heads of WOTC were afraid of the OGL and wanted to move away from it. They were afraid that the OGL would allow other publishers to use their IP to create a product that would cut into their market share, or allow other publishers to beat WOTC to press with a product.
Their response then was to close the possibilities by using a more restrictive GSL. Which I am sure WOTC executives hoped would end the threat of the OGL.
And, conceptually, the idea of a "slightly" more restrictive license was not the problem. Most other publishers conceded that WoTC does have the right to protect their IP. What did so much damage to WoTC's status was the extreme nature of their more restrictive license. (...though the delay in getting it to the people who needed it did not help.)
I DO suspect that their overall goal is not immediate success but future survival. They have sacrificed a large number of older established players to embrace younger or less experienced players. Seems short sighted, but in the long run, 10 years from now, the new players introduced to the industry through 4E will be the dominant consumer of products.This is also very possible. But, even this may not help them if the quality is not there.
The next question would be, "is it?"
My opinion as to why WOTC changed to the more restrictive GSL was influenced by this article on ENWorld with Ryan Dancey on April 9. It just makes sense what he had to say.
Now as to the question of is the quality there... yes and no. For what they are producing their products are great. In fact I would say their products were the best out there, except there are a very small number of publishers providing even more innovative products than WOTC is.
If I were to assign a scale to quality and innovation (which may not be the same to other people) I would place Paizo at the top with a solid 10 out of 10. Privateer Press, Necromancer and Green Ronin would be a solid 9. Then I would place WOTC at a solid 8.
Now 8 out of ten is not bad at all... but I expect the market leader to be the one delivering a solid 10. Essentially I would say that what WOTC was producing prior to 4E was good but not great. After 4E is irrelevant to me now since I am definitively not playing that version.
HOWEVER, should their innovation kick up again to a solid 10, I don't see any reason at all they can't turn around all the poor marketing failures and bad publicity and regain their undisputed throne. I just don't see it happening. I expect that corporate politics and executive thinking will get in the way and mess everything up.
Just look at our world economy to see what corporate and executive thinking causes! I see no reason at all to expect otherwise with WOTC. BUT I hope I am wrong. I hope they can turn things around. I just doubt they can.
Let's just say it is a repeat of late TSR all over again. Poor business decisions ruining it for everyone. It all comes down to the executives. The buck stops there.
And to end, I will say that Paizo has the best damned executive in the industry. She freakin takes off early to PLAY the game! She GETS IT! THAT is who needs to be running WOTC, someone who LOVES the game, not a pencil pusher.