|
Fanboy? Heh. Not really. I did tell you. It's not about anything like an unhealthy obsession. It's merely the fact that to get something out of your roleplaying that isn't as easily served filling in tax forms, you need to engage in it, let the fate of your character matter to you. If you never thought of that side of the investment, you have my sympathies.
Succinctly put, Sissyl. I think few really account for the emotional or time investment in these products or the impact of these business decisions on the existing consumer base?
When a company sells me a set of rules, my buying those shows that I believe the company will keep putting out good stuff. Paizo has consistently done so, ever since that first day in Sandpoint. Jumping on that train was easy, given what I had seen of their previous stuff such as the Shackled city, and how they made Dragon and Dungeon flower in their care. They keep an active contact with their customers here, they care what we think, and above all, they make products that show they enjoy the game, sharing in my investment. By gamers, for gamers is the standard, you know?[/QUOTE}
....
I believe this may be a difference between american and european thinking. Americans are generally much more forgiving of companies who treat them badly, at least that's the image I have gotten.
Hah! I like that. "B.G.F.G." Should be a sloganized subscript to the Paizo logo.
Regarding USA vs Foreign Consumer markets .. That may be true of your local market, but that's a rather broad generalization. Like any other nation that "we americans" (I'm a second generation immigrant from India myself) tend to homogenize and thus are mocked for our provinciality, "American Culture" and the mores tied to it varies from region to region, and differ as vastly and profoundly as, say, provinces of Spain, or Italy or China.
Please don't mistake me, I am sure that's not what you meant, just clarifying that many of us here -do- give a strong and profound kick to the hindquarters of companies that mistreat or belittle their consumer base as such.
I think it is more the niche' market and nature of these specific -hobby-based industries, and the fact that a massive giant in the form of Hasbro has claimed these properties, that leads to the current trend. Rather than catering to their consumer base, as many do when they are flexible and agile, as Paizo is, this scenario is one of a massive corporate entity with little interest simply because a degree of scale, in whether their existing market for said recently acquired product, is happy or not, when presented with the prospect of new markets and expanding that market.
It's rather typical in scenarios such as this, which nevertheless makes it no less tragic.
So, to answer another person wanting the "edition wars to be over" ...Hi there. I want the edition wars to be over, too. So cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric. I appreciate that you feel slighted, maligned, and "left behind" but the sentiment probably doesn't need to be aired again and again and again. Let's move on, shall we?How about just not read the thread, especially if that is all you have to offer?
If you see a forum posting where you're -obviously- not going to like the trend (or not, if that's clearly all you felt worthy of contribution in spite of NUMEROUS posts that expand beyond that) perhaps you'd care to offer constructive commentary after -carefully- reading what else has been written? In Context? Or refrain from commenting haphazardly (which is certainly your right, as it is hers to ignore you completely and continue a pointed if potentially controversial perspective which many of us happen to agree with)
*sighs* Nevermind. That's simply too much to ask, apparently. I will follow my own advice now.
So let me get this straight:
I moderate these boards. I'm asking you guys to cool it. And your response is to tell me "not to read the thread?" Am I understanding you correctly?
|
|
I would agree those moves were missteps.
Let me be clear. I am not fan of WotC. I did not like 3.5. I do not like 4e. I just do not see them as evil.
Now, back to your question. I see both moves with the simple goal of trying to make money.... D&D has not been the innovator since OD&D. It has only adapted what others have proven to be successful. WotC does not hate you. They do not even know you. They are just trying to make money. You want to tell them they are going about it wrong, don't buy their stuff. There is no need for animosity. When they see everyone is buying Pathfinder, they will change their tune.
LOL Let me be clear. We each understand where the other is coming from with this. I don't see them as evil either. Just hopelessly shortsighted and incompetent. I feel (again this is personal but I can back it with examples and experiences if someone REALLY wants me to right a thesis on an esoteric principle) that a company that provides and focusses on providing -quality- product and caters better to it's (still niche despite numbers) clientele can be far, far better served. Ethical and sensible business practice with logical conclusions drawn from a straightforward sequence of events.
Case point, MAKE a Ravenloft 4E version if you are going to reacquire the license. Don't just pull the license and squat on it. Here's an example of a choice I would still find revulsive, but would be intelligent and profitable. and for the love of god, hire competent writers who have a storied understanding of said setting if you're going to do it that way.
Old Edition Downloads - ... I think they could access and use the material from all that and turn a profit. It's not like the existence of those third party vendors would prevent say, a Dragon-compendium style update to statistics from making money. Like I said, short sighted and poorly chosen.
I don't mind them being greedy. I mind them being STUPIDLY consumerist and flipping into a 2-5 year life cycle and various other aspects of their paradigm that will burn through gamer dollars with redundant or unnecessary revisions and built in obsolence.
No, they are not evil. Just -ALL- about the quick buck, as opposed to the long term investment and growth of the brand. I would like to see responsible and sensible handling thereof.
That being said, I -will- continue to support and -carefully- purchase certain products they produce, based on the individual writing on an independent basis. Yes, corporations and especially the individuals that make them up, can make mistakes. No one is immune to that. And as such, there has to be a caveat provided for growth and evolution, should the corporate entities (or the individuals who run them) show and inclination towards such.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A lot of good stuff...by CourtFool?!?!?
Terrific post, CourtFool! I could have said it with a lot more pettiness and insults, but not better, myself. Contrary to popular (ignorant?) belief, WotC (and, most other businesses for that matter) don't actually strive to alienate their customers. They want to build a successful product, they want it to be well-loved, and they want loyal customers to continue purchasing from them. Unfortunately, they operate without the benefit of divine guidance, and thus make mistakes, or have products rushed out due to other operational constraints, or misjudge what their customer base wants. They don't make these mistakes because they are evil, they make them because they are human.
I also get a big kick out of the "everyone loved TSR back in the day, it was all one big happy family, and D&D was well cared for and widely loved." Talk about revisionist history...
|
|
So let me get this straight:
I moderate these boards. I'm asking you guys to cool it. And your response is to tell me "not to read the thread?" Am I understanding you correctly?
1.) Did not realize you were the moderator. So Apologies on that. My reaction was to a fellow participant, not someone with your function. So please file most of my commentary to you there in the listed post as "irrelevent". My apologies again.
2.) You were telling someone else to cool it, not me. This was in regards to the WotC bashing, which IMHO this discussion has grown far above and beyond, and was after a LONG string of various parties misrepresenting or hijacking the nature of this discussion into that direction when I (the original poster) made it very clear that is not the case, and was told for my trouble that that's what -ALL- this discussion has been about.
3.) I then follow this up by a suggestion to reread who said what and what's being said. I then retract with a "nevermind, I will follow my own advice" which was, if we don't want this to be a discussion about -THAT- to not react to people who seek to malign it AS -that- kind of edition wars nonsense.
4.) The Generalization "You guys" is pretty inaccurate. I made a mistake by prejudging what you had to say as a random onlooker engaging from a certain perspective. But you preceed that sir, with the assumption that we are all or even most of us engaged in said activity.
5.) Now if all this opens me up to censure or leaves you feeling offended, again I apologize, but moderator or no, I think my reaction (if admittedly heated) once taken in context makes a little more sense and is more reasonable than the summation you seem to be taking from it.
Joshua J. Frost: Ummm, I see quite clearly where you're coming from, but all that quote wasn't mine... =(
"WotC owes me!" What do they owe you? They gave you 3.5 which you love. It seems to me, that is the end of their contract with you. They put out new material. If it meets with your expectations, you buy it. Another contract. If they do not, you make no bargain with them. You go and spend your entire allowance at Paizo.I agree with 99% here in the vacuum of other evidence, without entailing any of the other "business decisions" that WotC has made. Pulling the Ravenloft license so they could get a mediocre profit off of a badly written book that undoes much of their previous canon and further alienates the gamer audience was NOT a smart move.
Neither was removal and revocation of license to resell soft-copies of older editions products from various legal and licensed third party vendors, for what was a single act of illegal piracy of a 4E book that was performed by one of their own employees. Essentially punishing the previous editions' enthusiasts and vendors that cater to them for the actions of an employee with regards to their -newest- edition (the PHB II IIRC). I had a link to the post on this matter where it was discussed on these 'boards, but this discussion alone has blasted it past my "recent posts" feed.
What are your thoughts on the matter, given those two manuevers. Not from the perspective of one who feels their owed, but literally wide-sweeping gestures that are ineffective for the stated goals, and only succeed in alienating those who would not be previously, and further inciting resentment in others?
They did not pull Ravenloft, Dragonlance or Dungeon and Dragon magazines to make the books - though they do make the books. They pulled all their properties so that they could use them to provide content for their DDI subscription model. Since the vast majority of 4E players are subscribers it may well be that it turns out to be a very profitable business decision. Almost certainly more profitable then just continuing to collect fee's for the licenses on their IP.
The same argument applies to pulling the old PDFs. By all accounts the amount of money they were making off those PDFs was minuscule while the amount they felt they lost with leaked copies of 4E PDFs was significant. One can't stop pirating but if there are no copies of searchable PDFs on the market then the only thing one can pirate is an inferior product.
So long as we understand each other, we're cool.
I was asking a single poster (who was flagged) to cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric, not moderating the entire thread and accusing (J'accuse!!) everyone in it of doing the same.
I'd love for this thread to really be a "philosophical discussion of certain market etc" and not devolve into a "WotC ate my birthday cake!" thread. Again.
I never said TSR was better at customer relations. I am old enough to remember the massive discussions about what T$R stood for. Best was "They Sue Regularly", referring to their practice of actually suing customers who dared put their homemade AD&D stuff up on that new thing called the internet. There's a standard to measure WotC against. =)
But apart from that... what is this talk of mistakes? A mistake is something you do once. Twice maybe. Rarely three times. Their treatment of things during the 3.5 -> 4 change wasn't a mistake. It's just too many things. I do not believe they are evil... I simply think that they felt it would be worth it in the end, and I seriously doubt it will.
Fact is, you can sell exactly ANYTHING if you put enough money into it. We're all familiar with the products that prove exactly this.
|
|
So long as we understand each other, we're cool.
I was asking a single poster (who was flagged) to cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric, not moderating the entire thread and accusing (J'accuse!!) everyone in it of doing the same.
I'd love for this thread to really be a "philosophical discussion of certain market etc" and not devolve into a "WotC ate my birthday cake!" thread. Again.
Cool. As a suggestion (and perhaps I should post this elsewhere) should perhaps a 'Moderator' title be added as a conditional BBCode to identifying you as such? Might cut down on future confusion and similar miscommunication.
I don't mind them being greedy.
I see what you did right there. Don't think I didn't. :)
I mind them being STUPIDLY consumerist and flipping into a 2-5 year life cycle and various other aspects of their paradigm that will burn through gamer dollars with redundant or unnecessary revisions and built in obsolence.
But the consumer has proven that a profitable strategy. I remember just as much anger over 3.5, yet, it still managed to sell. Of course they want to burn through gamer dollars! What company last long by not trying to get money from its customers?
What should have WotC done? Sales were dwindling. They still had to pay the design team who they thought was the best they could get. Release a new setting? God, people still bemoan Eberron. How broad of an appeal would FR4 have had? How many different ways can you right an inclusive Fantasy world?
I love Set's idea of developing an online tool. But I do not think they could have done that. Too risky.
Continue pouring out splat? Even if it were good splat, diminishing returns.
Player Handbook 5? Don't you think the player base would have seen through that? "Money grubbing, corporate tools! Off with their head!"
I am sure the design team of 4e thought they were really on to something. "Let's breathe new life into this hobby! We can make it the best D&D eva!"
What should they have done?
|
|
They did not pull Ravenloft, Dragonlance or Dungeon and Dragon magazines to make the books - though they do make the books. They pulled all their properties so that they could use them to provide content for their DDI subscription model. Since the vast majority of 4E players are subscribers it may well be that it turns out to be a very profitable business decision. Almost certainly more profitable then just continuing to...
I disagree with your conclusion, though your facts are irrefutable.
Consider: A Print to PDF function and a Filesharing Client could make the DDI Content pirateable with -whimsical- ease.
Profitability is an extremely dicey thing to financial project when you have no control basis for the market you -would- have versus the market you -dont-. For instance, it can be argued that the Creation of DDI has in and of itself created an alternate revenue stream by freeing Paizo Writing staff and focus up from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazine (much lament that they're not!) to publishing Pathfinder Adventure Paths (much to my glee!). To whit, they have created their own competitive sub-market with these decisions, and to build a financial model on the matter would involve far FAR too many variables, leaving it in the realm of conjecture ... but one can detect or surmise trends on the median of where the profitability of this would fall ...
Back to my understanding of the topic. If you really want to move the market, buy Pathfinder. Make your friends buy Pathfinder. Run games that get more people interested in Pathfinder. Grab those two young whipper-snappers loitering on your lawn and run Pathfinder for them.
If everyone, and I mean everyone buys Pathfinder, WotC will take notice. Otherwise, take a seat over here by me in the minority section of role playing games. There is plenty of crow pie for everyone.
A lot of good stuff...by CourtFool?!?!?I also get a big kick out of the "everyone loved TSR back in the day, it was all one big happy family, and D&D was well cared for and widely loved." Talk about revisionist history...
That made me sit up in my chair as well. As I recall everyone used to type their initials T$R. They must have had state of the art printers for the day considering the speed at which they pumped out Cease and Desist orders from their lawyers.
For instance, it can be argued that the Creation of DDI has in and of itself created an alternate revenue stream by freeing Paizo Writing staff and focus up from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazine (much lament that they're not!) to publishing Pathfinder Adventure Paths (much to my glee!).
WotC had no way of knowing that would happen. So, sure, call them silly with your Spectacles of Hindsight.
I remember the 3.5 War and how many chants of "Never again!"
Now people are dancing in the aisles over 3.75.
So let me get this straight:I moderate these boards. I'm asking you guys to cool it. And your response is to tell me "not to read the thread?" Am I understanding you correctly?
Pretty inadvertent but this is the funniest post I've read all day.
You can almost hear the incredulity...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So let me get this straight:I moderate these boards. I'm asking you guys to cool it. And your response is to tell me "not to read the thread?" Am I understanding you correctly?
Pretty inadvertent but this is the funniest post I've read all day.
You can almost hear the incredulity...
Agreed. I laughed so hard when I read it.
|
|
But the consumer has proven that a profitable strategy. I remember just as much anger over 3.5, yet, it still managed to sell. Of course they want to burn through gamer dollars! What company last long by not trying to get money from its customers?
There's trying to get money, and there's burning the candle at both ends for the quick buck. If they are going to insist on the Software comparison with 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 (C'mon ... you CAN'T not see that one coming) they should post free "patches".
The implication is to build systems like software with release patches. Imagine if Windows charged for -every- -single- incremental updated. That would be ludicrous. Now we come to the next fallacy of the implied (and marketted) software metaphor. When Windows publishes Windows Mobile, they don't broadcast it as the next Windows OS.
If you are going to generate a re-invention of fantasy gaming which is almost a breed apart from your previous version, perhaps your should retitle it and allow your product to continue.
I am in NO WAY saying TSR's methods were better, but perhaps a -properly- implemented and distinct implementation of the D&D and AD&D brands?
What should have WotC done? ... What should they have done?
1.) The Subscription based model, if one is going to do it, do it all out. I find Set's idea is sound on a business level, even if as a Consumer it may rankle a little.
2.) D&D Online .... Scrap it. Or fuse it with Neverwinter nights and RPGA. Make a TRULY IMMERSIVE MMORPG to Pen and Paper fusion. Expend your efforts on doing that well, rather than shoehorning Blizzards' and other MMO companies' methodologies into the core game. Different Expansions for different settings, the possibilities are NUMEROUS.
3.) Acquire Ral Partha, Reaper and other Miniatures Producers. Encourage a Miniatures Game with Mass Tactical rules if you are going to encroach on Games Workshop's territory. Don't tender-foot around it, DO it.
4.) Acquire some of the 3rd party publishers. If you've got the $$$, RAKE in the more profitable entities while maintaining their autonomy. If you're going to push a product, you have to -invest- in it.
5.) Dragonlance Movie Trilogy. Live Action. Make it happen, and for the love of all that's holy do it right. In a Similar vein, a NEW D&D Cartoon. Make it a quality, Emmy-level show, like the 2003 Masters of the Universe Relaunch.
6.) Incremental Dungeons ... it worked for Rappun Athuk and Undermountain. Focus on storied, multidimensional, massive dungeons with shifting conditions. It is what made Castly Greyhawk/Zagyg and Undermountain such hot-sellers. Perhaps a subscription based model here?
7.) War-based "Campaigns". Backtrack through the histories of these settings and market your mini's and tactical combat system with adventures or "campaigns" and blister packs that will encourage players and dm's to recreate these conflict. Perhaps make an RPGA event/league out of it which publishes "previously hidden lore and insights" gained from playing through these for subscribers.
8.) Reopen your stores with correct management and proper analysis of the market demographics in each area. Focus on your core products as opposed to diversifying so bad and selling -any-damn-thing- in them. Keep the atmosphere of providing a "Cheers" style gaming haven that supports the hobby as a whole and host RPGA-licensed games out of it, as you intended to implement back in '01 before the Hasbro acquisition which flooded these venues with boardgames. Keep your wireless LAN in the back as this draws in consumers.
As a former employee who quit when that happened, I have actually written my own thesis (and seen some college thesis submissions) on all the things that were done wrong at that time. Not with hindsight, but -as-they-happened-.
I would welcome being proven wrong on this topic for the first time in the Seven Years since when it came to all the predictions I made then ...
I'm no Nostradamus, but damn this stuff was soooooo transparent to see coming down the pipeline if you know what to look for.
What company last long by not trying to get money from its customers?
Nobody is blaming them for trying to get money. Trying to get money is not being greedy. Being greedy is when you let that desire for money make you treat your customers badly.
What should have WotC done? Sales were dwindling. They still had to pay the design team who they thought was the best they could get. Release a new setting? God, people still bemoan Eberron. How broad of an appeal would FR4 have had? How many different ways can you right an inclusive Fantasy world?
A company communicates with their employees, or they die. They gave those designers a blueprint for what they wanted in 4th edition, and they kept up to date on what the designers did every step of the way. Don't blame the designers for this. They should have given them a different set of specs for 4th edition.
I love Set's idea of developing an online tool. But I do not think they could have done that. Too risky.
Online tools would have been great, if they had only gotten them into existence. That wasn't a bad idea, it only required more doing than they thought it would. And since they had made a system that didn't really need a DM to adjudicate things anymore, why on Earth didn't they release any sort of computer game featuring those rules? The movies they had tried to make didn't sell too well, but their computer games were frequently massively successful.
Continue pouring out splat? Even if it were good splat, diminishing returns.
Yes, they should have continued pouring out splat. Also known as "supporting their settings". FR got two rulebooks and an adventure.
Player Handbook 5? Don't you think the player base would have seen through that? "Money grubbing, corporate tools! Off with their head!"
Perhaps they should have done a reevaluation of their decision to focus only on crunch for 3rd edition? They made a reevaluation of their decision not to publish adventures, and it gave us the four "Expedition to" books, the Shattered Gates, the Red Hand, the Barrow series, and so on. In other words, it could not have been entirely useless, sales-wise. If they had dared not be so utterly generic, I am sure their sales would have gone up for including more fluff. Take a look at what consistently got the most praise in Paizo's Dragon magazine: The Demonomicon articles and the Core Beliefs articles. These were pretty fluff-heavy, but did include crunch. Instead they took this absence of fluff even further in 4th edition, via their Points of Light setting.
I am sure the design team of 4e thought they were really on to something. "Let's breathe new life into this hobby! We can make it the best D&D eva!"
I doubt it. They got specs from the beancounters, and did what they got paid to do.
They did not pull Ravenloft, Dragonlance or Dungeon and Dragon magazines to make the books - though they do make the books. They pulled all their properties so that they could use them to provide content for their DDI subscription model. Since the vast majority of 4E players are subscribers it may well be that it turns out to be a very profitable business decision. Almost certainly more profitable then just continuing to...I disagree with your conclusion, though your facts are irrefutable.
Consider: A Print to PDF function and a Filesharing Client could make the DDI Content pirateable with -whimsical- ease.
I'm thinking more along the lines of there being no high quality versions of the 4E book PDFs to steal with the lack of PDF sales.
Profitability is an extremely dicey thing to financial project when you have no control basis for the market you -would- have versus the market you -dont-. For instance, it can be argued that the Creation of DDI has in and of itself created an alternate revenue stream by freeing Paizo Writing staff and focus up from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazine (much lament that they're not!) to publishing Pathfinder Adventure Paths (much to my glee!). To whit, they have created their own competitive sub-market with these decisions, and to build a financial model on the matter would involve far FAR too many variables, leaving it in the realm of conjecture ... but one can detect or surmise trends on the median of where the profitability of this would fall ...
Well its certainly difficult to predict how things will turn out without hindsite. Its possible that if WotC could do things over they'd have pulled everyone else's license but Paizo and then tried to work out some kind of a marketing model where the magazines where available in both print format and as content for the DDI. I'm not sure if that would have been profitable or not but it'd obvously have meant that they did not create a competitor...
...though its hard to say if Pathfinder is even really a bad thing for WotC. There's lots of anger but having Pathfinder means most of the angry people soon grow bored with the griping and play Pathfinder. The edition wars were at their hottest when Paizo had not yet chosen which way they were going to go - once they decided to make Pathfinder a lot of the heat died down. So maybe Pathfinder is a competitor thats loosing them sales or its possible that Pathfinder actually helps them in a round about way by giving the disaffected fans something to play and distract them from engaging in WOTC hate. Its impossible to know one way or the other because we can't try both ways.
The Subscription based model…
I think they are trying to ease into it with DDI.
Make a TRULY IMMERSIVE MMORPG to Pen and Paper fusion…
I seem to recall they were trying. What is the status of the virtual table top anyway? Did they completely scrap it?
Acquire Ral Partha…
(laughing) You are honestly suggesting they go after licenses you personally like? They were tender footing around it because…
1. Going hole hog is a huge risk.2. What about all the fans they would alienate by creating a tactical war game out of their role playing? People already complain (loudly) with what they did do.
Acquire some of the 3rd party publishers
And become even more big and bloated? Has that strategy endeared people to Microsoft? We could argue over the profitability. I can hear the fans screaming, "Why are they putting out another Freeport supplement? I want Greyhawk! Tools!"
Dragonlance Movie Trilogy
O.k. Now I know you are not taking me seriously.
Incremental Dungeons
Huh?
War-based "Campaigns"
Again, the non-miniatures crowd is non plused. Do you really think these would have a broad enough appeal?
I doubt it. They got specs from the beancounters, and did what they got paid to do.
I'm sure they had specs from the bean counters, very likely something along the lines of - "WTF?!?! What did Blizzard do? Fantasy is a tiny niche thing...everyone knows that so what the hell did Blizzard do? How the hell did they get so many non-gamers to participate in their game? See if you can copy some of that.
The 4E designers mention that they were looking at WoW hard when they were thinking about character creation since what WoW did that Everquest and other MMORPGs did not do as well was make character creation very easy to grasp, anyone could get it and be playing real quick. If your just using the PHB and your willing to go with some of their suggestions you can have a pretty good character ready to play in about 10 minutes.
That said there is no evidence that the beancounters called all the shots or development did not like their product. We probably get a lot of BECMI in 4E because Mike Mearls is a huge BECMI fan. You see elements of his previous 3.5 work (Iron Heros) in 4E as well. I'm pretty sure that Iron Heros is the original genesis of the Powers System in 4E.
They gave those designers a blueprint for what they wanted in 4th edition, and they kept up to date on what the designers did every step of the way.
You think the bean counters knew enough about role playing games to provide specs for 4e?
Yes, they should have continued pouring out splat. Also known as "supporting their settings". FR got two rulebooks and an adventure.
I have half a dozen FR books. I do not know which system you are referring to.
Campaign settings appeal mostly to people who like those settings. So if 50% of your customers hate FR (you know, all the Greyhawk grognards), that cuts your sales right there by 50%. I am not saying 50% of D&D players hate FR. I have no idea how many do.
Now, if you release a product about, oh, I don't know, the Unapproachable East and 50% of your FR fans think the Unapproachable East is silly and never use it in their campaign, your product's sales are cut by 50% again. See where I am going with this?
The generic rule books sell the best. They have the broadest appeal and are best if you (the greedy, money grubbing corporate tool) can make them 'must have'. New Feats anyone?
Adventures are mostly only bought by GMs. So that is about what, 25% of your customers, roughly?
Perhaps they should have done a reevaluation of their decision to focus only on crunch for 3rd edition?
See above. Personally, I agree. As a Hero fan boi, I have no use for 3.5 crunch. If they put out more fluff, I would have bought it. I bet good fluff is harder to produce than crunch. Especially when the underlying system is kept hidden like it is with D&D. I think Hero shots themselves in the foot with this since all the building blocks are laid out in the main book. I think that is why Hero is coming out with 6th edition and holding back some rules for an Advanced Player's Guide. WotC proved it was a successful model thanks to all you consumers out there.
As stated above, yes, I think the beancounters knew enough to say: Make the system very similar to WoW, force people to use minis, and make sure you use the MtG system for powers, it will appeal to more people then. As I have said previously: Everything except (oddly enough) Pokemon.
What those people fail to grasp is that the appeal of World of Warcraft is its quality. It was created by people who were allowed to push their creation where they wanted it, because Blizzard was and is a hugely successful company. It was well designed, from a setting that had been well developed, with huge amounts of polish, and by a company that had good interaction with its prospective and actual customers. Unlike with 4th edition, the beancounters didn't make the blueprint.
THAT is why people love World of Warcraft. Not because they have a certain structure for the powers characters have, or any other silly detail.
Quality tends to sell, and sell well. Every attempt to get it through a committee, use a focus group or anything like it, might get a bit better sales, but it WILL destroy any aspirations of quality. 4th edition is the result when someone with power doesn't understand that NOT using that power is the only way to make a smash hit.
Edit: Some questions unanswered.
I know generic rule books sell best. However, I believe this is merely a fluke when you look at it short-term. To really sell well, you need to balance the crunch and the fluff. A well-developed world WILL sell, if backed up by good and relevant crunch and adventures. Just because TSR did it wrong by splitting their customer base into a dozen different settings, doesn't mean the general principle of selling both fluff and crunch is wrong. And, obviously, it did work for WotC as well, or they wouldn't have kept producing adventures the "second time around". Also: Red Hand of Doom was a fantastic adventure, generic enough to be used in any campaign, fluffed enough to be interesting. Remember also that fluff doesn't require a specific setting.
Yes, they should have continued pouring out splat. Also known as "supporting their settings". FR got two rulebooks and an adventure.
From another thread in this forum titled "Complete list of 3.5 WotC Products?"
Forgotten Realms
Anauroch: The Empire of Shade
Champions of Ruin
Champions of Valor
City of Splendors: Waterdeep
Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave
Dragons of Faerun
Grand History of the Realms
Lost Empires of Faerun
Mysteries of the Moonsea
Player's Guide to Faerun
Power of Faerun
Serpent Kingdoms
Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land
Shining South
Sons of Gruumsh
The Twilight Tomb
Underdark
I don't even play FR, and I own three of these (both champions and underdark) plus the 3e "Monsters of" book.
... force people to use minis, ...
I might mention that WotC had a miniature war tactics game, that was the original use for the D&D minis. What WotC found out was (based on tournament turnout), very few people were purchasing the minis for the actual war tactics game. Why were they being purchased (and they were being purchased, they are one of the best revenue streams WotC has)? For roleplaying. Again, the use of minis in 4e isn't an original idea, remember D&D has nothing original, it is merely following the trend of the customers. Customers buy the minis for the game, so why not make them more tied to one another, seems a rational conclusion.
It is like, way back in the day, someone said, "You know, people like to roll dice to decide the outcomes of the encounters. I know, why don't we make rolling dice and the game intimiately tied to one another?"
Sissyl, have you bought any of the 4e books?
pres man: previous editions hadn't forced people to use those minis. It was always possible without them. 4th removed that possibility.
And the three FR products are the FRCS, the player's guide, and the Scepter tower of Spellgard adventure.
|
|
The Subscription based model…I think they are trying to ease into it with DDI.
Make a TRULY IMMERSIVE MMORPG to Pen and Paper fusion…I seem to recall they were trying. What is the status of the virtual table top anyway? Did they completely scrap it?
I was speaking more to the point of FUSING it with Neverwinter Nights, instead of flooding the Market with Halfhazard D&D Video Games that offer more promise than they realize, focus on making ONE TRULY immersive D&D client that expands into the virtual table top endeavor.
Acquire Ral Partha…(laughing) You are honestly suggesting they go after licenses you personally like? They were tender footing around it because…
1. Going hole hog is a huge risk.
2. What about all the fans they would alienate by creating a tactical war game out of their role playing? People already complain (loudly) with what they did do.
Hardly. I am simply providing ideas for how they could mine their existing paradigm competently, with what's I propose would work. If they were going to redesign the game to be more miniature inclusive, I am providing the strategy to do so per your "time machine" premise without massively rewriting the game. Promote the miniatures game, but that requires -COMMITTING- to the endeavor. Or they could "outsource" it with a partnership as they used to have with Paizo for Dungeon and Dragon magazine.
Acquire some of the 3rd party publishersAnd become even more big and bloated? Has that strategy endeared people to Microsoft? We could argue over the profitability. I can hear the fans screaming, "Why are they putting out another Freeport supplement? I want Greyhawk! Tools!"
No, I am speaking of targetting and hiring / acquiring properties that prove to be their most competitive and extremely profitable "rivals" due to high quality content. In short, hire the obvious talent in the field. Heck, they could have accomplished so much more by just doing this twice.
Dragonlance Movie TrilogyO.k. Now I know you are not taking me seriously.
Quite the Contrary. With both of those I mentioned, they would provide a fictional element of promoting their product in the mainstream. WITH that in mind, obviously don't make the abomination that was the first D&D movie. It would require some serious $$$ but the returns would be marvelous IF IT IS IMPLEMENTED RIGHT. Not as an overbudgetted B-Movie, but a serious cinematic endeavor.
Incremental DungeonsHuh?
For Instance ... Undermountain .. Undermountain the Lost Levels 1 & 2, Undermountain 3: StarDock.
Incrementally expanding dungeons. Make the "Expedition To" Series more like "Return to Keep on the Borderlands / White Plume Mountain / Tomb of Horrors" with actual plot based on "returning" to classic locations years later. Hence, as I said "Incremental Dungeons".
War-based "Campaigns"Again, the non-miniatures crowd is non plused. Do you really think these would have a broad enough appeal?
I think they -could-. There are plenty of products that -CAN- appeal if marketted correctly or just done -WELL-.
Forgotten Realms made the $$ back in the day and now because it is MARKETTED. Comics, Novels, Video Games, etc.
pres man: previous editions hadn't forced people to use those minis. It was always possible without them. 4th removed that possibility.
Ok, I guess (I don't play 4e so I'll take your word on it). Though, 3.x was already very tied around the idea anyway, what with AoO, flanking, and such. Still though, I think there are some 4e PbP games, which would seem to suggest that the miniatures are not absolutely necessary. But my point was, again, this is just WotC following the trends of the customers not forcing that trend on them. I would wager most 3.x groups were already using miniatures, so make them a part of the game was just adjusting to the play style of the customers.
This reminds me of a discussion about paradigm shifts, and how 3e moved away from the racial limitations of earlier editions, but some suggested this wasn't really a paradigm shift because most groups already had tossed the racial limitations. So it was more of a readjustment (getting the game to match the play styles). That is how I see the mini issue. The reliance on minis isn't a 4e shift, it is an adjustment to what the majority of groups already do.
And the three FR products are the FRCS, the player's guide, and the Scepter tower of Spellgard adventure.
So are you saying that list I provide, was in error, those were not FR products?
EDIT: Ah ... I see. When asked, "What should they have done?" (instead of releasing 4e)
You said they should have produced more splatbooks for the settings, and that there were only 3 for FR. You were refering to, not what they should have done instead of 4e, but what they have done in 4e, and should do in the future for 4e. Produce more splatbooks for settings not just the three they have currently for FR. Sorry there was some miscommunication going on there.
I submit that all of those suggestions are riskier than what WotC did do. And thus far, the risk WotC did take, seems to have paid off.
pres man: previous editions hadn't forced people to use those minis. It was always possible without them. 4th removed that possibility.Ok, I guess (I don't play 4e so I'll take your word on it). Though, 3.x was already very tied around the idea anyway, what with AoO, flanking, and such. Still though, I think there are some 4e PbP games, which would seem to suggest that the miniatures are not absolutely necessary. But my point was, again, this is just WotC following the trends of the customers not forcing that trend on them. I would wager most 3.x groups were already using miniatures, so make them a part of the game was just adjusting to the play style of the customers.
This reminds me of a discussion about paradigm shifts, and how 3e moved away from the racial limitations of earlier editions, but some suggested this wasn't really a paradigm shift because most groups already had tossed the racial limitations. So it was more of a readjustment (getting the game to match the play styles). That is how I see the mini issue. The reliance on minis isn't a 4e shift, it is an adjustment to what the majority of groups already do.
Thinking more on the topic of minitures in 3.5 versus 4E.
3.5 can, sort of, be played without miniatures. I say sort of because your going to have to adopt certain styles in your play - the lack of miniatures means that players will move away from feats and magic that effect movement and you probably want to implement a house rule keeping magic rarer. My experience with higher level 3.5 that did use miniatures was that it would have been impossible to stop using them part way through. The amount of movement that was by then taking place made miniatures a requirement. By 14th level its common place for a character to use an interrupt to move or teleport and my battles in high level 3.5 where magical blink fests and they almost had to be as high level 3.5 is magical nuclear war with each side throwing down awesomely powerful effects and the other side doing things like interrupts to teleport their endangered comrade out of the area of effect.
In fact I have a suspicion that we might have had more need for minitures in the 14th level and beyond in our 3.5 game campaign then will be the case when my 4E characters get to that level. high level 3.5 is so devastating in terms of magical effects that blinking in around the battlefield became almost essential.
Hence once we got there it was impossible to stop but I can conceive of how a low magic campaign without mini's could work since players and the DM would simply not use spells, feats or magic items that utilized movement very often.
The GSL was a disaster. You really think it would have worked if it had been done even earlier?
Small misunderstanding. The "Seal of Quality" wasn't like the GSL's beginings (it wasn't a servitude contract). It was rather a "standards certificate" (like ISO-9000's ones), you called Nintendo, they sent some people to certify your product deserves the seal, then you got authorized to print the "Official Nintendo Seal of Quality" logo in the box of your games.
Hope that clears it... can I hop to the batmobile now? =)
Fanboy? Heh. Not really. I did tell you. It's not about anything like an unhealthy obsession. It's merely the fact that to get something out of your roleplaying that isn't as easily served filling in tax forms, you need to engage in it, let the fate of your character matter to you. If you never thought of that side of the investment, you have my sympathies.
How engaged you are in your characters and the storyline have absolutely jack and squat to do with what company sold the gaming products you are using. My half-elf, fey heritage, water shugenja who has a water nymph as an ancestor on his elf side, doesn't stop being interesting to me merely because the company that produced the gaming products I am using decided to be jerks.
Why does it matter what the company does when I still have the old books? Well, they say a shark needs to keep swimming to be able to breathe. In the willingness to pay for various rulebooks lies the expectation of good future products, not merely pokemonised and wow-ised stuff that have been calculated to maximise profits because they appeal to the absolute lowest common denominator available.
So you can't keep gaming unless you are able to purchase more and more option gaming products? If you never thought come up with own interesting gaming content, you have my sympathies.
When a company sells me a set of rules, my buying those shows that I believe the company will keep putting out good stuff. Paizo has consistently done so, ever since that first day in Sandpoint. Jumping on that train was easy, given what I had seen of their previous stuff such as the Shackled city, and how they made Dragon and Dungeon flower in their care. They keep an active contact with their customers here, they care what we think, and above all, they make products that show they enjoy the game, sharing in my investment. By gamers, for gamers is the standard, you know?
I find their products well enough, well I did while they still produced 3.5 material. They weren't mindblowingly awesome, I've developed adventures that I found more interesting then many printed, but that was because mine were personalized for the people I was gaming with, something no module/AP can possibly do.
I believe this may be a difference between american and european thinking. Americans are generally much more forgiving of companies who treat them badly, at least that's the image I have gotten.
Possibly. Though, I personally haven't been treated badly by any company being discussed here. I've been abandoned by the companies in terms of the game system they are using. And it has been implied by them that the system I used is too complex in many cases and broken. But I don't consider that an insult.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
pres man: previous editions hadn't forced people to use those minis. It was always possible without them. 4th removed that possibility.
Now that, that is comedy.
You can also build a house without a hammer, but that doesn't make it the most effective way to go about it. To say 3.5 didn't require the use of minis is disingenuous at best, but really, it's more flat out wrong.
The axe you've got, have you finished grinding it yet? Because the same old poorly reasoned arguments that have been bandied around for years just aren't doing it for me. The incorrect statements that border on lying aren't helping either.
|
A lot of good stuff...by CourtFool?!?!?Terrific post, CourtFool! I could have said it with a lot more pettiness and insults, but not better, myself. Contrary to popular (ignorant?) belief, WotC (and, most other businesses for that matter) don't actually strive to alienate their customers. They want to build a successful product, they want it to be well-loved, and they want loyal customers to continue purchasing from them. Unfortunately, they operate without the benefit of divine guidance, and thus make mistakes, or have products rushed out due to other operational constraints, or misjudge what their customer base wants. They don't make these mistakes because they are evil, they make them because they are human.
I also get a big kick out of the "everyone loved TSR back in the day, it was all one big happy family, and D&D was well cared for and widely loved." Talk about revisionist history...
I wonder what old Lorraine is up to these days...
|
|
Cool. As a suggestion (and perhaps I should post this elsewhere) should perhaps a 'Moderator' title be added as a conditional BBCode to identifying you as such? Might cut down on future confusion and similar miscommunication.So long as we understand each other, we're cool.
I was asking a single poster (who was flagged) to cool it on the anti-WotC rhetoric, not moderating the entire thread and accusing (J'accuse!!) everyone in it of doing the same.
I'd love for this thread to really be a "philosophical discussion of certain market etc" and not devolve into a "WotC ate my birthday cake!" thread. Again.
Actually, anyone with a Paizo staff title next to their name can and will moderate the boards as necessary, so...
Whatever. All I know is that I have played 3.5 and 4th edition enough to know what they're about. The worst part is that 4th edition simply isn't engaging, in terms of character options (you get a choice of attack powers at each level, no relevant feats, no multiclassing, and no interactions of significance to those attack powers), setting (yes, you can play any setting as long as it's points of light, here, we even provided you with sterile PoL versions of both FR and Eberron), monsters who also differ only in what encounter powers they have, and so on.
If that's an old argument, fine. Your problem, not mine. I still haven't seen it answered properly.
And as for engaging, I feel like I probably have to state that yes, with the right DM, it would be engaging. However, playing more or less any other system would likely then be more engaging with that DM.
|
|
To say 3.5 didn't require the use of minis is disingenuous at best, but really, it's more flat out wrong.
Yep, never owned a minature and still play 3.5 and PFRPG without them.
I use counters from Fiery Dragon or even self made ones! Take that Pony!
Nick Logue is happy to run 3.5 without such accessories, for example
I heard he uses the fingerbones of sacrifical virgins instead of miniatures. And has a gridmap made from the flayed skin of a human (called R.P. for some reason). But these are just rumors without evidence...
This was too perfect of a rant.
That so made my night!!!!
Yes, absolutely perfect. It illustrates quite clearly how it feels to be forced to start with 4th edition... =)
Best. Godwin. Ever!
My favorite part:
AH: I might as well just go back to playing GURPS!!
Woman to other crying woman: Don't worry ... even he is not that crazy.