General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
That was about 1999, which goes to show how reliable decade-out predictions are in this business.
--Erik
Hmm. I predict Erik's post will be quoted a lot in the next few years. ;P
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
I seem to recall it was your old magazine, Comics & Games Retailer, but it may have been another that ran a column by Mike Stackpole that lamented how Wizards of the Coast was mis-managing the Dungeons & Dragons brand, offering $1 million to buy the brand with no questions asked.
That was about a year before 3e came out. I remember it because someone, I think Ryan Dancey, was so bemused by the idea that he pinned the article to the corkboard outside the D&D R&D department.
That was about 1999, which goes to show how reliable decade-out predictions are in this business.
--Erik
It was indeed Mike Stackpole.
And even more amusing (in light of what later happened), one of the reasons he felt the D&D brand was being mismanaged was because TSR had never adopted a sweeping metaplot to drive their RPG lines, as FASA's mech games had done (which were what Mike was working on at the time).
His contention was that TSR's collapse was because the lack of a metaplot had burned the audience out.
At least, that's how I remember his article where he expounded on what TSR had done wrong and made his offer to buy the brand.
Why are they silly? Because you, a 4E fan, don't see anything to be saved from? An in-print 3E clone does represent saviour from the 4E game for some, make no mistake.
I'm talking about the people who think 4E is going to fail and Pathfinder will take its place as the RPG leader.
The main advantage Erik Mona has (or, rather, the main advantage of his employer) is that he works with an Open Game Licensed version of Dungeons & Dragons, which allows his company to tap into the largest player network in the industry.
The main advantage Erik Mona has is that he was publisher of official Dragon and Dungeon magazine and helped him build a name, perfect for serving as the standard bearer of the displeased fans of some practices of Wotc business plan and being able to take advantage of this to further develop his name.
The whole deal is about building and keeping momentum. D&D has lots of it and with the OGL opportunities were opened to take advantage of it.
If Wotc did not have a big name due to its huge success of MtG but was an unknown entity instead I am not sure, even if it produced the same 3e as it did in 1999 that D&D and OGL would have had the boom effect they did.
To check out the overall health of the hobby you have to check the health of the overall momentum wave of game consumer population. In this set, RPGs are in theory the most versatile subset due to their toolbox -make your own- nature. Publishers do not want to realize this but instead struggle with all their efforts to capitalize on the current trends, always having in mind the ones that rocketed rpgs to the top positions in the market.
In the end, D&D as a name has nothing to do with it. If D&D fails to pump the necessary waves it will die. If someone manages to create a new wave source, he creates the potential to prevail, even if D&D is not the label name. As we stand, in the current business model, D&D definately has its own brand value but it definately is not the whole deal regarding the dynamics of the hobby market. And in the not so long run the current priority balance of the marketable rpg products will die. Even if people may now want to dismiss this notion due to general impredictability, common sense does not let me buy into this.
Today, in this brutal age, as some people put it, the industry has to start re-realizing the balance of its principles and itself right now if it wants to create a perspective of marketable tabletop rpgs in the long run. But sadly, the current industry gives me the impression that it does not care. It makes me believe that it does not have any power to care and look towards the future.
Last edited by xechnao; 17th July 2009 at 03:08 PM..
Here's my favorite bit I think, though there's so much fail here.
Quote:
How did I pick the year 2000 as when I'd snag TSR? Well, that's when I figure it'll be at its lowest point, approximately three months after the release of the Third Edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I predict that product will tank big-time and I'm willing to point out my reasons for that scenario now, a good 18 months out, so TSR can correct the problems and prevent the disaster. And I'm willing to do this even if it will cost me the chance to buy TSR.
The biggest problem I see with the coming product is the direction from which TSR is coming at it. I think the folks working on the project may not be designing a game suited to today's market. I think they may be using this opportunity to turn AD&D3 into what they think AD&D should have been. Game designers (and gamers) are all notorious for this: thinking we know better than the original designer of the game. Working from a basis of nostalgia that contains not a little contempt for the changes made when the second edition came out, I think TSR may be working on a game that would have been state of the art in 1982. I worry it will be rules-heavy, written in an impenetrable style, unintelligible to a beginning player and idiosyncratic enough to annoy players outside the design team. I fear it will come out in a series of five books, each of which will run $35. Sales will spike with the first one, then spiral down in flames. (And, in an attempt to recover from this disaster, TSR could offer a Classic Coke-New Coke dichotomy in subsequent products, but those things couldn't roll out until 2001, which will be far too late.)
The second problem is that TSR's missed what has been successful in the past. Since 1985, with Dragonlance, and certainly 1989 with Vampire and Shadowrun, the lesson in the industry is that worlds sell, not game systems. Deadlands is the latest example of this: The game system is inelegant, but the world is so exciting and vital that folks buy the products. To be able to move AD&D3 and make it a big hit, TSR needs to design a new game world that will be fresh and exciting and pull a lot of readers in. The difficulty there is, as I have pointed out endlessly, TSR/Wizards of the Coast's track record leads one to worry that it couldn't develop an intellectual property if a gun were held to designers' heads. TSR staffers look at things like BattleTech and Shadowrun -- which they contemptuously consider dead lines -- and wonder why they continue to sell. Here's the secret, boys: They continue to sell because the lines reinvent themselves over and over again. Take BattleTech, for example. Since 1987 I've been working to shape the history of that universe. We had the Fourth Succession War (two years), the Clan Invasion (three years), The Chaos March War (two years). and the Twilight of the Clans (two years) -- and that's leading into the new era. FASA has been doing event-based releases for more than a decade that keeps BattleTech fresh and trucking right along. Things are shaped to appeal to the market, to our changing audience.
Well, that's when I figure it'll be at its lowest point, approximately three months after the release of the Third Edition of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. I predict that product will tank big-time ...
Actually, I like reading these and everyone's responses. I avoid making a stark opinion on this topic as I tend to think it's much ado about nothing. To me, I'm just a gamer. I've got my games and my friends. Sooner or later, life will change, friends will go, games go away, etc., etc. It's a part of life in that good things eventually come to an end. Will it be tomorrow, one year, five years, 10 years from now? Who really knows? Right now, it's the time to just play, have a blast, and roll for initiative.
Has anyone read any subsequent analysis from Stackpole?
/M
__________________ iAltdorf. An interactive map of the capital of the Empire in WFRP! Download today! Can be used in any fantasy campaign!
http://altdorfer.blogspot.com - Check out the Altdorf Correspondent! A WFRP blog about life in the Imperial capital.
"All editions of D&D are awesome." - Fifth Element (EN World Forums, 2008)
”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering (Steve Jackson Games, 2002)
It's also interesting to see a 1999 perspective that TSR was losing its way because of a lack of focus on WORLDS.
"Worlds sell games" was the dominating school of thought among many game designers at the time, myself included.
I'm still not sure that is totally wrong, as I believe not many roleplaying games could sell strictly on rules even today, unless they are D&D or linked to D&D somehow (e.g. by being a retro-clone or Pathfinder).
So IMO World is still important for many games, but maybe not so much for D&D.
/M
__________________ iAltdorf. An interactive map of the capital of the Empire in WFRP! Download today! Can be used in any fantasy campaign!
http://altdorfer.blogspot.com - Check out the Altdorf Correspondent! A WFRP blog about life in the Imperial capital.
"All editions of D&D are awesome." - Fifth Element (EN World Forums, 2008)
”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering (Steve Jackson Games, 2002)
Oh, I think having the brand "Dungeons & Dragons" to put on a product might help just a teensy bit....
Your quote is out of context. I am talking about the principal perspectives of the gaming market. Brand name is a value, but the entertainment and creative markets are by their nature volatile. D&D has remained relevant in the market so far only by trying to keep reinventing parts of itself but this cant go on for ever. In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.
"Worlds sell games" was the dominating school of thought among many game designers at the time, myself included.
I'm still not sure that is totally wrong, as I believe not many roleplaying games could sell strictly on rules even today, unless they are D&D or linked to D&D somehow (e.g. by being a retro-clone or Pathfinder).
So IMO World is still important for many games, but maybe not so much for D&D.
/M
I don't know. Savage Worlds, for example, is worldless by design and seems to be doing pretty healthily.
I get what you're saying, but, I think the market is big enough that generic games can chug along as well.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Did this guy not trash Paizo in the first post for lowering the price of the their PDF version of the PFRPG to 10 bucks? (I mean "Pathfinder Effect" en wot?)
Then in the final post he lowers the price of one of his core PDFs to 1.80$
from 9$?
That is the exact same price cut ratio he was crying about Paizo using. Seems silly to me. I think this guys is crying just to hear the sound of his voice. There is some insight to be found hidden between the garbage in the post. But most of it reads to me as anger over the state of his own affairs, rather than industry insight. Comparing his small shop to large players and assuming that he knows about how they work or should be working based on his experience with very small shops, seems to me like a berry farmer assuming that he knows everything about growing melons because they are both fruit.
Here's my favorite bit I think, though there's so much fail here.
That is very funny!
The second paragraph you quoted basically boils down to "I think you will make crappy products, and if you do make crappy products they will fail." Well, technically, the second part of that is correct. If D&D 3.0 was unintelligible garbage, I'm pretty sure it would have tanked. Doesn't take any insider knowledge to guess that horribly bad products won't sell well.
The third paragraph is typical narrow-vision punditry. The more and more I read "insider opinions" the more I think they are probably not worth nearly as much as we think they are. It seems to be VERY common to view everyone else's companies through the lens of your own experience. That's like newspapers printing movie reviews from competing directors. Or even worse, having someone who makes PBS documentaries commenting on the viability of the latest Hollywood blockbuster or vice versa. Although they can be a mixed bag of usefulness, at least with movies there is a group of commentators outside of the film industry. Here in RPGs, we have to put up with publishers telling other publishers "If you did everything my way, you wouldn't fail!" or even just taking their own experiences and extrapolating to the entire industry. Thankfully, some are smart enough to merely claim "This is my experience, your mileage may vary."
But, going out of order, I really like that first paragraph the most. It is so very funny that someone who otherwise has a decent idea what he is doing can be so remarkably wrong. Anytime anyone claims to predict what will happen to the industry or claim to know what is best for another publisher should be made to write that paragraph out 100 times on the chalkboard. That is a classic!
"Worlds sell games" was the dominating school of thought among many game designers at the time, myself included.
I'm still not sure that is totally wrong, as I believe not many roleplaying games could sell strictly on rules even today, unless they are D&D or linked to D&D somehow (e.g. by being a retro-clone or Pathfinder).
So IMO World is still important for many games, but maybe not so much for D&D.
/M
I'm not sure that was ever true, at least, not in the way that people thought it was true.
D&D existed before Greyhawk and it existed for quite awhile before Forgotten Realms showed up.
The Dragonlance modules didn't even have a PRIMER of the world until DL 4 or DL 5 as I recall, having been buying them religiously as they were released.
I found the tantalizing hints of the world from the short stories and previews in Dragon magazine exciting and they added a lot of color to the modules, but the modules clearly didn't need the world supplement to be successful.
In fact, what the WORLD of Dragonlance sold was the novels.
Which is great- it was a huge discovery of a new gaming business model, to use game worlds to feed novels, which then feed back into game worlds.
It made TSR a lot of money, as well as companies who also used this business model, like FASA, which coincidentally got Mike Stackpole his start as a novel writer, writing Battletech novels.
But I really don't think the game has ever NEEDED published game worlds. They're a nice, optional game supplement, like splatbooks and modules.
Your quote is out of context. I am talking about the principal perspectives of the gaming market. Brand name is a value, but the entertainment and creative markets are by their nature volatile. D&D has remained relevant in the market so far only by trying to keep reinventing parts of itself but this cant go on for ever. In fact, 4e being a more focused and less versatile game shows that the cycle of the business model D&D has had so far has been closing as a long living entity of a certain traditional identity.
Dude - being tongue-in-cheek there....
(This is where I wish ENWORLD had more emoticons sometimes)
On the serious side, I think the value is pretty high - so much so that I catch wind on many of the boards dedicated to the OSR, where people are happy with the "alternative channels" for retro-clone successes, yet even when happy there's always the wistful wish "wouldn't be great if OFFICIAL D&D just went back and reprinted the the 1e, the 2e, OD&D, etc. rules...." - the want for that brand name to be on top of one's favorite rules set is pretty strong, and leads to really amazing amounts of animosity between gamers.
Of course that could derail thread into another "what IS 'D&D'?" which I promise I don't want to do
__________________ John Maddog Wright
"In the Immortal Words of Socrates.... I Drank What!?"
Did this guy not trash Paizo in the first post for lowering the price of the their PDF version of the PFRPG to 10 bucks? (I mean "Pathfinder Effect" en wot?)
Then in the final post he lowers the price of one of his core PDFs to 1.80$
from 9$?
That is the exact same price cut ratio he was crying about Paizo using. Seems silly to me.
He could try to pass it off as "Argh! See what Paizo is forcing me to do because they sell for so low!"
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
