Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?

Sir Edgar · Sep 13, 2002

Does anyone else think that WOTC is mismanaging D&D? With the wealth of knowledge that has been built up over the years, I cannot understand why they can't even put their products together right. In some cases, all they have to do is re-package past materials and update the stats to 3rd edition! But instead they continue to publish incomplete books with often times useless information, while forgoing good stuff from the previous products.

For example, Monster Manual and Monster Manual II has a lot of worthless monsters in there and yet excludes so many great ones they had in the past. Now Necromancer Games is coming out with Tome of Horrors to fill in any gaps. Why are there ANY gaps in the first place??? Really, I don't know why they included monsters with names like the "Choker", "Cloaker", or "Digester" in Monster Manual and "Breath Drinker", "Dark Clutcher", and "Deathbringer" in Monster Manual II. And yet they left out monsters like the Aerial Servant, Brownie, Hippocampus, Kelpie, Leprechaun, Mongrelman, Nereid, Spriggan, and Yeti.

Also, with all of the information they had in past materials, why couldn't they come out with a better Stronghold Builder's Guidebook? It doesn't even include stats tables from prior hardcover rulebooks.

And why is it so difficult to find product information on WOTC's web site? I can't even navigate around to get previous news on past releases. Where is that article about Monster Manual II that was just there a couple of weeks ago? I had to find it through another web site's link!

Am I alone on feeling this way about WOTC?

Xeriar · Sep 13, 2002

The only one I really miss is the slyph...

ahem

My opinion is that Hasbro is mismanaging WotC, and we are seeing a trickle-down effect, so I really can't vote.

shadoe · Sep 13, 2002

To be perfectly honest, I also think it is more Hasbro mismanaging WOTC.

Although I don't mind them not putting a lot of the monsters from the previous editions into the 3rd edition monster manuals, I would rather see a mix of old and new monster's and convert the old ones that have been left out on my own.

Buttercup · Sep 13, 2002

Re: Is WOTC mismanaging D&D?

Sir Edgar said:
Does anyone else think that WOTC is mismanaging D&D? With the wealth of knowledge that has been built up over the years, I cannot understand why they can't even put their products together right. In some cases, all they have to do is re-package past materials and update the stats to 3rd edition! But instead they continue to publish incomplete books with often times useless information, while forgoing good stuff from the previous products.

In what way are their products not put together correctly? Which procucts do you believe are incomplete, and how, exactly? What information do you deem useless, and how do you know that all other purchasers find it so as well?

For example, Monster Manual and Monster Manual II has a lot of worthless monsters in there and yet excludes so many great ones they had in the past.

What makes a monster worthless in your eyes? What if other purchasers don't find them so?

Now Necromancer Games is coming out with Tome of Horrors to fill in any gaps. Why are there ANY gaps in the first place??? Really, I don't know why they included monsters with names like the "Choker", "Cloaker", or "Digester" in Monster Manual and "Breath Drinker", "Dark Clutcher", and "Deathbringer" in Monster Manual II. And yet they left out monsters like the Aerial Servant, Brownie, Hippocampus, Kelpie, Leprechaun, Mongrelman, Nereid, Spriggan, and Yeti.

Possibly because they wanted to give us some new monsters?

Also, with all of the information they had in past materials, why couldn't they come out with a better Stronghold Builder's Guidebook? It doesn't even include stats tables from prior hardcover rulebooks.

Maybe because they wanted to avoid being accused of 'just reprinting an old product?'

And why is it so difficult to find product information on WOTC's web site? I can't even navigate around to get previous news on past releases. Where is that article about Monster Manual II that was just there a couple of weeks ago? I had to find it through another web site's link!

I don't know. I haven't had much trouble finding things on their website.

Am I alone on feeling this way about WOTC?

I know I certainly don't agree with you. Perhaps if you provided more detail on your concerns, instead of generalizations, you would have a better chance of convincing people.

Sir Edgar · Sep 13, 2002

I had it "WOTC/Hasbro" on the poll question, but I guess you didn't see that. Nevertheless, I edited the subject to "WOTC/Hasbro", too.

Anyhow, continuing my original post, I really don't understand what they're doing and why they're doing it. If they're going to just focus primarily on the hardcover rulebooks and softcover splatbooks, why not do a good job at it. After all, it is the owner of D&D who establishes the standard rules for the game that everyone else is suggested to follow. Why can't they come out with solid and complete products! I don't mind having to buy campaign settings and adventures from third-party (d20) publishers, but get the main books you publish right!!!

Wolfen Priest · Sep 13, 2002

First of all, I unabashedly voted yes. But really, it depends on your definition of "mismanagement."

Sir Edgar said:
... the Monster Manual and Monster Manual II has a lot of worthless monsters in there and yet excludes so many great ones they had in the past. Now Necromancer Games is coming out with Tome of Horrors to fill in any gaps. Why are there ANY gaps in the first place??? Really, I don't know why they included monsters with names like the "Choker", "Cloaker", or "Digester" in Monster Manual and "Breath Drinker", "Dark Clutcher", and "Deathbringer" in Monster Manual II. And yet they left out monsters like the Aerial Servant, Brownie, Hippocampus, Kelpie, Leprechaun, Mongrelman, Nereid, Spriggan, and Yeti.

It's always been obvious to me why they did this; brand new creatures in the books (rather than re-hashed old ones) means you actually have to buy the book to know what the stats are of a, say, Bodak for example. It's all about dollars and sense with WotC, as we all know.

However, I do wonder why, if it truly is all about $ with them, did they decide to produce so much crap lately. I mean, Dieties & Demigods was not worth buying, IMHO (which is why I didn't buy it BTW, I could tell immediately it was completely useless), that Book of Challenges seems pretty dull, the ELH did not quite live up to people's expectations (although I'm still very unclear on what those expectations actually were), and the Stronghold builder's guidebook really failed to inspire.

basically, what I see happening to WotC is they are having a lack of good _product_ideas_. I know everyone is supposedly drooling over the Book of Vile Darkness, but if it costs $30 (which I think it is, am I correct?), I'm starting to ask myself if it is really worth it to me ... yet that is WotC's "Big Project" that they approved. I guess time will tell how much money they make on it. Because that's the only thing that will ever matter to Hasbro shareholders.

Grazzt · Sep 13, 2002

Xeriar said:
The only one I really miss is the slyph...

Uh...the Sylph is in the MM2.

Xeriar · Sep 13, 2002

Uh...the Sylph is in the MM2.

I don't have it yet, won't till tonight, but thanks! Woohoo!

the Jester · Sep 13, 2002

I'd say yes, in that they're firing most of their best talent.

Sir Edgar · Sep 13, 2002

Re: Re: Is WOTC mismanaging D&D?

Buttercup said:
In what way are their products not put together correctly? Which procucts do you believe are incomplete, and how, exactly? What information do you deem useless, and how do you know that all other purchasers find it so as well?

I believe I clearly stated examples of products I feel are incomplete and how. To summarize: Monster Manual and Monster Manual II are not complete because they leave out a lot of monsters they had before.

The information I deem useless are some of the monsters they did include (I gave examples, please re-read the post if you still have problems understanding this).

I never said that I "know that all other purchasers find it so as well". That's why I am posting a poll to find out what others think. I don't think "all other purchasers" will agree with me. I never said that so please read carefully before you put words in another person's mouth.

Buttercup said:
What makes a monster worthless in your eyes? What if other purchasers don't find them so?

Their names sound moronic and they look unrealistic.

Buttercup said:
Possibly because they wanted to give us some new monsters?

New monsters are great. Just put some good ones in there, too.

Buttercup said:
Maybe because they wanted to avoid being accused of 'just reprinting an old product?'

Using your logic, "maybe" they shouldn't have included monsters like Goblin, Manticore, and Orc either "to avoid being accused of 'just reprinting and old product'".

Buttercup said:
I don't know. I haven't had much trouble finding things on their website.

Good for you.

Buttercup said:
I know I certainly don't agree with you. Perhaps if you provided more detail on your concerns, instead of generalizations, you would have a better chance of convincing people.

That's fine. I respect your opinion and that's why I posted this poll to find out what other people think. But some advice for you, too: perhaps you should read more carefully before you post. Thanks.