The Escapist on D&D Past, Present, and Future

[Argyle King]

I'm surprised by this attitude - he is, after all, someone who knows a lot about the business side of the hobby, and has been extraordinarily influential - without him, D&D might have died with TSR; without him, there wouldn't be an OGL and all the games and current support it allows.

You might not agree with his conclusions, you might not like him personally, but it would be foolish to dismiss his thoughts out of hand IMO.

Cheers

I have absolutely nothing against him personally; I honestly did not recognize the name. It rang no bells for me until I read the article.

I do take issue with the constant doomsday predictions. Everybody has a right to their opinion; I even understand why his is what he says it is, but I believe he's basing his opinion on evidence which does not necessarily support what he wants it to support. He has numbers, and I appreciate sharing an opinion based upon data rather than speculation, but I am not convinced that his way of reading the data and the tea leaves associated with that data is the correct way.

I'm glad he was successful in his previous endeavors. However, when I read the article, his status as a designer and/or professional among the industry is not what made me remember who he was. The doomsday prophecy is what clicked in my head.

 

[Windjammer]

I wonder how much of [Ryan's] comments had to do with the MMORPG he's trying to stand up.

And I wonder what inclines you, you personally, in the first place to slander his comments - and his follow up comments ("wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole") - by an underhanded ad hominem like that.

It'd be like saying,

"I wonder how much Matt James' defensive posting of late has to do with his freelance money coming from WotC."

Or, in an even more passive-aggressive way, I could simply quote the following exchange in which Ari Marmell lashed out at fellow-WotC freelancer Frank Brunner for "wanton misrepresentation" about 4E's sales success, implying that Brunner was simply going for sour grapes, having not landed a freelance gig at WotC for a while - and imply Matt is quickly going down Ari's way.

[Whatever Frank wrote is] No more [influenced by his own situation] than the "I like it / I'm invested in it / I'm writing for it, so it's obviously a success" shtick is. Not by any means.

Don't even try to play that card. The fact that I'm a freelancer doesn't prevent me from having my own opinions. (And frankly, I was perfectly prepared to hate the game, learn it purely for professional reasons, but keep playing 3.5. I'm grateful it didn't work out that way, but it could have.) I have never once, on ENWorld, expressed an opinion that I didn't honestly feel. I may choose not to say anything, rather than be negative, but if I claim to like something gaming related, it's because I like it, not because I may or may not do some work for the company. Frankly, I'm not important enough in the scheme of things for <acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">WotC</acronym> to care what I say on a messageboard, as long as I don't violate my NDA. And you've been around long enough to know that.

Whether it’s a true claim or not is irrelevant at this point, because frankly it’s a public perception and reputation that you’ve garnered for yourself here and elsewhere. You’ve been a poster-child <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> fanboy at times, and you’ve lashed out pretty damn harshly against people who have the audacity to impugn <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> or suggest that it might not be the roaring success that you want and you need it to be. The initial sales were good, but beyond that only <acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">WotC</acronym> knows for sure, and unless they’re sharing sales figures with you, you don’t know either. They’ve had a year of horrendous PR, the death of a major investment in Gleemax, and tons of people angry at them for reasons various and sundry regarding the marketing and substance of <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym>. All that said, for good or for ill Ari, you’ve hitched your professional star to <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> for a year now. You have a very strongly vested stake in seeing <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> succeed and you’ve come out at times to angrily defend it against anyone that might push more bad PR about <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym> in <acronym title="Wizards of the Coast">WotC</acronym>’s direction.

From here. I'd simply post the link, but Enworld insists on doing page links when linking single posts, and these differ depending on your posts-per-page adjustments.

I could offer that in a direct vein, but I don't. Rather I'd simply recommend you to not go for publically discrediting other industry figures in the suggestive manner you tried. You're not in a position to, and it only rebounds back on your own head in a manner that few readers will find flattering.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm sure Matt understands that people have to take his own opinions with a grain of salt, due to his financial bias. I don't see how that negates his apparent concern over the validity of someone else's opinions or claims.

Personally my first thought on reading the article was "Wait if this is real information how is it not under NDA?"

 

[Hussar]

I'm also curious how the idea of less publishers=less sales. That's not necessarily a point that can be presumed. After all, there are less distributors, but, again, that doesn't mean that there are less books being sold today than 20 years ago. Quite the opposite in fact. Same with cars. At one point there were a HELL of a lot more car companies out there than there are now, yet, every year more cars are being sold worldwide.

Less distibutors and less game stores =\= a shrinking market. It might, but, again, it might not. It might simply be a sign of a maturing market.

 

[xechnao]

I think that in the 80s and 90s people had to go out to meet each other, to communicate and consume so they went out a lot more than they do now, where they may choose instead to conveniently put some of their free time on online communities like enworld, rpg.net and what have you.
This is a reason that some retail meeting and selling points like hobby stores close doors. This is not a matter of consolidation as it may be the case of fewer distributors. It is a matter of shrinkage of a certain kind of business that faces new and solid competition: the internet.This does not mean though that this physical retail business will eclipse. It just means that it has to become smaller.

The biggest publishers of tabletop games do not necessarily face fewer sales because of this matter. They may face a problem though due to a loss of their ability to retain the focus of the network effects around them since information channels nowadays are much more extensive. And if network effects grow weaker it means the value of their product shrinks. This also means that internet piracy may become a real problem, since people are much more willing to spend money on something that they perceive of greater value than something that they perceive of lesser value.
OTOH, smaller publishers are viable to take a shot and succeed due to their access and reach to the modern information and production channels.

So, it is kind of a totally different era than 10 years ago.

 

[Cergorach]

I'm also curious how the idea of less publishers=less sales. That's not necessarily a point that can be presumed. After all, there are less distributors, but, again, that doesn't mean that there are less books being sold today than 20 years ago. Quite the opposite in fact. Same with cars. At one point there were a HELL of a lot more car companies out there than there are now, yet, every year more cars are being sold worldwide.

Less distibutors and less game stores == a shrinking market. It might, but, again, it might not. It might simply be a sign of a maturing market.

Comparing the automobile industry with the TRPG industry is like comparing Apples with Skyscrapers. Automobiles are a necessity for most, the developing nations (Like China) are primarily why car sales were rising at that rate. But also cars get old and need to be replaced, then newer model cars are more complex (component/electronics) which become more expensive to maintain and break more easily then cars made a couple of decades ago.

You don't 'need' a new RPG because the old one broke down.

 

[SkidAce]

I appreciate Ryan Dancy writing that article and his insights into the process.

I also thank for the OGL.

 

[Klaus]

D&D could have a better acquisition machine in place, based on this:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Heroes of Hesiod)

Why isn't Monster Slayers: Heroes of Hesiod available in toy stores worldwide, alongside Monopoly or Mousetrap?
__________________

 

[Matt James]

And I wonder what inclines you, you personally, in the first place to slander his comments - and his follow up comments ("wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole") - by an underhanded ad hominem like that.

I'm not seeing the slander, but we could have different definitions. I also write for both Paizo and WotC. I love each game for what it is. I also accept that I take heat from both fan-bases when I try to interject logic. Am I not free to question motives?

 

[Herschel]

4E is not complex, not exactly detailed and certainly not difficult, it's 4E's only strengths imho...

Wow, you have never played or even read 4E rules have you. Your entire post was nothing short of pure edition warring steeped in a lack of knowledge.

4E is an extremely complex game, just at the table vs. prep time. It's more about interactions instead of what once character can do itself.