D&D 4E Can WotC Cater to Past Editions Without Compromising 4e Design?

[Scribble]

I'm still confused as to why they would feel the need to "kill Pathfinder" as others have brought up.

If they're just trying to begin once again supporting older editions by selling product, DDI space, etc... who cares if people use that stuff with Pathfinder or not- They're still buying the product.

I buy a lot of GURPS stuff because the info in their books often times is outstanding even when I'm not using the GURPS system, but I doubt Steve Jackson cares. He's just cashing the checks.


I think my main question is wondering if it's a good buisness move to every so many years discontinue support (somewhat abruptly) for something that has a lot of fans with the hope that they'll like where you're going, even though there will be some that get angry and right or wrong consider themselves "forgotten." (And these fans tend to be gamers for life and willing to hold a grudge...)

Will the buildup of these "forgotten" fans eventually create an overload?


That's I think the reason I'm wondering if continuing to support the old editions wouldn't be a better way.

Even if that support is continuing to keep the core books for each edition in print, some articles in the DDI, and maybe some of the "big name" books/setting material?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm still confused as to why they would feel the need to "kill Pathfinder" as others have brought up.

If they're just trying to begin once again supporting older editions by selling product, DDI space, etc... who cares if people use that stuff with Pathfinder or not- They're still buying the product.

I buy a lot of GURPS stuff because the info in their books often times is outstanding even when I'm not using the GURPS system, but I doubt Steve Jackson cares. He's just cashing the checks.


I think my main question is wondering if it's a good buisness move to every so many years discontinue support (somewhat abruptly) for something that has a lot of fans with the hope that they'll like where you're going, even though there will be some that get angry and right or wrong consider themselves "forgotten." (And these fans tend to be gamers for life and willing to hold a grudge...)

Will the buildup of these "forgotten" fans eventually create an overload?


That's I think the reason I'm wondering if continuing to support the old editions wouldn't be a better way.

Even if that support is continuing to keep the core books for each edition in print, some articles in the DDI, and maybe some of the "big name" books/setting material?

I think you are right on the money with the build up of forgotten fans.The recession helped also. I think that there is money to be made to support the older games via DDI. By support in this instance, no new material, except as Dragon and Dungeon articles by freelancers.

Once the 4e tools are up and running and stable then compendium level support could be added for those older editions also. Maybe even character builder support. Or at least separate character builders. I think that compendium support would be fairly easy but character builder stuff would not be profitable on its own. It could be worth it as loss leader to get the old crowd on board though.

 

[Wayside]

You say that as if it's a trivial thing.

From a software development perspective it actually is. The amount of difficulty WotC has had with the DDI is not indicative of how difficult the DDI should actually be .

However, the major selling point of DDI is the tools, especially the Character Builder. And those are tied very closely to 4e. You can't simply add 3e support to those tools; the software simply won't allow it. And stretching the existing tools to do this would actually be more work than simply starting over and developing an entirely new 3e Character Builder (and Monster Builder, Compendium, and anything else they have in the pipeline that is tied to 4e).

Yup, I was referring to the tools. It's really not as hard as all that, especially if the existing tools were designed correctly. I'd do it myself (from scratch, obviously) for 3.5 and Pathfinder if the licenses were more permissive/more of the games were OGC.

Now, it might be worth doing this, if the number of 3e players (or, rather, likely customers) is still sufficiently high, or if WotC believe that doing this would kill Pathfinder. But I wouldn't bet on either; I certainly wouldn't bet the entire future of D&D on it - and that's the sort of investment we'd be talking about.

We know that the number of 3.X players is sufficiently high. That's one obvious reason. A corollary to this is that while I wouldn't expect it to kill Pathfinder, I would expect Pathfinder players to find a comprehensive 3.X reference very appealing. 4e and Pathfinder players subscribing to the same service? Sacrebleu!

I don't know what to say to 'betting the entire future of D&D.' That's some crazy hyperbole.

 

[delericho]

From a software development perspective it actually is. The amount of difficulty WotC has had with the DDI is not indicative of how difficult the DDI should actually be .

No, but it's likely indicative of how much trouble WotC would find expanding the DDI to support 3e.

Yup, I was referring to the tools. It's really not as hard as all that, especially if the existing tools were designed correctly.

Leaving aside the very great likelihood that they weren't, I think you'll find it significantly more difficult than you'd expect. The existing tools are built using the assumptions of 4e (all classes get +1 per two levels, no 3e-style multiclassing, all classes get powers). A 3e set of tools would need to handle a significantly different set of assumptions, to the point where it may well be easier to start again from scratch. That's not to say it can't be done, but it would be a lot of effort.

I'd do it myself (from scratch, obviously) for 3.5 and Pathfinder if the licenses were more permissive/more of the games were OGC.

A fan-made tool for a single expert user is a vastly different proposition to a professional-level tool intended for thousands of users of varying levels of skill.

We know that the number of 3.X players is sufficiently high.

Actually, we don't; many (most?) have now moved over to Pathfinder, which is a different matter again. Additionally, while there might be enough players, what percentage of them would become customers, especially after years of being ignored and given WotC's extremely poor track record with D&D software support?

Bear in mind that some new subscribers is not enough. You need thousands of new subscriptions to make it worthwhile.

I don't know what to say to 'betting the entire future of D&D.' That's some crazy hyperbole.

No, actually, it's not.

At this point, the DDI holds the future of D&D as an RPG. If it fails, D&D gets cancelled. And DDI has a bad track record of losing lots of money on failed tools: Gleemax, the 3D gametable, the Character Visualiser, the offline Character Builder (great tool, but it had to be replaced, so it's a failure), the first Monster Builder... You can only go on so long before the whole project gets deemed "not worth it" and gets canned.

Adding tool support for 3e would require a big investment in new tools that might bring in new subscribers. But if it doesn't, that's another expensive write off to hang on DDI.

So, yeah, I'm of the opinion that if they tried to support 3e with software in DDI, it would likely mean the end of D&D as an RPG.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If I was in charge of DDI and I would hold off supporting any previous version of D&D until the 4e tools are feature complete.

THen I would start with compendium level support of OD&D, AD&D and some version of Basic D&D (probably Rules Cyclopedia)

That would be easy to implement and not cost much. If that attracted new subscribers then I would consider re-issuing the books in some epub format under DDI. Probably initially extend the electronic Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron archive to the beginning.

Then if that was a success I would allow monster inports of the original monsters into the VTT.

I would leave 3.x support until last. 3.x is already supported electronically via the srds and it is the most complex version of the game outside 4e. So the most expensive to support.

 

[Dark Mistress]

There seems to be several intertwined conversations going on at once in this thread.

1) Do I think a new version of DnD could appeal to older editions and to current? I think it is possible, but highly unlikely. It would be a high risk vs high reward, with a screw up likely being the death of DnD if it fell in between and they lost the 4e players mostly and gain almost none of the old players. So I think it would be a mistake.

2) Could new products be made to appeal to 4e and older editions at the same time? Honestly no, the design and game play for 4e I think is to different to pull it off. I think one or more of the editions would just have a odd tacked on feel and worse case is all of them do and it doesn't play to the strengths of any of them enough.

3) Can WotC cater to 4e and older editions as a company? Can they sure but unless they higher more people it would cut into 4e design. I think there best bet would be to make better PDF's of older edition books and sell them and offer them as a PoD. I do agree with Scribbler that even if people bought the books to play with Pathfinder or a retro clone who cares. A sold book is a sold book. Especially once the new scans for PDF's was done it wouldn't have any over head anymore. So once enough of each book was sold to pay for the time and such for the new PDF, it would then just be pure profit.

I honestly don't think them selling older editions in PDF and PoD would have a big impact on who plays what. I do think it would generate some sales and a lot of good will, which honestly the second I think is more important than the first for WotC. Especially if they plan a 5e in the near future. Getting a positive rep before then so the maximum number of people will at least check out 5e when it comes I think would make any time and effort into older edition PDF's pay off if 5e is any good at all.

Of course that's just my personal opinion and could be wrong, but obviously I don't think I am.

 

[Pour]

If I was in charge of DDI and I would hold off supporting any previous version of D&D until the 4e tools are feature complete.

THen I would start with compendium level support of OD&D, AD&D and some version of Basic D&D (probably Rules Cyclopedia)

That would be easy to implement and not cost much. If that attracted new subscribers then I would consider re-issuing the books in some epub format under DDI. Probably initially extend the electronic Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron archive to the beginning.

Then if that was a success I would allow monster inports of the original monsters into the VTT.

I would leave 3.x support until last. 3.x is already supported electronically via the srds and it is the most complex version of the game outside 4e. So the most expensive to support.

I largely agree with you, but I would actually start by introducing the books and modules, since those could still prove useful to 4e players in terms of setting, fluff, inspiration and adventure framework (and I'd couple this with a new bi-monthly conversion in Dungeon, like a FULL old school adventure made into 4e), and if enough clamor was then made for the original rules, release those in the Compendium. With the news many of the Eberron books will be made available for a nominal fee under a yearly 'Eberron Library' plan, I have some hope.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I largely agree with you, but I would actually start by introducing the books and modules, since those could still prove useful to 4e players in terms of setting, fluff, inspiration and adventure framework (and I'd couple this with a new bi-monthly conversion in Dungeon, like a FULL old school adventure made into 4e), and if enough clamor was then made for the original rules, release those in the Compendium. With the news many of the Eberron books will be made available for a nominal fee under a yearly 'Eberron Library' plan, I have some hope.

my impression is that the quality of the pdfs of the old stuff is less than stellar then they would have to be cleaned up. If that is the case one might as well also put the material into the compendium. I am assuming the current data structure would handle it. (I see no obvious reason why not).
Several people buy DDi for the Compendium alone, it is a pretty compelling app.

 

[Pour]

my impression is that the quality of the pdfs of the old stuff is less than stellar then they would have to be cleaned up. If that is the case one might as well also put the material into the compendium. I am assuming the current data structure would handle it. (I see no obvious reason why not).
Several people buy DDi for the Compendium alone, it is a pretty compelling app.

Yeah, it does beg to question if you put up all this material for use, why not also put up the rules for playing it that way. Yeah, Compendium is worth the price alone for me, given the amount I use it, I don't think it'd be too too difficult, though they'd have to make some sort of separation- likely in the advanced search, a box to check 1e or 4e, to signify which database to search for 'skeleton' or what have you.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah, it does beg to question if you put up all this material for use, why not also put up the rules for playing it that way. Yeah, Compendium is worth the price alone for me, given the amount I use it, I don't think it'd be too too difficult, though they'd have to make some sort of separation- likely in the advanced search, a box to check 1e or 4e, to signify which database to search for 'skeleton' or what have you.

Partisioning could be done by holding the editions in separate datastores.
They by selecting the appropiate compendium one is connected to identical software that points to a different instance of the datastore.
The real work is populating the datastore in the first place.