"Core" and Business Models

[Ragnar_Deerslayer]

By putting out a new PHB, MM, and DMG each year, and designating them "Core," WotC is attempting to move from a production-based economic model towards a (semi-)subscription-based economic model. This is a proven business model – ever heard of "planned obsolescence?" Companies don't just want high sales, they want ongoing sales. Anybody remember the WotC Designer Dump? A short while after Third Edition came out, WotC downsized, losing a lot of their braintrust because they couldn't afford to pay them once the massive sales of the core books levelled off. One might interpret the release of the Revised books as a purely economic attempt to re-tap the "core books" sales figures. (Monte Cook, IIRC, said that the Revised books were planned from before the release of the 3.0 books, but by the businessmen, not by the designers.) This didn't work well; although lots of people re-bought the books, it made WotC lose a lot of credibility with their customer base.

Well, we've been promised we won't have a "4.5." I, for one, believe them. Why? The economic motivation that drove 3.5 is being diverted into producing a new "core trilogy" each year. In a sense every year will be a "4.5;" but in another sence, each "4.5" will be less of a rehash of the earlier rules, and more new material. (And we're being told about the plan in advance.)

So. This is what WotC is doing, and it makes perfect business sense for them to do it. The question is, what does that mean for the players? Practically speaking, what difference does it make for WotC to slap the words "Core Rulebook" on the front cover? What does "Core" mean, anyway?

Well, you could say "Core" is the minimum amount necessary to run a game of D&D. But technically, you could run a game with the original 3.0 PHB (it included a brief appendix with a half-dozen monsters and a treasure table), and nobody considered that the "core."

Another definition is "what you need to run a complete game of D&D." But what is complete? Surely, we won't be playing "incomplete" games of 4E for a year before the PHB II, MM II, and DMG II come out!

A better definition, I think, would be "what everyone who publishes for D&D accepts as core." And here we might have some difficulty. By definition, I think WotC will publish adventures and supplements that will need everything labeled "Core" to use. (If they don't, then "Core" is nothing more than an advertising gimmick.) But will all the third-party publishers do so? I think it depends entirely on what's in the SRD.

And that's the trick, isn't it? Because in August 2010, there'll be three PHBs, three MMs, and three DMGs on the market. If all of them are necessary for a new DM to get a game up and running with WotC's new module, "Return to the City of the Spider Queen," then the barrier to entry will be so high there won't be any new blood. But if all the crunchy bits are in the SRD, the DM can get a single PHB, MM, and DMG, then look up and print out whatever else he needs online. The barrier to entry will be lower, but for many people, the convenience of having the actual books (once they've accepted the content) will make the purchases worthwhile.

If it's not in the SRD, the third-party publishers won't support it, and will create their own versions of "Frost Giants" (aka "Ice Giants," aka "Freeze Giants," etc.) and release them OGL (which I suspect they'll do anyway, at least for the popular monsters; I don't see Necromancer Games putting off a product for a year or two just to have "Official Canonized WotC Frost Giants" in their modules).

So: if it's in the SRD, you can buy it, but won't need to; if it's not, the third-party publishers will take up (at least some of) the slack. We're good either way. (I personally knew more players than not who used the SRD for 3.5 rather than re-buying all their books.)

Another issue is the fear of "crippleware" – the Monster Manual I not having iconic D&D monsters, the PHB not having iconic D&D races/classes, etc, in order to coerce us into buying the next year's books. I don't think the MM will have sucky monsters – there are too many 3.x monster books to pick good monsters from – but, once again, I think the third-party publishers will take up the slack. (Necromancer Games has already announced plans for a fourth ed Tome of Horrors.)

Finally, "Core" may mean DMs who don't want certain elements in their games are faced with a chorus of "But it's Coooooooorrre!" from their players. I am one of them. I don't just game with my best friends; I meet many people by gaming with them, and I'd just rather not have to deal with such arguments at all. Oh, well.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Another issue is the fear of "crippleware" – the Monster Manual I not having iconic D&D monsters, the PHB not having iconic D&D races/classes, etc, in order to coerce us into buying the next year's books.

This is a real concern of mine. I do NOT like the idea of "Rulebooks as Booster-packs" of rules. I quit M:tG and never got into collectible minis for this very reason.

It WotC goes this route for D&D, it will really earn my ire. And, I suspect, the ire of many others. That's a real problem for companies that deal in IP in the age of file-sharing. The only thing that keeps people buying their products (instead of just downloading them off Kazaa, or whatever) is reasonable price and customer good will. You need them both, because if your potential customer dislike you enough they won't pay even $1.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This is a real concern of mine. I do NOT like the idea of "Rulebooks as Booster-packs" of rules. I quit M:tG and never got into collectible minis for this very reason.

This concerns me, too. 3E addressed some of the perceived problems of the 2E era. One of those problems was picking up a module and having it reference you to some book you needed to own in order to use it - this was a particular problem with Planescape, IIRC, and one of the reasons I never bought any Planescape product after the first boxed set.

I'd like to see this concern directly addressed. I'd hate to think that WoTC was in danger of making some old mistakes all over again.

 

[wedgeski]

I've never found "Why should I pay for something that should have been in there from the start?!" a very compelling criticism about anything, really, mostly because many people's idea of "something that should have been in there from the start" includes anything they want and find they now have to pay for. Legitimate gripes are, IME, few and far between. Wizards would have to miss out some pretty fundamental monsters to call the 4e MM1 "crippled".

In this case, one man's "iconic" is another man's "never used it". For me, frost giants fall into that category. Secondly, if it's not there, make it up. It's not like we won't have the rules or the wherewithall to do it. It's not a car that you buy and find doesn't come with seats. Thirdly, this kind of criticism seems mightily unreasonable when levelled at a company that is going to be giving away most of D&D's crunch in the SRD (I assume).

Alternatively, you could look on the bright side. If Wizards label something 'core', there really is no excuse whatsoever for not adding it to the SRD. As in everything, only time will tell.

 

[kerbarian]

Another issue is the fear of "crippleware" – the Monster Manual I not having iconic D&D monsters, the PHB not having iconic D&D races/classes, etc, in order to coerce us into buying the next year's books.

That was the first thing I thought of when listening to the podcast bit about frost giants being left out. He pretty much outright stated that that's what they're doing -- intentionally leaving out iconic monsters so that people will be more likely to buy the subsequent MMs.

After thinking about it a bit, I'm still annoyed by the approach, but I'm not too concerned about it. I've always thought of "core only" as a constraint the DM places on the players, not a constraint the DM places on himself. It's not nice to let the bad guys use rules that you're not giving the PCs access to, so generally the DM wants to stick to core only in those cases, too, but monsters are an exception. If I were playing a core-only campaign and the BBEG had levels in a non-core prestige class that I had wanted to use, I'd feel a little cheated. OTOH, if I were playing in a core campaign, and we ran into some creatures from MM3, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Basically, I'm fine with treating core as PH1, DMG1, and as many MMs as the DM feels like using. In practice, that's what it's always been for me anyway.

The problem is, of course, that this strategy probably isn't limited to the MM. We'll probably be missing some iconic magic items from the DMG1, and we know we'll probably be missing some previously-core classes and races from the PH1.

For the PH1 in particular, though, they're not going to try this stunt to any significant degree. They're not going to leave out dwarves or wizards just so you have to buy the PH2 for their rules. The PH1 will determine the momentum (or not) of 4e, and they're going to make it the best book they can, to hook the largest possible number of 3e (or earlier) players on the new cycle of books. As such, I suspect the PH1 will serve pretty well as "core" for players who don't want to deal with an endless stream of new books (i.e. the same people who play core-only in 3e).

 

[Desdichado]

Just out of curiousity---from where do we know this business model and how it will work exactly? I try to keep up with the news items, but somehow I've missed this one. Linky please?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

This s could seriously be the one thing that could seriously delay my adopting 4E. I've been pretty positive about the ruleset, but if the first core books are missing a serious amount of stuff I feel I need to play, I"ll just wait. I don't think I'd have any problems waiting for 2 years to start 4E.

 

[DaveMage]

I'd like to hear from Wormwood and MerricB as to what they think of this model too.

I think it is a terrible idea, but I'm coming at it from an anti-4E view.

Can anyone offer a compelling argument why this is a great model for the consumer?

 

[hazel monday]

No Frost Giants in the MM?!
Intentionally leaving fan favorite monsters out of the monster manual?
"Don't worry loyal fans, as a reward for supporting us, we'll give you the opportunity to buy more books than you originally intended to."
It's the same marketing philosophy that caused them to leave Druid & gnomes out of the PHB.
Those dirty razzafrazzin so and so's.
Crack dealers could learn a thing or 2 from these WOTC guys.

I'm trying to take a wait and see approach, but this news really cheeses me off.

 

[Ragnar_Deerslayer]

Just out of curiousity---from where do we know this business model and how it will work exactly? I try to keep up with the news items, but somehow I've missed this one. Linky please?

The "(semi-)subscription model" is my name for what I've observed companies do, not something WotC has declared it will do. On the other hand, we've known for some time that they'll put out a new PHB, DMG, and MM each year. With the podcast last night, it also came out that they were saving some good monsters for later Monster Manuals, which got a lot of people upset.