D&D is dying by the hour

[Dice4Hire]

I really have to disagree withe the OP in this case. I do not think 4E is even close to dead, and judging the average player by rabid forum-ites here and elsewhere is not a true indicator of what is going on with players as a whole.

I skim what is going on here, and do not go to other forums, and the other two players in my group do not follow 4E at all. And I know when 4E comes out, I will not be forking over my money to Wizards for their online stuff, because so far, it seems a huge waste of money, and I am not an online (real-time) player in any case.

So for me 4E is coming, and I'm gonna buy the initial books, and then run a test campaign.

Then I will see if I continue both 3.5 and 4E, or go all the way one way or the other. Right now, I expect to play both.

 

[DaveMage]

The books and rules are the fundamental strategy. The on line stuff is just bonus.

Are you sure about that?

The DDI could generate much more revenue than the books - especially as the edition ages.

I've said it before, but I think we'll have a lot of answers from the "buzz," or lack thereof, at Gen Con. I look forward to hearing the acceptance level of 4E at that time.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Nope, because most of the D&D fans don't care. They don't go to on line forums, they don't read the latest ground breaking news. They just play the game and enjoy it. They speak with the dollar and little else.

While I agree with the OP about the fumbles, I think Crothian is 100% right. Most people don't give a rat's behind about d20 products and while some have managed to use the old license to move into their own niches, I doubt any of them came close to making WoTC numbers.

 

[Crothian]

Are you sure about that?

The DDI could generate much more revenue than the books - especially as the edition ages.

It has that potential but the PHBs and DMGs they seem to want to produce yearly sounds like they have their eggs in a few baskets.

 

[BASHMAN]

I think I have been agreeing with you for a few months now-- and also I think that I am in before the lock!

 

[Cabled]

No, it's not dying

But I think it IS changing. I think WotC has changed the rules and flavor enough to lose a certain group of gamers who like what D&D WAS. They'll probably get at least that many new players who like what D&D has become, so the overall impact to D&D is probably neutralto positive. IN addition, there's a new pool of recently free gamers looking for some other company to support them...Paizo may only be the first.

Overall I think it's actually good for the hobby, though some people (myself included) have to come to terms with the realization that we are no longer WotC's target audience. That's fine. (I think it was Mearls, correct me someone if I'm wrong) that basically said a few months back that one of the biggest secrets of the gaming industry is that the players do not NEED the developers...just play your game, your way.

 

[Boarstorm]

(I think it was Mearls, correct me someone if I'm wrong) that basically said a few months back that one of the biggest secrets of the gaming industry is that the players do not NEED the developers...just play your game, your way.

If it was Mearls, he was quoting Gary Gygax.

 

[RodneyThompson]

Uh, I don't know about "massive silence" from us designers. We're all still around, and posting.

Maybe there have been a few less posts lately, but that's probably also due to large chunks of the D&D team being on the road traveling to major cities to do media interviews. Though I'm not going anywhere, a bunch of our brand, online, and R&D staff has spent the last couple of weeks and the next few weeks traveling to LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, etc. to talk to the media about 4th Edition. So, if they're being quieter on the message boards, they're being a LOT louder in real life.

 

[Reynard]

While I agree with the OP about the fumbles, I think Crothian is 100% right. Most people don't give a rat's behind about d20 products and while some have managed to use the old license to move into their own niches, I doubt any of them came close to making WoTC numbers.

While likely true, that really doesn't have anything to do with either what Crothian said or what I said that he was responding to.

I find it confounding that anyone who has even moderately kept up with 4E can suggest that the online component is a throw away, add on after thought. it has been linked, at a fundamental level, since the very first announcement and only gets more central as the outside media begins to take an interest. I get the feeling that there is a compondent of pro-4E fandom that is somehow offended by and/or opposed to D&D moving into the digital age, as that component comes out swinging anytime a discussion links D&D and online play of any sort. My guess is that 4E/D&DI is a transitionary period before D&D becomes primarily, if not totally, a form of electronic entertainment. Not an MMORPG, per se, but something that is played and engaged in via fast internet connections.

And while I don't necessarily like this for D&D as I want it to be, it is a pretty good idea and might mean that D&D actually survives as more than a nostalgiac past time. Shortly after the launch of the VTT, we should see the following:

1) "Professional" DMs that are apid for hosting games on the VTT.
2) PvP Leagues with laddered arena combat.
3) Persistent World/Lving Campaign style shared worlds.

If WotC would back down on their no-user-generated-content mandate, the latter two would be even bigger, mopre quickly and could actually help generate revenue for WotC (especially #2). Imagine a D&DI Store where users could generate content -- skins and models and the like -- that other users buy, and WotC gets to keep the lions share of the sale cost.

Just like the OGL, the only thing that will determine exactly how the D&DI/VTT?etc... should eb implemented, from WotC's perspective, is a few years of experience with doing so. The whole GSL mess shows that WotC learned a lot from the OGL and its impact on their business and they are trying to implement that knowledge in the new edition. Similarly, D&DI will go through its growing pains and by the time (4 years is my guess) 4E 2.0 is on deck, they will know what works, what doesn't and what people really want in a digitial initiative for D&D.

It'll be interesting to watch from the sidelines.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

So what do you guys think? Is my analysis that Wizards is killing off D&D by not communicating at all correct?

Nope. I think your way off.

First, Wizards is communicating by continuing to release information about the new edition. WoTC Employees are still showing up in threads on Enworld.

Second, Paizo is not really in a position to influence the success or failure of 4th edition to any great extent. They are a great company with a great product, but they are also playing to a Niche but vocal audience. The pathfinder system might do well, but I would be very surprised if Paizo manages to end up in a dominant position with respect to the D&D market.

Consider this: Regardless of what WoTC thinks of the Pathfinder effort by Paizo, what do they have to gain by responding to it directly and officially?

If they try to come out against it, that will just cause a whole lot of Paizo fanboys to show up in forums quoting parts of a press release making claims that Wizards is afraid of Paizo.

Anything they say about the system in an official capacity is just going to draw more publicity to it, even if that publicity only takes the form of a minor boost in Google's page rankings, and in people looking for 4th edition news finding news about Pathfinder.

I look at it like this. The people who buy into Pathfinder are probably customers who are very unlikely to buy into 4th edition anyway, and Wizards probably lost them as customers by annoucing 4th Edition in the first place. On top of that, the most vocal "I hate it" crowd from 4th edition are like people who show up in StarTrek or Battlestar Galactica forums and write posts about "I hate this episode, it sucked for all 18 of the times I watched it. They totally did it wrong". Beneath all that vitriol, they still watched the show, and they still talk about the show.

The upshot of Pathfinder for Wizards is that I am sure there is a segment of the current player base that would become lapsed customers again, and leave gaming for a few years. If Pathfinder keeps them at the table throwing d20's, then Wizards wins in the long run.

I also think that the change from OGL to GLS is just a result of the OGL making more material public than had originally been intended. I recall reading comments a few months back from companies that said they would end up with people posting nearly all the crunch of a recently purchased product, and making it difficult for the smaller 3rd party publishers to make much of a profit. While supporting the customers is a great thing, Wizards does need to protect the interests of 3rd party publishers. If 3rd parties cannot make a profit making material, than they simply will not make any material. Holding the copyrights closer to home may not be a bad idea long term.

And if it turns out otherwise, they can always be told of the error of their ways by militant fans. Who knows, they may even listen.

END COMMUNICATION