If Hasbro Pulls the Plug....

[TheAuldGrump]

You mean they have not yet?

No Dragon / Dungeon magazines

No 3.5 support

Little 4e setting support

no more miniatures



I thought they HAD already given up on us. I have on them anyway.

Actually, the minis are making a comeback, in non random packs, I believe.

Not gonna try to defend those others though.

Grumble, grumble, grumble....

The Auld Grump

 

[MichaelSomething]

Wait, shouldn't people be happy about this possibility? No more monthly splat books demanding to be brought! No more new editions to entice players away from your group! No more giant corporate entity getting in the way of your game! RPGs are a cottage industry and that's how it'll be without Hasbro!!!!

 

[Pour]

I agree with you.

But I wonder, do you think WotC agrees with you? Do you think they see their current fan base as an adequate foundation to build up from? I'm not asking if it is reasonable or possible. I'm asking if you think they are content to focus on the bird in the hand and nurture that into growth? Or do you think they are more inclined to fixate on pure numbers that they think they might or even *should* have?

I recall a lot of comments when 4E came out talking about the massive number of WoW players and how those were a strong target market for new D&D players.* And a lot of 4E fans were very vocal that losing a segment of their existing base was a total non-issue because they were going to gain four new players for every one they lost.

Now it may be they they got burned once and learned their lesson. But is may also be that four years ago they thought they could make non-gamers into gamers so thinking now that all they have to do is bring back people who are known value gamers and used to be part of their fan base probably sounds like low hanging fruit. Again, I do think that would be a mistake and I hope they have learned. But it is easy for me to see how they would repeat the mistakes of the past.

* - I am NOT saying that 4E is WoW or that targeting WoW players meant making 4E be WoW.

Tough questions, but I'm going to go the optimistic route and say yes, they see what they have, because once you stop obsessing on the Dancey-quoted expectation of 50 million a year, I think WotC has a successful RPG and solid chassis on which to build, explore, and eventually progress.

I have no actual proof, but I'd like to believe Monte was brought in to further explore the options, and that DDi will continue to develop, each iteration, perhaps, casting a wider and wider net- not by designing specifically to other editions, but by offering things that have more universal appeal like the VTT and various IP material. Pleasing who they have, breaking bread with lapsed players without diverting from the current edition, further improving the technology, utilizing social networking, reacquiring video game licensing, I could see a future where WotC supports who it has and offers items and services of interest to all fans of fantasy RPGs.

The sabre rattling over the idea that WotC didn't need its 3e fans any longer (which there was a lot of overly-defensive shouting on all sides) made little sense, agreed. How could anyone say WotC doesn't need extra customers and believe themselves? However I've heard just as much, if not more, and especially in recent years, sabre rattling from earlier edition camps that 4e failed- and I don't really think it did unless you're holding to Hasbro figures.

After reading Dancey's latest article, I'm inclined to believe it was a necessity for the game to change- WotC simply was not pulling in the numbers needed to survive under Hasbro with 3e. Their new edition pitch was probably the first measure taken to prevent plug pulling, if the articles are accurate. Now that doesn't mean Paizo didn't succeed brilliantly with spinning 3e into a multi-million dollar business, it did, but put Paizo under Hasbro and I think it'd be called a failure too. I honestly don't have any real idea of the numbers playing one or the other, but I'm confident 4e has a healthy gamer base by the standards of other RPGs.

Maybe I'm sniffing too much glue, but imagine Mearls with a little bit of leeway from WotC and Hasbro. Magic is at an all time high, after all, why couldn't Hasbro change its tune with D&D if there was even a chance, in time, it could turn into a flourishing property ala the 80s? It's costing Hasbro very little, sadly even less given the recent layoffs, to keep D&D alive I imagine.

No longer focusing on 50 mill a year, Mearls slows production of rushed products and focuses on quality. He begins to explore new ideas and approaches to 4e on the chassis (not sure if Essentials was his baby or not, but if it was that makes sense as an experiment and not as a frantic emergency release to save the edition). He calls in Monte to help. DDi begins to get its sea legs again. Facebook game releases, and the video game license is won (that wasn't Mearls doing, but hey it helps). The quality of the magazines increases. Comics release. Minis make a comeback...

I've looked at it all in a negative light too long. Until D&D flat lines and it's official, I'm taking the recent steadying of the ship as a good sign for the current game. I think they do know what they have, and what they don't, and what could be gained from a long-term study of D&D (Legends and Lore, maybe) and a dedication to creative, quality products.

 

[BryonD]

Tough questions, but I'm going to go the optimistic route and say yes, they see what they have, because once you stop obsessing on the Dancey-quoted expectation of 50 million a year, I think WotC has a successful RPG and solid chassis on which to build, explore, and eventually progress.

Again, I agree with you that staying the course is their best option. Though I'd say I'm far less optimistic than you
regarding their existing "solid chassis on which to build".

They clearly have an excellent chassis on which to keep Pour and other existing 4E fans happy. And they can always maintain that fraction of the market and hope that the overall market grows. But I suspect they want a larger share and I don't think their current model will cater to that.

I have no actual proof, but I'd like to believe Monte was brought in to further explore the options, and that DDi will continue to develop, each iteration, perhaps, casting a wider and wider net- not by designing specifically to other editions, but by offering things that have more universal appeal like the VTT and various IP material. Pleasing who they have, breaking bread with lapsed players without diverting from the current edition, further improving the technology, utilizing social networking, reacquiring video game licensing, I could see a future where WotC supports who it has and offers items and services of interest to all fans of fantasy RPGs.

So are you saying that 4E won't grow much, but their support of people playing other games will?

The sabre rattling over the idea that WotC didn't need its 3e fans any longer (which there was a lot of overly-defensive shouting on all sides) made little sense, agreed. How could anyone say WotC doesn't need extra customers and believe themselves?

Well, if you truly lose 1 and gain 4 then that IS solid business. It just didn't go that way.

After reading Dancey's latest article, I'm inclined to believe it was a necessity for the game to change- WotC simply was not pulling in the numbers needed to survive under Hasbro with 3e.

Oh, I 100% agree that it was time to move on. I love 3E, but is was old and saturated. I was in the minority that PRAISED WotC the day 4E was announced. It was only after details emerged that I left. I'm not hung up on edition loyalty. But they didn't JUST move on from 3E. They also changed their game design philosophy. That was the huge error they made.

As much of a PF fan I am, I'm still amazed that it is as wildly successful as it is. And I think there are three key elements to that. Their combination of no-mechanical support (both flavor and story stuff and simple customer awareness and service) are outstanding. There changes to the 3E core were just enough to make things fresh. And, last but not least, a ton of people looked at 4E and found they didn't know how well they had it under 3E until 3E was gone.

I honestly don't have any real idea of the numbers playing one or the other, but I'm confident 4e has a healthy gamer base by the standards of other RPGs.

Absolutely. "By the standards of other RPGs" it is still at the top of the heap. It may be 20% below PF or it may be 20% above PF. But it is still huge. I suspect it is now below and slipping, but I don't claim to know that level of detail.

But, the thing is, I don't think it is doing nearly as well as a game with the D&D brand SHOULD be doing and I also think if those mechanics were out there without the free boost that the D&D brand adds, it would have been long gone by now.

I've looked at it all in a negative light too long. Until D&D flat lines and it's official, I'm taking the recent steadying of the ship as a good sign for the current game. I think they do know what they have, and what they don't, and what could be gained from a long-term study of D&D (Legends and Lore, maybe) and a dedication to creative, quality products.

Sure. And as someone content with 4E that is a fair position.

But keep in mind along with your optimism, they have turned their backs on fans before. It can happen again.

 

[Pour]

Again, I agree with you that staying the course is their best option. Though I'd say I'm far less optimistic than you
regarding their existing "solid chassis on which to build".

They clearly have an excellent chassis on which to keep Pour and other existing 4E fans happy. And they can always maintain that fraction of the market and hope that the overall market grows. But I suspect they want a larger share and I don't think their current model will cater to that.

So are you saying that 4E won't grow much, but their support of people playing other games will?

I think the model is changing, slowly but certainly, and it's becoming more inclusive from a technological standpoint and more willing to experiment from a rules standpoint. Content, fluff, is as accessible as an individual wants it to be. It's an exciting time.

I mean we're in the 4era, and those who despised the change have left, and those who enjoy it are still here. They've run head-first into the frigid ocean and now they've gotten used to the water. The question becomes what do they do now, and I think they're making the moves: pleasing current fans with better content, improving their digital offerings which could be designed to appeal to both, and developing ways to utilize the ttrpg-side of the IP for the enjoyment of all.

I think they can do more than hope the 4e market grows in the meantime, I think they can actively cultivate it over the course of the next few years. That doesn't mean everything going into that cultivation is edition specific. WotC has the asset that is the D&D name, and oh how rich it is. Beyond that name recognition feeding into the current edition over years, universal offerings like VTT, minis, tiles, and PDFs of older edition material can draw the attention of certain non-4thers. I think their other strength is corporate backing, not so much a brutal paymaster, but a rich uncle whose going to put 4e through college. Video games, cartoons, toys, stuff marketed well beyond your average gamer and point them toward 4e.

However it's going to take some intelligent and exciting moves, and a commitment of time (years) toward active support. I wouldn't underestimate either contributor, to say the D&D name or Hasbro, though. You'll only get non-gamers to begin gaming if you go out and hook them- that, I think, is more Hasbro's responsibility than the RPG team, or even WotC.

Absolutely. "By the standards of other RPGs" it is still at the top of the heap. It may be 20% below PF or it may be 20% above PF. But it is still huge. I suspect it is now below and slipping, but I don't claim to know that level of detail.

But, the thing is, I don't think it is doing nearly as well as a game with the D&D brand SHOULD be doing and I also think if those mechanics were out there without the free boost that the D&D brand adds, it would have been long gone by now.

That's tricky. On the one hand, were Hasbro in it solely for the ttrpg, then it wouldn't place such crazy expectations on D&D, thus it would be more of a perceived success and thus would survive as being contender, maybe even top dog, in the industry. However, because Hasbro's interest in D&D is more brand than any one cog in what they hope will become an IP engine of destruction, the ttrpg is almost incidental- or should I say just an idea pool- and thus couldn't really be judged on not performing by itself like a fully-supported IP would.

Should 4e be doing better because it is D&D? I mean it's already in that top 1-2 tier of the hobby. No longer 800lb., as so many point out, but still successful.

Could it be doing better with corporate support? Yeah, I think it could. More over, I think it will... (or they reevaluate, make 5e, and try again).

But keep in mind along with your optimism, they have turned their backs on fans before. It can happen again.

Hehe, of that I am acutely aware- though, I'm going to call it 'focusing on a different percentage of the gamer base'. I was a fan whom they turned their face toward with 4e, having felt somewhat unloved and frustrated with 3e.

However, unlike current 3e fans and Pathfinder, I have nowhere else to turn should they shift their design focus again. I find that a strong incentive to maintain the 4e player base, or continue to support it in at least a utility/tools capacity when 5e surfaces (and they should make it VERY clear they are not abandoning those people with veritable PR back flips). If they've learned anything from the current 4era, it's the power of presentation and the importance of keeping promises and, subsequently, deadlines.

That said, if Hasbro really has lowered the target number or given Mearls more of a free reign than was given the original crew, anything could happen come DDXP. 5e could be on the slate, or any number of divergent or surprising evolutions of 4e.

I can't see Hasbro just pulling the plug and throwing away an asset- only because their interest in D&D must lie well outside the tiny ttrpg market, largely unaffected by however good or bad 4e did. They know it's not going to meet the original pitch numbers now, so the next step in utilizing the brand is to look outside of ttrpg.

If Hasbro is only interested in the IP, which I think we can safely say they are, and the initial promises of an early 4e have fallen through, I'm inclined to say that Hasbro will turn its focus to other avenues for the brand outside the ttrpg. My hope is that that means Mearls and company are more or less free to explore as they will, less pressed to meet any exorbitant figure, as that now shifts onto D&D products (toys, games, apparel, whatever)- which requires a certain hook: video game, cartoon, movie, all entirely possible with a corporate backer like Hasbro.

If the RPG team can make enough to justify its existence and generate material which can be used in future products (also adding or interpreting the older material for any number of venues) then anything could happen, continued 4e, 5e, support for all editions, really anything.

 

[BryonD]

I think they can do more than hope the 4e market grows in the meantime, I think they can actively cultivate it over the course of the next few years. That doesn't mean everything going into that cultivation is edition specific. WotC has the asset that is the D&D name, and oh how rich it is. Beyond that name recognition feeding into the current edition over years, universal offerings like VTT, minis, tiles, and PDFs of older edition material can draw the attention of certain non-4thers. I think their other strength is corporate backing, not so much a brutal paymaster, but a rich uncle whose going to put 4e through college. Video games, cartoons, toys, stuff marketed well beyond your average gamer and point them toward 4e.

I agree they can do a lot of other things with THE BRAND. But 4E is not the brand, it is a very specific product. Twice now you have said they can improve that specific product and then offered a list of things that have to do with the brand but very specifically avoid the actual product in question.

However it's going to take some intelligent and exciting moves, and a commitment of time (years) toward active support. I wouldn't underestimate either contributor, to say the D&D name or Hasbro, though. You'll only get non-gamers to begin gaming if you go out and hook them- that, I think, is more Hasbro's responsibility than the RPG team, or even WotC.

That is what they said four years ago. It failed then and is on weaker footing now.

Should 4e be doing better because it is D&D?

Heh, I think *D&D* should, can, and has done much better.
I think 4E as a system is exceeding itself because of the massive support the name brand carries. Again, that isn't to be critical of anyone who is a HUGE fan of 4E. I was a HUGE fan of GURPS in the late 80s and early 90s. 4E is vastly more popular now (VASTLY!!!!) than GURPS was then. There is no element of rightness associated with popularity. If the GURPS system had obtained the support of the D&D brand identity it would have been far more popular than it was. That would not have made my personal enjoyment of GURPS be the slightest bit more or less valid. But there is is distinction between any person's enjoyment and marketplace capability.

I still think GURPS is a really good game. But I don't think it has the market appeal of 3E. I also don't think 4E has the market appeal of 3E. But brand is important. Very roughly:
4E market - D&D Brand = GURPS market

When you put a game with big market appeal in combination with a brand like D&D, that is when you get a golden age.

Hehe, of that I am acutely aware- though, I'm going to call it 'focusing on a different percentage of the gamer base'. I was a fan whom they turned their face toward with 4e, having felt somewhat unloved and frustrated with 3e.

However, unlike current 3e fans and Pathfinder, I have nowhere else to turn should they shift their design focus again. I find that a strong incentive to maintain the 4e player base, or continue to support it in at least a utility/tools capacity when 5e surfaces (and they should make it VERY clear they are not abandoning those people with veritable PR back flips). If they've learned anything from the current 4era, it's the power of presentation and the importance of keeping promises and, subsequently, deadlines.

To be clear, if they thought they could go back to their old fan base, they would dump you to the curb in a heartbeat.

The good news for you is, they can not do that and they know it. The only real danger is if their sense of entitlement exceeds their ability to think rationally.

I can't see Hasbro just pulling the plug and throwing away an asset- only because their interest in D&D must lie well outside the tiny ttrpg market, largely unaffected by however good or bad 4e did. They know it's not going to meet the original pitch numbers now, so the next step in utilizing the brand is to look outside of ttrpg.

If Hasbro is only interested in the IP, which I think we can safely say they are, and the initial promises of an early 4e have fallen through, I'm inclined to say that Hasbro will turn its focus to other avenues for the brand outside the ttrpg. My hope is that that means Mearls and company are more or less free to explore as they will, less pressed to meet any exorbitant figure, as that now shifts onto D&D products (toys, games, apparel, whatever)- which requires a certain hook: video game, cartoon, movie, all entirely possible with a corporate backer like Hasbro.

If the RPG team can make enough to justify its existence and generate material which can be used in future products (also adding or interpreting the older material for any number of venues) then anything could happen, continued 4e, 5e, support for all editions, really anything.

I don't think they will pull the plug.

But, for your sake, I think you should hope they DON'T focus to much on other things. Not only will that have the small impact of directing resources away from the RPG, but it will also have the larger impact of motivating them to change the RPG into something with a larger anticipated fanbase.

If they wanted to sell a ton of action figures as their real revenue stream then going back to D20SRD and the OGL and making a point of being compatible with all that Pathfinder stuff would be a great way to kickstart their market base. (Again, that would HARM their direct RPG market but we are talking about selling toys now)

At the end of the day 4E's problem is the 4E core game system. And to me this conversation is about the ttrpg. I can agree it may make sense to sell action figures instead. But the ttrpg conversation still exists.

 

[caudor]

...As much of a PF fan I am, I'm still amazed that it is as wildly successful as it is. And I think there are three key elements to that. Their combination of no-mechanical support (both flavor and story stuff and simple customer awareness and service) are outstanding. There changes to the 3E core were just enough to make things fresh. And, last but not least, a ton of people looked at 4E and found they didn't know how well they had it under 3E until 3E was gone

Very well said. This describes me exactly.

 

[Pour]

I agree they can do a lot of other things with THE BRAND. But 4E is not the brand, it is a very specific product. Twice now you have said they can improve that specific product and then offered a list of things that have to do with the brand but very specifically avoid the actual product in question.

That is what they said four years ago. It failed then and is on weaker footing now.


Heh, I think *D&D* should, can, and has done much better.
I think 4E as a system is exceeding itself because of the massive support the name brand carries. Again, that isn't to be critical of anyone who is a HUGE fan of 4E. I was a HUGE fan of GURPS in the late 80s and early 90s. 4E is vastly more popular now (VASTLY!!!!) than GURPS was then. There is no element of rightness associated with popularity. If the GURPS system had obtained the support of the D&D brand identity it would have been far more popular than it was. That would not have made my personal enjoyment of GURPS be the slightest bit more or less valid. But there is is distinction between any person's enjoyment and marketplace capability.

I still think GURPS is a really good game. But I don't think it has the market appeal of 3E. I also don't think 4E has the market appeal of 3E. But brand is important. Very roughly:
4E market - D&D Brand = GURPS market

When you put a game with big market appeal in combination with a brand like D&D, that is when you get a golden age.

To be clear, if they thought they could go back to their old fan base, they would dump you to the curb in a heartbeat.

The good news for you is, they can not do that and they know it. The only real danger is if their sense of entitlement exceeds their ability to think rationally.

I don't think they will pull the plug.

But, for your sake, I think you should hope they DON'T focus to much on other things. Not only will that have the small impact of directing resources away from the RPG, but it will also have the larger impact of motivating them to change the RPG into something with a larger anticipated fanbase.

If they wanted to sell a ton of action figures as their real revenue stream then going back to D20SRD and the OGL and making a point of being compatible with all that Pathfinder stuff would be a great way to kickstart their market base. (Again, that would HARM their direct RPG market but we are talking about selling toys now)

At the end of the day 4E's problem is the 4E core game system. And to me this conversation is about the ttrpg. I can agree it may make sense to sell action figures instead. But the ttrpg conversation still exists.

What just happened lol? I thought this was a friendly conversation about potential future turns, and things have taken on a little bit of a condescending/inflammatory tone. Caught me off guard, Bry. I didn't know I was defending 4e, rather speculating on possibilities.

You make some aggressive view points here and kind of hurt my feelings.

"I won't fight you."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Yesterday I went to a small bookstore.

They had Pathfinder's Core, Bestiary, DMG, the APG, and the Inner Seas book.

No D&D at all.

The last time I went there (about six months ago) they had only a few D&D books, no Pathfinder.

I don't know how I feel about it. I really should have asked, but I did not.

The Auld Grump

 

[BryonD]

What just happened lol? I thought this was a friendly conversation about potential future turns, and things have taken on a little bit of a condescending/inflammatory tone. Caught me off guard, Bry. I didn't know I was defending 4e, rather speculating on possibilities.

You make some aggressive view points here and kind of hurt my feelings.

"I won't fight you."

Honestly not completely sure what offended you.
But whatever.

It did seem to me you were trying to have it both ways a bit by defending *continued support of 4E* but avoiding actually defending 4E itself. I don't believe it can work that way and if I called you on it a bit to directly, then I apologize.