Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?

[EricNoah]

If I were going to judge WotC's management of D&D it certainly wouldn't be based on whether they designed every product tailor made to my tastes. And yes, it does come down to personal preference and taste. I personally don't find Deities & Demigods very useful, but I never found books of gods useful in any edition of D&D. I might have liked to have had stats for my personal 250 favorite monsters in one handy book, but that's just not realistic. I personally think the Stronghold Builder's Guide is a good product.

If I were going to judge WotC's management, I would judge it on how the D&D game overall is doing. Do I like the fact that people are getting laid off? No. Do I worry that this is going to errode quality in future products? Yes, of course, but I have yet to see evidence that this is the case given, what, two years since the first layoffs happened. Do I think WotC did a particularly good job managing the development of Master Tools & eTools? No way.

But the game itself is strong, the open gaming movement completely changes the way I judge how D&D overall is doing. WotC are going through some hard times, and I think they're continuing to put out top notch products in spite of those challenges. And that's what I'd have to judge. So I'd say they're doing fine.

 

[BluWolf]

I would say no.

I base my opinion on two observations;

1) Are there more people playing D&D then there were 6-8 years ago? I can't prove it, but I would have to say it certainly seems that way.

and

2) Are there more products out on the market than there were 6-8 years ago? unequivically yes. Are they all candidates for the roleplaying hall of fame? No. Do I think the over all quality is better than say circa 93-95. Absolutely. I am including ALL the D20 publishers in this borad statement.

I'll even throw a bonus point in here. I have been having a lot more fun and have felt much more envigorated with my roleplaying since the publication of third edition.

Are all the layoffs unfortunate? Yes, and I empathise with those affected. But I think these would have happened even if Jack Welch was running the ship.

 

[Sir Edgar]

If I were going to judge WotC's management of D&D it certainly wouldn't be based on whether they designed every product tailor made to my tastes. And yes, it does come down to personal preference and taste. I personally don't find Deities & Demigods very useful, but I never found books of gods useful in any edition of D&D. I might have liked to have had stats for my personal 250 favorite monsters in one handy book, but that's just not realistic. I personally think the Stronghold Builder's Guide is a good product.

If I were going to judge WotC's management, I would judge it on how the D&D game overall is doing. Do I like the fact that people are getting laid off? No. Do I worry that this is going to errode quality in future products? Yes, of course, but I have yet to see evidence that this is the case given, what, two years since the first layoffs happened. Do I think WotC did a particularly good job managing the development of Master Tools & eTools? No way.

But the game itself is strong, the open gaming movement completely changes the way I judge how D&D overall is doing. WotC are going through some hard times, and I think they're continuing to put out top notch products in spite of those challenges. And that's what I'd have to judge. So I'd say they're doing fine.

Yes, that's a very diplomatic and well-worded response. However, I don't think that my argument is based upon "personal preference and taste". Why did they take out so many commonly used monsters and put in so many "experimental" ones? Later editions of any product should add and improve, not subtract and worsen. To me, that is like buying a 2002 model car and not getting a cup holder that was in the 2001 model and instead a pen holder. I don't need that pen holder! If you want to add a pen holder, fine, but keep the cup holder, too. Anyhow, right now the poll is about evenly split, so clearly this is not a matter of my personal taste. I never asked for an MM with my personal list of 250 favorite monsters. But whichever ones you did not include, please put in the MM2. Deities & Demigods is a shameful product that doesn't even deserve discussion.

 

[Nifft]

3E good. OGL good.

WotC not good or bad.

Hasbro maybe bad. Need more info.

-- Nifft, now in black & white

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Does anyone else think that WOTC is mismanaging D&D?

No- if it was not for WOTC there would be no 3E. There would be no d20 companies producing great products I use regularly. There would be a lot less gaming in my life.

Overall, they seem to be doing great.

In some cases, all they have to do is re-package past materials and update the stats to 3rd edition!

There would be little point in putting out 3rd edition if they wanted to repeat the same design.

But instead they continue to publish incomplete books with often times useless information, while forgoing good stuff from the previous products.

You said in a later post that you don't think your argument was not made off of personal preference. Do you really believe the above is fact? That you find something useless- so it a majority of gamers must as well?

For example, Monster Manual and Monster Manual II has a lot of worthless monsters in there

I have used many of them multiple times.

and yet excludes so many great ones they had in the past.

You think think the aerial sevant, leprechaun, and spriggan are examples of great monsters? err.. ok...

And why is it so difficult to find product information on WOTC's web site?

The search on their site is horrible, but if you know their site well enough- it is easy to find where they hide things.

Am I alone on feeling this way about WOTC?

I doubt it- people seem to feel if a product is not perfect for them, then it is problem with the company that produces it.

FD

 

[kenjib]

Really, I don't know why they included monsters with names like the "Choker", "Cloaker", or "Digester" in Monster Manual and "Breath Drinker", "Dark Clutcher", and "Deathbringer" in Monster Manual II. And yet they left out monsters like the Aerial Servant, Brownie, Hippocampus, Kelpie, Leprechaun, Mongrelman, Nereid, Spriggan, and Yeti.

Just a small nitpicky detail -- the cloaker is hard core old skool, definitely older than the Mongrelman and Nereid for starters.

EDIT: And if my guess is correct it originally comes from an old Fafhrd & Grey Mouser tale.

 

[Sir Edgar]

One thing you might not realize is that we pride ourselves on being a lot more polite than r.g.f.d., rpg.net, or the WotC boards.

For some people, this statement itself could be considered provocative and rude, especially to the people at the r.g.f.d., rpg.net, or WOTC boards. Nevertheless, I agree with you about my being rather uncouth and I apologize to anyone I have offended.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Yes, that's a very diplomatic and well-worded response. However, I don't think that my argument is based upon "personal preference and taste". Why did they take out so many commonly used monsters and put in so many "experimental" ones? Later editions of any product should add and improve, not subtract and worsen.

The design decision on which monsters to put in the first monster manual was deliberate. Not only did they have to put in sufficient monsters to cover most CRs, they also made sure that the monster mix included the right number of undead, abberations, humanoids, etc so that certain classes worked right (for instance, to provide a reasonable mix for summon monster spells, for the ranger's favored enemy to be fairly balanced, etc). They didn't just run through and randomly picked the monsters out of a hat.

I'm very pleased with the monster manual. All the commonly used past favorites were included (certainly, in the conversion of ToEE that I did, I rarely had to go afield to find certain conversions), and there was enough new stuff that old-timer players were occasionally surprised (and scared!) when I pulled one out of the hat.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Re: Re: Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?

Just a small nitpicky detail -- the cloaker is hard core old skool, definitely older than the Mongrelman and Nereid for starters.

EDIT: And if my guess is correct it originally comes from an old Fafhrd & Grey Mouser tale.

You're right and I realized that while I typed it, but wanted to emphasize the fact that there are all of these "-ers" in the game now. I do remember the cloaker in the first edition MM.

Yes, I believe the mongrelmen first appeared in mass print in the module I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City and later in the first edition MM2. But my question is why isn't it in 3e MM2? Why do I have to buy Tome of Horrors?

I don't remember the Nereid's origins in D&D, but they're based on legend and appeared in an early module and MM2, I'm sure.

 

[Sir Edgar]

Re: Re: Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?

There would be little point in putting out 3rd edition if they wanted to repeat the same design.

You said in a later post that you don't think your argument was not made off of personal preference. Do you really believe the above is fact? That you find something useless- so it a majority of gamers must as well?

I doubt it- people seem to feel if a product is not perfect for them, then it is problem with the company that produces it.

FD

I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that even if they just took the basic CONTENT of previous editions and put them in 3e rules, they would have still had a better product than what they're putting out right now. What would be ideal would have been to compile and synthesize previous work with current ideas and rules for an up-to-date and more useful product. That's not what's happening and it's apparent that I am not the only one who thinks so.

For example, there was quite a bit of good information about building strongholds and collecting taxes in 1e PHB and DM as well as many 2e materials and some random articles and whatnot from Dragon Magazine. Wouldn't it have been great if some of this was actually included in the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook? No offense to the writer, because it's not an awful product but it left a lot of room for improvement. This should have been the "bible" on how player characters can build their own strongholds and manage and pay for them.

I never said because I find something useless "the majority of gamers must as well". I only wanted to express my opinion and see if there are other people who agree. Please do not re-interprete my statements.

Nobody expects a "perfect" product all of the time. Just a logical one that is useful and complete. But yes, a product is a reflection of the company.