My phone call with Creg Leeds

[JohnRTroy]

Wizards tries to evolve the game every ten years or so. Greg compared it to bands that change their style over the years, and thus loose old fans and get some new fans. But in the end Wizards hope to get everyone back.

This scares me a bit. When Peter and Ryan were managing the brand they did it with care and respect for the player-base. Communication was often, and they had the TSR culture still with the group so they could evolve instead of revolt. This strategy scares me a bit.

This strategy is perhaps the biggest mistake. Bands can change their style over the years but good bands, while evolving, keep their roots--you don't see most artists changing from Rock and Roll to Polka or from Classical to Hip-Hop. There is no real reason for D&D for keep changing the rules so much each decade. Hasbro doesn't constantly change their best-selling boardgames, AFAIK Magic: The Gathering still has the standard rules.

Unless there is a common tie between editions, continuing to change the game radically every decade will diminish D&D being a common bond between gamers. The Old School 3e / 4e battles will continue and get worse--the player base will fractionize more as more reboots occur, and I believe D&D will begin to lose its identity as the more common question will be "what edition do you play".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Unless there is a common tie between editions, continuing to change the game radically every decade will diminish D&D being a common bond between gamers. The Old School 3e / 4e battles will continue and get worse--the player base will fractionize more as more reboots occur, and I believe D&D will begin to lose its identity as the more common question will be "what edition do you play".

This is the problem with D&D being in the hands of those driven primarily by the product/revenue cycle, who need to design in planned obsolecsence to the system in order to maintain that cycle.

Hasbro has a duty to its shareholders to prostitute the D&D IP for as much money as possible or they would be failing as business managers.

This duty is at odds with developing and designing the best game possible which causes the management to fail the gaming fans.

Eventually all the forced change for the sake of change will alienate nearly everyone.

 

[pawsplay]

Hasbro has a duty to its shareholders to prostitute the D&D IP for as much money as possible or they would be failing as business managers.

You have an interesting idea of "duty." I would view Hasbro's duty to put D&D in capable hands and make sure it turns a profit, and manage it in a sustainable fashion.

If I were the manager of a car brand, and I was told by the bosses that in our brand, everyone was expected to trade in their car for a new model every two years, I would think they are insane. The fact that same brands do operate that way does not mean they should.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You have an interesting idea of "duty." I would view Hasbro's duty to put D&D in capable hands and make sure it turns a profit, and manage it in a sustainable fashion.

If I were the manager of a car brand, and I was told by the bosses that in our brand, everyone was expected to trade in their car for a new model every two years, I would think they are insane. The fact that same brands do operate that way does not mean they should.

Which is exactly why I said Hasbro and not WOTC. Its WOTC's job as the manager of the D&D IP to let Hasbro know that certain marketing tactics just piss rpg gamers off. So far they haven't been trying hard enough.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

which is exactly why i said hasbro and not wotc. Its wotc's job as the manager of the d&d ip to let hasbro know that certain marketing tactics just piss rpg gamers off. So far they haven't been trying hard enough.

q.

F.

T.

 

[Ourph]

Well. I had my phone call with WotC president Greg Leeds.

Brix, thanks so much for taking the time to keep ENWorld updated on this. Very interesting. XP for you!

 

[lestat2099]

So, the basic message is "F*** you, we don't care about you, go and play Paizo, we don't care..."

WTF, what is the problem with Wizards?, I almost feel bad for giving all the money I gave to them.

 

[Poison Idea]

* Wizards is happy with the 4E sales. Wizards is even fine with the fact that a fraction of the gamers went to Paizo. As long as everybody plays D&D that's fine.

Good to see Wizards won't be running the DnD brand for much longer.

 

[Solodan]

Overall that's pretty cool. Pity that this thread will quickly burn into a flame wizards thread despite the effort of Brix to communicate to Mr. Leads and what he has done to listen to our concerns.

 

[Bumbles]

This strategy is perhaps the biggest mistake. Bands can change their style over the years but good bands, while evolving, keep their roots--you don't see most artists changing from Rock and Roll to Polka or from Classical to Hip-Hop. There is no real reason for D&D for keep changing the rules so much each decade. Hasbro doesn't constantly change their best-selling boardgames, AFAIK Magic: The Gathering still has the standard rules.

Hi, hope you don't look down on me for being a first-time poster here, but reading this...makes me want to recommend you go read some of the designer's articles on Wizards.com regarding Magic. Because at least a few years ago, Mark Rosewater was writing on how and why he broke the rules of the Gathering. All the time. (kinda took a break from card games so haven't read it recently...) I'm not sure if he ever said it, but I will say that breaking the rules is pretty much a part of every set.

Here's some example articles, I'm sure there's others, some may even be more recent:

Gimme a Break : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering

Rules of the Game : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering

ah, here's one:

-1/-1 Singular Sensation : Daily MTG : Magic: The Gathering

Now none of that may be meaningful for D&D, but I do think an understanding of some of the philosophy in other parts of the company may help alleviate some of your fears. They aren't just sitting on Magic and putting out new cards with different names and pictures, but are expanding their horizons, pushing the limits, and otherwise improving the game.

As far as their boardgames go, well, I have Transformers Risk. I like it. It does change some rules, and does offer some variety. I know I wouldn't be happy if all I got was some different risk pieces or a map, without any real meat to it. Probably why I'm never tempted by any of those themed Monopoly's. Either that, or I just have no desire to buy any college football stadiums.

Unless there is a common tie between editions, continuing to change the game radically every decade will diminish D&D being a common bond between gamers. The Old School 3e / 4e battles will continue and get worse--the player base will fractionize more as more reboots occur, and I believe D&D will begin to lose its identity as the more common question will be "what edition do you play".

That hasn't been a problem since the 80s? There have been lots of changes over the years.

Yet at its core, there's still this thing we call D&D.

I'm not particularly afraid of waking up one day and finding out that I'm playing something I can't recognize. Maybe that'll happen one day in the distant future, as the core of the game disappears. Maybe that should be prevented. But I do respect the need for some changes, for some growth, and yes, I do realize that can occur at some level of the rules. Some of those changes I'm glad to see too. I really do appreciate the elimination of those thief skill tables, for example, and those silly rules about monks having to defeat other guys to level, and those race/class limitations...

I don't know 3rd edition that well, but when I look at the evolution of the game over the years, I keep thinking that it's getting better all of the time.

PS, I'm really glad Elvis didn't stay a gospel singer his whole career.