D&D 5E Why is WOTC so awful at providing digital content?

Jester Canuck said:

This stumped me as well. It seems so obvious a choice. Partnering with LWE would mean a character builder within weeks. An app could follow shortly, already being available for Pathfinder.

Click to expand...

Lone Wolf is a good company, but I've never liked the interface for any of their products. I haven't really been impressed with any of the existing RPG tools that I've used or seen previews for. Not saying they don't get the job done, just not in a way that's gotten me to plunk down some cash. I imagine WotC would prefer something a bit more polished and smooth, as they do have higher expectations as the big dog in the industry.

The best explanation I can think of is that WotC really wants a reference app. A searchable program (not unlike the HTML Basic rules) that can be purchased for the core rulebooks, which they can offer in place of PDFs. And they want the same company to offer both, so people don't have to buy electronic access to the books twice.

Click to expand...

All I know is that WotC likely DOES have plans, or is in the process of developing them. Hopefully fourth time is a charm! But they won't divulge a peep until think are pretty locked down, to avoid the inevitable internet cranky fest.

Umbran said:

Appeal to authority? I am mostly known around here for physics, but I am by no means ignorant of software development projects.

The rules as written are not rocket science. But making the system extensible gets hairy, unless you want a development effort any time you add supplemental rules.

And the nigh-arbitrary house rules? Those are a nightmares. "I have a ring that gives me a +6 to Dex, but only when flying...". And every campaign is going to have some of those weird things the GM made up, and doesn't fit. And each time you shove folks out into "just remember to do that yourself" is a place where you limit how good your virtual tabletop (which, of course, should be compatible) can be.

As someone noted upthread, houserules almost call for something like a scripting language. That's not easy to do, and it is less easy to do for people who don't write computer programs for a living.



UX, at the level we are talking about, if we get it wrong, the product doesn't sell and we are down something close to a million dollars.

Click to expand...

Funny, but I've seen no less than 20 different VTT's over the last 20 years.

the first VTT I saw was in 1995. It was using ANSI graphics over a telnet connection. Only the GM needed the software; everyone elese could connect using telnet to the GM's computer, opening multiple windows (one for character sheet, one for map, one for chat/rolls).

The biggest issue with VTT's is not rules implementation. Some of the more successful ones have automation... but they also provide for low-bandwidth options.

shidaku said:

Yes, giving a company money without any promise of a product certainly makes them less risk averse. It also assumes people are idiots.

Click to expand...

Right. Now, shall we look at how many RPG companies have successfully crowdfunded projects, and see how many people are assumed to be idiots? Pelgrane Press, Evil Hat Games, and many others, are corporations. They are assuming people are idiots?

You might want to watch your zeal here, as I think it is leading you to speak too broadly. "Company" is not just Hasbro-sized things. My wife has a company of one single person. "Corporate" does not mean "big".

If the market doesn't support it from their perspective, license it.

Click to expand...

Um, in case you've forgotten already - THEY JUST TRIED THAT. In big letters, so you don't miss it. "Just license it," does not mean success, as was proven just recently. You are now saying, "Do that thing that didn't work, and do it again," and you somehow expect different results?

This is corporate hogwash at its finest.

Click to expand...

Um, what? How is it "corporate hogwash" when it is being said by someone who is not a company, and has no ties to any RPG company?

What I am "risk averse" to is corporate crowdfunding. You want investors? Go find some.

Click to expand...

How is Kickstarter not finding investors? When I back a kickstarter, I'm an investor that get paid in product, instead of money or stock. What's so wrong with that?

WOTC is owned by one of the largest toy companies in the world. IMO: Kickstarter should completely ban large corporations from running kickstarters.

Click to expand...

Think of it that way for a moment - it isn't a Hasbro kickstarter, or a WotC kickstarter. It is a D&D kickstarter we are talking about.

I am coming around to thinking that D&D should *not* be thought of as a thing owned by a large company. I am hoping that Hasbro, and WotC, both think of it as a *small* company, that just happens to pass profits up the chain if they have any. Consider that we usually end up mentioning that D&D doesn't matter to Hasbro, except for maybe movie licensing. D&D is even a small chunk of WotC's pie. It only has a few people on staff, and doesn't actually seem to get huge support from its parent and grandparent companies, but not too much hindrance, either. So, why should the D&D department do anything other than work like a small company?

aramis erak said:

Funny, but I've seen no less than 20 different VTT's over the last 20 years.

Click to expand...

How many were commercial successes?

Dire Bare said:

And while WotC did release then yank 4E PDFs . . . you do realize they are once again available on dndclassics.com, right? All DRM free. Just purchased the dragonborn book yesterday for $5.

Click to expand...

And that's great. But its also 7 years too late.

The point is to get them as PDFs while the game is still new, isn't it?

Umbran said:

I am coming around to thinking that D&D should *not* be thought of as a thing owned by a large company. I am hoping that Hasbro, and WotC, both think of it as a *small* company, that just happens to pass profits up the chain if they have any. Consider that we usually end up mentioning that D&D doesn't matter to Hasbro, except for maybe movie licensing. D&D is even a small chunk of WotC's pie. It only has a few people on staff, and doesn't actually seem to get huge support from its parent and grandparent companies, but not too much hindrance, either. So, why should the D&D department do anything other than work like a small company?

Click to expand...

Yeah, as long as Hasbro doesn't lay too heavy a hand on WotC, WotC could conceivably operate in a semi-entrepreneurial mode quite successfully, which includes finding their own sources of capital. As you say, they're a small company which is conducive to operating like that. The key phrase is "successfully". That autonomy traditionally disappears when a subsidiary doesn't perform.

shidaku said:

Sorry, but corporate Kickstarters reek of failed business practices.

Click to expand...

There are very big entities seriously investigating peer-to-peer lending as the next big venture capital model. Its a mostly untapped source of investment with a very attractive risk profile. Be crazy not to.

transtemporal said:

There are very big entities seriously investigating peer-to-peer lending as the next big venture capital model. Its a mostly untapped source of investment with a very attractive risk profile. Be crazy not to.

Click to expand...

Yes, how could getting money for nothing not be a great investment model?

shidaku said:

Yes, how could getting money for nothing not be a great investment model?

Click to expand...

Um, peer-to-peer lending is not "money for nothing". P2PL is like any other lending - for interest (or for some other agreed payment). It is just that there's no traditional financial institution involved.

As to whether it has an attractive risk profile... that kind of depends on the agreement. P2PL is not secured with government insurance, so that adds to their risk. Whether that is attractive depends upon the potential payoff.

Umbran said:

How many were commercial successes?

Click to expand...

I'd say Not a one yet. The ones that have the strongest adoption are all free.
The automation isn't sufficient to get the majority to adopt them, and the free ones are, feature for feature, just as good. Not always as pretty.