D&D 5E I just don't see why they even bothered with the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.

Corpsetaker · Nov 12, 2015

Parmandur said:
Not knocking it, I like it. But it takes business away from local stores, just the way it is, per my understanding from the retailers themselves. And WOTC is all about the stores.

I'm sure it does to some stores but I would say overall not. D&D is not the business maker for most stores now a days. People come to game stores for a lot of other things besides D&D and I would say places like Amazon are where people get most of their books.

Shasarak · Nov 12, 2015

Hussar said:
Snort. Have you read TSR era books? You have a definition of suffer that is far different from mine.

Yes, I have read TSR era books. The prose can be challenging for younger readers but certainly worthwhile to persevere with.

Parmandur · Nov 12, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
I'm sure it does to some stores but I would say overall not. D&D is not the business maker for most stores now a days. People come to game stores for a lot of other things besides D&D and I would say places like Amazon are where people get most of their books.

Which is why WOTC gives stores that drive their Magic business all the books two weeks early: it's not a major driver, bit it is a perk for the stores that drive Wizards revenue: Magic still does crazy business, and is what keeps the stores open.

Jeremy E Grenemyer · Nov 12, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
Not like Hasbro they weren't.

TSR certainly was.

TSR was never as big as Hasbro, but it became every bit as money hungry, and it sunk money into projects hoping for big hits that never panned out, much like WotC under Hasbro.

TSR nearly killed D&D, let's not forget.

The accusation that WotC (pre and post-Hasbro) has lost sight of what's best for the customer is nothing new.

Jester David · Nov 12, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
I just want to say that I don't believe that BS that Mearls said for an instant.

That's nice.
I'll trust the guy with access to the sales data who was employed by the company at the time.

Corpsetaker said:
1: If the way 3rd edition was handled was bad then how come it lasted so long and still exists in the guise of Pathfinder which has spawned it's own following?

3e was handled poorly because they took an edition that could have lasted the decade plus of 1e or 2e and wrung every last dollar out of the product line in half that time. Twice.

3e rebooted itself after three years as 3.5, which lasted all of four years before ending. Pathfinder took over the ruleset but started re-releasing all the content again, but Paizo is willing to accept far smaller profit margin and lower sales of books. But their rapid fire release schedule is showing its seams.
This is bad as each time the game rebooted, it sold fewer core rulebooks and the audience shrank. It wasn't sustainable and divided the audience, making it hard for gamers to find people who played their flavour of D&D.

I go into this in far more detail in this blog: http://www.5mwd.com/archives/2819

Corpsetaker said:
2: 4th edition was bad for 4th edition and not some over zealous release schedule. So many people simply didn't like the rules so they bought less books.

Pinning down why 4e was bad is a lengthy novella. But the fast and furious release schedule did not help.

Corpsetaker said:
When you have a fantastic rule set then books are purchased on the back of that. That whole thing Mearls said is nothing but new edition strategy justification spin. 5th edition is a fantastic ruleset that many people obviously enjoy so if you picked up the pace on books then those books will be purchased. You also can't go in with the corporate attitude that every book you put forth is supposed to sell more copies than the last.

No, he's going in with the attitude that the longer the edition lasts the better it is for the hobby and the business and it's better to have each book you put forth be special and memorable.

Corpsetaker said:
The sad thing is, since a corporation has taken over D&D it stopped being about what's good for the customer and more what's good for the corporation and in so doing this, has made people believe that their current strategy is what's best for the game when it's actually not.

That "corporation" has been in charge of D&D since late 1999 or so, and was in charge of all of 3e, 4e, and 5e.
Your statement implies some magical time when D&D was owned by a company that cared about the needs of D&D players first and business requirements first. Which has never been the case. Gygax was interested in money too.

Mistwell · Nov 12, 2015

Corpsetaker said:
Not like Hasbro they weren't.

Actually TSR, prior to the sale, was even worse than Hasbro at their worse. By all evidence, due to the massive money that Magic The Gathering brings in for Hasbro, Hasbro doesn't touch WOTC. There is not "corporate master" behind the scenes telling WOTC what to do and micro managing them - it's very hands-off according to all reports and indeed WOTC seems to have more influence in that relationship than Hasbro corporate (which I have heard has actually less employees than the WOTC division). And as D&D makes up so little of WOTC, it seems very few even pay any attention to D&D there.

TSR on the other hand was aggressively ruthless in terms of control over the brand, and squeezing every cent from fans, prior to the sale.

So no, I don't buy this "not like Hasbro" line. Not for a second. These are better times for D&D than under TSR near the end of TSR, by far.

Shasarak · Nov 13, 2015

Mistwell said:
Actually TSR, prior to the sale, was even worse than Hasbro at their worse. By all evidence, due to the massive money that Magic The Gathering brings in for Hasbro, Hasbro doesn't touch WOTC. There is not "corporate master" behind the scenes telling WOTC what to do and micro managing them - it's very hands-off according to all reports and indeed WOTC seems to have more influence in that relationship than Hasbro corporate (which I have heard has actually less employees than the WOTC division). And as D&D makes up so little of WOTC, it seems very few even pay any attention to D&D there.

TSR on the other hand was aggressively ruthless in terms of control over the brand, and squeezing every cent from fans, prior to the sale.

So no, I don't buy this "not like Hasbro" line. Not for a second. These are better times for D&D than under TSR near the end of TSR, by far.

I think that it is impossible to believe that there is no corporate oversight of the DnD department, whether that comes from Hasbro or from WotC itself.

There is no point in quibbling about which logo is on the hat of the faceless upper management drone responsible for gutting the DnD department.

Hussar · Nov 13, 2015

Shasarak said:
Yes, I have read TSR era books. The prose can be challenging for younger readers but certainly worthwhile to persevere with.

Nice snark. Subtle.

But good grief. See Page XX is not a meme that started with WotC. We were talking about editing right? Not prose but the actual job of an editor. Things like organization of a book. Oversight. That sort of thing.

You complain that WotC doesn't have a full time editor and yet their books are far, far better edited than a TSR book.

BryonD · Nov 13, 2015

Hussar said:
If 3e was handled so fantastically, why have we had THREE versions of 3e in 15 years? Never mind new editions of D&D, just a single edition has been rewritten extensively, and, oh look, another PHB/DMG/MM trinity released, three times in the past 15 years.

First, calling 3.5 "rewritten extensively" deserves a nice *snort*.

Go back and read Monte Cooke's comments on how little things changed and why it wasn't worth doing.

But, that leads to the "why" of your question. Which is really trivially easy to answer. 3E was selling like gangbusters and had revolutionized the industry. However, there was a great deal of that money going to 3PPs. It was easy enough to take feedback on things that could have been better and throw in a few common house-rules and get the entire fan base to buy the books all over again. And it worked. It had serious side effects, but it sure as hell sold those redone core books.

Pathfinder is a completely different issue. Paizo wanted to put their own stamp on the game. Simple as that.
The big bad issues you are inferring are non-existent.

How is this not a treadmill? Oh, and let's not forget, we're likely going to have a FOURTH version of 3e before the end of the decade. Four versions of a single edition in 20 years. Goodie.

A treadmill of constantly evolving a great game is a good thing.
An ill-advised departure into an unpopular tangent is a bad thing.