What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[ggroy]

Exactly.

Considering two out of the three people are dead already.

I suppose one could attempt some communication by supernatural means via a Ouija board.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Or contact their legal representatives...who will use their Ouija boards.

(Despite being an entertainment attorney, none of my clients are dead, so I haven't invested in one of those yet.)

 

[ggroy]

Or contact their legal representatives...who will use their Ouija boards.

Does client-attorney privilege still apply in the realm of supernatural communications?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not on THIS plane!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted

I can't speak for anyone else but maybe my situation is pretty typical:

[Rant on]

- I started playing with the Red Basic box and got into AD&D from there.

- I used to buy most D&D books during 3E and 3.5E. I knew of every book and looked forward to previews of upcoming product.

- I purchased the Core 4E books, adventurer's vault, PHB II but then gave up. I have a current DDI subscription that I might glance at in terms of the compendium but otherwise it's almost too much effort to bother stopping it as it's only a minor expense on my credit card (I have 2 children under the age of four in comparison).

- I play in a twice-a-month 4e game with a DM who's enthusiastic but most of the players like the campaign but not the 4e rules set. In truth, while it has some fantastic ideas, I find 4e at the polar opposite of what I would like D&D to be. Three people in our group refuse to play 4E; the new edition split our group up.

- I would be keen to look at 5e (I hope it comes sooner rather than later) but if it goes further in 4e's direction rather than oscillating back closer to previous editions then I most likely will just keep my DDI and not bother purchasing the core books. If it goes too far in 4e's then I will cancel my subscription.

- The D&D that WotC is producing is not the D&D I want to play. If they want me back they need to get rid of the black box mentality - I like to know the details, the nitty gritty, I want to put myself into the role of my character. Instead, I'm playing a game where even though I've played 10+ sessions in the current campaign alone (with many more for the previous campaigns), I still have no idea what weapons the other characters are using. One player in the game didn't know they where using a dagger half the time, assuming that they were using a staff! They've now apparently changed to something different but you would have no clue in game. All that matters is what die you have to pick up to roll damage and even that seems to be of little relevance due to the mass of hps that foes have. [Is this just our group or do you notice this too by the way?]

- 4e is too combat focused. The weird thing is I like combat but not how 4e presents it.

- I feel disenfranchised from the game of D&D and I'm dissapointed in that.

- I don't come on EN World as much anymore (although I will maintain my subscription for life because of the many wonderful people that used to be around, even though only a fraction of them still are).

- I spend more with Paizo now than WotC. WotC will have to do a lot to equal what Paizo is producing. If they could even get close, I would purchase from both equally and fluently.

- Talking about D&D is kind of depressing when you don't like the current edition. Reading people say how much they like the current edition (repeatedly, ad nauseam, without surcease in full defensive battle gear) just turns me into a sad panda. D&D is not great anymore dudes - it has been mathematically smashed into mediocrity. As such, I'll leave this here and wait for the sky to fall.

[/Rant off]

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[MerricB]

Nice link, but still a bit unclear: Arneson is mentioned as having royalty rights of some kind according to his original contract, and there is no detail as to whether the WotC offer paid him a lump sum for his rights or just a sweetening of royalties...or even which IP was covered (all or some?). We don't even know if there was a time limit to the rights that were transferred- if there was a time limit in his original contract with TSR with a reversion at some time in the future, and WotC didn't pay attention to that clause, they could be bound by that original time limit.

Also in that link:

When Ryan Dancey announced that the TSR name and logo would have been suppressed, what was your sentiment?

That news saddened me in a way. Although I had come to dislike the name, TSR, I thought that it was an established brand and dropping it seemed an error. I still hold that opinion, as I do the one that WotC should have re-released original AD&D. I urged that and not from any self-interested standpoint either, as I had divested my residual rights in the game, so its renewed publication would have brought me no financial gain.

Emphasis mine.

Cheers!

 

[The Little Raven]

Instead, I'm playing a game where even though I've played 10+ sessions in the current campaign alone (with many more for the previous campaigns), I still have no idea what weapons the other characters are using. One player in the game didn't know they where using a dagger half the time, assuming that they were using a staff! They've now apparently changed to something different but you would have no clue in game.

Okay, let me get this straight...

...after 10 sessions, you haven't paid enough attention to the other characters to know what weapons they wield? Or is it that they don't express what weapons they are wielding in a way you can understand?

...and this other player doesn't know when he's using a dagger or a staff? Did he make his character himself? Did he pay attention to the choices he made?

And am I correct in assuming that you're assigning the blame to the game system?

All that matters is what die you have to pick up to roll damage and even that seems to be of little relevance due to the mass of hps that foes have.

Proficiency categories, proficiency bonuses, ranges, weapon groups, or special properties all work together to make different weapons play differently.

 

[Orius]

Most of the costs on the old stuff should be sunk costs- I'm pretty sure pdfs/downloads of that IP should be fairly profitable per unit.

I meant making physical reproductions of old products, not electronic ones. I know publishing costs are often greater than some fans seem to assume (like the perennial copmplaints about book costs no matter how many times Sean K. Reynolds or someone else explains it for the umpteenth time), and that might apply to reprints of older material.

In all fairness to WotC, there may be issues we don't know about- say, indeterminate values of royalty fees or wages for certain products- connected to the sale of old IP in digital form.

That's a good point.

The real problem is that what we got from WotC was corporate speak, the usual bull which is likely little more than half-true and does nothing to satisfy consumers and everything to generate suspicion. Piracy may indeed have been a problem, but a lot of people assume that WotC simply didn't want the old stuff to compete with the newer stuff or wanted everyone to forget about it. If they were more honest about any copyright or royalty issues surrounding older material, there might be less nerdrage. Instead we have people wearing aluminum on their heads and torches and pitchforks in their hands. If they said, "We can't sell module BS1 because we've got the estate of Joe Blow demanding royalties", more people would have been mollified. There would be some who would still be angry, but it wouldn't have been as bad as the angry response that did occur.

i think WotC undervalued the sacred cows and D&D-isms and have realized those things, even the things that don't make any sense, are adored by many.

I would agree. I think WotC assumed that the people who didn't like the things that were changed were a larger majority than they actually were. No matter how silly or unrealistic some aspects of the game might be, some things at this point have been around long enough to be thought of as D&D. Possibly not; maybe the people who haven't switched are just a very vocal minority.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Okay, let me get this straight...

...after 10 sessions, you haven't paid enough attention to the other characters to know what weapons they wield? Or is it that they don't express what weapons they are wielding in a way you can understand?

I normally wouldn't respond but heh...

I can tell you exactly what his powers do - not that I would know the names of any of them. Pull a guy here, slide a guy there, add a bonus to next attacker of opponent, deal some amount of damage and look to the DM to see whether we're anywhere near getting some stupid goblin bloodied after hitting it enough times. This is my point with the black box mentality. All that matters is the effect NOT the action(s) that caused the effect and whether they make any damn sense. The situation I mentioned was completely laughable though because the guy honestly thought he was using a staff until the DM told him at the start of a game that he didn't actually have one but he did have a dagger. And in the end that's my point, it really doesn't matter; it is the power that is important. And to answer your implied questions:
- the guy got sick of describing what he was doing after trying to come up with a new way of describing the same specific action for the upteenth time. I think all of us have given up on describing our powers and that is one of the things that makes me a sad panda with 4e.
- no I am not dumb. I can understand the power they are using perfectly. What weapon is causing the damage or effect is irrelevent in gameplay.

...and this other player doesn't know when he's using a dagger or a staff? Did he make his character himself? Did he pay attention to the choices he made?

He thought he had a staff when instead he had a dagger. A whole heap of misplay here. However, because his powers were chosen and that's all we really saw or cared about, it made didley squat's worth of difference.

And am I correct in assuming that you're assigning the blame to the game system?

Square between the eyes dude!!!

Proficiency categories, proficiency bonuses, ranges, weapon groups, or special properties all work together to make different weapons play differently.

You think? They act as a filter as to which powers you can choose and the DDI character builder works out all the plus/minus. In the end it's x times damage with maximized stat bonus with possibly an effect thrown in - and don't expect to kill an opponent with it unless they're a minion; in which case you wasted your daily. Unfortunately because of this, I might as well describe an attack as grapeshot out of my character's bum for all the difference it makes; at least then somebody might pay attention to the delivery of damage (although I'm sure our rules lawyer will debate my proficiency bonus with such an attack).

Good to see you haven't let your shield get rusty sir.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Let's say that Wizards include one previous edition adventure in each month of Dungeon Magazine. Month one, OD&D, Month two, AD&D, Month three, AD&D2, Month four 3.5e, then repeat.

Is that worth your money? $10 each month for just those adventures?

I would suggest that most people wouldn't consider it worth it. And the "goodwill" you create by publishing those adventures is nice, but unfortunately you lose the goodwill of the 4E customers who are losing the 4E content you sacrifice to put in the older edition material.

Splitting the market is such a major thing to RPG publishers and players because RPGs are so time-intensive. I have over 200 boardgames, but each weekend I'm likely to play 5-10 different games. In a year, I'd be lucky to play three different RPGs. I do not believe that RPG players in general and D&D players in particular tend to hop from RPG to RPG.

The making available of previous edition PDFs is another matter entirely.

Cheers!

I will however point out that because of Pathfinder 3.X is getting support - and putting in a monthly 3.5 adventure puts direct competition on a potential rival.

That said - I strongly suspect that the 'splitting the market' argument is correct, and may also be at the root of the 'No PDFs' rule. If people can get material for the older editions it gives them less incentive to get the [insert adjective of choice] material for their newer game.

The fact that I have not bought 4.0, and will not buy 4.0 makes the argument moot in my case - by selling older PDFs they would not be affecting the odds of my buying their newer game. The needle is buried at 0. But there are others who did not have quite the allergic reaction to the new edition that I had.

The Auld Grump, so Crafty Games, Paizo, and a bunch of miniatures companies are getting my gaming dollars, not WotC.