I think TSR was right to publish so much material

[the Jester]

I agree that releasing stuff they are not going to make money on is bad. However, there are several steps they could have taken to improve things for the company.

1. kept better records on their sales for the different settings. Then, they could have controlled the print runs based upon hard data rather than basing sales on guesses of how many people were playing D&D and buying their stuff.
2. Reduced the number of products sold as boxed sets if they are more expensive to produce
3. Smaller print runs of their novels
4. not buying a needlepoint company
5. determining if their fans wanted products like Dragon Dice, Amazing Engine, and Buck Rogers.
6. not suing people and partners left and right
7. Allowing their people to playtest material.

Sure. However, the OP seems to be arguing that TSR's model (RELEASE MORE!!) was better than the WotC model (release what people will actually pay for!). That's all I'm disputing.

That said, I do think there were a ton of products that TSR released that they lost money on every print of, even if they sold them all. This is according to my recollection of the Dancy discussion.

 

[Erik Mona]

Since we are extolling the virtues of 2e art, let us not overlook those gorgeous blue clip art offerings from the genius of JEM. Those things were the pinncale of D&D art. Say what you will about Brom or Larry Elmore.

My money is in JEMs!

--Erik

 

[Greg K]

Sure. However, the OP seems to be arguing that TSR's model (RELEASE MORE!!) was better than the WotC model (release what people will actually pay for!). That's all I'm disputing.

That said, I do think there were a ton of products that TSR released that they lost money on every print of, even if they sold them all. This is according to my recollection of the Dancy discussion.

I do think breadth is good in settings is a bad thing. And, I think the idea that it is not was based on Slavisek's claim about "multiple buckets" trying to catch the same amount of rain. Slavisek based that on his claim that people buy one setting and stick to it and then divide themselves up by setting rather than D&D players. The gamers I know tend to like two or three different settings.

Still, even if tpeple by one setting and stick to it, had TSR controlled their print runs better, I don't see why that should be a problem? You have a smaller initial print runs and base supplements and print runs on the sales numbers for each setting while putting out some general material as well. And, if multiple settings is so bad, why are we seeing them under 4e now? Slavisek is still the guy in charge. What makes multiple settings a better idea now than before?

 

[Marius Delphus]

And, if multiple settings is so bad, why are we seeing them under 4e now? Slavisek is still the guy in charge. What makes multiple settings a better idea now than before?

Because, in essence, we're only seeing one at a time, they've been designed to appeal more broadly to the player base, and they're not being "supported" with a heaping pile of products nobody but completionists want to buy.

JMHO.

As to the OP, it depends on your criteria. TSR clearly was not "right to publish so much material," because doing so destroyed the company. WOTC isn't interested in making the same mistakes. But it must be remembered, as amply mentioned above, that TSR created a lot of stuff that a lot of people loved (in addition to the stuff hardly anyone [except perhaps Erik Mona!] liked).

 

[Celebrim]

I missed that one the first time around.

Wow. Really? You're going to put up 2e books against 4e books in terms of art? Open your 2e PHB and then open a 4e PHB. Tell me which one is prettier.

Sure, the 2e one hands down.

I suspect this is a matter of taste. I detest the style of the 4e art. Fourth edition has adopted, as best as I can tell, the same unified art direction found in MtG. This produces a very consistant product. If you like the style encouraged/mandated by the art director/conceptual artist, then you are extremely happy. If you don't, then you are very unhappy.

Hense, the fact that 4e artwork pretty strongly divides people. Some people really love it. Some people really loath it. I'm in the latter. I believe is hands down the worst art ever attached to the D&D product.

That's an opinion of course, but my thinking is something like this. If I published a fantasy novel, there is hardly a peice of 4e artwork that I would be willing to have grace the cover. I would feel that such artwork would negatively enhance my sales with my intended audience (because lets face it, people do judge a book by its cover). Without going into detail about what I believe it targets, I believe that the art targets too narrow of a slice of the fantasy market and that D&D 4e is ill-served by such artwork.

 

[Dausuul]

Still, even if tpeple by one setting and stick to it, had TSR controlled their print runs better, I don't see why that should be a problem? You have a smaller initial print runs and base supplements and print runs on the sales numbers for each setting while putting out some general material as well.

One word: Overhead.

It costs money to design a setting, to edit it, to set up each print run, to plan marketing and release. It takes up space on bookstore shelves. These expenses make up a substantial chunk of the overall cost.

Two more words: Opportunity cost.

A company only has so much talent on hand at any given point. Obtaining more requires time (to find new talent) and money (to pay it); in the meanwhile, you have to pick and choose what you're going to do with what you've got, and every designer working on a niche product is a designer not working on a product with broader appeal.

And, if multiple settings is so bad, why are we seeing them under 4e now? Slavisek is still the guy in charge. What makes multiple settings a better idea now than before?

It's a question of quantity and quality, not an absolute "make multiple settings or don't." WotC is releasing new settings at a measured pace, and it's not dumping massive resources into setting-exclusive products. A quick comparison:

4E currently has the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun settings. Next year it looks like we get Ravenloft. Each one gets a couple of setting books, a few adventures, and some DDM figs, and that's it.

2E had Forgotten Realms proper, Maztica, Al-Qadim, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Mystara proper, Hollow World, Savage Coast, Dark Sun, Ravenloft proper, Masque of the Red Death, Planescape, Spelljammer, Council of Wyrms, Birthright, Thunder Rift, and probably some others I missed. (I had to go to Wikipedia to come up with that list; 2E made so many settings I can't even remember them all.) Many of these had extensive lines of sourcebooks and adventures made purely for them.

See the difference?

 

[Swedish Chef]

It's a question of quantity and quality, not an absolute "make multiple settings or don't." WotC is releasing new settings at a measured pace, and it's not dumping massive resources into setting-exclusive products. A quick comparison:

4E currently has the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun settings. Next year it looks like we get Ravenloft. Each one gets a couple of setting books, a few adventures, and some DDM figs, and that's it.

2E had Forgotten Realms proper, Maztica, Al-Qadim, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Mystara proper, Hollow World, Savage Coast, Dark Sun, Ravenloft proper, Masque of the Red Death, Planescape, Spelljammer, Council of Wyrms, Birthright, Thunder Rift, and probably some others I'm forgetting. Many of these had extensive lines of sourcebooks and adventures made purely for them.

See the difference?

I'm not a 4e player, so WotC isn't going to make any money off of me, but this plan seems to be the way to keep the game alive and healthy.

My heyday was late 80s, early 90s. I was in my teens and had some disposable income for the game. But I was still picky about what I bought for 2ed. I had the player's and DM's books, and bought only the Monstrous Manual when it was finally released in hard cover, and I owned the Complete Ninja's and Complete Thief's Handbooks. The rest of my group had smatterings of the other Handbooks.

Boxed sets? I think we had the 1e Forgotten Realms. I wound up purchasing the Al-Qadim stuff, but no one in the group ever wanted to play, so it still gathers dust on my shelves to this day. The boxed sets were just too darned expensive for us. Mind you, the exchange rate in Canada was horrendous. A $30 boxed set in the US would come in at $50C. Some went as high as $70 on initial release. I had some disposable income, but not that much!

Having said all that, though, we all wanted to buy many of the products that were advertised. What we found was that after perusing them in the stores, they weren't worth our meager funds. So they got passed by.

I agree with many posters here: there were some gems in the pile of crap they shoveled out. Sadly, not enough to save TSR as a company.

I am happy with what WotC has done with 3.x and to a lesser degree with 4e. Our group bought the 3.x stuff, and we've decided we're happy with what we have and are not going to go with 4e. I suspect that has more to do with the fact that we're all in our late 30s or early 40s now and can't be bothered to hand out cash for the latest and greatest than it does with quality or quantity. But I do feel that if WotC (and Paizo, Mongoose, etc) can continue to innovate and produce quality products that enough fans are requesting, then the game should survive well into an 8th or 9th edition 20 or 30 years from now.

 

[Shemeska]

Because, in essence, we're only seeing one at a time, they've been designed to appeal more broadly to the player base, and they're not being "supported" with a heaping pile of products nobody but completionists want to buy.

Here's a question from me: why would you buy an unsupported, fire-and-forget setting in the first place? If a setting is going to be put out there and then for all intents and purposes abandoned, why invest my time and money in it versus something that's in print, supported, and by that support I'm more likely to find players who know about it and are seriously interested in playing within that setting?

 

[MrMyth]

Here's a question from me: why would you buy an unsupported, fire-and-forget setting in the first place? If a setting is going to be put out there and then for all intents and purposes abandoned, why invest my time and money in it versus something that's in print, supported, and by that support I'm more likely to find players who know about it and are seriously interested in playing within that setting?

Because you like the setting? I prefer a setting like Dark Sun or Eberron more than one like Forgotten Realms or Golarian, just because the more unique approaches in the former appeals to me more than the classic fantasy of the latter.

More than that, for my purposes, I prefer making one purchase that fills out the setting rather than needed dozens of products to fill me in. Mainly due to my DMing style - I prefer to create my own adventures rather than using existing ones, for example.

 

[TerraDave]

I have xped the posts that say what I don't need to...

BUT, I think it may be hard for people really to understand just the sheer volume of stuff that came out from ~87-97. Hundreds of products.

What we need is a list....