Excellent point on WotC mishandling

[Wik]

I've got to say, when you see an opening post that has this little gem (emphasis mine):

You don't alienate a games base (like D&D) by doing not just one (and one sometimes is bad enough to kill the base...look at New Coke vs. Classic...aka...3e vs. the REAL D&D...but it had the opposite effect which also happens and reinvigorates a hobby...like 3e did partially...

It does kind of make one wince and expect another edition war. The fact that no War materialized is definitely a good sign. I'm a happy newt right now.

Also, I just have to say:

I think it was a miracle almost that it didn't flop outright because people were so sick of what they saw as a money grab, or whatever they wanted to call it for being released so soon after 3.5 edition.

"So soon"? 3.5 was less than three years after 3.0. That, to me, is a bigger anger-causing event than releasing 4e, five years after the release of 3.5 (eight after 3.0). And this is because many, MANY people were complaining about the glut of information in third edition, and about many of the perceived problems of the system.

Not to be a jerk here, but any company that ignores its mainstream fans, who are asking (and willing to pay money for) a revision is asking for trouble. And we all saw attempts to fix some of these perceived problems in the final stages of 3.5E's publication lifespan - Book of Nine Swords, Reserve Feats, Magic Item Compendium.

I think the best marketing move Wizards made in recent memory, though, was the monthly CB + Magazine subscription. It guarantees a steady income base, regardless of book sales. This means you can flatten out your book publication schedule and still make money. However, the underfed, undernourished conspiracy theorist in me believes that 4e was made with a glut of feats, powers, and races precisely to make character creation difficult without the CB, funneling players towards that subscription model.

 

[Dausuul]

Your problem was my selling point. I can gaurantee I would not have purchased 4E if it resembled what came before it, since I was just about to tell my players that I no longer wanted to run D&D when the 4E announcement occurred.

Indeed. I wasn't quite as far to quitting as you, but I jumped on 4E when it came out. At this point, I would never again run a 3E campaign; I do run 4E, and I would be willing to run 1E, 2E, or BECMI, but not 3E.

 

[Filcher]

However, the underfed, undernourished conspiracy theorist in me believes that 4e was made with a glut of feats, powers, and races precisely to make character creation difficult without the CB, funneling players towards that subscription model.

No one likes a skinny newt. Feed that thing!

 

[evildmguy]

Indeed. I wasn't quite as far to quitting as you, but I jumped on 4E when it came out. At this point, I would never again run a 3E campaign; I do run 4E, and I would be willing to run 1E, 2E, or BECMI, but not 3E.

This is probably where I am at. Not sure if I could run earlier but I was definitely not happy with the 3E DND rules anymore. If I did play 3E again it would be so house ruled as to look like pre 4E, such as with Book of Nine Swords, reserve feats, etc. which I never got to use in a game.

 

[evilref]

I disagree. They are doign complete revisions of D&D, with at least two full revisions, and one small revision (3.5) with another one that's debatable whether it was a small revision or not (essentials). With brand names, revision is typically bad. D&D is NOT a boardgame...though it is a game and DEFINATELY NOT a videogame. A brand is more comparable to books in general...or fiction. Take the Lord of the Rings. Now imagine if the booksellers wanted to perk up sales...so they rewrote it...to make it up to "current" trends and standards along with "current" writing styles.

Writers sometimes get large enough to be considered brands in and of themselves. Sometimes characters or overall design (Harry Potter is a brand for example).

Books...they're not considered to be brands. Not in publishing.

D&D is a brand. And brands get updated. The new shoe, the new car, the new make-up, the new washing powder etc. etc. etc. Brands change constantly.

RPGs get updated, it's a facet of the industry. Chaosium issues new editions with tiny changes. Pathfinder's just D&D 3.X with a few tweaks, Runequest 1, 2, whatever it is. Fading Suns 2.0 with 3.0 on its way. Ars Magica 5th edition, Exalted 2nd, Shadowrun 4th etc.

 

[carmachu]

Setting aside any rules or gameplay preferences, I think it's perfectly justifiable to release an entirely new game every 2 to 4 years. Almost no video game is expected to last that long before being supplanted by something else. Board games likewise don't get huge shelf lives -- most people get bored of Settlers of Catan after a few dozen games, so they switch to, like, Dominion or Small World.

To be honest, your confusing video games with other games. Where as a video game gets run through and beat in days/weeks/months depending on the game.....RPG one, a campaign can last years and years. So putting out a new edition in 2 to 4 years pretty much defeats itself, as folks arent DONE with that edition in the time you flip editions.

 

[Mercurius]

But getting back to Greylords point (I think), each one of these revisions further fractures the fan base. I think I can say this is a fact, that ENWorld varifies. And it is the same fan base: the millions who played in the last 25 years or so, and that tiny trickle of new blood that depends on those existing players.

WotC should try to pull more of those guys together...maybe they can do a new edition.

Funny, but maybe true. I don't think WotC predicted the lack of enthusiasm that many would have for 4E; or rather, they didn't predict the number of people that would turn their back on 4E and return to 3.5 (and later Pathfinder).

Now a new (5th) edition would be a risk: It could either fracture the market even further, or it could bring people back together under one large umbrella. In one thread I posited that the percentage of D&D players was split roughly like so:

5-10% Old School editions (pre-3E)
35-45% 3.X/Pathfinder
45-55% 4E/Essentials

My guess is that WotC planned for a much better conversion rate to 4E, maybe 80+% of 3.5 players; obviously that didn't happen and what resulted was a disaster of near-epic proportions (of course they wouldn't tell us that).

But let's say 5E came up with something special that attracted everyone and enticed 80% of the 4E players, 50% of the 3.x players, and 20% of the Old School players; we'd have a spread of:

4-8% Old School
15-25% 3.x/Pathfinder
10-15% 4E/Essentials
50-70% 5E

That looks a bit better, but it still isn't all that great simply by virtue of the fact that the more editions there are, the more choices one has. I don't think this happens with other games, or at least there is more compatibility and "edition crossbreeding."

But again, my point: Even in a best case scenario 5E only recoups so much of the fracturing. It certainly could help a bit, but re-grouping existing D&D players under one banner is perhaps secondary to finding new players altogether, which is much harder, especially given the prevalence of computer games and the generational gap.

I might be wrong, but I'd say that WotC isn't a book publisher, but a game publisher whose medium has often been books. We're starting to see them move into the digital realm, in fits and starts and complete blunders, but the medium does seem to be changing.

This is a key point that has been echoed throughout this thread and could use with another re-emphasis. D&D is not a book, not like The Lord of the Rings. One does not revise LotR, one repackages and reprints it, maybe with some books about it. But LotR itself is a classic and will sell tens, even hundreds, of thousands of copies, year after year. But D&D requires re-invention.

And while I don't disagree that revising fractures the base, I'm wondering what alternatives exist to drive sales./quote]

This is the big question, and one that WotC--or any game publisher--has not answered.

Overall, revisions make for a quick profit, but kill the line. That's what I think will eventually happen with D&D...and what we may be seeing the beginnings of right now. Dancey, much maligned...I think has a right call in someways on the situation in the market. (and no, I'm NOT Dancey, but I think he was one of the brightest guys involved with 3e...OGL was PURE genius).

Yet it was the OGL that was at least indirectly responsible for fracturing the market through allowing the creation of Pathfinder. I like the OGL, but it certainly ended up backfiring for WotC.

D&D is not a book. D&D is a gaming system that is published in books. LOTR is a book. What's the difference you ask? LOTR is done. Bilbo had his adventure in The Hobbit, Frodo had his in LOTR. Their adventures happened, their cast came and went, their deed is done.

D&D however, is a system for having adventures, so long as one can have adventures, one can utilize D&D. The particular format it comes in is largely irrelevent so long as it is readily accessible. Before the age of computing, this was in the form of books, and though WotC is a little late on catching the boat, the digital age is now upon them and they are moving into that.

Right, exactly. We're already moving to the model of DDI being the primary ruleset, the books being more akin to "snapshots" of the ongoing game in development. I think this trend will not only continue but strengthen to the point that a larger and larger percentage of new rules will be DDI-only.

Of course the problem with this approach is that it differentiates the diehards from the casual gamers. DDI, afaik, still only has about 50,000 subscribers, which is a very small percentage of the total D&D playing populace.

Again, you are demostrating the exact difference between a book, and a thing that comes published in books. D&D is a system, not a book. As that system ages, flaws are discovered, improvements are made, errors are fixed. And at some point, these "errata" become so great that they necessitate a whole new publishing. At which point, cool new ideas that were not thought of previously are integrated, perhaps so far to the point as to make it worthy of a new edition.

Right. It isn't only a "money grab," it is also a way of evolving the game. Now of course there are advocates of each edition that see their edition of choice as the best, and don't move on with the game as it evolves. This is fine and good. But we must not forget that the designers of WotC do not try to make a lousier version of D&D with each new edition just to make money; they try to make it better and hopefully make some money while they're at it.

The hardcore base is the minority. They have been and always will be. Look at any major MMO, the "hardcore PVPers" the "hardcore raiders", these guys make up less than 1% of the entire population. And the "hardcore base" is never pleased, and the more you cater to them the less they will be pleased. And games that cater to one, very exclusive sect of what is a very diverse population put people off MUCH faster than games that are open to everyone.

NEVER cater to the "hardcore base". You will paint yourself into a corner and you will never get out.

Good points. This may also be why game stores don't always do so well, because they tend to be run by and for hardcore gamers, which can be a bit off-putting for "moggles."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

TSR was having some serious problems as the D&D staff bearers at the end of 1996...for some of the same reasons that I see problematic with Wizards of the Coast's marketing today.

The two aren't even remotely similar. TSR the company was universally despised by 2e fans and they were swiftly going bankrupt under the control of a CEO that had no idea what she was doing.

Seriously, did you actually play 2e when it was actually alive? It wasn't "good times" for anyone. There's rose colored glasses, but are you honestly going to try and claim that "I dislike 4e" is in any way alike to "2e caused the D&D brand to almost completely extinguish itself as even the biggest fans of the game hated the company that created it?"

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

TSR the company was universally despised by 2e fans and they were swiftly going bankrupt under the control of a CEO that had no idea what she was doing.

Come on now. Universally? Answering hyperbole with hyperbole doesn't make the point. But at least you aren't abusing the use of the ellipsis.

 

[renau1g]

In one thread I posited that the percentage of D&D players was split roughly like so:

5-10% Old School editions (pre-3E)
35-45% 3.X/Pathfinder
45-55% 4E/Essentials

Any back up for this or did you pull these out of the air?