Excellent point on WotC mishandling

[Orius]

Honestly that blog post came off as yet another iteration of "WotC sucks, has sucked ever since they sold out to Hasbro, they're running the company into the ground, 4e sucks, I'm mad they cancelled Heroscape because they suck, yadda yadda yadda." Nothing I've never read before, the usual angry opinion not backed up by much in the way of facts.

WotC has always had a pretty mixed record on anything that wasn't Magic. Even before they got D&D they didn't have much of a track record with successful RPGs. Their successes with board games was hit and miss. It's not like Atkinson was some business genius and his departure doomed the company to a slow death as the blog appears to be stating.

 

[GreyLord]

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?"

Uhhh, actually I pretty much love 4e....I also can recognize the mistakes WotC has made and don't let it blind me like a LOT of people do. I can see some serious problems up ahead.

Yes, I also played 2e. I prefer 2e core with the grandfather clause still active for whatever I like with 1e tossed in. I dislike kits, I dislike most of the player options, and actively hate Skills and Powers of the player's options books.

Of interest, I even had the amounts TSR was making...and it's amazing how they botched that up. At the height of it they were making ~80-100 million USD depending on the year. That's right folks TSR was actually making near the 100 million dollar range.

Even in it's bad year...it was making 25-50 million (estimates are pretty rough to get accurately) but of course that's nothing when you are burning through 50-60 million a year in your budget. They got so used to having the high amoung of income...that when it went down...because of bad marketing strategies on their part...they didn't know how to change it up.

I've actually played ALL the editions at some point or another. It's funny to see the illusions people think that ODD had with it (for example...S&W has D20 type system as it's default...when in reality that didn't gain prominence till Greyhawk came out...prior to that any D20 was more of a second option for those who didn't have the chainmail rules...otherwise it was a completely different combat system then what you'd recognize now).

Much of the vilifying against 2e is similar to some of what you see people throwing against 4e...believe it or not. However, 2e had some HIGHLY successful things...even in it's death throes...for example...the entire Infinity Engine series of games...

But the marketing still stunk overall...same with 4e right now overall...

 

[Stormonu]

I don't know if a market blitz ad program for D&D would help the game at all, or run the company into too much debt. However, I do think D&D needs a stronger marketing base than it current reliance on mere word of mouth and putting the Red Box in Target.

Moreover, I think one of the problems with D&D is it has gotten itself on the "publish or die" model. Without a serious change in gamer's expectations, the publication of the Core 3 "and that's it" would not fly with the current set of gamers.*

The big question would be, how could you get off the new & shiny treadmill and still maintain a viable interest in the game? It would probably have to be done with secondary sales - adventures, similar to Piazo's AP line, or could it be with novels based in D&D worlds or things like D&D branded miniatures, dice, cups, caps and the like?

* Of course, another problem is the fact the D&D already has so...much...stuff. I feel for the authors of 5th edition - no one is going to be happy with a new edition until just about everything from every previous edition gets upspecked in the new edition.

 

[Truth Seeker]

I don't agree with the OP, because there is nothing to agree to, since I haven't bought any WoCt products in the last 2 years +, or so...

 

[Beginning of the End]

(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...one million reinvigorated players out of 25 million isn't really a reinvigoration...but it's better than 25,000 players out of 25 million that they had going before 3e)...but THREE FRIKKIN revisions in the past 10 years (some might say 4 with essentials).

I like the made up numbers coupled with unintelligible grammar.

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...

Really? You're not Dancey? Shocking.

Anyway, let's analyze the lethargic pre-WotC pace of D&D revisions:

1974: OD&D
1977: Holmes
1979: AD&D (last core rulebook published)
1981: Moldvay
1983: BECMI
1989: AD&D2
1991: Rules Cyclopedia
1995: AD&D2 Revised

And then post-WotC:

2000: D&D3
2003: D&D3.5
2008: D&D4
2010: D&D4 Essentials

That's intervals of 3, 2, 2, 2, 6, 2, 4, 5, 3, 5, and 2 years between releases of new/revised editions of the game over the course of its history. (And I skipped the orange spines for AD&D1.)

This doesn't necessarily mean that frequent revision isn't a problem (or that the sea-change of completely altering the core gameplay with D&D4 isn't a problem), but "frequent revision" has pretty much been D&D's modus operandi since the beginning.

 

[BryonD]

...yet another iteration of ...

Ya know, when you can make this comment about the fan base, that ain't a good sign.

It is like the reverse of "nobody goes there; its too crowded."

 

[ggroy]

1974: OD&D
1977: Holmes
1979: AD&D (last core rulebook published)
1981: Moldvay
1983: BECMI
1989: AD&D2
1991: Rules Cyclopedia
1995: AD&D2 Revised

You forgot one.

1985: Unearthed Arcana

 

[GreyLord]

Anyway, let's analyze the lethargic pre-WotC pace of D&D revisions:

1974: OD&D
1977: Holmes
1979: AD&D (last core rulebook published)
1981: Moldvay
1983: BECMI
1989: AD&D2
1991: Rules Cyclopedia
1995: AD&D2 Revised

If we are going to include different lines of product, and all smaller products...There were quite a few forgotten for 3e/3.5 which would be

D20 Modern
D&D Basic 3.5 (Black Dragon)
D&D Basic 3.5 (Blue Dragon)
Star Wars D20

all of those are just as much D20 as B/X BECMI were D&D.

Unearthed Arcana was also for 3.5

AKA...there's a difference between revision, and differing lines. BX was separated from AD&D early on...AD&D to D&D is what we are talking about, not the separate Basic D&D line which finally got to be the BECMI line.

Also of note


That version was killed off, died over 10 years ago...

If one views it as a continuation of OD&D...then that was revised far more overall...and as I said...it's dead Jim...it was also a separate line. If you are including that you may as well include ALL D20 variations for the D20 line.

The actual real line would be

AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e
D&D 3e

I might accept the 2e revision...but there was probably just as big a difference between the original 3e core rulebook printing...and the final 3e (prior to 3.5) erratta...in which case as the errata was easily online you'd have to add

3e Errata version
3.5 Errata version

Moreover if we include optional books which could have significant impact on the game (such as Unearthed Arcana 1e) we would then have to include the 2e player options (which many call 2.5), but with 3e that would include All the Class books (with as many classes and feats I'd say they were as significant as some of the 2.5 Options books), and then with 3.5 the Complete Books version, Players Handbook II, Unearthed Arcana...and lest we forget...the BIG one...book of Nine Swords...and though not really popular...possibly Incarnum.

That's attributing a LOT of revisions to things that are either separate lines using the same core idea (which is the same as your B/X BECMI versions to AD&D idea) or saying optional books outside of core rules are revisions...which is equally ridiculous.

Overall such inclusions of separate lines or changes small enough to be errata is ridiculous. Which is why when people talk about revisions...or throw fits it's NOT 3.5 with class books vs. D20 Modern...or D20 Modern with D20 Future...

It's 3.X or 3.5 vs. 4e...or 2e vs. 3e...etc.

PS: As I said...if D&D ceases to be published in a few years...most likely after 5e...you can't say this came out of nowhere...that no one expected it or warned you...or even pointed out the problems. Of course seeing some of the blind responses here I expect a LOT of whining from people who can't believe that bad marketing skills would lead to the demise of WotC or D&D. On the otherhand, maybe I'm the one in the wrong...but we won't really know for a few years yet...

 

[Remus Lupin]

You know, the more I follow these discussions, the more I think that our fundamental problem is how we understand the term "revision." I don't tend to think of either 3.0 or 4.0 as "revisions" of D&D, but rather as whole-scale REBOOTS of the franchise, reimagining multiple concepts on a fundamental level. REVISION, on the other hand, implies to me relatively small-scale changes that are more or less continuous with what came before. So, 3.5 was a REVISION, but 4.0 was a REBOOT. I can agree that "revisions" are appropriate every 5 years or so, but "reboots" should be relatively rare, and only when a brand has really exhausted the potential of its prior incarnation.

In this sense, by the way, Pathfinder is really a "revision" of 3.x, even though it's actually a completely different brand.

 

[Ahzad]

Seriously, did you actually play 2e when it was actually alive? It wasn't "good times" for anyone.

I'm not him, but I played through it's entire life and had really good times with it, YMMV.

shidaku said
"They are a niche market, their goal isn't like that of WoW and to get as many kids and their parents into the game as possible, but to continue to support and be supported by a steady line of fans."

While I agree they are a niche market, I would disagree that their goal should not be to get as many kids and parents into the game as possible. If not your fan base slowly dwindles over the years until they can't sustain you anymore. If anything they should be more like WoW in their advertising and enlist celebrities to hawk their product in tv spots. There is a whole host of celebs that play or played D&D that could be used to help raise awareness of your brand and hopefully bring new and/or lapsed players back into the game.

At it's heart D&D is the best entertainment you can buy for the money. You really only need 3 books to have a lifetimes worth of entertainment. Anything past those 3 books is just icing that may enhance your experience. So it should have some major advertising dollars thrown at it once in a while at the bare minimum, rather than the meager lip service it gets. We don't need marketed to we've played the game for years, and decades we know what your selling. Moms, Dads, G-Parents, Aunts & Uncles might like to know that the game you are selling will help their children with math, reading, social skills, as well as teach them analytical thinking, and puzzle solving skills. All stuff that will serve them well later in life. Why wouldn't you want to advertise and showcase that especially with the help of successful celebs and professionals? But avoid the tired cliches about anti-social basement dwelling nerds.