Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[TheAuldGrump]

I suspect Paizo is already seeing diminishing returns on their adventure paths. Although I am certain there are people who blast through each chapter when they come out, many more, I suspect, are getting further and further behind and don't have the incentive to keep buying more paths at this time, to say nothing of all the standalone adventures. The question is how bad the drop-off is and how fast it accelerates. (Obviously, there are a lot of people who buy them just to read them or as simple collectors, and that helps cushion the blow.)

At some point, they will want to change their model.

Right now circulation of the adventure paths in general is still increasing, and last I had heard the rate of increase was accelerating - there may be a 'diminishing returns' in the future, but not yet. (Though I do gather that there was a jump 'n' slump because of Kingmaker - which sold extremely well, the next path did better than the one before Kingmaker, but not as well as Kingmaker. Folks wanted to take their shovels and play in the sandbox.... )

D&D on the other hand is not doing that well locally, so their point of diminishing returns has possibly been reached, again, at least locally - especially factoring in their now slower release schedule. I actually doubt that Paizo will be changing their model all that soon, whereas WotC is currently changing theirs.

Pathfinder is not relying as much on an 'everything is core, everything must sell!' as WotC was. They do not try to market every product at the same level, which I believe WotC was trying to do for a while, or something close.

And, for the record, WotC changing their model is not a bad thing - they were saturating their market, now they are moving to remedy that. Returns were high, now they are going back down. Returns are the Devil. The Devil, I say!!!

The Auld Grump

 

[Beginning of the End]

Going by your example Paizo WILL get to the point of adventure path saturation where ideas began to get stale and they recycle ideas (adventure path # 53 RETURN of the Rune Lords and inbred Ogres!!!!!). Maybe your group is different, but they can put them out WAY faster than I can play them.

This is pretty much irrelevant for the same reason that Tor's ability to publish more books in a year that I can personally read doesn't cause Tor to reboot "English language novels" to a new edition every 5 years in order to continue selling novels.

WotC did. That's what 4th Edition is about.

I'd argue they went about it in exactly the wrong way. They tried to compete with computer games at the things computer games are strongest at. There's no future in that.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

WotC did. That's what 4th Edition is about.

The jury is clearly out on whether it worked or not. My bet is on "didn't work", but we may not know for years.

Or, possibly 'changed markets' rather than 'didn't work'. I suspect (spelled 'making a wild arsed guess') that the new market was not as large as they had hoped, but it may be that their new target market will prove itself.

The Auld Grump

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

WotC did. That's what 4th Edition is about.

The jury is clearly out on whether it worked or not. My bet is on "didn't work", but we may not know for years.

A bolt-on-your-own-complexity-options model for UD&D is following the MMORPG model as well, specifically the so-called "free to play" model, where people buy add-on option packs as the company's primary source of revenue.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Right now circulation of the adventure paths in general is still increasing, and last I had heard the rate of increase was accelerating - there may be a 'diminishing returns' in the future, but not yet.

Well, damn, that's amazing. My hat's off to Paizo, in that case.

 

[Maggan]

So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition?

The discussion so far seems to have focused a lot on rules. Of course, it's a big part of it all, but what about setting?

I thought the implied setting (Points of Light) in 4e was cool to begin with, but as I played on I missed a campaign setting of the classic format. My players would ask a lot of questions that I didn't have the time to think up good answers to, so it all felt sketchy and unappealing.

So if WotC did try making a "reconciliatory" edition, I think they should revisit Greyhawk and make it not only the default campaign, but also devote significant time and energy to adding and improving it without remaking it into another image.

I actually don't love Greyhawk, I would actually rather see them go all Planescape or Dark Sun but I do think that has less appeal for a wide audience. The only two other options are in my mind Forgotten Realms (rewound) and Eberron. And Eberron works best as an alternative campaign setting, I think. Forgotten Realms ... hmmm ... could work, but they'd have to backtrack on the latest RSE.

But I think Greyhawk would be the best bet, but with more focus than was given in D&D3e.

/M

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is not the way to grow the hobby.

3.X gaming really isn't retro. Because of the OGL and SRD, it's more accessible to more people than any other mainstream rpg. Since it's been "updated" to Pathfinder, there are still people buying products for it, and the system is still attracting new players. I don't know what basis there is to say that the 3.X segment is shrinking. In fact, there's evidence to suggest the opposite. 4e has the "current" D&D label on it, but it hasn't exactly monopolized the market.

Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.

There's clearly a market there. It's debatable as to how to access that market. There's probably something to be said for adding online resources, but if you move the game online you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. To this date, the most successful computer-based resource is still the SRD.

As far as how to attract new players from the wider gaming community, think how many people were attracted to D&D by the Baldur's Gate series. A lot. A high-quality, popular tie-in game could do wonders, but that hasn't happened since BGII (Neverwinter Nights was mired in mediocrity, the sequel was horrible, and no D&D game worthy of mention has come out since). The success of Dragon Age suggests that D&D should try to get to the computer gaming market by making quality computer games, not by making their own game more like a computer game.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.

But that shrinking pool is still fairly huge, but not going after older gamers is shooting yourself in the foot. Its like saying I want to sell a flying car, but all those land car users are not the target market. Not selling to the those that are known to pay for vehicles or other commodity means not succeeding. If you don't target the existing market, it only means fail...

Regarding the casual gamer and Pathfinder, for example, there exists both the PRD, and the d20pfsrd.com - show me where the rules are free to online users with 4e. Of course, you can't - so which is better targetting the casual online user - Pathfinder or 4e. I argue Pathfinder does a better job, because its rules are free and available online.

Although not created by Paizo, there are many free and paid-for Virtual Terrain and Character generators. I can use MapTool VT app, and PCGen to play PF online and create my characters and never have to pay anyone for a DDI subscription.

So saying only 4e is going the right way, is wrong. Pathfinder does it too, they just don't do it directly from their website, like 4e does. But I would never be a DDI customer, and by preference never a PF DDI is such a thing existed.

 

[Argyle King]

The discussion so far seems to have focused a lot on rules. Of course, it's a big part of it all, but what about setting?

I thought the implied setting (Points of Light) in 4e was cool to begin with, but as I played on I missed a campaign setting of the classic format. My players would ask a lot of questions that I didn't have the time to think up good answers to, so it all felt sketchy and unappealing.

So if WotC did try making a "reconciliatory" edition, I think they should revisit Greyhawk and make it not only the default campaign, but also devote significant time and energy to adding and improving it without remaking it into another image.

I actually don't love Greyhawk, I would actually rather see them go all Planescape or Dark Sun but I do think that has less appeal for a wide audience. The only two other options are in my mind Forgotten Realms (rewound) and Eberron. And Eberron works best as an alternative campaign setting, I think. Forgotten Realms ... hmmm ... could work, but they'd have to backtrack on the latest RSE.

But I think Greyhawk would be the best bet, but with more focus than was given in D&D3e.

/M

For me, part of the problem was that I didn't feel the mechanics meshed very well with the fluff concerning the points of light world. There are many people who feel there is no connection at all between fluff and mechanics, but I highly disagree. I believe there are certain mechanical structures which better (or worse) support certain feels. What I read in the preview books and the impression I got from them didn't match up with what I got from the actual finished product of 4E at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The step that's missing from this discussion so far is that any new edition can't just be focused on recovering lapsed players (even if it could recover huge numbers of them). It's still a limited and diminishing market. A new edition has to bring in brand new players, and it has to do so in numbers that we haven't seen in quite some time.

<snip many good points>

My response to this was touched on upthread in my post about HERO.

I can right now go to my shelf and pull down a game- HERO- that allows me to combine all the elements of any and all editions of D&D and run PCs from those editions side by side in a single campaign.

It would require a lot of work: doing the HERO "Package Deals" for each race & class; translating Feats, powers & spells, one by one, even from all the little subsystems (like Shadow magic or Incarnum); making sure there are AEDU and Vancian versions of each - but it could be done.

The end result would work and be balanced. It would even feel right...in play. It would look funny to non-HERO players, though...enough so that the system's visible inner-workings might put people off.

And I think a UED&D would have to have a lot in common with HERO in order to pull off that stunt.

The thing is, though, it would not be simpler, it would not have faster character generation, NPC/Foe generation would be as complex as it ever was.

And I simply don't see a UED&D which satisfies both the Vancians and the AEDUphiles which is as simple or simpler than either design already is.

Far less Herculean a task, and far more feasible in a business sense, to use the tools on hand- extant IP, the various editions' rulesets, DDI, D&D's overall brand power- to do what car and soft-drink companies have been doing for years and support various distinct, tailored products under the corporate banner to capture as much of the market as possible. Each of which can be evolved over time if and when needed.

The IP gives you the foot in the door; DDI gives you lower production/distribution costs; the brand gives you marketing power within the hobby and outside of it.

Edition cannibalization becomes a non-issue- GM didn't care all that much whether Camaros or Firebirds sold more as long as it was selling competitively versus Mustangs. Coke and Pepsi are less concerned about a particular beverage in their line- each now in the thousands- than overall share of the global drink market.

Why chase a dwindling number of grognards? Why assume the number is dwindling? Legacy clones seem to be doing all right. With DDI and name recognition, official D&D products being released in those niches could actually expand those niches.