I don't want 5E, I want a definitive D&D (the Monopoly model)

[Herschel]

True, except many gamers distinctly prefer the game they're most familiar with or have resources for. You're dramatically underestimating this group in favor of the connoisseurs that have strong edition preferences. Of course the connoisseurs exist and they'll always want new stuff, but some of us would like to know there's a version of D&D that's not built on planned obsolescence.

It's not planned to, it's planned FOR. You need to have an exit strategy oin business. Likewise you don't plan on being an adult, you don't plan to grow older, you plan FOR it because it happens whether you want it to or not.

That was when D&D was most lucrative, no? I don't hear many other gamers of that generation claiming the same thing.

There was also a lot less competition in the marketplace because it was new and the internet wasn't in common use yet. This may be a bit hard for you to understand due to being too young but there was a world of gaming before google. Games had to be introduced teh old fashioned way. Marketing was a LOT different.

No, they just need to reprint one D&D edition and stick with it for the players that don't want the edition treadmill.

Sticking with one edition means digging your own grave as a business. You need to sell stuff to make money to stay in business. Your Monopoly analogy really doesn't work either because you're not looking at it from the right angle. Monopoly is one of the games that's stood for a long time but there have been many that use the same basic mechanics/principles of it with different packaging, including other versions of Monopoly. There's also hundreds of different family board games out there, including long discontinued ones that people still play. How many people still have and play their old Avalon Hill games?

Monopoly isn't an ongong game either. It has a definite beginning and ending. You "finish" the game in one sitting. People who play family board games may play Monopoly, Stratego, Risk, Clue, Scrabble, Boggle, Apples to Apples, Balderdash, Mindtrap, Trivial Pursuit, Hungry Hungry Hippos, you name it all in the same game space. They're much less involved rules-wise and simple to just pick up and play.

I've played five editions of D&D (2, 3, 4, PF, C&C) and can write extensively about the pros and cons of each. I definitely have preferences. But the pros and cons of each are largely overshadowed by the problems of incompatibility between editions, having to teach players new rules, and having to do with limited resources (because people only have so much money for books). That has always been the biggest problem in my games

It's an artificial problem. You want them to play the game you want to play rather than playing what they want/know. If group only knows 2E and don't have the resources for a different game, then play 2E with them. Then play 4E with another group. Then Call of Cthulu with another. If you have the option of playing a game you like with a group, regardless of what it is, then play it with that group. The only person that needs to know the differences are then is you because you want to play the different games.

 

[Desdichado]

True, except many gamers distinctly prefer the game they're most familiar with or have resources for. You're dramatically underestimating this group in favor of the connoisseurs that have strong edition preferences. Of course the connoisseurs exist and they'll always want new stuff, but some of us would like to know there's a version of D&D that's not built on planned obsolescence.

Well, your first sentence supports my position not yours.

Your second... well, you have no way of knowing either 1) what my estimate of that group is, and 2) what the real number of gamers in that group is. You can't possibly make the claim that I'm underestimating the size of any group of gamers, dramatically or otherwise.

That was when D&D was most lucrative, no? I don't hear many other gamers of that generation claiming the same thing.

For reasons that are largely unconnected with the game itself, I'd argue. But sure. I'm a bit of an outlier there. Why don't you then propose that 1e AD&D be your base stock for your evergreen model, then?

No, they I just need to reprint one D&D edition and stick with it for the players that don't want the edition treadmill.

FIFY. Please don't keep equating your preference with anyone else's.

I've played five editions of D&D (2, 3, 4, PF, C&C) and can write extensively about the pros and cons of each. I definitely have preferences. But the pros and cons of each are largely overshadowed by the problems of incompatibility between editions, having to teach players new rules, and having to do with limited resources (because people only have so much money for books). That has always been the biggest problem in my games

Therefore, you believe it to be the biggest problem in games overall, I presume? I don't hear many gamers of any generation claiming the same thing.

 

[Barastrondo]

True, except many gamers distinctly prefer the game they're most familiar with or have resources for. You're dramatically underestimating this group in favor of the connoisseurs that have strong edition preferences. Of course the connoisseurs exist and they'll always want new stuff, but some of us would like to know there's a version of D&D that's not built on planned obsolescence.

There are versions of D&D that aren't built on planned obsolescence. AD&D 1e, for example. Planned obsolescence is not its thing.

The trouble is that you'd like an edition of D&D to be actively supported to a level that has proven not particularly sustainable, particularly in the modern market; it's not easy to get even your core books to become such evergreen sellers that you can actually keep going for decades. If people could do that, they would: who wouldn't want to make money without having to keep iterating on a design, or without having to deal with retailers ordering RPGs on more of a periodical model than an evergreen model? The issue that confronts WotC -- or anyone -- is figuring out how to do this for 15, 20, 50 years.

No, they just need to reprint one D&D edition and stick with it for the players that don't want the edition treadmill.

For that to happen, they need to figure out a way to finance it. The players who don't want the edition treadmill are not in themselves enough. It's not really sensible for those players to have everyone in their group buy a new set of the same core books every year or so just to make the venture profitable enough to keep going, and you certainly can't cross your fingers and hope that conditions that made D&D a fad in the 80s somehow come into being once more.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be nice to hit that fad level again. But it seems really unlikely that it will happen.

 

[Shadus]

I know this is probably late, But there is a monopoly version of DND, and ir's called Heroes Quest.

 

[prosfilaes]

Chill out, there's no reason to get upset

Why on Earth would you think that would help things? Instead of telling me to chill out, answer this simple question: do you understand why I'm annoyed? Do you understand why calling every non-D&D RPG indie games is incorrect and offensive?

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

FIFY. Please don't keep equating your preference with anyone else's.

If you go to the first post you'll see a lot of support for those ideas. But besides that, you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. And I haven't claimed all gamers share my preferences, but obviously some do.

But anyway, the demographics I'm discussing are the casual gamers for whom no D&D edition has ever gotten stale, who barely got the rules before editions change. These are the folks that walk into the bookstore and can't even comprehend where they'd begin again. I'm not talking about the crowd that posts on gaming forums and obviously has a lot of brand loyalty and tolerance for change.

The core crowd is always going to have new editions to play with which is fine, but this model doesn't work for everyone.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why don't you then propose that 1e AD&D be your base stock for your evergreen model, then?

Real planned obsolescense would be books that had to be replaced, fairly rapidly. So they should make a version of D&D where you have to tear the pages out to play it, print it on magazine quality paper and binding, and sell it by subscription and/or in bulk. Voila, evergreen!

 

[Desdichado]

If you go to the first post you'll see a lot of support for those ideas. But besides that, you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. And I haven't claimed all gamers share my preferences, but obviously some do.

While it's probbaly not fair, it's the nature of discussion that the person challenging the "null hypothesis" is the one who has the onus of providing evidence. You don't get to make an extraordinary claim--"If D&D had a Monopoly like business model, it would sell like Monopoly!" and also demand that people who are skeptical of this extraordinary claim prove that you're wrong. You have to prove that your extraordinary claim is, in fact, right. Otherwise, the default assumption is that, well, of course it's not true. That's why it hasn't ever been implemented before.

But anyway, the demographics I'm discussing are the casual gamers for whom no D&D edition has ever gotten stale, who barely got the rules before editions change. These are the folks that walk into the bookstore and can't even comprehend where they'd begin again. I'm not talking about the crowd that posts on gaming forums and obviously has a lot of brand loyalty and tolerance for change.

The core crowd is always going to have new editions to play with which is fine, but this model doesn't work for everyone.

RPGs are an item that discourages this type of customer already. Somebody at least in most groups is a savvy RPG person, and he's the one who's probably driving what everyone else plays and therefore what products are in demand. With my group, all but one of us is the savvy gamer who knows what's going on in the RPG marketplace, more or less.

 

[Dausuul]

But anyway, the demographics I'm discussing are the casual gamers for whom no D&D edition has ever gotten stale, who barely got the rules before editions change. These are the folks that walk into the bookstore and can't even comprehend where they'd begin again. I'm not talking about the crowd that posts on gaming forums and obviously has a lot of brand loyalty and tolerance for change.

I know those gamers. They're the ones who never own any books, never buy any books, and always need to borrow mine.

Don't get me wrong, I'm cool with that. Most of these folks are great people and fun to play with; they keep the game from getting too munchkiny. I don't mind keeping a couple spare PHBs on hand. But the point is, these folks are not profitable customers. The profitable customer here is me--the guy who buys three PHBs so he can loan out two. And I am also the type of customer who keeps up with the latest news from Wizards and eagerly investigates new editions.

WotC knows which side their bread is buttered on.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

You don't get to make an extraordinary claim--"If D&D had a Monopoly like business model, it would sell like Monopoly!" and also demand that people who are skeptical of this extraordinary claim prove that you're wrong. You have to prove that your extraordinary claim is, in fact, right.

First we should stay away from words like "demand" because they put an ugly tone on this conversation that isn't productive. But anyway - I never claimed the edition treadmill was unprofitable, and I never claimed D&D could sell like Monopoly. I think I already said it wouldn't in another reply to a person claiming "D&D will never break Monopoly's record of selling 2million copies a year!". The original post never even touched the financial viability of a "Classic" brand. But I still believe it's possible to pull in new demographics. The edition treadmill doesn't work for everyone and they should address that with a separate product line.

I know those gamers. They're the ones who never own any books, never buy any books, and always need to borrow mine.

That's a good point. But maybe they don't buy books because they feel like the game's going to change after they buy them and they'll have to buy them again? I know it's primarily laziness and cheapness.


So this is probably the most realistic implication of this model. It would put the most gamer demographics under the WOTC umbrella

- Print a 5E, 6E, and 7E every couple years for the 4E demographic that is tolerant of keeping up with radical changes. Clearly some people tolerate this and others won't.
- Rebrand 3.5 "classic D&D" that is clearly different from the 4E/5E/6E logo and murder Pathfinder. This would consolidate all of the casual gamers that learned 3.0 and 3.5 as well as the gamers that stuck with 3.5 and potentially the separate but similar demographic that went to Pathfinder. WOTC has a powerful infrastructure, brand identity, and iconic worlds and adventures and monsters that Paizo lacks. WOTC could have Paizo in a position where Paizo is printing supplements for 3.5, not their own game.

I know 3.5 isn't everyone's favorite edition (if I were dictator I'd make it C&C) but Pathfinder demonstrates 3.5 is the most profitable edition to retroclone. WOTC could profit off of this market by:
1. Publishing adventure paths with a subscription like Paizo does
2. Publishing derivative games like D20 past, modern and future
3. Publishing more support for 3.5 like "the Complete Fey" and other new ideas (Seriously they won't run out of ideas ever)
4. Publishing more support for WOTC brands like Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Eberron, etc.
5. Incorporating existing 3.5 assets and character creation into D&D insider. This increases the value of D&D insider and encourages people to buy both editions!
6. Republishing deluxe editions of more popular 3.5 content like this Tome of Horrors trilogy that just came out. For example combine MM 2 and 3 and update all monsters for 3.5
Paizo is unable to do 4, 5, and 6 from the list above

I know not everyone agrees that 3.5 is "classic D&D" but the very existence of a Pathfinder is a powerful indication that a large block of people consider 3.x their definitive D&D. They are a profitable demographic that doesn't care much for change or the edition treadmill. WOTC gave up on profitting from them and supporting them with new products and they shouldn't have.