Is it WotC’s responsibility to bring people to the hobby?

[Leviatham]

The basic idea is that individual competition, and altruistic cooperation, are both hard-coded into our genetic structure. It's a concept in evolutionary biology that has also been applied to economics.

The idea is that if an economic market is based on purely individual competition (each company for itself), then the market cannot reach it's true potential.

But, if the companies involved in a specific market, also cooperatively work together to expand the entire market, while also competing individually (by trying to make better and cheaper products than the other companies), then everyone benefits from a larger market (there's more pie to be shared).

As much as I agree with that principle, I can't see WotC (or many other companies) implementing it. I'd love them to, but I somewhat just can't see that happen. Must be the cynic in me.

From where I'm standing, corporations tend to get greedy and selfish and cooperation is not something they do well.

 

[gamerprinter]

As much as I agree with that principle, I can't see WotC (or many other companies) implementing it. I'd love them to, but I somewhat just can't see that happen. Must be the cynic in me.

From where I'm standing, corporations tend to get greedy and selfish and cooperation is not something they do well.

Got to remember that while WotC is certainly a corporation, and so is Paizo, in most cases RPG companies are sole proprietorships - one man operations.

95% of all businesses are small business and most are not corporations. What may be a truism in the corporate environment does not necessarily apply to non-corporate entities.

Shareholders aside, most of the creatives in WotC are actual friends with the creatives at Paizo - and most of Paizo are or were creatives, even if they hold a different position today.

The only truly 'corporate' RPG entitiy is WotC, so in most cases your 'corporate' cynicism in regards to the RPG industry does not apply.

 

[Leviatham]

Got to remember that while WotC is certainly a corporation, and so is Paizo, in most cases RPG companies are sole proprietorships - one man operations.

True that.

95% of all businesses are small business and most are not corporations. What may be a truism in the corporate environment does not necessarily apply to non-corporate entities.

Very true, and yet you hardly see them joining forces to grow the hobby. At least in Europe. I don't know if they do in the USA. If they do, I'd be very interested in hearing what sort of initiatives they go for.

Shareholders aside, most of the creatives in WotC are actual friends with the creatives at Paizo - and most of Paizo are or were creatives, even if they hold a different position today.

The only truly 'corporate' RPG entitiy is WotC, so in most cases your 'corporate' cynicism in regards to the RPG industry does not apply.

Oh, I am well aware of how close workers from a company are to workers of another. This is too small an industry for that not to happen.

Since I doubt WotC is the only one with the corporate attitude, I think I'll let my cynicism stand.

 

[Desdichado]

The basic idea is that individual competition, and altruistic cooperation, are both hard-coded into our genetic structure. It's a concept in evolutionary biology that has also been applied to economics.

The idea is that if an economic market is based on purely individual competition (each company for itself), then the market cannot reach it's true potential.

But, if the companies involved in a specific market, also cooperatively work together to expand the entire market, while also competing individually (by trying to make better and cheaper products than the other companies), then everyone benefits from a larger market (there's more pie to be shared).

Except in the case of the specific and classic "prisoner's gambit" scenario, however, I'd argue that that's not a position that I've ever seen actual economists favor. Just like I would be averse to turning my degree in economics to the explanation of forces in evolutionary biology, economists tend to turn a jaundiced eye to the application of a theory from evolutionary biology to their own field.

And even within the field of evolutionary biology, it's not like the premise of that book hasn't been controversial.

 

[Bedrockgames]

True that.



Very true, and yet you hardly see them joining forces to grow the hobby. At least in Europe. I don't know if they do in the USA. If they do, I'd be very interested in hearing what sort of initiatives they go for.

Small companies in the US do work together or at least have friendly relationships. I know a number of people from other small rpg companies and we work together in a variety of ways. One thing I have seen is booth sharing at cons.

I think one reason you dont see a lot of small companies out promoing the hobby is they are one or two man operations and they are spending most of their time and money producing content (if I don't write, we don't have product). So it can be a challenge to focus on other things.

Money is another big consideration. Most small companies barely have enough to make and market their products. It is a bit of a cottage industry (unless you are thinking about bigger fish like Green Ronin). Holding events, taking out ads, etc can all cost money. But there are cost effective ways to promote gaming.

That said I think small companies banding together to grow the hobby is a great idea. I would be eager to hear any suggestions you have (as well as any venues you have in mind). My health has put some limits on attending actual events but I am interested in participating in other ways.

 

[Ulrick]

I don't want WotC promoting my hobby or influencing what happens at my gaming table, because WotC doesn't really encourage players to become imaginative anymore. Instead, players are supposed to follow the game rules as written without much deviance or risk to their characters, all in the name of fun and, for WotC, profit.

Does that sound bitter? Sure. But hear me out.

1. 4e certainly was the turning point for my opinion, but I had been wary of WotC for sometime before that. See, under TSR, D&D had core rules, but at the beginning of every rule book there was a caveat that said that most of the rules were guidelines, play and adjust the rules to taste. With 3e, this changed to "here's you must play the game." It was a subtle change. I didn't notice it for sometime until I realized how bloated the rules were or when I tried to change something. 4e is even worse in this regard.

4e geared all of its powers and abilities around combat, combat, combat.

2. Before, the rules supplemented your imagination. Now the rules supersede your imagination in order for games everywhere to be standardized--like a video game. Yes, I know that's a trite criticism to 4e, but at least earlier editions encouraged people to read the books that inspired the game (long live Appendix N!).

You see this in the evolution (de-evolution?) of the character sheet. Back in the day an entire character could be written easily on an index card. Over the decades the sheet became more complicated, but in 2e actually had a layered system to ease players into the game. Don't want to use Non-Weapon Proficiencies?--fine, use that extra-space for notes.

4e character sheets resemble a strange mathematical flow chart to me.

3. With 4e, WotC made it clear that I am not their target demographic. Others have stated similar views elsewhere. Now, I do realize that they are trying to amends with my age group, but it'll be really hard to earn my goodwill back if its remotely possible, especially when they release stuff like the Red Box--but instead of actually having Basic D&D inside, its 4e lite.

Furthermore, while at first it seems admirable that the books will generate some money for the Gygax Memorial Fund, in the back of my mind I think WotC is just selling the books so they can limp along until 5e comes out. I already own multiple copies of the originals.

So lemme get this straight: WotC initially made it clear with their advertising campaign for 4e that I was fool for even wanting to play earlier editions, and now that their bottom line for D&D 4e is hurting they are using the memory of Gary Gygax to generate revenue?!?)

That's just despicable. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but so far haven't seen an actual percentage (5%? 10%, 20%???) of what WotC will donate from profits to the fund. But for now, I say if you want to donate money to the fund, donate it directly, don't let WotC act like a filter.

Heaven forbid if a company wants to make money. I'm not upset with WotC about that. I strongly disagree with their methods (the "ends justify the means" and all that.)

For me, WotC has blown it. They are done. While certainly they have led the way for years now in getting people into the hobby, I don't want them doing that anymore. But I know that they're going to continue anyway, despite my viewpoints above. They promote rules before imagination and profit over being decent to their customer base. They've used up their goodwill with me.

Finally, we all need to stop wondering what WotC will do next for/to the D&D and take a more active role in recruiting for the hobby. I'll recruit for Paizo/Pathfinder. I'll recruit for the Old School Renaissance. I'll recruit for other RPG systems/companies. But I'm done recruiting players for WotC.

 

[Desdichado]

1. 4e certainly was the turning point for my opinion, but I had been wary of WotC for sometime before that. See, under TSR, D&D had core rules, but at the beginning of every rule book there was a caveat that said that most of the rules were guidelines, play and adjust the rules to taste. With 3e, this changed to "here's you must play the game." It was a subtle change. I didn't notice it for sometime until I realized how bloated the rules were or when I tried to change something. 4e is even worse in this regard.

4e geared all of its powers and abilities around combat, combat, combat.

That's my impression of 4e as well, which is why I remain disinterested, and haven't really spent much time looking at it, and absolutely none playing it. However, it is patently untrue for 3e. 3e prominantly described "rule 0" at the beginning of the first book released, and then they even gave some samples for hapless would-be DMs who couldn't figure out how to modify the rules to taste, in the form of the witch sample character in the DMG. And although there were a lot of rules, the prominent and oft-repeated motto of WotC in the 3e era was "tools, not rules" and like any toolkit, you used what you needed for your game and left the rest in your toolbox. Vast swaths of rules never saw any use in any of my games. Encumbrance was a notable example. And heck, if I even actually ever read the entire section on dungeon door and wall materials and strength, then I don't really remember any of it. More likely, I skimmed or skipped most of that entire chapter.

Now, with 3.5, some of that language was toned down or removed. But does it actually need to be explicitly stated to be true? Especially to someone who's background is, as you claim, in earlier editions of D&D? I certainly don't need a rulebook to explicitly grant me permission to come up with houserules--it's a given that of course I can do that as I please. And I have. My 3.5 houserule set is so dramatically different from "standard" that I've been validly described as no longer even playing D&D at all. And heck, I embrace that paradigm. And heck; frankly, I think my setting and preferred style is better suited to a d20 Modern, or Savage Worlds or houseruled Old School Hack or something anyway.

2. Before, the rules supplemented your imagination. Now the rules supersede your imagination in order for games everywhere to be standardized--like a video game. Yes, I know that's a trite criticism to 4e, but at least earlier editions encouraged people to read the books that inspired the game (long live Appendix N!).

Since the mid-80s or so, TSR and WotC have even been providing the books that inspired the game!

Granted, there's some really valid criticism of D&D fiction vs. "regular" fantasy fiction. But good D&D fiction is out there, and there sure is plenty of bad regular fiction. Including much of the stuff on Appendix N.

You see this in the evolution (de-evolution?) of the character sheet. Back in the day an entire character could be written easily on an index card. Over the decades the sheet became more complicated, but in 2e actually had a layered system to ease players into the game. Don't want to use Non-Weapon Proficiencies?--fine, use that extra-space for notes.

Again; I'm not familiar with 4e enough to comment, but with 3e and 3.5 that was true as well. The official character sheet was front and back of one page. But at least half--if not more--of that real estate was optional. I rarely play spellcasters, and most of the back page was for listing spells (and equipment. I do use those boxes!) Much of the front half is for putting your attack bonuses for various weapons--and they give you many more than you're actually likely to use. If I wanted to write a typical non-spellcasting character on an index card instead of use the sheet--I'm confident I could pull it off. Although one sheet front and back, with plenty of room for stuff that I'm not actually using doesn't seem to be very burdensome to me.

Furthermore, while at first it seems admirable that the books will generate some money for the Gygax Memorial Fund, in the back of my mind I think WotC is just selling the books so they can limp along until 5e comes out. I already own multiple copies of the originals. [...] That's just despicable. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but so far haven't seen an actual percentage (5%? 10%, 20%???) of what WotC will donate from profits to the fund. But for now, I say if you want to donate money to the fund, donate it directly, don't let WotC act like a filter.

Heaven forbid if a company wants to make money. I'm not upset with WotC about that. I strongly disagree with their methods (the "ends justify the means" and all that.)

So you don't need them. Shrug. Don't buy them. No big deal. I think your implications and labels aren't really very fair, though. It's dispicable to put popular older books back into print and donate a chunk of the profit margin (which is likely not very high anyway) to charity? And with that, you still can't find enough goodwill to do other than to question their motives and hint at them being somehow "ulterior?" I think that says a great deal more about you than it does about WotC.

For me, WotC has blown it. They are done. While certainly they have led the way for years now in getting people into the hobby, I don't want them doing that anymore. But I know that they're going to continue anyway, despite my viewpoints above. They promote rules before imagination and profit over being decent to their customer base. They've used up their goodwill with me.

Y'know, if the direction of D&D is no longer to your taste, it's perfectly acceptable to just go do something else on your own without having to plant a big stinking turd of a ranting manifesto of all the things you think they did wrong to you personally. If you like Pathfinder, just go play Pathfinder. It's heavily supported, it seems to have a strong and enthusiastic player base, and its easily accessible. The same is true for the OSR "family" of games. You've got everything you want. Let it go. WotC didn't do anything to you personally you need to be bitter about.

Slightly off topic, neither did George Lucas. Just in case you lean that direction too.

 

[Argyle King]

The basic idea is that individual competition, and altruistic cooperation, are both hard-coded into our genetic structure. It's a concept in evolutionary biology that has also been applied to economics.

The idea is that if an economic market is based on purely individual competition (each company for itself), then the market cannot reach it's true potential.

But, if the companies involved in a specific market, also cooperatively work together to expand the entire market, while also competing individually (by trying to make better and cheaper products than the other companies), then everyone benefits from a larger market (there's more pie to be shared).

I think the situation is similar to how 'professional wrestling' was in the 90s. There were two large companies - WCW and WWF (which is now WWE.) They did not cooperate, and -in fact- were actively trying to put each other out of business. In my humble opinion, that level of competition between the two companies caused both of them to up their game and provide a more compelling product. (Even if you're not a fan, you've probably heard of Stone Cold and The Rock.) Storylines became better; the in-ring product became better; everything was required to be better because one slip up could be the death knell for one company or the other. Today, only one of those two companies remain, and -again, in my humble opinion- the product has suffered because of the lack of competition.

(Though, as a fan, I would also say that this year has been fairly good so far. I've seen what I feel is an attempt to recover quality from a previous era.)


Personally, I feel that has a lot of parallels with what is going on in regards to rpgs now. I often feel as though WoTC comes across as WCW at times. They have loads of talent, but the corporate management is somewhat unskilled at knowing how to use it. While the creative team does a really good job at coming up with ideas, those ideas are not always well suited to the product they are trying to produce nor the fanbase they are trying to please.

It seems to be that WoTC is searching for an answer to these problems. Perhaps what I listed aren't even the actual problems, but my perception as a fan is there are some problems within the company in the product. I am glad they are searching for answers, but I am not currently convinced they are finding the right answers. I would compare that to WCW trying to hire Vince Russo (who was part of the WWF creative team.) They thought he would update their product and make it better, but -by most accounts- he ran it into the ground.

I do not have a desire for WoTC or D&D to fail. As a fan of rpgs, my only desire is that my wallet reward products for being (what I feel) are good products. To some minor extent, I understand the idea of brand loyalty. I buy a lot of SJ Games products because I have become a fan of the company's work, and I trust that the brand produces things I will enjoy. Likewise, I bought Elder Scrolls: Skyrim without much question. At one point in time, I had no qualms about buying D&D products based on name.

That being said, a company needs to earn loyalty from customers. I became loyal to the brands I mentioned because they produced products I wanted. Even the ones which were maybe a little under par were still enjoyable. If a company starts to repeatedly violate my trust, and I feel that I am spending money on things I do not want nor enjoy on a regular basis, my loyalty can be lost.

I do not feel it helps me as a customer wanting a product I enjoy nor do I feel it helps the hobby as a whole to get better if I continue to buy products based on name while ignoring quality. I feel it is far healthier to support brands which (I feel) are moving in a direction I generally feel is the right direction and brands which (I feel) are producing products of quality. I'm ok with buying the occasional lemon now and then, but it shouldn't be a regular thing.

Don't place a bunch of banana stickers on a pound of lemons and expect me to continue making banana splits with your product. Instead, I'll start buying my fruit somewhere else.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think the situation is similar to how 'professional wrestling' was in the 90s. There were two large companies - WCW and WWF (which is now WWE.) They did not cooperate, and -in fact- were actively trying to put each other out of business. In my humble opinion, that level of competition between the two companies caused both of them to up their game and provide a more compelling product...

I don't deny that competition can do exactly that, but the situation is not the same.

In that situation you had two fairly equal sized entities competing against eachother.

With RPG's you have one behemoth entity (relatively), a few substantial entities, and a multitude of very small entities.

It's not the same at all.

There's no doubt that during the height of the D20 era, it was working exactly as it was intended. Expanding the market for everyone (a free, standardized system everyone could use), made all of the smaller entities much more successful than they ever had been; and in turn, that got people to buy more of the base D20 products, expanding that revenue stream beyond what it had been, and increasing the amount of products and the amount of variety of products for customers.

Now I won't deny that it eventually fell apart and ended up hurting everybody, but I think that was a result of unchecked expansion.

What works best for the individual entities and all of the entities as a whole, is not unchecked expansion, nor is it ultraconservative (me only) approaches...it's a middle road that works best. Yes, compete against eachother...but also work together for the health of the overall market.

It's like a small lake. If everybody fishes with no limits, the lake will soon be depleted. If one entity fishes with no limits, it likely will soon be depleted. If everyone works together to maintain the health of the lake even while trying to maximize their own catches, a middle course can be found that is the most beneficial to the individual and the group as a whole.

Now imagine that one of those entities fishing that lake, the biggest entity, and only that entity; also has the ability of increasing the overall yeild of the lake. It will result in larger yields for both the big entity and all the little entities, benefitting everybody.

It's a win-win situation.

So yeah, I feel that for their own benefit, the benefit of the whole market, and the benefit of their customers, it is WotC's responsibility to bring people into the hobby...especially as they are the ones best poised for and most able to do so.

A larger market means more money overall. More money overall means more, and more varied, products. That benefits the big company, the little companies, and customers equally.

No other course fulfills all of those.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't deny that competition can do exactly that, but the situation is not the same.

In that situation you had two fairly equal sized entities competing against eachother.

With RPG's you have one behemoth entity (relatively), a few substantial entities, and a multitude of very small entities.

I think the situation is more similar than that. In the beginning, WCW was backed by Turner Broadcasting. Ted Turner owned the company which owned WCW.

WWF -at the time- was running some of their programming out of venues which were not much bigger than bingo halls. In time, the two grew to be more equal, but they were not always so.

Bringing up Ted Turning in my comparison is important because there was vastly more money going into the WCW product; yet, in the end, they were producing a product which was inferior to their competitor. It is the company which had the most monetary backing at the time which ended up going out of business. I would never suggest the WoTC situation is anywhere near that dire (I do not believe it is,) but there certainly are some parallels to the state of the rpg industry.


edit: I suppose my point is this... If there is a different company which is producing a better product, why not support them? D&D is as big as it is because of support. Would it not benefit the hobby to have a stronger/better product gain more support and up the bar? In that case, perhaps a different company could grow to take WoTC's place. I feel that would be healthier than continuing to support a product for no other reason than to support the name; I feel that is similar to the situation which lead to some American car companies needing to be bailed out.