The Theory of Tens. A Knee Jerk Hypothesis

I pretty much have developed a general hatred of the designers working on D&D.

They're having a blast getting paid to write a fantasy heartbreaker, knowing they're guaranteed to have a huge audience for their work because they're legally able to put Dungeons & Dragons on the front, while I have to sit and wait to see how they'll be mangling my favorite game this time.

They're basically ransoming this IP to me with the condition that I try out their new game. If they have any pride in their profession at all then they should put out something new.

Right now they're the game designer equivalent of kids putting on a grade school play. We're the parents obligated to be there, glancing at the clock every few minutes.

It's really best to look at each edition as its own game with merely related mythos, and to appreciate them on their own merits, rather than how they fail to live up to your preferences in other games. Doing otherwise is like a 3E player looking at the 1E MM and complaining about how 1E ruined trolls by making them anorexic, or a WoD fan complaining about how 2E vampires are mostly treated like movie monsters rather than complex individuals with engrossing political histories.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oh, hey, I totally agree that my math is borked.

My point is, have we reached a sort of watershed point where the numbers of those who are not playing the current edition have grown so large that it's very difficult to actually come up with an edition that reconciles the game?

After all, the differences between editions have been extremely large in the past, but, since most people made the switch over, those that didn't could be largely ignored. But, now, with such a large segment that has committed to an older edition, can a new edition actually bring them forward?

IME, we had a large spike of gamers back in the early 80's, during the fad times, but, there's actually no evidence that the numbers have done anything but gradually grow from that time. There's not even any evidence that significant numbers of gamers were abandoning D&D in the late 90's, when TSR went bankrupt. After all, it wasn't sales that caused TSR's economic woes, but some rather fast and loose accounting that finally caught up to them with the book returns.
 

Oh, hey, I totally agree that my math is borked.

My point is, have we reached a sort of watershed point where the numbers of those who are not playing the current edition have grown so large that it's very difficult to actually come up with an edition that reconciles the game?

After all, the differences between editions have been extremely large in the past, but, since most people made the switch over, those that didn't could be largely ignored. But, now, with such a large segment that has committed to an older edition, can a new edition actually bring them forward?

IME, we had a large spike of gamers back in the early 80's, during the fad times, but, there's actually no evidence that the numbers have done anything but gradually grow from that time. There's not even any evidence that significant numbers of gamers were abandoning D&D in the late 90's, when TSR went bankrupt. After all, it wasn't sales that caused TSR's economic woes, but some rather fast and loose accounting that finally caught up to them with the book returns.


Great post (good job; sincerely, you know how these things can get), there is so much out there right now; I'm looking at 5th Ed things to steal.
 

The OGL really was impetus behind 3E's stellar success. Heck, I'd argue it was the OGL that prompted 3.5 since others were already publishing "fixes".

Paizo's rise is related to its helm as Dungeon and Dragon magazine editors: They had to reconcile peoples submissions with the OGL and WotC design goals. The result was a period of fantastic adventures, rules variants, articles, etc. Which of course gave Pathfinder its cache.

4E's restrictive GSL killed that "hivemind" creativity being sorted and published. There are great "hivemind" creativity lurking in the message boards, 4E can be adapted into a great game, but there is nobody sorting the adaptations and publishing (disseminating) them in an organized fashion.

5E's "open beta" is a half-assed attempt to tap into that "hivemind", but without relinquishing control. It might work. But I think the penultimate D&D would be one where the playtest document is released and the hivemind "builds" the game from the ground up, and WotC's role is to figure out which hivemind elements to keep and put into a glossy book.
 

5E's "open beta" is a half-assed attempt to tap into that "hivemind", but without relinquishing control. It might work. But I think the penultimate D&D would be one where the playtest document is released and the hivemind "builds" the game from the ground up, and WotC's role is to figure out which hivemind elements to keep and put into a glossy book.


I was with you up until this point; you derailed (IMO).
 



But that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

* 3e was needed. Very much needed.

* 3.5e spawned out of the idea of a reprinting of the core rulebooks with errata and rule clarifications. Not a bad idea, but no one reigned in the developers and it grew into a revision. Oops.

*4e was prompted by Hasbro trying to set a minimum bar on profits.

*4e Essentials was prompted by the perceived difficulty of 4e in appealing to new (and some old) players. Again, the developers were not reigned in and the design became something very different.

*5e was prompted by dwindling sales for 4e and the divisiveness of that edition.
All of them were driven by WotC (or TSR, in 3e's case) having already done every book that could reasonably be expected to sell well -- splatbooks for the core races and classes, the psionics book, a handful of core rulebooks for settings, and maybe a splatbook or two with new races and/or classes. We'd have a new edition of D&D every 3 years if players would accept it.
 

All of them were driven by WotC (or TSR, in 3e's case) having already done every book that could reasonably be expected to sell well -- splatbooks for the core races and classes, the psionics book, a handful of core rulebooks for settings, and maybe a splatbook or two with new races and/or classes.
There were quite a few valid books for 3e that had been oft requested and never released. 3e didn't run out of steam or produce all the conceivable content, it was forced to end as WotC wanted to re-release the edition with DDI and grow the brand. And, if they hadn't pulled their A-talent to design 4e and were forced to rely on the B-Team and freelancers, the quality of the later 3e books would have likely been higher and the line would have done better.
It doesn't help that WotC was producing books at a staggering pace for all of 3e and the start of 4e. They killed both editions with too much content too fast.
(And PF has been doing some interesting things with the line, showing there was room for other books.)

We'd have a new edition of D&D every 3 years if players would accept it.
Never work.

Admittedly, core books sell the best and the initial rush of a new edition is a nice peak. However...
They started work on 4e back in 2005 and really ramped up work in 2006 for the 2008 release. Two years. They started work on 5e last year (2011) likely for a 2013 release. Two years again.
Now, that's two years - a full 24 months - where they're paying in-house not to write, not produce sellable content, in the hopes it will sell well. It has to be inhouse as you can't trust freelancers as much with that confidential information, so you also have to pay for the benefits and office space of said in-house staff. So pricey.
So the initial surge of sales is great, but has to pay off a tonne of debt.

What 4e did wrong was split sales. The core rules were super simple. Once you learned the basics you really didn't need a PHB. Instead, you could get any other book, such as the PHB2 or one of the two Essentials books that did the same thing or even Martial Power or Heroes of Shadow. You could have a group where no two players bought the same books.
However, the rule of scaling means this is killing profit. Books make profit by high sales. It's better to sell 20,000 copies of one book than 10,000 copies of two books. Because you need to pay for production costs, so the first several thousand copies are just paying for the writing and art and editing and layout. And the higher the print run the lower the cost per copy.
So you really, really want to focus sales on a single batch of core books that everyone has copies of. Everyone needs to have a PHB. All new content should refer back to that and require it's use.

The above means if you have a long lived edition that lasts many, many years with multiple large print runs of unchanged core books, then that makes you the most money. Because you're selling books that are pure profit.
Both 3e and 4e made the mistake of undercutting the core books, the first with a massive reprint and the second initially by minimizing the need and later by producing three books that served the "core book" function.

Instead of a new edition, WotC needs to find a way to re-energize the edition every few years without changing or replacing the Core rulebooks.
Every few years, the player base will burn out from D&D. I think that hasn't exactly helped 4e, with its singular playstyle and long combats making it more prone to burnout. WotC needs to accept that after 2-3 years there will be a dip in sales as the fans go try other games and scratch the other system itch, playing all the new games that have come out over the last couple years that they haven't been able to play due to the regular D&D game. 5e has an advantage in this respect with its modularity; it's harder to burnout when the game can radically shift tone and feel.
Similarly, WotC should plan accordingly and have some awesome books on tap for a couple years down the line. They should have a dip in book production, a slow down to let people catch their breath (the perfect time for more board game and non-RPG releases) and then come back strong with a renewed edition push. A new big book of core options (that'd be the time and place for the PHB2) as well as more modules and options that really push what the system can do. After a couple of years of playing with the rules, the designers should have a better idea of where the system can bend and not break, and that'd be the time for very different rules modules and types of campaigns.
 

The OGL really was impetus behind 3E's stellar success. Heck, I'd argue it was the OGL that prompted 3.5 since others were already publishing "fixes".

Paizo's rise is related to its helm as Dungeon and Dragon magazine editors: They had to reconcile peoples submissions with the OGL and WotC design goals. The result was a period of fantastic adventures, rules variants, articles, etc. Which of course gave Pathfinder its cache.

4E's restrictive GSL killed that "hivemind" creativity being sorted and published. There are great "hivemind" creativity lurking in the message boards, 4E can be adapted into a great game, but there is nobody sorting the adaptations and publishing (disseminating) them in an organized fashion.

5E's "open beta" is a half-assed attempt to tap into that "hivemind", but without relinquishing control. It might work. But I think the penultimate D&D would be one where the playtest document is released and the hivemind "builds" the game from the ground up, and WotC's role is to figure out which hivemind elements to keep and put into a glossy book.

Why?

What did the OGL actually do? Very few OGL products actually sold in any real numbers, there was a very large number of dross for that bit of gold, and, by the tail end of 3.5, virtually no one was doing any OGL products anymore for D&D. You had what, 4, maybe 5 OGL producers for D&D before 4e was even announced.

The OGL did get 3e on the shelves, but, I am constantly bewhildered by this unquestioned view that the OGL was the driving force behind 3e. 3e did fantastically because it was a very good game, at a perfect time (no new edition for about a decade) and some fantastic marketting.

Put it another way, what percentage of those buying 3e/3.5 books bought OGL products. Of those that bought OGL products, what percentage did those OGL products occupy of what those people spent on D&D?

I look at my own group, and I was the only one for a long time buying any OGL products. I'd try to use them in game, and very, very few DM's would ever let me. When I introduced them for my own games, players never took them up. It was always WOTC or nothing. It was years before anyone actually started seriously bringing any OGL material to the table.
 

Remove ads

Top