D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Emerikol]

Quite the contrary, the OGL was very successful, the failure was WotC's for jumping off the bandwagon it got rolling and going it alone.

WOTC has all the numbers you have and yet they decided the OGL was not to their liking. I believe the reason is that it went too far. If the OGL didn't allow for other game systems and only allowed modules and campaign settings they'd have kept it. WOTC realized they needed new ip which is why they went the route they took

For 8 years it made WotC & D&D the industry leaders, everyone watched their every move and jumped to produce complementary products that would sell along side it.

WOTC unwisely though failed to dip their beaks when it comes to all these sales. Something apple does not fail to do. If WOTC had used an app store approach where they get 10% of all sales, then it would have made a better impact on the bottom line.

In economics, there's a concept of a 'complementary good.' If other companies are making jam, you can sell peanut butter. If everyone stops making jam, your peanut butter sales fall.

The OGL sucked a huge swath of the RPG industry into supporting d20, making products that made WotC's d20 RPG products (mostly D&D) more desirable, because there was more to do with them. It encouraged new companies to spring up just to do the same. Collectively, all those hangers-on made some money, but none of them rose up to compete with WotC or rival D&D, and WotC made /more/ money as a result.

No disagreement here. But the rise of games that competed instead of complimented is what scared WOTC.

WotC (or, perhaps, Hasbro) decided the party was over and gave the 3pps an ultimatum: if you want to support 4e, for as long as we feel like letting you, you have to give up the OGL. The alternative was staying with the OGL, which couldn't be taken away. Live or die at Hasbro's whim, or stick with a proven product line that can't be taken away from you?

WOTC at that time (perhaps HASBRO?) was incredibly obnoxious. I feel they were also that way in their design philosophy too.

It turned out to be an easy choice, and Pathfinder, with the ongoing support of the other d20 stakeholders (3pps and fans) emerged as the new premier OGL line. People even think of it /as/ D&D.

Yeah I do. At least a version of it. Paizo is a great company. Not just anyone could have pulled this off. They are actually nice.

 

[Emerikol]

Another reminder. D&D makes millions of dollars. Millions. They are not going to shelve it. They may cut staff and release less often but thats the worst of it. I'm not sure that would be so bad.

Also, they could easily license a company to produce only the roleplaying game for some limited time (like 5 years or 10). The license fee would be pure profit. So they won't ever turn that down. So if they are unhappy with the margins, they can do the licensing route.

In my opinion WOTC is pretty fat. And if D&D is highly profitable even now, I suspect their bookkeeping. For example they are in a very nice expensive office building. How much of that gets charged against D&D's overhead? A small town like Lake Geneva, WI would a very inexpensive location for some small proprietor to rent a few offices and churn out D&D.

Even though 4e sales were a lot lower (IMHO) they were still great compared to most companies. There are tons of rpg companies out there and not a one of them is competing with D&D other than Pathfinder. And honestly folks that's D&D competing with itself.

 

[DEFCON 1]

How many hasbro investor meetings have you sat in on exactly?

Sat in on? None. Seen transcripts online of the conference calls made by Hasbro about that very subject (and which have been posted here on ENWorld over the years?) Several.

That's what happens when you've been a member of ENWorld for more than 10 years. You learn stuff.

 

[Mark CMG]

Another reminder. D&D makes millions of dollars. Millions. They are not going to shelve it. They may cut staff and release less often but thats the worst of it. I'm not sure that would be so bad.

Also, they could easily license a company to produce only the roleplaying game for some limited time (like 5 years or 10). The license fee would be pure profit. So they won't ever turn that down. So if they are unhappy with the margins, they can do the licensing route.

In my opinion WOTC is pretty fat. And if D&D is highly profitable even now, I suspect their bookkeeping. For example they are in a very nice expensive office building. How much of that gets charged against D&D's overhead? A small town like Lake Geneva, WI would a very inexpensive location for some small proprietor to rent a few offices and churn out D&D.

Even though 4e sales were a lot lower (IMHO) they were still great compared to most companies. There are tons of rpg companies out there and not a one of them is competing with D&D other than Pathfinder. And honestly folks that's D&D competing with itself.

You're not necessarily wrong regarding much of what you posted.

 

[underfoot007ct]

You don't believe that the half of the market that WotC lost to PF, most of whom never purchased 4E, were previously 3.0/3.5 users?

I believe that almost all PF players, did purchased 4e core books at launch. I do not believe that most of the PF players have never played 4e.

All the PF players that I know, all played 3e/3.5e, they gamed with myself for years. They tried 4e, but just never really liked the game, or after a while drifted back to a more 3.5e play-style, found in PF.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I believe that almost all PF players, did purchased 4e core books at launch. I do not believe that most of the PF players have never played 4e.

All the PF players that I know, all played 3e/3.5e, they gamed with myself for years. They tried 4e, but just never really liked the game, or after a while drifted back to a more 3.5e play-style, found in PF.

So basically, you think that they all put genuine effort into playing 4e, genuinely dislike it from experience, and moved on to PF because they genuinely preferred it? I can think of a few ENWorlders who would really take issue with that (mostly the diehard 4e-ers, as this statement seems to cast it in a rather poor light).

I don't think it's 100% true, though. Even with an edition change, I seriously doubt that the entire player base of the hobby bought new core books that year. Many of them were probably happy with what they were doing and saw no reason to change, others were in long-term campaigns and couldn't change to an incompatible system, others didn't have the money, others read the books and decided no, etc. I do think there was a large portion had the experience you described, and that Paizo caters to disgruntled ex-WotC fans (and employees), but I also think that a large group of people never had that experience.

 

[Scribble]

Let's make a Poll about it on enworld. It wouldn't actually answer the question, but at least we could then argue over whether or not the poll was created properly.

 

[Emerikol]

So basically, you think that they all put genuine effort into playing 4e, genuinely dislike it from experience, and moved on to PF because they genuinely preferred it? I can think of a few ENWorlders who would really take issue with that (mostly the diehard 4e-ers, as this statement seems to cast it in a rather poor light).

I don't think it's 100% true, though. Even with an edition change, I seriously doubt that the entire player base of the hobby bought new core books that year. Many of them were probably happy with what they were doing and saw no reason to change, others were in long-term campaigns and couldn't change to an incompatible system, others didn't have the money, others read the books and decided no, etc. I do think there was a large portion had the experience you described, and that Paizo caters to disgruntled ex-WotC fans (and employees), but I also think that a large group of people never had that experience.

Two things. I am that guy. I was very pro-4e when it was first released. I recruited a group and ran with it. I bought the preview books. I argued on he forums against those who opposed 4e. I played it for almost a year. Then I released that the game was not for me. All my players fall into this camp too (perhaps only because of me in some cases of course.)

Would I make such a mistake again? A mistake that cost me hundreds of dollars? No. I am far better informed about game design, playstyles, and philosophies than I ever was prior to the war. If anything, I believe this war may actually lead to better games. Before you had groups that were incompatible but didn't know why.

So do I say that someone who looked 4e over and rejected it did so unfairly? Not at all. Maybe they just understood their own playstyle better than I did at the time. I rejected 13th Age without ever playing the first session. I read the rules over and realized that it was just not my style. Was I unfair? No. I am educated about such things now.

Where some people ignorant and biased without reason? Sure. But that is a subset of the larger group and a LOT of people fall in one of the above groups.

 

[TwoSix]

Employees might just focus on keeping a paycheck coming. Executives and CEO's are supposed to be focusing on turning 1 dollar into a 1.10 and then into 1.20 and then into 1.30, and so forth year after year. GROWING the company. Not just barely eking by on the life created by the smarter people with a better vision who came before them.

True, but it also can't grow unless it continues to survive. How willing you are to risk survival for the sake of greater growth is not something that every manager or CEO is going to agree on.

1. Most people arent CEO's. Thats the difference between a leader and drone in a corporation.

2. They have lots of incentive to close any department that loses even a single dollar or earns a small profit. Those departments utilize human capitol that could be spent on a more profitable division.

That's a simplistic analysis. People aren't cogs that can be moved around willy-nilly and achieve some linear return on headcount by moving them into new areas. There's been research lately that shows that productivity doesn't automatically return when you rehire previously laid-off people. Maintaining a corporate culture matters.

3. The value of the IP is determined by sales. The only true value anything has is what someone is willing to pay for it. And when sales dip, your IP's value has dipped. They are correlating factors.

But it's not anywhere close to a 1-to-1 correlation. They could stop selling D&D stuff today, but the brand will only slowly lose value.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Two things. I am that guy.

I don't doubt it. The original assertion was that essentially the entire PF fan base is that guy. I think it's closer to half. Still a lot.

Where some people ignorant and biased without reason? Sure. But that is a subset of the larger group and a LOT of people fall in one of the above groups.

There are many reasons, which I outlined above. I just don't think you can simplify the whole group of current PF customers (let alone the extant 3e player base, or any particular game's base really) down to one perspective.