D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[Manchu]

[MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION]

I think Paizo's subscription model grew out of its experience publishing magazines (particularly Dungeon). I don't think any other RPG-focused company has the skill or experience to make that successful. Hasbro has the money to throw at such a problem but of course will not, given the company line seems to be minimal expenditure on 5E. That leaves FFG, which brings its own board game emphasis to RPGs just as Paizo brought their subscription method. Everyone else is too small to even dream about such a thing. So ... I really doubt we will learn much about Paizo's influence by seeing if any other companies do something Paizo is uniquely suited to doing. That's why I used the other famous Paizo innovation*, the Adventure Path, as my example -- any company can put that into practice. WotC and FFG both do. Cubicle 7 has been doing it for One Ring.

* The AP style is arguably Chaosium's innovation but it's Paizo's influence that popularized it (hence why we call it an AP at all).

 

[Tony Vargas]

While I don't disagree with you that Paizo has been tremendously successful, the term "industry leader" is problematic as it presumes followers; that the rest of gaming is changing its tactics to mimic what Paizo is doing. Apart from the one case of "two adventure paths per year", which Wizards seems to be following, what other of Paizo's plans are being followed?

Targeting and servicing a distinct market segment with explicit demands?

Not that RPGs didn't become niche a long time ago, but for a while there, d20 and 3pps were serving pretty diverse interests with a lot of nominally related d20 games.

Now, there's OSR and Pathfinder with very devoted fans for whom each purchase in not just a way of getting a gaming book they want, but a sort of 'wallet vote' for their vision of D&D. Getting back to the niche model, perhaps.

And, is 5e following that trend? For that matter, did Pathfinder really start it?

I'm curious if any other company has Paizo's best strategy: the subscription system.

The subscription model has been big for a long time across many industries. If WotC had ever come through with some of it's vaporware, it might have gotten quite the subscription revenue stream going.

 

[Kramodlog]

So like 0.1% made up of people who want something that WotC isn't making and are complaining loudly about it, 0.5% who are trying to speak reason to the 0.1%, and the rest of everyone just playing the damn game?

Heh. I remember the 4vengers. They were numerous. Calling critical people trolls. We know how it all ended for 4e.

So you know...

 

[Umbran]

Also, my main point was that boards are a reflection of gamers.

In a funhouse mirror, perhaps.

Boards are not a representative sample of gamers, in a scientific, statistical sense (which, in terms of analyzing business choices, is the relevant sense). Boards are populated with people who don't just run and/or play games, we are folks who will talk about games *endlessly*. Posting like we do is a behavior that most gamers don't undertake, so it is pretty clear we are different in some ways from the bulk of the gaming population. Unless you undertake a solid evaluation of what the differences are, you can't safely extrapolate from our behavior to the rest of the community.

You say people complained because they didn't like 4e. That is true. But, people also gushed because they *did* like 4e. It is safe to say that some liked it, some didn't like it. Without some pretty careful analysis, we can't really take either of those positions on boards as being indicative of the overall thought of the gaming community as a whole.

 

[chriton227]

CEOs of RPG companies come to the EN forums all the time. Why would I assume that the WotC would not be one of them?

Greg Leeds may very well come to EN World occasionally, but I've never seen any posts claiming to be him, nor have I seen anything in any interviews I've found with him indicating that he even plays D&D. I think it is far more likely that he visits the Wizards forums than the EN World forums, but honestly in a company as large as WotC they probably have someone whose job is Media Relations. Also since Magic is much more important product line for WotC than D&D in the overall scheme of things, I think it is far more likely that if he were to spend time on any forums it would be Magic related ones, not D&D related ones. And even if he does visit occasionally, I'm sure he doesn't have time to wade through all the threads looking for random internet strangers to give him advice on running his company. Mike Mearls is far more likely to be reading EN World, but even then I haven't seen him weigh in on any of the business advice that you and others have been offering here.

Someone taking the time to contact them directly will still carry more weight than someone posting on a random internet forum, just like a politician is much more likely to listen to someone who writes them a letter as opposed to someone posting their political opinion on Facebook. At the very least, you are guaranteeing that they will see your concerns rather than hoping they will randomly stumble across them on the web.

 

[bmfrosty]

Heh. I remember the 4vengers. They were numerous. Calling critical people trolls. We know how it all ended for 4e.

So you know...

I literally have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[chriton227]

WotC isn't going to respond to random emails.
I debate here because it is far more fun than debating something important like politics.

Just because they didn't respond doesn't mean they don't read and consider them, and you would be surprised at how seriously some companies take direct communications from their customers. Many even have policies in place to respond to any and all customer complaints and concerns. How many contacts do you think WotC gets in a week that aren't something like rules questions of WPN issues? The few that they get would be notable just by their existence, and I'm reasonably sure that they would at least get a "thank you for contacting us, we'll take your opinions into consideration" reply.

My concern with the debate threads about WotC's business decisions is it does nothing to support other players, does nothing to improve the game, contributes nothing the community can use as a resource, and just creates dissent for the purpose of dissent. At best it is armchair quarterbacking. The D&D 5th Edition forum here describes itself as "Discuss D&D 5E rules and products". WotC's communication skills and business decisions fit under neither rules nor products. It would be nice if there was a forum on EN World dedicated to discussing the industry and business of RPGs where these discussions would fit better, but currently there doesn't appear to be anything of the sort.

 

[BryonD]

Just because they didn't respond doesn't mean they don't read and consider them

Fair enough. But that could also be said for ENWorld.

I read your post as challenging having the discussion here. My main answer is : because it is fun. I'm not here to change anything. My game is going great and that isn't going to change.

If you want to get into the whole "unity" thing, then fine. Everybody agree with me, problem solved.
Obviously I kid.
But I'm not a fan of telling other people not to say things just because I don't like it.

 

[Shasarak]

Careful though. TSR forgot that lesson and went out of business. Heck, LOTS of companies have forgotten that lesson and driven themselves into bankruptcy.

Least we forget the lesson of Dragon Dice and not sticking with your core business.

 

[BryonD]

Ahem. Lots of people said 3e was great and it tanked even faster than 4e did. What we say on the boards isn't always what's true.

I assume this: "What we say on the boards isn't always what's true." was meant to cast an ironic light on the start of your post.

Well done.