We were told that instead of getting books full of crunch that adventures would be released containing rule modules the fitted the adventure flavour , classes, subclasses, feats nad other mechanics. The example given was nautical adventure containing rulles for battle at sea, enhanced swimming rules, aquatic races, classes and feats. At the moment we are lucky to get a background. So this has nothing to do with what I wanted or expected but with what we were told we were going to get. As for your modular example Sacrosanct you can't honestly tell me we received the level of modularity we were led to believe we were going to get that the designers were trying to sell us on.
D&D 5E Why is WoTc still pushing AP's when the majority of gamers want something else?
- Thread starter Corpsetaker
- Start date
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
I disagree.
For example, in OotA they included a slew of DMs material with whatever new rules (crunch) was necessary. The thing is, with 5e you don't need as much actual crunch as in past games. That is, a lot of what's needed is to reflavor the existing rules, with some modifications.
Pages 17 to 30 is a mini DMG for adventuring in the Underdark and is exactly the sort of thing they suggested. In addition, there are sidebars for each major area with additional rules, such as the Silken Paths section that details the general features for that locale, but includes rules for webs that are more extensive than those presented before. The Oozing Temple has rules for poor air and infant through adult Hook Horrors giving a general look at how you could do the same with other monsters. Basilisks get the same treatment later on. The appendices (pg 221-249) have backgrounds, magic items, monsters and the Demon Lords. Over 16% of the book.
SKT has 55 pages of Realms Lore for the Savage North plus another 15 or so pages in the appendix with more options, monsters, etc. More than 25% of the book.
PotA had 20-page campaign guide to the Dessarin Valley, 36 pages of monsters and magic items, a new character race, and 10 pages of new spells. Again, 25% of the book.
CoS had the 10 pages of Barovia (a mini-campaign guide), plus 20+ pages of appendices with backgrounds, monsters and magic items, or around 16% again.
Depending on the AP, they've had more or less, but they've had whatever new rules were needed for that environment or to enhance the story of that adventure. Those numbers account for far more than "lucky to get a background."
For me, they have had a great amount of useful material, even for a DM like me who probably will never run the AP. And I greatly prefer the approach to say, 3.5e books, which always had to have new races, new prestige classes, often feats, along with spells and magic items and sometimes monsters.
A lot of folks complained at the number of new archetypes in SCAG. Of the ones there, I liked about half of them. Some of my favorite material is the lore that ties the core races and classes closer to the campaign, but doesn't require a new archetype or sub race.
I love to have new magic items, spells, and monsters. But if the rules are well written and the game is well designed, you shouldn't have to have too many new rules in later supplements. Sure, some rules (you mention waterborne) can use some expansion, like they did in OotA for Underdark adventuring.
As for archetypes, feats, and races? My preference for those are in setting specific things. Like the Dark Sun campaign has a number of races that are designed specifically for that campaign. For casual gamers that just play the APs, new races and classes are fine, it lets them do something different for that AP, knowing that they'll roll up different characters for the next AP. For a long-term campaign like mine, you have players that want to play the new races, that suddenly appear, somehow fully integrated into the cultures of the world, despite the fact that they never existed in the campaign before. This was a big problem in 3.5e - oh yeah, they've been here for centuries and are common everywhere. You've just never seen them.
Most importantly, I don't think the designers are "trying to sell us on" anything. They didn't try to convince people to play 5e because of the cool new rules that will begin the APs, etc. They made a new version of the game and hoped you'd like it and play it. They said that they weren't planning on releasing a lot of splatbooks, instead they might incorporate new rules into APs as needed, but don't expect the flood of classes, feats, and such that 3.5e and 4e had.
The focus of the game has shifted (for the better in my opinion). In 3.5e and 4e, a certain amount of new crunch rules was required for each release. There had to be a new prestige class or archetype that was different than the others. I started trying to convert a number of those, and found that it was tough, not because of the new rules, but because they incorporated so much of what was already there, but streamlined them into a much smaller group - feats are a good example of that.
Now the focus is much more on the story again. That a good product has a good story, and good supporting materials to help the DM enable a good story. More mechanics usually aren't necessary for that. Making Barovia a gothic horror setting doesn't require mechanics, it requires atmosphere and supporting materials that help the DM in creating the feeling of dread and despair.
So I think it has everything to do with your, or others expectations. When they say that APs will include rules for a specific environment (such as waterborne or the Underdark), you are expecting that means something similar to older releases, with new class options, feats, crunchy rules, etc. I kind of expected that too, but when I saw they direction they've taken it makes perfect sense to me. And it does exactly what they said they were planning in my mind, although not necessarily what you, or others, thought they were saying. It's been a while since I've read the interviews or listened to the early podcasts, but I think they've been pretty consistent in following the path they've been laying out ahead of time.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It was not in any way nonsense. It's not impossible to come up with a good approximation, and of course you don't need to contact "every gamer in the world" to come up with an approximation. I am curious at your reply in fact. It suggests you didn't read what I wrote, and that you think I said they know exactly the number as opposed to what I said, which was a good approximation.
I will repeat, in case you missed it:
They know how many [total players] existed at date X (Cook and Dancey both confirmed that - they know based on a very strong, very well distributed survey they did combined with retail and distributor numbers which was prior to internet distribution, back when WOTC took over), attrition and gain rates with trend data going back decades, approximate defection numbers to Pathfinder and OSR and other editions, PHB 5e sales numbers, usage numbers at online playing platforms and conventions, and approximate internet discussion rates with controls. And that data can then be combined and compared to AP sales numbers. That's a lot of data to drill down to a fairly good approximation of the answer.
So yes, WOTC has a fairly good approximation to work with concerning the number of D&D players total right now, and the number of 5e players, and the success and failure rates of their publications for 5e. WoTc does have a very good approximation of the ratio between all D&D players vs how many are buying these AP's. Your assumption that they don't have good data to work with is false. It's not EXACT data, and nobody here has claimed EXACT data. But they have good approximate data, and that's all that's necessary.
MichaelSomething
Legend
If you're not willing to take your money to a competitor, then Wizards have no incentive to change their current strategy.
If [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] is willing to put in 20 hours a week on social media, then he might have a chance of changing their minds. But I don't think he's willing to go that far...
If [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION] is willing to put in 20 hours a week on social media, then he might have a chance of changing their minds. But I don't think he's willing to go that far...
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
Yeah, it doesn't really work that way.
They set a business plan, and have their goals for the products they produce. If those products are making those sales goals, then they are a success. It's pretty simple.
More importantly, in a hobby like this, the people producing the products spend lots of money at their "competitors" and play their games too. They are happy that you do that, because it builds a healthy hobby, and the larger the hobby base, the larger the customer base.
Yes, because of the company and the fact that they own D&D, the original RPG, they certainly want to be the leader in the hobby. But the way the business world sees success is profits and sales numbers for individual products.
If the sales goal is 50,000 units of the new AP, and they are selling 50,000 plus, then that's a success.
So one person "taking their money to a competitor" doesn't have any impact at all. Not to mention, in hobbies like this, there really isn't a competitor. If you want to play D&D, then you buy it from WotC.
Sure, Pathfinder is a branch of D&D, but it's also a different game at this point. Why? Because Wizards doesn't sell 3.5e material anymore. They really aren't a "competitor" in the way Coke is to Pepsi. Just like Gears of War isn't a competitor to Call of Duty. Gamers buy both.
People will argue that Pathfinder outperformed 4e. I don't have the numbers, and that's quite possible. But the reality is, it's really not a question of whether Pathfinder sold more or not. It's a question as to how 4e performed against their own internal sales goals. If it's underperforming, or sales are declining, then you do something about it.
Pathfinder may have been an indication that WotC was no longer producing the type of game that gamers wanted to buy. But I'm not really sure that's entirely true either. Because one of the major changes WotC made in their business plan was a smaller release schedule, with longer waits between products. If they had made that shift in 4e, then profits might have improved there as well since they were no longer cannibalizing their own releases. Regardless, they moved on to a new business model and a new edition. And from all accounts, it is quite possibly the most successful edition of D&D ever.
One person complaining loudly on the internet is just part of the underlying noise on the internet. WotC has hundreds of noisy complainers. They might (might) consider the feedback of somebody like that, but it depends a lot on the tone and the content of their complaints. Regardless, it's still one person, and that one person might not line up with what thousands of others are saying or doing.
Ultimately it will still come back to the same thing: This person is complaining about 'x.' Will that increase sales? Does it make a better game? Are other people also asking for that? How are our products selling? Are they still exceeding expectations?
You have to remember, that a given product has a lead time of months, and the planning probably goes back a year or more. For example, they probably already know what they are releasing next fall, if not further, and have a rough synopsis, although actual writing may not start until spring. So while somebody here is complaining that they want more stuff other than APs, they may already have 3 books in the works. For various reasons, those won't be announced until later.
They've been very open about their business plan: 2 APs each year, with some other content as well. The last two years it has been 2 APs plus an additional non-AP book. I don't see any reason why that won't continue. This is in addition to about 2 dozen AL adventures, Dragon+, video games, novels and comics, and the web content like the podcasts, Sage Advice and Unearthed Arcana. For a small team producing creative content, that's quite a bit of material each year. And the sales continue to show that they are making the "right" decisions.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Really, there are only 2 ways anyone from WotC is going to listen to any "problems".
1. A high enough % of gamers make the same feedback via surveys so it stands out statistically (also related: enough gamers don't buy the product which sends the same unified message)
2. You personally know Jeremy or Mike and make a compelling argument face to face to at least get the gears moving in their minds about your argument.
Anything else gets lost in the wind. That's life.
1. A high enough % of gamers make the same feedback via surveys so it stands out statistically (also related: enough gamers don't buy the product which sends the same unified message)
2. You personally know Jeremy or Mike and make a compelling argument face to face to at least get the gears moving in their minds about your argument.
Anything else gets lost in the wind. That's life.
Willie the Duck
Hero
And in both cases, you need to have a lot more diplomatic voice (That 'tone and the content of their complaints' that Ilbranteloth mentioned) than what we've seen. If WotC has to deal with even a small portion of the people I've seen on the internet who are ostensibly D&D fans, but who just plain have one axe to grind or another (often for things long made irrelevant by the edition change, or even happened on TSR's watch), they must have strong mental filters against loud, angry voices.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Exactly. I mean, I'm a small time Indie publisher, and I am way more responsive to a tactful response compared to "your game is broke." To the latter, I pretty much have a canned response, "I'm sorry you felt that way and the product didn't meet your expectations. I hope you find a system that fits your desires in the near future."
Everyone gets negative feedback, some of it highly unreasonable--don't publish anything unless you're OK with criticism. But unless I hear it from multiple sources, or if it's presented in a professional manner, admittedly I don't pay that much attention to it*. I'm certainly not going to change something that a lot of people like just because one person didn't.
*the exception here is solicited reviewers. If I send something to a reviewer, or if they have a good reputation, then I pay attention to what they have to say.
ccs
41st lv DM
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...5D7957F55F981A9D67F25D795&fsscr=0&FORM=VDMCNL
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh, and if I want to play D&D? I don't have to buy it from WoTC. I just have to round up some friends & walk over to my bookshelf.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
