D&D 3.x 3.5: Out With A Whimper

[Hussar]

Free dungeon adventures on the web don't strike me as the most they can do, as most groups don't use pre-published adventures.

Care to back that up? I'm thinking that there's some pretty heavy duty second tier companies that might disagree with you. Never mind counting 150k RPGA players.

The point always was that adventures don't sell. Not that adventures aren't important. But, adventures still get people playing because for every adventure you sell, presumably, you've got 4 or 5 players.

 

[Erik Mona]

They can't have an Adventure Path. Paizo would sue them.

No we wouldn't. We are no longer actively defending that term, mostly because that term is indefensible according to the trademark office.

--Erik

 

[zjordi]

• Preparing you for 4th Edition was of the utmost importance. This preparation, even at the expense of more 3rd Edition content, just makes more sense. It's a new edition. It will take some acclimation. It won't happen overnight. We want our content, as much as possible, to give you a running start—to catapult you, even—into the new edition. That's our mission, our goal, our grail. We knew, even back in the spring and before, that the push toward the 4th Edition launch was our first priority. Plus, we wanted to start bringing disenfranchised former players back into the fold. We didn't want you to feel overwhelmed by the new edition—if possible, we wanted you to feel like you already knew how to play when you picked the Player's Handbook up off the shelf.

Fourth edition is coming, we're having a blast with it, and we want you to be comfortable with the game come June. We're not ignoring D&D 3.5; we're devoting precious writing and development time to it. Our 3.5 focus, though, is on adventures -- to keep you playing, and because we feel they're the most useful at this point in the game's life cycle.

This comes from Chris Thomasson's "Where's the beef" article in DDI [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/20071221] and I believe it answers most of the original questions in the thread.

 

[dmccoy1693]

No we wouldn't. We are no longer actively defending that term, mostly because that term is indefensible according to the trademark office.

That sucks.

 

[glass]

EDIT: Never mind. Erik's answering makes my answer redundant at best (and on second reading it was a little snarkier than I intended).


glass.

 

[Reynard]

This comes from Chris Thomasson's "Where's the beef" article in DDI [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/20071221] and I believe it answers most of the original questions in the thread.

Actually, it inspires the whole question that is the thread.

In any case, I think the primary reason for all of it is limited resources. I just wonder how it was that WotC didn't increase staffing to compensate for all the extra work. Or at least given D&DI its own staff.

 

[Hussar]

Actually, it inspires the whole question that is the thread.

In any case, I think the primary reason for all of it is limited resources. I just wonder how it was that WotC didn't increase staffing to compensate for all the extra work. Or at least given D&DI its own staff.

Didn't they? They outsourced the development of most of the software. They have freelance writers covering articles. Yes, they aren't monthly, but, they are bi-monthly, and free. Free, professional quality articles and modules for six months. How's that not a great big gift to the gaming community?

 

[Vigilance]

Actually, it inspires the whole question that is the thread.

In any case, I think the primary reason for all of it is limited resources. I just wonder how it was that WotC didn't increase staffing to compensate for all the extra work. Or at least given D&DI its own staff.

Because this is a very unprecedented time in the company's history.

They're finalizing a new edition, and they're also reabsorbing the magazines.

Also, there are some unforeseen events that we know about, such as releasing all the books in the same month, as a response to customer and retailer feedback. I'm sure there about 100,000 unforeseen events that we do NOT know about.

At any rate, common sense tells us that, once they get hip deep in a huge project (either one), you can't just "staff up". It might look good, but those new people are not going to be able to get up to speed fast enough to provide significant help.

Ask anyone who has ever worked retail about how much "help" the seasonals are.

So despite the fact that Wizards is a big company, that doesn't just mean they can staff up at will. They don't have an unlimited budget and adding extra staff at the 11th hour isn't really feasible.

I think they're doing a good job overall. No, it's not perfect, but I've certainly seen companies do less well during major product launches.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Actually, it inspires the whole question that is the thread.

In any case, I think the primary reason for all of it is limited resources. I just wonder how it was that WotC didn't increase staffing to compensate for all the extra work. Or at least given D&DI its own staff.

It's been mentioned elsewhere but it's worth repeating - an important maxim of project design is "adding manpower tends to make a late project later."

 

[JoeGKushner]

Because this is a very unprecedented time in the company's history.

They're finalizing a new edition, and they're also reabsorbing the magazines.

This is a self inflicted wound.

Also, there are some unforeseen events that we know about, such as releasing all the books in the same month, as a response to customer and retailer feedback. I'm sure there about 100,000 unforeseen events that we do NOT know about.

At any rate, common sense tells us that, once they get hip deep in a huge project (either one), you can't just "staff up". It might look good, but those new people are not going to be able to get up to speed fast enough to provide significant help.

I agree with the former. Don't know about the latter because...

Ask anyone who has ever worked retail about how much "help" the seasonals are.

Okay. I've worked retail. The seasonals are a mixed bag. We get the people who only want the discount as well as those who stay on and actually wind up replacing permanent staffers.

So despite the fact that Wizards is a big company, that doesn't just mean they can staff up at will. They don't have an unlimited budget and adding extra staff at the 11th hour isn't really feasible.

Self inflicted wound. They've failed to take into account the initial amount of manhours and took on more work than they can handle.

I think they're doing a good job overall. No, it's not perfect, but I've certainly seen companies do less well during major product launches.

Agreed on the latter part, not the former.