Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alphastream" data-source="post: 7647760" data-attributes="member: 11365">Ryan, thanks for writing the original post and the follow-up. I love the topic and would like to ask a few questions.I don't have a deep understanding of this and I would guess most other readers feel the same way. First, on the numbers. If I use the Wizards locator to find stores running Encounters I come up with more than 500. If I widen the search to stores selling D&D, I come up with even more. Do you really feel confident about your numbers?Also, how critical are hobby stores? I'm guessing they are critical because they introduce new players to the game. It's the classic issue that you won't get hooked in or even know about product if you can't get it in context and then touch it and see it. But, is that true? Are you confident that the brick and mortar store is necessary? In my personal experience, word of mouth and proper advertising seem plausible as substitutes. I've seen a lot more 4E sold via people brought in to play Encounters or who saw it on Meetup than due to already being in the store and saying "hey, I want to try this". I do think there is a value to stores, but I think there are other ways to bring gamers to product, to organized play (where they can try a game and form communities), or online to become part of community or download/subscribe. I can easily be wrong. Clearly Encounters has been all about the store, and it has been excellent at bringing new and casual players into stores when properly advertised.So we go from 15 in 1001 to 10 in 2011... and I'm not clear on what to make of it. If I read you right, the 1991 crowd was conducting business poorly by over-publishing (or publishing unprofitable product) and then failing to recognize changes in the consolidation of distributors... and the high water mark was during the d20 boom prior to the bust (when some companies probably shouldn't have purchased Gen Con booths). I'm not sure that means that much. Does it? I mean, are we talking "vague sense"?Somewhere in there you sort of say that the problem is 3.5, but is this a major factor? There had already been several booms and busts in the industry (even in the 80s), all sorts of changes to the industry from various companies going bankrupt, and the huge changes due to CCGs? Was 3.0 to 3.5 really a big deal? While I do agree it cleared out a ton of d20 stuff, most of that seemed destined for the sale bin anyway. This sort of brings me back to the d20 OGL topic. What, really, is the value to the OGL? I get that it opened up the industry, but that effect seems permanent. Freelancers work on 4E, on KQ, for Paizo, for Eclipse Phase, etc. If anything, having the OGL die back a bit has seen wider game diversity and allowed more stability, right? Wouldn't a strong OGL create another false boom? What am I missing here?I'm also curious about the basic underpinnings. With very few exceptions, the vast majority of 3rd Party Provider offerings saw no shelf space in my friends' homes (these were both hardcore D&D 3E players and casual ones). I might see one product here or there (Ptolus here, Freeport here), but the vast majority of my friends had very little 3PP. Moreover, they didn't use it. It was shelf liner rather than coveted material (Ptolus being an exception for some!). Today I see the same thing. I see a token set here, pdf terrain there... but the shelf is close to 100% from the main company. I get the theoretical concept of a company focusing on one area and having 3PP create the rest, but that hasn't happened. Given that, what, really, is the value of 3PP and the OGL? What am I missing?I've heard the audio CD products and Dark Sun flip books were in that category. And I heard Andy Collins and Rob Heinsoo talk about the imperative to skip boxed sets and go shallow on setting-specific at a con when 4E was released. But, since that time we see boxed sets by both Paizo and Wizards. Wizards has gone back and forth between hardcover, softcover, and boxed set variants (Gardmore Abbey, Monster Vault, Monster Vault Nentir Vale, Shadowfell, etc.). What gives? Is the premise faulty? Is it worth it to take a bath on things like Red Box and the PF intro boxed set? Is it ok for some products?To what extent, though, was this a problem due to so much of the product lines being unprofitable or otherwise problematic? It is often said that having Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc. created a rift. And surely, it was an issue that no player could afford to go very deep in all of these. But, was it really hurting the company in a given year? If there were three products for Greyhawk in one year, was a Greyhawk gamer stopping then and not buying the three Planescape products because that's different, but they would have purchased three more Greyhawk products? Isn't there a balance where you can have a few settings to have wider appeal? Wizards clearly kept 4E settings less deep, and they have sometimes been very clever about limiting exposure. There are a ton of 4E Dark Sun adventures, but only one was sold in stores as a "module". There is a lot of content, but only two books that can go on shelves (and both nearly sold out and no longer in print). I think it has worked well for Dark Sun, because they had so much other content at conventions, through Encounters, through Ashes of Athas, through DDI, etc. But Eberron really saw two books and pretty much done. The model for Eberron seemed to really sell the setting short. (And I'm not sure going OGL on it would have changed that much... certainly not in a greatly profitable way for Wizards).We see something different with Pathfinder. If I look at the catalog, I'm overwhelmed by all the components of Golarion. And that's after a lot of setting material was consolidated. It feels remarkably like the strategy behind FR back in the 90s, but with essentially mini settings and adventure paths in each area. Are we repeating history, making subtle changes, or have the lessons been found to just apply in some cases?I better stop there, as this is already far longer than I meant for it to be. Thanks!</blockquote>

Verification