D&D 4E 4E WotC way of saying your fired?

[GVDammerung]

I saw thread after thread, for DAYS, about how horrible it was that the Great Wheel was going away.

Once the poll was actually up, those who were outraged at the change amounted to less than 25% of the folks on this forum.

It's a very, very, very loud minority in most cases.

Not saying the poll can be extrapolated beyond ENWorld (and moving beyond simply the Great Wheel debate, although all the little nicks add up, I think) but, for arguments sake, if 25% of the D&D core fanbase choose not to switch to 4e, 4e would not be a success for Wotc in all likihood. I'm thinking Wotc needs to retain 85 to 90% of the 3.5 audience, which is down from the 3.0 high, to make 4e a success of the kind they need to keep Hasbro happy. With a 85 to 90% stick rate, increased sales and pricing can probably make up for the 10 to 15% attrition. If 25% don't switch, I think Wotc overall would be loosing money on the move to 4e. But I'm guessing here.

 

[GVDammerung]

. . . And if they would get a 3.75 out of the door, and it would make a dent in WotC:s armour, they would start facing the same dilemma that WotC does; they can't please everyone.

Depends, I think, on how well a 3.75 would click and how close Wotc's margins are.

On the first point, I think Paizo et al. have demonstrated a good sense for what fans want. I think they would produce something that would be very attractive to judge by how their products have been received to this point.

On the second point, I haven't a real clue. My sense is that Wotc, as far as D&D goes, is not a cash cow for Wotc. I think that 4e, particularly with the annual PH, MM and DMG releases and D&D Insider, is an attempt to be more of a reliable cash cow for Hasbro.

Given this, if so, I think a 3.75 could well impact Wotc significantly. Not to the point of going out of business but to the point that Wotc would have to take notice of 3.75. I could see Wotc looking to cut a deal with the 3.75 folks. Who knows? Maybe some licenses if Paizo and company agrees to go 4e? Paizo gets a GH license? Necro gets PS license? Etc.?

 

[BryonD]

QFT.

Wotc does not "intend" to fire their existing 3x customers, its just that they don't care whether those customers choose to "fire" themselves. Wotc will do what it thinks is best and too bad, so sad, if someone can't be reasonable and see it their way.

Which is just as it should be.
If they believe that a change can bring in 3 new players for every 2 it may lose, then it is completely unreasonable for anyone to try to say they are bad for doing it. Even if they happen to be in the group of 2s that get left out.
And if they ARE unreasonable in this way then, yeah, too bad so sad is pretty much the response they merit.

Right now I'm still somewhere between cautiously optimistic and enthusiastic. But I have some concerns. A lot of the things I have heard really seem to resonate the idea that much of the game will be dumbed down. They make comments to the effect that "it took a really good DM to do this in 3X, but now in 4E anyone can do it." And that is well and good. But a lot of the specific examples strike me as coming at a price. And that price is less freedom for a good DM to do whatever he wants. I'm not saying this is a truth. I don't know yet. But I keep catching that vibe. And if that turns out to be right, then I, myself, will find that I'm one of the groups of 2s that get left behind. But not only will that not be a crime against me, it will not even be the tiniest slight against me.

 

[The Little Raven]

Heh. I'm old enough to remember when folks were saying the same thing about TSR. See, this upstart card game had appeared, and some thought the little company that manufactured would be awefully naive to imagine that it could ever compete with the giant....

They didn't compete with D&D.

Collectible card games are not the same as trying to take over the IP of the biggest giant in the industry (and notice how all of TSR's card game ventures failed because it couldn't compete with Magic).

And learn a little history. During the 1990s, TSR was already in trouble due to oversaturated the market with substandard products, spreading into ridiculous ventures, and putting out more campaign settings than they could reasonable sell or support. And then big ol' Wizards comes along with TSR is in it's death throes, and buys up the lot with the fat wad of cash that Magic made them.

So, the strongest RPG company with the top CCG in the world is not going to be beaten by Paizo. Magic alone makes more money than D&D and the entire d20 market.

But if you want to believe David and Goliath stories, that's your choice.

In any event, a 3rd Party wouldn't be competing with WotC. It would be competing with the bottom line expected value that Hasbro requires to keep D&D as a WotC product.

Are you seriously trying to say that attempting to net the D&D market with a D&D 3.75 wouldn't be an attempt to compete with WotC?

 

[Maggan]

I think they would produce something that would be very attractive to judge by how their products have been received to this point.

Absolutely. But it is important to remember that the products have been well received at least partly because they were D&D-branded material.

If it hadn't been D&D, a lot of people wouldn't have looked twice at the Paizo offerings. They could still have made it as an important player, and a renowned producer, but they built their success on being associated with D&D.

Now that association is gone. And trying to pick up that slack is the most important challenge for Paizo at the moment, IMO. And I don't think releasing a 3.75 will help them do that.

And remember, I would buy a Paizo 3.75 sight unseen. But I also believe that it would be a lost "edition" in the long run, and it would cost someone a lot of money for little or no result.

/M

 

[Raven Crowking]

And learn a little history.

How lucky we are to have you to inform us.

During the 1990s, TSR was already in trouble due to oversaturated the market with substandard products, spreading into ridiculous ventures, and putting out more campaign settings than they could reasonable sell or support.

Obviously, no one would claim that WotC has oversaturated the market with substandard products, or is spreading into a new ridiculous venture.

RC

 

[The Little Raven]

How lucky we are to have you to inform us.

Well, it seems abundantly obvious by your uninformed posts concerning WotC and TSR's histories that you need the lesson, especially if you're going to try and throw in your $.02.

Obviously, no one would claim that WotC has oversaturated the market with substandard products, or is spreading into a new ridiculous venture.

TSR published six campaign settings in the 1990s, in addition to the five they already published... and some of those campaign box sets (Planescape in particular) cost them more money to make than they made selling them. So, they supported something like 11 campaign settings, which merely caused them to be competing with their own products. In contrast, Wizards only supports two (and make more money from those two than they did from the 11 that TSR attempted to juggle).

TSR had a policy forbidding games being played. That's right. The maker of D&D had a rule against playing D&D for years.

TSR threw money into a hole trying to sue their fans for publishing derivative works for free on the internet (y'know, the whole thing where they sued people for posting original D&D monsters on a website).

They also did stupid things like purchase a needlecraft business. Let's see, what similar, ridiculous venture has WotC done and failed at? Did they purchase a bunny slipper factory while I wasn't looking?

Learn something about context before attempting to state that WotC compares in any way to TSR and their well-documented history of sabotaging their own sales through saturation.

 

[kenmarable]

Not saying the poll can be extrapolated beyond ENWorld (and moving beyond simply the Great Wheel debate, although all the little nicks add up, I think) but, for arguments sake, if 25% of the D&D core fanbase choose not to switch to 4e, 4e would not be a success for Wotc in all likihood. I'm thinking Wotc needs to retain 85 to 90% of the 3.5 audience, which is down from the 3.0 high, to make 4e a success of the kind they need to keep Hasbro happy. With a 85 to 90% stick rate, increased sales and pricing can probably make up for the 10 to 15% attrition. If 25% don't switch, I think Wotc overall would be loosing money on the move to 4e. But I'm guessing here.

I think it's a major assumption to assume "25% of people hating the change to the cosmology" = "25% not converting to 4e". I think a safer assumption might that most gamers aren't one issue buyers, and may hate and wind up ignoring one feature and purchase it for the rest. I know I probably will.

 

[shocklee]

.... I consider the homebrewing of fluff, putting your own stamp on the implied setting of D&D as offered by the rulebooks, to be a fundamental part of the experience.

To me this is the entire meat of the question about 4th edition.

The goal of WOTC is to try and get the gamer to buy a print version of the book, subscribe to the online D&D insider, and enter the codes of the books that you have bought to unlock electronic version of the products. Being able to have the clarifications from the equivalent of Sage Advice immediately incorporated into the core product to correct problems would be a good benefit. This isn't any different than reading the print magazine and incorporating clarifications and corrections into your table game.

Why I chose the above quote is that this electronic model does not easily support customization. If we really look at all of the great electronic D&D support products that are out there, how easy is it to support customization to allow you, the consumer, to put your favorite rules into their character generator? Will WOTC be motivated to do this in D&D insider tools? What are the legal ramifications of incorporating the (pick your favorite company's name and insert it here) rules/classes/monsters/skills/etc. into the D&D insider web site tools?

The real criticism of this model is that when you play through the D&D Insider site or use those tools, I suspect that it will be difficult to incorporate homebrew or OGL stuff. Bringing electronic support into the 4th edition may effectively undermine the OGL unless the publishers give up product identity claims and allow their content to be merged with the WOTC content (assuming WOTC is willing to incorporate any other companies' content into their site and tools).

I think that the fear that the other D20 companies will go off and make version 3.75 to compete with 4.0 is unfounded. I think instead that the publishers should be worried about how they are going to capture any of the new audience that WOTC is trying to attract, since they won't necessarily be able to offer integrated electronic support.

If you are a GM or player that likes products from other D20 publishers, maybe you have been fired.

 

[Glyfair]

I think it's a major assumption to assume "25% of people hating the change to the cosmology" = "25% not converting to 4e". I think a safer assumption might that most gamers aren't one issue buyers, and may hate and wind up ignoring one feature and purchase it for the rest. I know I probably will.

Indeed, Erik Mona has said he like the mechanical changes, but has concerns about the background changes. Given his position, I think his moving to 4E (along with this company), will bring a chunk of his customers with him.