D&D 5E A viable game and the vicious edition cycle

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of their ability to achieve the level of success they want with that.

I'm guessing they're not really counting on it, just talking it up it to spin the slow pace of RPG releases. (But I really have got nothing to back that guess up.)

 

[pemerton]

Gary was not the one in charge when the feces hit the fan so to speak. He probably was not a brilliant business man but he seemed to know the basics unlike the Blumes. He did save D&D in early 85 which annoyed the Blumes and they sold to Lorraine Williams.

I don't think your last sentence is very accurate: How Gary Gygax Lost Control of Dungeons & Dragons.

Why did Williams seek control of TSR? Shortly after she came on board back in April, the relationship between Gygax and Williams began to sour. The financial situation of the company continued to deteriorate, and Williams did not approve of the company’s handling of the Blumes.​

And Gygax was not immune from making bad business decisions:

A more curious acquisition was the Greenfield Needlewomen company, a craft firm that produced needleworking products. Gygax at the time justified the purchase internally by explaining that “we had been seeking likely acquisitions outside of gaming,” and that “crafts is a larger field than hobbies.” TSR predicted that the needlework company would contribute about a fifth of its gross income moving forward. . . .

By June 1983, it became clear that the business was not growing as expected . . . The purchase of Greenfield Needlewomen had failed to deliver its promised returns, so TSR was forced to write off the acquisition—and as a consequence, to post its first loss.​

That's great while things are going well for Hasbro.

Unfortunately, they have a pattern of behaviour when things aren't going so well - they contract their operations, choosing to focus on their "core business". Anything that isn't big enough gets cut.

<snip>

I'd much rather see D&D (and indeed the D&D RPG) pulling it's own weight, rather than shield behind Magic or the other elements of the D&D brand.

I think, though, that it's just unrealistic to want a game published on the sort of commercial scale, and at the level of quality, that D&D is published, but with the values, commitment and expectations of return of an artisan or hobbyist.

An analogy that works for me at least: it can't both be the case that you (and me, and all the other posters on this board) visit every exciting and interesting place in the world, and that those places be untainted/uncorrupted by commercial tourism.

 

[pemerton]

One of the things 1E did really well, especially in the early years (late 70s and early 80s) was adventures. The hardcovers were very limited

<snip>

What feels like bloat are countless monster supplements and feat/class option books - stuff that can easily be incorporated into Basic and online without needing tons of supplements.

The problem is, we have basically a binary scenario here, I think:

1) WotC-enforced no-bloat: WotC refuses to publish any game mechanic material in Dragon, and only produces a handful, tops, of books containing any mechanics over the entire lifespan of the edition (i.e. 1E model, no?)

<snip>

2) WotC produces stuff some people will insist is "bloat" - Dragon has mechanics sometimes, books come out fairly regularly with mechanics in them.

As someone who actually played 1st ed AD&D, these posts do not paint an accuate picture of the "1E model".

I had hand-written lists/indexes of monsters (2 MMs plus FF, OA, GA and DA, plus monsters spread across modules, Dragon and White Dwarf magazines, and maybe other sources as well that I'm forgetting), of spells (PHB, DMG notes, UA, DA, GA, OA, modules, magazines), and of items (DMG, UA, DA, GA, OA, modules, magazines).

Then there were the various rules subsystems from Dragon magazines (eg the XP rules for non-combat XP in Dragon 99 (?))

Then thereclass notes and variations (eg the monks and bard from Dragon, two versions of a clerical conversion ability (one in Dragon 94 (?), one in White Dwarf), etc).

Whether or not that counts as "bloat", it was not a trivial issue from the indexing point of view.

I honestly wonder how many people bought Divine Power 2.

Zero? (Unless you know something I don't.)

 

[pemerton]

You never got anything close to the game breaking levels of the original Oriental Adventures

What makes you say that OA was broken?

 

[jadrax]

And Gygax was not immune from making bad business decisions:

A more curious acquisition was the Greenfield Needlewomen company, a craft firm that produced needleworking products. Gygax at the time justified the purchase internally by explaining that “we had been seeking likely acquisitions outside of gaming,” and that “crafts is a larger field than hobbies.” TSR predicted that the needlework company would contribute about a fifth of its gross income moving forward. . . .

By June 1983, it became clear that the business was not growing as expected . . . The purchase of Greenfield Needlewomen had failed to deliver its promised returns, so TSR was forced to write off the acquisition—and as a consequence, to post its first loss.​

I am reasonably sure that GNW was owned by someone related to the Blumes, so I think it was purchased more to try and keep them happy than because of any real hope of its success.

 

[delericho]

I think, though, that it's just unrealistic to want a game published on the sort of commercial scale, and at the level of quality, that D&D is published, but with the values, commitment and expectations of return of an artisan or hobbyist.

Aye, that's true. I think, if I have to choose, I'll go for the commercial scale, though. Better that than cancellation. If need be, I can use D&D as a useful gateway for new players, before guiding them towards something more to my tastes (which might well still be D&D, albeit 3.5e)

An analogy that works for me at least: it can't both be the case that you (and me, and all the other posters on this board) visit every exciting and interesting place in the world, and that those places be untainted/uncorrupted by commercial tourism.

Better to have the chance to visit them than not, no? At least, IMO.

 

[Emerikol]

I agree with Morrus. So +1 on your early post.

I believe adventures, adventure paths, and campaign settings are not bloat (except where they inject new rules but they don't have to do that). Wotc can focus on creating reasons to actually play the rules as they are written instead of continually adding new rules. I'd be happy with one major book every two years. The rest of the time it could be adventure paths. That one book would likely be a best seller.

I also think DM help and campaign tools are always welcome.

 

[Hussar]

What makes you say that OA was broken?

Whoops, that should have been Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Steely Dan]

Whoops, that should have been Unearthed Arcana.

Yeah, that human ability score generation system, totally discouraged playing demihumans.

But, Gygax was not too keen on non-human characters.

 

[Lanefan]

Whoops, that should have been Unearthed Arcana.

Yep.

Even when it first came out we quickly realized we had to go through it with a fine-tooth comb and excise the broken bits before unleashing it on our games.

That said, it also contained some truly excellent bits and ideas which we still use to this day.

Lanefan