AD&D Online

[Grandpa]

[NOTE: Original post edited for clarity.]
If this has already been discussed ad nauseum, I apologize (and humbly request a link!):

I'm curious what the reaction would be to the next edition of D&D being released online-only, with the same production values, and then played and updated as normal, but not released to print and the larger public until version "x.5" would normally take place, after deep systemic errata has ended?

When Essentials was labeled "4.5" by the community, I wondered how Wizards could address deep system concerns without requiring "incompatible" new books that upset and divided their user base. Around the same time, the new Red Box reminded me that once upon a time I made a conscientious and exciting decision to go from the "Basic" to "Advanced" set of rules. This combination of thoughts led to the idea of the next edition of the game being initially released online-only as "AD&D," and the vocal complaints about fifth edition compelled me to share it.

Potential advantages:

1. It adds a compelling reason to own an Insider account.
2. It suggests a commitment to quality and community.
3. It ties community to the production of a new edition.
4. It dulls criticism about "an iconic, public brand" while it functions more like "a community sandbox."
5. It gives designers more freedom to adjust to deep problems (e.g., skill challenges, feat taxes).
6. It can still be produced physically through less-conventional channels (e.g., online per-purchase publishing (with current errata!) or FLGS middle man).
7. It can be marketed with a familiar brand (Advanced D&D).
8. It makes the D&D brand seem more progressive.
9. It enhances the quality of public releases.

And disadvantages:

• It may not generate the subscription or publishing revenue to support modules, game screens, splat books, etc., and other material important to edition maturation.
• It may incentivize the release of unfinished content, dooming it to a community that spits the lukewarm from their mouths.
• It may require unrealistic discipline to prevent designers from ceaseless tuning instead of release progress.
• It may require online support that Wizards is unable or unwilling to accommodate.

I'm sure I missed a lot. My knowledge of community and development isn't strong enough to share ideas with confidence but the fantasy appealed to me, and I enjoyed the opportunity to brain dump it.

 

[the Jester]

Okay, I am not trying to be a jerk, but I pretty much disagree on nearly every particular here.

If this has already been discussed ad nauseum, I apologize (and humbly request a link!):

I'm curious what the reaction would be to the next edition of D&D being released instead as a free "Advanced" version to Insiders online, subsequently played and updated as normal, but not released to the public at large until version "x.5" would normally take place, when deep systemic errata ended?

I think that it is completely unworkable.

First of all, "Insiders" aren't going to want to pay for a new system sight-unseen, much less if they are effectively beta testers. I certainly wouldn't.

Second, there's a substantial lost profit potential in hardcopy sales on release of a new edition.

Finally, it is quite possible that once they did a public release, the rules would be stressed tested on a level that the 'playtesting' insiders did wouldn't really prove to finalize much of anything.

When Essentials was labeled "4.5" by the community, I wondered how Wizards could address deep system concerns without requiring "incompatible" new books that upset and divided their user base.

Except, as is pretty much demonstrated in every thread that discusses this, they aren't incompatible at all. They're more akin to Arcane Power than a version 4.5. I remember at least one 20+ page thread where it turned out that not a single person who played with PH characters side-by-side with Essentials characters had any problems with it in game. All the griping came from naysayers who hadn't done the research, iykwimaityd.

The 3.0/3.5 shift, on the other hand, did legitimately piss off a bunch of people. It was a real game replacement. In the end, I think it was for the best and that the improvements to the game were worth it, but I understand how burnt a lot of people felt over it.

The problem, I think, will always be one of scale. Get 100 playtesters, and when you give the game to 1000 people they will find exploits and rules holes that the hundred missed.

Around the same time, the new Red Box reminded me that once upon a time I made a conscientious and exciting decision to go from the "Basic" to "Advanced" set of rules.

Speaking of game-replacers...

I think going back to two separate game lines would be ruinous as long as any significant portion of the game's revenue comes from physical product.

Potential advantages:

1. It adds a compelling reason to own an Insider account.
2. It suggests a commitment to quality and community.
3. It ties community to the production of a new edition.
4. It dulls criticism about "an iconic, public brand" while it functions more like "a community sandbox."
5. It gives designers more freedom to adjust to deep problems (e.g., skill challenges, feat taxes).
6. It can still be produced physically through less-conventional channels (e.g., online per-purchase publishing (with current errata!) or FLGS middle man).
7. It can be marketed with a familiar brand (Advanced D&D).
8. It makes the D&D brand seem more progressive.
9. It enhances the quality of public releases.

Oh dear.

Following your proposal wouldn't encourage me to buy an Insider account. It would encourage me to wait however many years for the damn books to come out. Instead of suggesting a commitment to quality and community, I would perceive the approach as suggesting lazy design by committee for those willing to pay to get involved, which would make me quite afraid of what the eventual outcome would look like.

I have no idea what you mean about criticism about an iconic, public brand.

I do agree that working on a new edition offers deep freedom to change systems or address problem areas of the rules (skill challenges, feat taxes) but I don't think the process being marketed as online-only makes this any more true than releasing an actual book does. Unless you mean the potential to keep changing the rules to fiddle with them over time- which is exactly what exasperates so many people about the frequent errata train. Again, this does not sound like a positive to me.

Purchasing a physical copy via nonstandard models, like you suggest, leads me to visualize a black and white 3-ring binder full of 256 printed pages that cost me nearly as much to produce as buying a $40 full color high-quality glossy hardcover would. Economy of scale means that WotC's hardcovers are going to per-dollar be a much better value than self-printing.

I don't see how using the AD&D brand helps anything; if anything, it creates a subset of an already small customer base who are no longer buying the 'other' line's products. Nor do I see this making D&D "look progressive"; instead I think it would make D&D "look invisible," where only those willing to pay to beta-test would even be aware of the new system.

Finally, I don't see how it would enhance the quality of public releases; with shrinking revenue would come shrinking quality and an implosion. And I wouldn't care about a publicly-released Complete Fighter for a game that had no publicly-released Players Handbook or equivalent.

And disadvantages:

• It may not generate the subscription or publishing revenue to support modules, game screens, splat books, etc., and other material important to edition maturation.
• It may incentivize the release of unfinished content, dooming it to a community that spits the lukewarm from their mouths.
• It may require unrealistic discipline to prevent designers from ceaseless tuning instead of release progress.
• It may require online support that Wizards is unable or unwilling to accommodate.

I can buy all of these, especially- sadly- given WotC's, hrmm, erratic record with online material.

Again, not trying to be a jerk- I just can't see your proposal doing anything other than scoring a critical hit on D&D's commercial viability.

 

[Grandpa]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

Okay, I am not trying to be a jerk, but I pretty much disagree on nearly every particular here.

Not a jerk. Like I said, I'm not as familiar with the ins and outs of things, so I don't mind learning how the idea is awful.

First of all, "Insiders" aren't going to want to pay for a new system sight-unseen, much less if they are effectively beta testers. I certainly wouldn't.

I agree, but what I'm suggesting is not that they are beta testers, but that a fifth edition, for example, went through all the normal testing and was then released online instead of hitting print, along with the same previews and marketing leading up to release.

Second, there's a substantial lost profit potential in hardcopy sales on release of a new edition.

Totally. I think in the perhaps-stupid fantasy is that those interested in a "finished" new edition online would be interested in it enough to subscribe, and that that increase in subscriptions would make up the cost. I may be waaay off.

Finally, it is quite possible that once they did a public release, the rules would be stressed tested on a level that the 'playtesting' insiders did wouldn't really prove to finalize much of anything.

I think this has been true of every edition release, and that would be the point. By putting the release online and letting the community put a lot of time testing it, its eventual public release would benefit. Again, totally okay with a smackdown over how stupid this thought is.

Except, as is pretty much demonstrated in every thread that discusses this, they aren't incompatible at all.

I personally agree, which is why I put my "compatibality" in quotes. My reason for mentioning it has to with public perception and the difficulty I perceive Wizards still has because of how 3.5 affected things. I wondered how they might get more breathing room for things like Essentials.

The problem, I think, will always be one of scale. Get 100 playtesters, and when you give the game to 1000 people they will find exploits and rules holes that the hundred missed.

Yeah, I just liked the idea that if you got 100 playtesters to play the game before releasing it to a community of thousands (?), before releasing it to the public at large, it would be even better.

I think going back to two separate game lines would be ruinous as long as any significant portion of the game's revenue comes from physical product.

Ah, perhaps so. I think I mentally parse the super-fans that would pursue an online version of the game from the more casual folks that never hear about it, and think the super-fans would just build some word-of-mouth that the eventual public release would benefit from, but you may be more correct that it would just make the game feel perpetually split, which does sound bad.

Following your proposal wouldn't encourage me to buy an Insider account. It would encourage me to wait however many years for the damn books to come out. Instead of suggesting a commitment to quality and community, I would perceive the approach as suggesting lazy design by committee for those willing to pay to get involved, which would make me quite afraid of what the eventual outcome would look like.

Which sounds okay to me. You'd just get an even more solid version of the game than most typical releases. I can see the second point about lazy design as a real potential problem, which is why I mentioned it in the negatives. Maybe even with all of the testing credits and artwork and options to purchase the book through an online publisher, you still couldn't shake that "beta tester" feeling, and perhaps is the silver bullet to my werewolf idea.

I have no idea what you mean about criticism about an iconic, public brand.

I was vague. I perceive the reason for the deep criticism of D&D, even beyond it being widely-known, is that a lot of folks see it as a gateway drug for new RPGs, and are sensitive to how that transforms players that are familiar with the icon and not the industry overall. Perhaps my suggestion would only exacerbate those concerns.

I do agree that working on a new edition offers deep freedom to change systems or address problem areas of the rules (skill challenges, feat taxes) but I don't think the process being marketed as online-only makes this any more true than releasing an actual book does. Unless you mean the potential to keep changing the rules to fiddle with them over time- which is exactly what exasperates so many people about the frequent errata train. Again, this does not sound like a positive to me.

I may have incorrectly identified the problem that as long as physical copies of a book exist that need to turn a profit, and if putting out a new book with deeper adjustments made previous material incompatible (re: 3.5) then not having a physical copy and having flexible online material could limit that problem. Then again, people can become attached to versions and like the option of ignoring errata, and so for someone like yourself, that already hates it, an online edition could make it worse.

Purchasing a physical copy via nonstandard models, like you suggest, leads me to visualize a black and white 3-ring binder full of 256 printed pages that cost me nearly as much to produce as buying a $40 full color high-quality glossy hardcover would. Economy of scale means that WotC's hardcovers are going to per-dollar be a much better value than self-printing.

I agree with this too, I just imagine that even if an edition were released online first, individuals would want a nice physical copy even at a greater price, and publishers like Lulu (I'm sure there are other / better examples) can provide quality at that higher-price point. Again, if this sounds nasty, waiting for the tested "public" release would be an option.

I don't see how using the AD&D brand helps anything; if anything, it creates a subset of an already small customer base who are no longer buying the 'other' line's products.

The branding may be a horrible idea. I thought perhaps for those likely to have, know about, or learn about an Insider account, the "Advanced" might bring back positive memories. Perhaps I put on my marketing hat and put on an correspondingly goofy marketing suggestion.

Nor do I see this making D&D "look progressive"; instead I think it would make D&D "look invisible," where only those willing to pay to beta-test would even be aware of the new system.

Again, I didn't mean to suggest beta-test. I mean a digital release with the production values (art, testing) we are used to before the actual full-scale public release with community testing and necessary (?) deeper changes.

Finally, I don't see how it would enhance the quality of public releases; with shrinking revenue would come shrinking quality and an implosion. And I wouldn't care about a publicly-released Complete Fighter for a game that had no publicly-released Players Handbook or equivalent.

And just to be clear, I see the release of the PHB, etc., just after the community has already enjoyed it for a bit and helped sharpen the product.

Again, not trying to be a jerk- I just can't see your proposal doing anything other than scoring a critical hit on D&D's commercial viability.

I totally appreciate the commentary. I feel like I'm just clearing up my poor presentation but still totally okay if it really is a trashy idea. I edited the original post to help and hope that's okay. I'm enjoying the thought-provocation, at least.

 

[TarionzCousin]

One thing I would like to see done with 5E is to not release untested rules that designers almost immediately claim needed to be playtested a lot more.

Rituals, I'm looking at you.

 

[SiderisAnon]

I think the Jester hit the nail fairly square on the head, so that takes care of much of what I would say.

I am going to add three additional business arguments:

1) By putting everything online, you've just slaughtered the FLGS. Why should they support any of the books from your company when the majority of the core business is core books and you've taken that away from them? They're already losing enough business to PDF and Amazon.

2) By putting everything online, you've just sliced out a chunk of your user base. While everyone here on the internet forum has a computer and internet access, there are still plenty of gamers who don't have internet access or don't even have a computer.

3) By putting everything online, you've made it incredibly easy to pirate it and distribute it widely. (I realize that people scan and post books within hours of release, but those are large files that require time and bandwidth. Pure text and art on a website, even behind a pay wall, is foolishly easy to distribute. If WoTC won't allow PDF books because piracy scares them, they would never go this route.)

 

[Grandpa]

Another thanks for another thoughtful reply.

I think the Jester hit the nail fairly square on the head, so that takes care of much of what I would say.

I liked his points, though a few seemed to hinge on a misunderstanding that this would be a beta test of a new edition.

1) By putting everything online, you've just slaughtered the FLGS.

I did mention the FLGS as a potential middle man for physical copies of the "exclusive" material which might grant greater appeal to the FLGS -- and nothing prevents the continued support of the active "public" edition -- but perhaps neither could address your concerns effectively.

2) By putting everything online, you've just sliced out a chunk of your user base. While everyone here on the internet forum has a computer and internet access, there are still plenty of gamers who don't have internet access or don't even have a computer.

Perhaps so. A new edition that stokes new subscriptions and stronger core books for the public may be miniscule compared to revenue lost. At first I thought the only cost was non-internet fans feeling excluded from a release given time to mature before public consumption (if they don't buy a copy from their FLGS ) but there are also costs associated with an initial product cycle extension (increased time before the next public release), loss of focus on previous edition, split-focus marketing (how would Encounters work?), and loss of the mid-edition surge that comes from a 3.5 and Essentials launch. Maybe subscriptions aren't valuable enough that an influx could make up that revenue, and I apologize for my naivete.

3) By putting everything online, you've made it incredibly easy to pirate it and distribute it widely. (I realize that people scan and post books within hours of release, but those are large files that require time and bandwidth. Pure text and art on a website, even behind a pay wall, is foolishly easy to distribute. If WotC won't allow PDF books because piracy scares them, they would never go this route.)

I agree but tend to think of it as an unavoidable problem that needs to be address with a more-convenient service, which is hard to do with physical books and admittedly more so with a PDF behind a paywall. I suppose the only possible enhancement of value is with content integration with play tools, which seem lackluster to me. Why WotC doesn't tap into the resources of some of the fans building awesome programs out there is beyond me. And though it seems difficult for me to believe that PDF size is even a slight deterrent to piracy it's even harder for me to believe that WoTC would seriously consider the idea I've been sharing, even if they had a reason to love it.

Thanks again for taking the time to offer up feedback. I'm still enjoying the thought exercise.

 

[tenkar]

WotC isn't going to embrace PDFs anytime soon. Any solution that requires internet access at the game table is going to fail and I suspect WotC would go that route if your idea in any way resembles their plans.

Heck, they cant even get their VTT on the same field as others out there (Fantasy Grounds and Maptool being the big 2). How would they expect be have any success going all digital?

I suspect the new edition is going to be sold as Boxed Sets, so as to find shelf space at Target, Walmart, Toys r Us and the like.

In truth, only WotC knows... but they probably just fired the ones in the know during the annual Christmas Purge