Are we fair to WotC?

[MoutonRustique]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] and [MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION]

You are a joy to watch argue and debat. Well done to both of you - very finely crafted arguments, subtle but important nuances, and a respect for the process of thought.

Thank you for the read of intelligent discourse.

 

[Dannager]

True, but this isn't a computer game and I don't ever plan on changing on that.

It is worrisome that you equate the use of a laptop or tablet at the gaming table as a reference tool with D&D becoming a computer game. Why is this? Does this strike you as a reasonable thing for you to have said? What makes something a computer game? Is your definition so broad that a game of Trivial Pursuit with your friends becomes a computer game if you use your smartphone to generate the "cards" that you read off to the people you're playing at your kitchen table with? If so, is that a very useful definition, given how broad it is?

This seems to me like you're hiding behind semantics.

Also, I wouldn't pay a subscription fee for an rpg.

What's the reasoning behind this? (Let's assume, for the moment, that the existence of a subscription does not preclude you going out and purchasing a permanent physical copy of the RPG should the subscription service ever be discontinued, and that the subscription service provides tools or functionality that is extremely useful.)

Also, even online content has to be useful to me. If I'd rather play freeform or use older systems than access the online content, the online content is worthless.

Well, yes, of course you have to like the system to get use out of its online tools. I don't think anyone thinks differently.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

This ignores the significant functional differences between the two models. A leased car and a paid-for car are the same car. A physical book and a set of digital tools are two dramatically different things.

True. I was, however, responding to the comments about subscription-based services versus buying products. The comparison there from a business model standpoint is apt.

I gather from your response that you favor the subscription model because it provides a digital tool. If the digital tools were available for purchase or for subscription, which approach would you prefer.

 

[Dannager]

True. I was, however, responding to the comments about subscription-based services versus buying products. The comparison there from a business model standpoint is apt.

I gather from your response that you favor the subscription model because it provides a digital tool. If the digital tools were available for purchase or for subscription, which approach would you prefer.

I favor the subscription model because it changes the paradigm from an RPG as a product to an RPG as a service - I much prefer the latter, and I think most people would if they understood how a fully realized tabletop RPG-as-a-service would look. A product is static. There is little (some, but not much) incentive for a publisher to continually refine or improve a product, but a service model requires the publisher to maintain relevancy over the course of the game's projected lifecycle. It also - eventually - is the only reasonable solution to the edition treadmill issue: a game as a service can go through iterative updates that allow it to stay competitive and compelling without ever having to invalidate any part of itself. For an example of how this works (keeping in mind that the fact that these examples are computer games is largely unimportant; what's important is that they are games as a service, and it just so happens that currently the only way to do that is with a digital product), see games like EVE Online, or World of Warcraft. An RPG as a service also provides the publisher with a much more stable stream of revenue, which allows them the flexibility to try things that would not be considered conservative, smart moves in a product-based environment. Paizo benefits from this model - their subscription base is vital to the way they like to do business.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It is worrisome that you equate the use of a laptop or tablet at the gaming table as a reference tool with D&D becoming a computer game. Why is this? Does this strike you as a reasonable thing for you to have said?

Yes. Even using a computer as a reference tool changes the nature of the game. I read rpg material and write on my computer all the time, but using it during play is different. And yes, using an electronic device in place of physical cards is different. Videoconferencing is different than talking to people. Is there really any need to justify such a self-apparent statement? Humans evolved to think, behave, and communicate without computers. They have their uses, but in a tabletop rpg context in which the game takes place in people's minds, they're a distraction. Books are also distracting and somewhat undesirable during play; computers are simply more so.

Even if I lived in some distant future area of virtually unlimited technology, I would still do my improvisational storytelling and play my card games technology-lite. After all, even these guys still use cards:[video=youtube;mg8_cKxJZJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg8_cKxJZJY[/video]

What's the reasoning behind this? (Let's assume, for the moment, that the existence of a subscription does not preclude you going out and purchasing a permanent physical copy of the RPG should the subscription service ever be discontinued, and that the subscription service provides tools or functionality that is extremely useful.)

I have a life. Posting on message boards is easy, but I may or may not be able to play an rpg during a given period. Paying an ongoing fee makes no sense.

On a deeper level, I expect to pay for what I get. If there is a one-time cost to produce material, then I'll pay into that as a consumer. But then I'm done, and I expect to have access to that purchase forever. I don't expect to pay someone on an ongoing basis for something that they are no longer doing. If new material is produced, I expect to thoroughly evaluate it before paying for it, rather than paying on an ongoing basis. And I expect that the amount of useful material and revisions thereof will decrease over the life of a system, so I expect to buy into it once and then spend less and less over time.

 

[Dannager]

Yes. Even using a computer as a reference tool changes the nature of the game.

I don't believe that it does. I have done it both ways. Extensively. The only difference is that I spend less time thumbing through books trying to find the right page.

I read rpg material and write on my computer all the time, but using it during play is different. And yes, using an electronic device in place of physical cards is different.

Not in any way that's important, at all.

If you think that the game experience is fundamentally changed by reading Trivial Pursuit clues off of a smartphone screen rather than a card, your way of thinking is so alien that I can't even start to comprehend what your priorities must be. I truly don't think that's the case, however. I think that you are purposefully and dramatically overstating the importance of these utterly benign differences to maintain your position.

Videoconferencing is different than talking to people.

Yes, it is. And if we were talking about a difference as dramatic as going from face-to-face to videoconferencing, this would be relevant. We're not, so it's not.

Is there really any need to justify such a self-apparent statement?

It's not self-apparent. At all.

Humans evolved to think, behave, and communicate without computers.

Humans created computers. We didn't have them handed down from on high, or left behind by an alien race. We created them so that we could use them.

Your thinking here is really just...wow.

They have their uses, but in a tabletop rpg context in which the game takes place in people's minds, they're a distraction. Books are also distracting and somewhat undesirable during play; computers are simply more so.

A tablet with my entire book collection on it is in no way more distracting than having to pass piles of books around the table. This is nonsense.

I have a life. Posting on message boards is easy, but I may or may not be able to play an rpg during a given period. Paying an ongoing fee makes no sense.

How does "having a life" (nice one - obviously the people who like subscription services don't have a life, amirite?!) make a subscription service any less useful?

On a deeper level, I expect to pay for what I get.

Everyone does.

If there is a one-time cost to produce material, then I'll pay into that as a consumer. But then I'm done, and I expect to have access to that purchase forever. I don't expect to pay someone on an ongoing basis for something that they are no longer doing.

The expectation is that they would still be doing it, because you are paying them on an ongoing basis.

If new material is produced, I expect to thoroughly evaluate it before paying for it, rather than paying on an ongoing basis.

When you use a subscription, you make evaluations based on your experience with the subscription in order to determine whether there is value in continuing to subscribe. You are not suddenly made unable to judge the value of something just because you're paying for it on an ongoing basis.

 

[Wicht]

Not in any way that's important, at all.

If you think that the game experience is fundamentally changed by reading Trivial Pursuit clues off of a smartphone screen rather than a card, your way of thinking is so alien that I can't even start to comprehend what your priorities must be. I truly don't think that's the case, however. I think that you are purposefully and dramatically overstating the importance of these utterly benign differences to maintain your position.

You argue best when you argue from facts, not opinions; or, when using opinions, stating them as such.

There is a tactile sensation to using physical cards that is sensually different from that of using a computer screen. Furthermore, the delay in processing moves (when people do it face to face) and the interaction of moving physical objects around, create a different set of mental processes than that normally offered by electronic play.

A good example of this is Ticket to Ride. The app game is fine, but the game experience is completely different than when playing on a board; even when you are playing on a single device, handing it around. The distinction in play is enough to make me think that I far prefer the board game to the app game. Same would be true of a card game (of which Trivial Pursuit is not), in which the cards are manually shuffled, dealt and handled; at least for me there would be a distinct difference. Now for a game in which one person reads to another, a computer or other electronic device might not change the play too much, or the experience of the play.

But put me in the camp of also preferring the book to an electronic medium, both for casual reading and game play. Besides the sensation of holding the book, once I know the contents of the book, it is always faster for me than trying to look it up on an app. I just turn to the right page and there it is.

That might be alien to you, but having tried both, the experience is different and, as already mentioned, I can easily understand myself those who prefer the books.

 

[Dannager]

There is a tactile sensation to using physical cards that is sensually different from that of using a computer screen.

This is important to Trivial Pursuit how?

Come on. Your argument boils down to, "My game of Trivial Pursuit is dramatically altered by reading the questions off a screen instead of a card." Not to go too wild with puns, but I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone would label that particular change trivial as hell.

 

[mlund]

So, unless you have documentation that Hasbro expectations are really an influence here, I call it speculation on your part.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History

The change in corporate expectations created an existential crisis for the D&D Brand at Wizards. That was the direct cause of all the 4E / DDI / Digital Initiative "sea change" - a bid to grow revenues by a factor of 100% over the hay-days of D&D 3.5 just to make "Core Brand" status - revenues that 3.0, 3.5 (and presumably Pathfinder, I think if Paizo was clearing $50,000,000 annually on Pathfinder merch we'd hear about it) never made.

- Marty Lund

 

[Wicht]

This is important to Trivial Pursuit how?

Come on. Your argument boils down to, "My game of Trivial Pursuit is dramatically altered by reading the questions off a screen instead of a card." Not to go too wild with puns, but I'm pretty sure that nearly everyone would label that particular change trivial as hell.

I think you will find on reread that I distinguished Trivial Pursuit from other card games and said that the game play might not be greatly altered by the use of the electronic medium, but that for most actual card games, the tactile sensation and actual cards were desirable to have. Being involved in both RPG and Boardgame cultures, I think that such an attitude would not be uncommon among most boardgamers.