Are we fair to WotC?

[Imaro]

[MENTION=73683]Dannager[/MENTION] ... You keep making a point about the difference between an e-reader and a tablet, but wouldn't you have to use a tablet (as opposed to the e-readers you keep citing) to display rpg books which are usually in color and have art to display? Or are you now also advocating that loosing those things as well with the digital model you're proposing is something most people want and that the rules should just be a mass of black text on a white background, if so, good luck with that because that is something I don't want, and honestly don't believe most gamers want.

 

[Wicht]

Look, if your discomfort is actually because you don't like e-readers in general, and you have enough experience using actual e-readers to feel comfortable judging them as inferior to books, then that's cool. But you spent pages explaining how you don't like e-readers because of a bunch of things that are false. I'm not quibbling with your personal preference. I just want to make sure that you understand that some of the things you're complaining about being features of an e-reader aren't actually features of an e-reader.

Eh, our recollections of this conversation are very different. This all started because you said everyone needed to get on board with a full transition from print to electronic media. I disagreed with that assertion and made a few points about why I prefer print and think it will continue to be printed. I have said from the beginning that my displeasure with e-readers is 1) they are less comfortable for me to use, 2) they are slower for me to use, and 3) I find books more aesthetically and sensually pleasing. I admit I may have been wrong about the weight of e-readers and even battery life (but we do agree, yes, that books have a longer battery life than the best e-reader?). But those are really secondary considerations to the aforementioned three things which I have been saying all along and which apply to tablets and readers alike if we want to be pedantic about the distinction.

 

[Warbringer]

OK ... still not back to actually talking about the OP or gaming ... I'll check back later ... going to go read a book

 

[ced1106]

New to the thread, but, IMO, WotC's *real* problem with D&D is that RPGs are a very small market. I mean, once everyone buys a Player's Handbook, then what? The players don't have any reason to buy the Monster Manual and Dungeonmaster's Guide, yet both books cost as much to write and publish. How many supplements can you put out, when they also sell, in numbers, only a fraction of the core Player's Handbook?

Reminds me of comics. Marvel almost filed for bankruptcy, and DC's comic book properties make money in the movie theater, television set, and toy shelves, not the comic book racks. Unfortunately, D&D never got as far as the comic books. (Definitely read about how the D&D computer game license was tied up. Good reading.)

The D&D Adventure System games (Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, Legend of Drizzit) was an excellent idea. Not only did you sell non-collectible RPG accessories to RPG gamers, but you got in non-RPG boardgamers to buy WotC stuff. I'm not sure about Dungeon Command -- I *think* boardgamers prefer standalone quantity-o-plastic to prepainted "each player needs their own set" stuff.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I mean, once everyone buys a Player's Handbook, then what?

True, and it is a fundamental problem with rpgs. The more you have, the less you need. The better and more comprehensive the initial release is, the less need there is to expand it.

The same is true with most games though. Once you've bought, say, a chess board, what more do you need? Occasionally it gets beat up or you lose pieces and you might want a new one, but that's hardly enough to run a business. In rpgs, there is some need to expand and revise the rules, but that demand is apparently not enough to keep an edition afloat for very long.

One solution is just to keep selling the basic game to more people. And then there are many others that have been tried without much success.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have to say, Tob the Bo9S is my fav 3rd ed book. Most of the end game stuff was there best.

Infact 2 of the 3 classes are still my fav D&D classes

 

[Warbringer]

I have to say, Tob the Bo9S is my fav 3rd ed book. Most of the end game stuff was ...

I couldn't stand it at the time ... How the years have changed me

 

[Remus Lupin]

On the subject of "After the Player's Handbook, what more do you need?" I agree this is a general market problem. And the idea RPG customer is one who will buy everything just for the sake of having it around to use, peruse, play with, thumb through, gaze at and enjoy just having on the shelf. For the longest time, I was totally content to just have everything, and grab a book to read on the train, or while something dumb was on TV.

But even I eventually reached my point of decreasing marginal utility with gaming books, so now I'm much more judicious with what I buy. This is a problem that every potential customer has eventually, and the challenge of the RPG company is to come up with a business model that doesn't rely on the customer needing to buy every product in perpetuity.

For me, it was very clear that I wasn't transitioning to 4e, but I was still happy to give all my gaming money to Paizo for years. But even there, I've reached critical mass in terms of gaming books, so rather than buying everything, I make my decisions on a case-by-case basis. I suspect I still buy more than the average player, but probably less than Paizo's ideal.

 

[ced1106]

True, and it is a fundamental problem with rpgs. The more you have, the less you need. The better and more comprehensive the initial release is, the less need there is to expand it.

The same is true with most games though. Once you've bought, say, a chess board, what more do you need? Occasionally it gets beat up or you lose pieces and you might want a new one, but that's hardly enough to run a business. In rpgs, there is some need to expand and revise the rules, but that demand is apparently not enough to keep an edition afloat for very long.

One solution is just to keep selling the basic game to more people. And then there are many others that have been tried without much success.

I should add that Warhammer and Magic the Gathering are examples of "one system, multiple purchase" models that have succeeded, although you'll easily find skirmish games, CCGs, and CMGs that fell flat. WotC itself had the Chainmail and D&D Miniatures lines, and now has its D&D Adventure System and Dungeon Command games. However, neither of them are RPGs ("one license, multiple game lines? . IMO, WotC should have tied in these lines more closely to the D&D RPG. For example, WotC could provide free a series of adventures that use the miniatures and tiles in the Adventure System or Dungeon Command games, with the first adventure in the box. Collectaholic RPG'ers would end up buying a new game or two every year. Boardgamers will have a freebie to read that might get them to purchase the D&D player's book.

 

[ced1106]

On the subject of "After the Player's Handbook, what more do you need?" I agree this is a general market problem. And the idea RPG customer is one who will buy everything just for the sake of having it around to use, peruse, play with, thumb through, gaze at and enjoy just having on the shelf. For the longest time, I was totally content to just have everything, and grab a book to read on the train, or while something dumb was on TV.

But even I eventually reached my point of decreasing marginal utility with gaming books, so now I'm much more judicious with what I buy. This is a problem that every potential customer has eventually, and the challenge of the RPG company is to come up with a business model that doesn't rely on the customer needing to buy every product in perpetuity.

My retailer said that this is what happened during the d20/OGL days. Customers would first reserve "one of each new d20/OGL product" then stopped doing so as the glut arrived. Good to know another data point!