Are you doing your part to destroy the industry?

[Ranger REG]

Wasn't that about the standard for 3.5?

Two different things, actually. D&D is the "flagship" product for all d20 System products. Many third-party products point to the Player's Handbook to be the foundation of their games, and if the foundation suddenly changes on them, then their game is no longer stable and flaws keep popping up, which can be inconvenient and annoying.

MnM is a byproduct of OGL movement spawned from the SRD. IOW, it's an entirely different entity and an entirely new game. Changes to MnM doesn't affect d20 publishers, which dwarfs the number of M&M Superlink publishers.

Besides, the upgrade from MnM 1.0e to 2.03 is just $35 more. Upgrade from 3.0e to 3.5e is $90 more.

I hate to put pressure on WotC, but they should have done it right the first time around for such a well-known popular game now into its Third Edition, or should have put off the revision until 2005.

 

[Griffonsec]

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that all of the companies you praise for a low price per page rate have had financial problem, got to wonder.

A valid point

This is way off topic, so I'll just answer the question and move on without arguing the point. It is my hope to actually get back to the original subject, which was what are you doing (or not) that might be damaging to the industry, and why?

So by means of an answer, I don't think that the two things are directly related. I think that the companies I meantioned are doing as badly as nearly all other mid-sized game companies.

The problem, in my mind is exactly the same as the problem that the dotcom companies had five years ago. The industry was artificially inflated by the d20 boom. It was never really at those golden highs that we thought it was, and all it's doing now is correcting. Things went into overdrive for a bit, but it was unsustainable, and now we see fall out from those companies who thought the good times were just going to keep on rolling.

I think that stems directly to the under-education prevalent within the RPG industry.

 

[Griffonsec]

So, back on topic. I just thought of another thing that I do to destroy the industry.

Every once in a while, when no one is looking, I shop at Amazon.com.

There, I said it. I prefer to shop at my FLGS, I'm an instant gratification kinda person, and I like to go in, look through a book, and if I like it, buy it. Providing it doesn't have a high cpst to page-count or too many editions of course

But, if they don't have it and I'm going to have to wait anyways, I go for the better deal. Particularly if I'm not sure if I really want it, in which case I'll grab the PDF (if one is available) or order it online.

This occured to me because soemone meantioned entitlement, and it made me think about an article I read by a former gamestore owener in KoDT a few months back. It made me feel like he was blaming me and people like me for forcing him out of business.

Now, I run a smaller company in an industry dominated by four big players. I know what it's like to fight for survival. I built my company from nothing, but I don't feel entitled to my business. I just work harder and offer service quality that they can't match. I do well because I give people a reason to come back.

I believe in supporting my FLGS because they are good people and do good work. Because of that they are booming. Dragons Lair went from a little shop built into a house on campus to a chain of large, nice stores. I do not believe that they deserve my money because they are a small struggling business. If I'm going to pay $10 or more extra per book then I want the service to be worth it.

It's like going to a restaraunt. Sure, I could go to Chilis, but I go to Trulock's because I prefer what they have to offer, regardless of price. I think of that extra price per book as a tip for letting me look through it at my leasure and their help picking out things I may like.

 

[Griffonsec]

I think that stems directly to the under-education prevalent within the RPG industry.

Okay, that didn't come out the way I intended, so before anyone is offended and complains, let me explain myself. I'm not saying that game designers are idiots or anything. As a crowd I think roleplayers all tend to be brighter and better educated than average. Nearly everyone I've ever played with was in college or graduated.

What I mean is that most people running game companies don't have the right kind of education. Rare is the game company headed by an MBA. Not that it's absolutely necesary, but it provides an advantage for long-term planning that others have to learn the hard way.

There are a lot of tricks and subtleties that are powerful business tools that someone with a liberal arts degree may not have firm grasp of. The thing is, game companies are generally run by game designers and game players. This is good, because they love the game and work hard for it, but it's bad because working hard isn't always as efficient as working smart.

Don't believe me? Ask TSR.

 

[arwink]

I agree. A much smaller number of publishers were affected (than the 3.0 - 3.5 change) by the change and Green Ronin was very easy to work with during the months leading to the release of M&M 2e.

Hell, I'd go so far as to say that Green Ronin went out of their way to help Superlink publishers make the transition. They do their best to get the rules to us as early as possible and Steve offered advice on streamlining write-ups to make them 2e compatible during the approval process. To be honest, I don't think you could ask for more than that.

 

[scourger]

For my part, I've stopped buying new RPG products almost completely. I got a couple of card games recently, and I've purchased quite a few used RPG books of late; but nothing like the new book buying I did a couple of years ago when d20 was really booming. Worse, I have little desire to run d20. I've gotten into Savage Worlds, and it is much, much easier to bring to the table. The diminishing marginal returns with d20 in general, and D&D in particular, for me is that it is a very difficult system to learn and run. The preparation time is not rewarded enough in play. It gets worse as the levels increase, too. My time is more & more precious, so I choose in favor of something that is much easier to run but delivers just as much fun in play. Every time I think of a way to "fix" d20/D&D or ponder converting something to Savage Worlds outright, I decide that I would rather just buy & play something already written for Savage Worlds. I've considered purging 90% of my d20 books (as I did with 2e this year), but I think I'll wait a while to make sure I'm not going back (the 2e stuff was put up for a few years before I traded it).

 

[MerricB]

I hate to put pressure on WotC, but they should have done it right the first time around for such a well-known popular game now into its Third Edition,

[sarcasm]You would have thought that Green Ronin could have got their product right as well. After all, it isn't as big as 3e.[/sarcasm]

I don't think that's a good argument at all.

or should have put off the revision until 2005.

That would have been a staggeringly bad move.

One of the fascinating things about 3e and 3.5e is that under 3e, Wizards put out comparitively few products for the game.

2000: 6 + 3 core
2001: 16
2002: 13
2003: 5

For 3.5e:
2003: 6 + 3 core
2004: 22
2005: 24

The 3e releases also tend to be much smaller than those of 3.5e. (I've counted several "Transitional" releases as 3e, btw - such as Fiend Folio and Savage Species)

For those who bought Wizards products only, the transition cost was much less than it would have been if they'd waited until 2005.

I also think the revision opened areas of design space that weren't very easy to manage in 3e: especially concerning monster creation (and monsters as PCs). Certainly the revision got rid of 3e system mastery, but in some areas made it much, much simpler to master.

From Wizards point of view, 3.5e came at the right time.

From the d20 System publishers point of view, I don't think there could be a right time.

Nicole wrote:

The time period between First and Second edition Mutants & Masterminds was about three years, which is very standard for this industry. Fans and players of first edition M&M exposed what we felt to be design flaws that we felt we could improve upon. looking to the long temr, it would be foolish to continue to support and entrench those flaws when we had the opportunity to correct them and produce an even better game going forward. We contacted M&M Superlink publishers during the process and brought them on board before the release of the new edition; they were offered advanced access to the new rules, I believe some were even involved as voluntary playtesters and advisors. Many of the people using Mutants & Masterminds as the basis of their own designs are PDF publishers who can much more easily revise their products without having to worry about obsolete stock (compared to print publishers who have to consider the implications of having thousands of copies of a printed book that is no longer compatible).

The time period between 3e and 3.5e D&D was about 3 years. "Much of this material has been picked up and revised based on feedback and comments from D&D players and DMs all around the world." (quote from Complete Warrior).

IIRC, Wizards set up a private d20 System publisher's list for previewing the 3.5e changes. However, I can't find a direct reference to it on the 'net at present, nor do I know how effective it was.

There is comparison there. However, the *real* effects come on the backstock of small, struggling publishers, and the development of new material.

Now, I'm sure that some companies got out of the d20 System business because they were doing badly anyway, and the release of 3.5e allowed them to have a "Blame 3.5e!" excuse, but their existence didn't stop 3.5e hurting most companies (including Wizards).

What Wizards did have was the reserves to get through the lean period before 3.5e, and the developmental knowledge so that they could quickly get new product out after 3.5e.

I personally think 3.5e came at the right time for the long term, but the short term effects were extremely harsh.

Cheers!

 

[Sledge]

Re lower prices and financially trouble companies:
Shadowrun being the exception, as FANPRO has not mentioned or shown any significant financial issues that I am aware of. They priced their book intelligently to spark interest in it. Just like 3.0 came out inexpensively originally.

 

[Glyfair]

Re lower prices and financially trouble companies:
Shadowrun being the exception, as FANPRO has not mentioned or shown any significant financial issues that I am aware of. They priced their book intelligently to spark interest in it.

There are a couple of possible reasons here, if you assume the connection between lower prices and financial trouble.

First, Shadowrun is not FanPros main line. They have a few dips in the pond, so if Shadowrun did poorly, the others likely could cover it (although Shadownrun would certainly undergo changes or even lose future products).

Second, they are based in Germany. I have no reasons why this might matter (besides differences in economy). However, that's different from the other companies mentioned here.

 

[Ferrix]

I do my part by being an unemployed English grad-student with 50k in debt.

Yay, debt.

That's it?

I won't get into my university debt, but I'll say that I haven't really done a great deal of support to the publishing community because I have other things to spend money on that are more important...

... like food... and rent... and heating... which in Montreal is sort of important come winter time.

So, I'm destroying the industry with my purchasing power but buoying it by my love and practice of playing the game, and convincing others to buy books that I like too.