Bloat [Forked Thread: Where does this idea come from?]

[I'm A Banana]

An RPG company doesn't make money if it doesn't keep printing books, no matter how well previous books might've sold.

I think I should mention that WotC is changing this, with the DDI.

Like in the "5e" thread, I mentioned a model like Flat Earth Publishing, where you essentially assemble your own book out of bits and pieces of other books online, and then Print-on-Demand, would be fantastic for this. Maybe WotC could host files from a score of individual DMs and gamers, institute a ranking system, and have individual players and DMs assemble setting books and rule books for their own home game, completely customized for their unique D&D experience, be it rules-heavy or setting-heavy or adventure-heavy.

Basically, I just want to make the point that while this is 100% true now, there is evidence to suggest that RPG companies are trying out new ways of not depending so much on book sales, be it the Pathfinder subscription model, or the WotC DDI model.

So niches might get better filled in the future.

For me, the idea of "bloat" is a practical consideration.

A D&D campaign takes about 2-3 years to play from level 1 to 30, at a pretty brisk rate of advancement (one level per month, give or take). For that duration, I do need a lot of monsters, a lot of magic items. I don't need a lot of races or classes, or a lot of settings.

But, as always, I need a lot of options to choose from. Even if I only use 25% of the given existing races in a given 2-year span, having more options improves my ability to deliver a creative and enjoyable game.

 

[catsclaw227]

I also think it's important to recognize the difference between bloat and a glut of products.

I perceive the term bloat to cover mechanics that I would need to use to make best use of the game. If there is too much or there is a perception that there is too much, then we feel rules bloat.

I perceive the term glut to cover a continuous release of products with "optional" ideas, not critical to playing the game. Arcane power woudl be bloat for a person playing an arcanist or a DM with an arcanist or two in the party, but for a party of primals and martials, then it is just a glut of extra information not necessary to the enhancement of our game.

OGL and 3.x d20 had a massive glut of products, both from WOTC and of course 3PP (massive, massive glut). But not all of them were necessarily going to be usable by players at the table. It also added bloat. Once books like Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium came out (and gave the DMs fits) there was a perception that players with PC casters needed SC to be effective.

 

[ggroy]

I perceive the term bloat to cover mechanics that I would need to use to make best use of the game. If there is too much or there is a perception that there is too much, then we feel rules bloat.

I perceive the term glut to cover a continuous release of products with "optional" ideas, not critical to playing the game. Arcane power woudl be bloat for a person playing an arcanist or a DM with an arcanist or two in the party, but for a party of primals and martials, then it is just a glut of extra information not necessary to the enhancement of our game.

By this definition of "bloat", 4E doesn't appear to have a major bloat problem yet. Though this may change if hybrid classes ends up falling short of expectations.

With respect to this definition of "glut", 4E may start having a glut problem in 2010 or 2011.

 

[ExploderWizard]

OK, I'll concede your points re market share and settings; that all makes sense.

But, we're still left with problem one: overall bloat, now and forthcoming.

Business models be damned, there comes a time when either one has to ask "how much is too much" and slow things down drastically, or collapse the edition (as happened with 2e and to some extent 3e) and start again.

Collapsing the edition is not, to me, an acceptable solution.

As long as maintaining revenue cycles is the top concern, the planning of product life cycles will be a mainstay. Even in the business world there are degrees of acceptable revenue growth.

A small private company can produce products,make a profit, and be successful. A large corporation with shareholders to satisfy and stock prices to maintain cannot be content with just making money. If a particular property isn't satisfying expected revenue patterns then decisions have to be made on whether the product is worth producing any longer. It's smart for a company to back the property that produces the bacon.

The big question isn't really about the number of books, it's about the amount of profit. How much is enough? How fast must the product treadmill turn to satisfy corporate decision makers? These revenue cycles ultimately determine how fast edition turnover happens.

 

[Obryn]

I, too, love settings. But I'm not a deep buyer; I'm a shallow buyer who loves variety. I bought a lot of setting supplements in the d20/OGL market, but seldom bought much past the first book - if anything past that even existed. I like to have sketchy descriptions and a few hooks, then create (or improvise) from that foundation.

Honestly, WotC's plan for 4e setting releases closely matches my own buying pattern (at least, my buying pattern over the past 10 years or so). I'm generally willing and excited to buy the first book for any given setting; I'm generally unlikely to buy anything further for that setting. Actually, by splitting the setting into Player and DM books, WotC is getting me to buy more setting books than I used to.

Otherwise, Ari's explanations make a ton of sense to me, and it meshes very closely with what I thought the market was like. Thanks!

-O

 

[Lanefan]

As long as maintaining revenue cycles is the top concern, the planning of product life cycles will be a mainstay. Even in the business world there are degrees of acceptable revenue growth.

The big question isn't really about the number of books, it's about the amount of profit. How much is enough? How fast must the product treadmill turn to satisfy corporate decision makers? These revenue cycles ultimately determine how fast edition turnover happens.

And from there go on to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Argue with me on this if you like, but I say edition turnover (without backward compatibility) is straight-up bad for the game and its community of fans and players. By the time 2 or 3 more incompatible-with-all-before editions of the game have been released (7e will hit in about 2025; I'll collect my winnings then, thanks) can you *imagine* what the edition wars will be like? And community...what community?

What's good for the company is to some extent at cross-purposes with what's good for the game. Later-life TSR went too far one way; I humbly suggest WotC has already gone too far the other and is still going...which is too bad, because underneath it all I really do think the actual people involved would get it right if the suits would back off.

Lanefan

 

[JeffB]

I, too, love settings. But I'm not a deep buyer; I'm a shallow buyer who loves variety.

This describes me nowadays.

Back in 2E I used to dig pretty deep but there was no way I would get as "deep" as TSR got for each setting-even the one's I love! (like GH) I always felt like TSR produced a few (3-6 or so) books that were *must haves* for my tastes and then a bunch of things so specialized I'd never need an entire book about it. Overkill. Of course FR was the biggest offender. When I go back and look- really look at all the titles in the 1E through 2E FR lineup- yikes.

3E- The FR model was better than 2E but still way too deep. I saw the quality drop off pretty quick after the first couple supplements though and quit buying.

This is why I happen to like the current 4E model for Eberron and The Realms- 2 campaign setting specific books and then the "core" material fits/supports the setting without seeming out of place, and is still usable in my homebrew (or a million others). I'd likely buy a book or two more that were campaign specific but it would really depend on what they were about.

The above is all my wants as a gamer.

But when I put on my business thinking cap, no doubt Ari has it right. Times have changed. The D&D business cannot be run like it was 30, 20 ,or even 10 years ago. NO business can.