Dancey v. Mearls?

[Umbran]

If 4E were a big success, one would expect the game's continuing evolution to build on those changes.

Whether or not 4e were a big success, one would expect the game's continuing evolution to reach for market share the current game doesn't already have, broadening appeal, rather than focusing and narrowing.

The real evolution of the game isn't in the fancy classes and races, but in the mechanics underlying those races and classes. Rebuilding the old tropes in the new framework is building on those changes, with an eye to selling to folks who aren't well served by dragonborn, tieflings, and shardminds.

 

[Jhaelen]

Actually use the older abilities, actually resurrect the rules that you liked, that made D&D magical for you. Otherwise, you're just giving us Justin Bieber and calling it The Beatles.

Yuck! If the old rules are the equivalent of the Beatles, I'm fine with Justin Bieber. He probably sells more records, too*

* Not that I'd hope it...

 

[eyebeams]

The real evolution of the game isn't in the fancy classes and races, but in the mechanics underlying those races and classes. Rebuilding the old tropes in the new framework is building on those changes, with an eye to selling to folks who aren't well served by dragonborn, tieflings, and shardminds.

Nobody but existing hobbyists cares about the mechanics. WotC cares about them to the exclusion of other things because it no longer has a framework to support creative initiatives outside of raw game design. People want to play heroes in imaginary worlds. WotC has no idea how to make the play experience jibe with imagining heroes doing things, and no particular ability to develop worlds in which they can dwell.

It's okay though; every other company is failing in the same way. This is because online feedback and internal research hugely favours results that can be tied to an unambiguous causal chain. That's what concentration on game systems provides. It's sad because development of imaginary spaces to work with from several angles was something RPG companies were good at, but they've forgotten lessons learned and even hold them in contempt.

This also applies in electronic gaming. I've seen numerous projects go South simply because "fluff" was seen as subordinate -- a necessary evil to make a game comprehensible. Funny thing is that leading IPs do take this stuff seriously. That's why Star Wars has Leland Chee for instance -- and of course, he's doing a job based on root concepts wrangled into a universe by an RPG company. Sad to see we've lost the ability to do what we pioneered. This is especially apparent in D&D.

 

[ggroy]

It's pastiche, it's the snake eating it's own tail, it's a commercial trying to sell a commercial, with no real product to buy. 3rd Edition was the first step in this direction, not because of all the good things it did by unifying the scattered rules of 2nd Edition, but because of the corporate interests that bankrolled the transition (nay, resurrection) of the brand in 2000.

Hasbro acquired WotC in September 1999.

Hasbro to Acquire Wizards of the Coast

Development on 3E D&D started shortly after WotC acquired TSR in 1997, and took several years.

Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dungeons & Dragons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most likely by the time Hasbro acquired WotC in September 1999, the manuscript for the 3E D&D books were already finished by Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet, and the game was well into playtesting mode.

In a similar parallel, according to page 9 of "Wizards Presents: Races and Classes",

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-Presents-Classes-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786948019"]Amazon.com: Wizards Presents: Classes and Races (Dungeons & Dragons) (9780786948017): Michele Carter: Books[/ame]


the manuscripts for the 4E D&D books were already written in June 2007, and the game was well into playtesting mode.


So which "corporate interests" bankrolled the transition from 2E to 3E? Hasbro only came directly into the picture during the last year of the development and playtesting phase of 3E D&D.

 

[dmccoy1693]

If I had to guess, probably whatever old 3E titles they still had kicking around in their warehouse collecting dust, and whatever 3.5E titles they printed up too many copies of which didn't sell very well.

This is the core of what I was saying. If they printed less of the titles that didn't sell well, they would have been more profitable (translating into less layoffs and such). Its an odd concept, printing less makes you more profitable but it really is true in the publishing industry. Of course if you print too few, you're going to short sell yourself and make less profit than you otherwise could have. But that last part is not as much of a problem in our industry.

So when Dancey said a few years ago that if they did a print run for 3E like they did in 4E, he would have had to turn in his resignation (sorry no link, this would have been in late 2008). Maybe if they had printed less, they would have been more profitable.

But most of this is hindsight being 20/20 and all that.

 

[ggroy]

So when Dancey said a few years ago that if they did a print run for 3E like they did in 4E, he would have had to turn in his resignation (sorry no link, this would have been in late 2008). Maybe if they had printed less, they would have been more profitable.

I think it may be this Dancey quote:

Why Are Any of You Surprised? So, WoTC has very suddenly… | RPGpundit on Xanga

@RPGpundit - Woah there Colonel! I'm just saying that 4E "scarcity" is likely the result of under estimating demand. I'll say that it >COULD< be due to artifical market manipulation, but Occam's Razor would indicate that we should just go with plain old fear, not malevolence.

@Anonymous - 60 copies a day? Whoo-doggie! That's 1,800 copies a month!
We sold 300,000 copies of the 3E PHB in 30 DAYS. I have a screen shot of Amazon with the 3E PHB in the #1 slot. If I was running the D&D business and I produced a high-profile core rulebook that sold 1,800 copies a month, I'd pretty much have to tender my resignation - unless THAT'S THE NEW NORM. Which it probably is. Which says a lot more about tabletop roleplaying as a business than it does about the WotC team as business people.


RyanD

 

[NewJeffCT]

Not to sound egotistical, but Essentials sort of feels like it was aimed at me and people like me, the "edition war mercenaries" who will argue vehemently for 4E in one thread and then turn around and bash it mercilessly in another. If you really hate 4E across the board, no, you probably won't be drawn back by Essentials. If you love 4E as is, you don't need Essentials. But if you're a 4E player who finds himself not buying many 4E books any more and thinking longingly of the good old days with the red and blue boxes--or an old-school gamer who sees a lot to like in 4E but just can't get over some of its flaws--Essentials might appeal to you. (Man, I sound like ad copy...)

Yes, I was a fly on the wall in those meetings about Essentials and they said, "This is for Dausuul and those like him!"

But, good point on 4E. I am DMing 4E right now and I like that it's a lot easier to prepare and DM than 3.5E (which I also liked). However, I'm still not sure about all the changes to the game from prior editions, as I've been a player since the late 70s and had gotten used to things the way they were.

 

[Umbran]

Nobody but existing hobbyists cares about the mechanics.

That may be true, but for what I was saying, it is neither here nor there. If a company puts a lot of effort into any form of development (technical or otherwise), you expect further business to try to make use of it.

And how many people care about the technical details is not a measure of how much effort should be spent on developing them. Most folks don't care about the details of airplane designs, but sure as anything much time and attention needs to be put into them to make the metal bird fly.

WotC cares about them to the exclusion of other things because it no longer has a framework to support creative initiatives outside of raw game design.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think it is accurate.

People want to play heroes in imaginary worlds. WotC has no idea how to make the play experience jibe with imagining heroes doing things, and no particular ability to develop worlds in which they can dwell.

This reads a lot like you might be drifting from unsupported accusations of creative bankruptcy into plain general screed.

Care to put some meat on the bones, or did you just come to make bald assertions? You're welcome to state your opinion, of course, but it isn't part of discussion without some handles on it.

 

[eyebeams]

That may be true, but for what I was saying, it is neither here nor there. If a company puts a lot of effort into any form of development (technical or otherwise), you expect further business to try to make use of it.

. . . or abandon it. We stand at the end point of a creative emphasis at Wizards that has led to . . . well, look around you. 4e is not some simple contrast with 3e. It's a logical extension of its design principles and the culture behind them, and that culture does not do narratives and tropes well.

And how many people care about the technical details is not a measure of how much effort should be spent on developing them. Most folks don't care about the details of airplane designs, but sure as anything much time and attention needs to be put into them to make the metal bird fly.

RPGs are not planes. How much you care about something *absolutely* ought to figure, since, y'know, it's a game, where your preferences matter. WotC has spent a decade trying to reduce those preferences to metrics that can be satisfied by solid systems, because marketing, design and management interests make this sound way sexier than talking about compelling images and situations.

This is not a "vs" situation. Both of them sat at spots in a decade long history of sneering at creative accomplishments that didn't feature a new power, or die roll, or which might lead to an NPC somebody might care about in a setting.

This is the result.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think it is accurate.

The hot upcoming setting for D&D is almost 20 years old.

This reads a lot like you might be drifting from unsupported accusations of creative bankruptcy into plain general screed.

The hot upcoming setting for D&D is almost 20 years old.

Care to put some meat on the bones, or did you just come to make bald assertions? You're welcome to state your opinion, of course, but it isn't part of discussion without some handles on it.

Aside from reading statements about how systems come first, how reality falls in line with the game and not vice versa and witnessing that interview saying the same?

Hm: How about hot upcoming setting for D&D being almost 20 years old?

 

[Pssthpok]

Yuck! If the old rules are the equivalent of the Beatles, I'm fine with Justin Bieber. He probably sells more records, too*

* Not that I'd hope it...

I can't help you, then.

So which "corporate interests" bankrolled the transition from 2E to 3E? Hasbro only came directly into the picture during the last year of the development and playtesting phase of 3E D&D.

I didn't say I knew who was pushing the transition, just that it happened, and it happened after TSR sold the farm to WotC. Take from that what you will.

Frankly, I'm not real clear why you were so detailed in your (I guess) counter to my post. What was it you were trying to say? That 4E isn't the result of a commercialization of the brand or that it's not a pastiche of D&D as a whole?