Dear Wizards of the Coast blog post...

[Fifth Element]

RPGs can be that way too.

And when they do that, it's seen as a cynical cash grab by many. See 3E -> 3.5. Basically, they can't win.

 

[nnms]

And when they do that, it's seen as a cynical cash grab by many. See 3E -> 3.5. Basically, they can't win.

From how Ryan Dancey talks, having it be 3.5 and not just a release of 3 with some updates caused the d20 bubble to burst because all the 3 compatible stuff wasn't lining up with the 3.5 new rules and it became dead stock.

What I'm talking about is if they did a reprint of 3rd, they don't sell it as 3.5 or anything like that, but simply as a reprint that has some updates, but no major changes.

3.5 could have been marketed not as a replacement for 3, but as a product new people could get rather than having to buy the 3.0 books. Like if you have the 5th edition of Call of Cthulhu, you don't need to get 5.5 when it was released, but the new people can get the newest one.

3.5's changes were big and WotC marketed it as a replacement and made the 3.0 compatible d20 stuff obsolete and dead stock.

They bungled what should have been a simple update in order to try to resell the core books again. Which is exactly what the blogger quoted in the OP was complaining about.

 

[Fifth Element]

From how Ryan Dancey talks, having it be 3.5 and not just a release of 3 with some updates caused the d20 bubble to burst because all the 3 compatible stuff wasn't lining up with the 3.5 new rules and it became dead stock.

What I'm talking about is if they did a reprint of 3rd, they don't sell it as 3.5 or anything like that, but simply as a reprint that has some updates, but no major changes.

So were the changes so major that the 3.0 stuff didn't line up with the 3.5 rules, creating loads of dead stock, or were they so minor that 3.5 could have successfully been marketed as an updated reprint?

 

[nnms]

So were the changes so major that the 3.0 stuff didn't line up with the 3.5 rules, creating loads of dead stock, or were they so minor that 3.5 could have successfully been marketed as an updated reprint?

I honestly don't know. I ended up not playing 3.anything after around 2002.

Whatever WotC did, had they handled it like a normal book edition change rather than a D&D edition change, they could have not caused the ruckus that they did.

They did try to market it as an upgrade/replacement, even if the changes didn't warrant it.

They shouldn't have even called it 3.5. They should have just called it "3rd edition, 2003 reprint" or something and not made huge changes for the sake of change in order to resell people their rulebooks.

 

[Lanefan]

side note

2011 Gencon game schedule:

1st ed: 110 games

If there were 110 1e games how come I couldn't get in to any of 'em?

4th ed non-RPGA: 43 games
4th ed. RPGA: 188 games

And, in fairness, a boatload of demo sessions run by WotC that I don't think showed up under "4e" on the schedules.

Also, you missed:

All editions at once: 3. (and there was no room in those either)

/side note

Lanefan

 

[MrGrenadine]

My first thought on reading that is if WotC did what she suggests then D&D would disappear from brick-and-mortar stores. This is something I would not like to see.

Besides, if I pay for a book I want a book, dammit, not a file that I then have to turn around and print out (and bind) myself.


If I understand her correctly, she does suggest keeping the latest iteration of the game in brick-and-mortar stores, and making the earlier iterations available as Print on Demand, which can be set up so a customer can purchase hardcover or softcover versions of the text.

 

[billd91]

So were the changes so major that the 3.0 stuff didn't line up with the 3.5 rules, creating loads of dead stock, or were they so minor that 3.5 could have successfully been marketed as an updated reprint?

3.5 was, as far as I was concerned, a prime example of project creep. There were some necessary changes - the ranger and bard both needed major fixes. There were other instances where too much was frontloaded into a number of classes. There were spells that needed fixing like the buffs, haste, harm, and a few others that didn't have bonus types properly affixed.

Had they done all of that and not much more, I think 3.5 could have flown as a relatively minor patch with a new set of PHs being printed and a conversion document for those who didn't want to buy a new full book but wanted a list of the changes. A couple of the monster books released on the cusp of the two editions went this route - an update document was released updating the monsters in either the Fiend Folio or MM2 (I don't remember which) with new skill modifiers and damage reduction values... and little else was necessary.

But 3.5 went WAY beyond that - in some good ways and in some bad. Huge numbers of spells got changes, many minor and unnecessary. Some spells got hit too much with a nerf bat (the buffs and invisibility). Weapon sizes were a significant change-up. Yet the DMG also got a reasonably nice reorganization to make it easier to find certain often-referenced elements and damage reduction got a nice improvement. But overall, the 3.0 to 3.5 change was pretty big as far as new editions of games go, and was my first warning that WotC might not have a good handle on how to proceed with further edition changes.

The main issue is how much the game replaces yet remains backward compatible - or compatible with a little tweaking. Call of Cthulhu has undergone significant changes over the years - investigators get a LOT more skill points now than they did in CoC 1st edition. And some skills have changed. But those are easy to adjust to and adventures and supplements remain largely compatible (if possibly with NPCs a bit weaker by comparison), preserving a higher utility value for the collection of older products.

 

[Nellisir]

The more I think about it, the more I think having multiple editions on the shelves (digital or physical, whatever) is perfectly valid. I don't think simply reprinting the books is the answer, though. Something more like 5e, or the blog author's example, where redundant information in minimized. The kicker is what edition do new supplements support? Is it possible for a supplement to support all editions? That still sounds like 5e, actually.

I think campaign settings splintered the customer's money a lot more than editions did, btw. I played AD&D, but bought D&D products when they looked interesting. Not so with Al Qadim, Dark Sun, or Planescape.

 

[Oni]

The more I think about it, the more I think having multiple editions on the shelves (digital or physical, whatever) is perfectly valid. I don't think simply reprinting the books is the answer, though. Something more like 5e, or the blog author's example, where redundant information in minimized. The kicker is what edition do new supplements support? Is it possible for a supplement to support all editions? That still sounds like 5e, actually.

If it were me, this is what I would do.

1. I would continue work on 5e, and it would be main edition I would plan for WotC to support and produce material for. Even if people don't end up adopting it, it will still create buzz and web traffic because it's new.

2. I would make the whole back library available as PoD and PDF. The PDFs are out there on the web anyway, so even if people keep pirating them at least WotC could get a slice of that pie rather than just ignoring it in a huff. PoD offers something that piracy can't, actually books. There are a lot of people that like reading books a lot more than PDFs. And, I think the ability to buy products in new condition would be a big plus for many people. I would roll out the back library a few products a month to maximize sales, rather than drown customers in a glut.

3. I would keep DDI as a fairly inexpensive subscription service, however I would shift the focus from gaming aid to content delivery. I wouldn't ditch the former, but it wouldn't be my main selling point anymore. WotC would produce articles, adventures, monsters for 5e and make it available to subscribers, this would be a proving ground, things could be altered based on feedback and then the best of the best would move on to published products.

3b. The real trick would be this, I would add a ratings system to DDI, let users flag what they think is the best material. Then I would use this system to support editions past. Rather than wasting man hours and resources on chasing a smaller market, I would let the fans do it for me. I would invite users to produce material for their editions of choice, and then I would use the ratings system to let the cream float to the top. Top rated material would get its authors rewarded and be formatted for PoD with a good percentage of the sales going to the authors. I'm worried less about making money on sales of a niche product to a niche market than keeping people subscribing to DDI so they can enjoy continuing support for the edition of choice. I want all those retro clone authors working for me, and directing them to my service, rather than pulling people away. I think a lot of them would be pretty enthusiastic to get actually write for the "real" Dungeons & Dragons.


I think if it were done correctly DDI could foster an incredible sense of community. Get people to cross over various editions based on high rated products getting good buzz and reviews (I would want a review system too, and top rated reviewers should be rewarded with small rewards like free subscription or swag or whatever).

 

[Nellisir]

I think if it were done correctly DDI could foster an incredible sense of community. Get people to cross over various editions based on high rated products getting good buzz and reviews (I would want a review system too, and top rated reviewers should be rewarded with small rewards like free subscription or swag or whatever).

What amazes me more than anything is the hamfisted way WotC has handled anything digital in the past...decade, really. It should be a pivotal point in their business, and it's apparently handled by someone with a supply closet for an office and a copy of Windows Me. Either do it right, or just knock it off.

Sorry, bit of a rant.