Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 2757312" data-attributes="member: 33060">I stand corrected.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; I then agree with you - particularly your latter points.&nbsp; You articulate well what lies behind my frustration with Wotc.&nbsp; They have the cushion to innovate more as they seem to be doing big boxoffice.&nbsp; They also have the resources and market shaping power to &quot;shape the battlefield&quot; so that a more &quot;risky&quot; product stands a chance to catch fire.&nbsp; The smaller d20 publishers are really &quot;playing with fire&quot; when they innovate because they lack the cushion, resources and market shaping power.Smaller d20 companies who innovate usually need to hedge their bets.&nbsp; I think Privateer Press is a good example.&nbsp; I consider the Iron Kingdoms rather innovatative in its seemless presentation of &quot;steam punk&quot; and traditional D&amp;D.&nbsp; I think, however, Privateer could only do the job they did on IK because they hedged with a successful miniatures operation.&nbsp; Good for them, but other companies may not be able to replicate the feat as with Warhammer, D&amp;D minis and Privateer the field for this type of hedge may be largely occupied.&nbsp; And what would IK's success be if IK had been produced with Wotc's much greater resources behind it?&nbsp; I suspect IK would be even more successful.Wotc is then in a unique position to &quot;lead the market/industry&quot; in innovative design.&nbsp; It may not be in their business interest to always do so (giving them credit for Eberron) to the degree I would like to see but, I enjoy the luxury of being a consumer.&nbsp; I am not a RPG executive.&nbsp; My wants as a consumer, I would argue, are as legitimate in that vein as Wotc's business needs, particularly as I am not convinved the two are mutually exclusive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GVDammerung, post: 2757312, member: 33060"] I stand corrected. :) I then agree with you - particularly your latter points. You articulate well what lies behind my frustration with Wotc. They have the cushion to innovate more as they seem to be doing big boxoffice. They also have the resources and market shaping power to "shape the battlefield" so that a more "risky" product stands a chance to catch fire. The smaller d20 publishers are really "playing with fire" when they innovate because they lack the cushion, resources and market shaping power. Smaller d20 companies who innovate usually need to hedge their bets. I think Privateer Press is a good example. I consider the Iron Kingdoms rather innovatative in its seemless presentation of "steam punk" and traditional D&D. I think, however, Privateer could only do the job they did on IK because they hedged with a successful miniatures operation. Good for them, but other companies may not be able to replicate the feat as with Warhammer, D&D minis and Privateer the field for this type of hedge may be largely occupied. And what would IK's success be if IK had been produced with Wotc's much greater resources behind it? I suspect IK would be even more successful. Wotc is then in a unique position to "lead the market/industry" in innovative design. It may not be in their business interest to always do so (giving them credit for Eberron) to the degree I would like to see but, I enjoy the luxury of being a consumer. I am not a RPG executive. My wants as a consumer, I would argue, are as legitimate in that vein as Wotc's business needs, particularly as I am not convinved the two are mutually exclusive. [/QUOTE]

Verification