Eric Noah's Info

[haakon1]

The scary thing is that maybe 4e will become a self-fullfilling prophecy. Say what I want, I will probably buy it, but as a result I am going to slow down on 3.5 purchases. Causing WotC to see fewer sales and thinking that 4e is more needed than ever. Anyone else feel the same?

Umm, no. I'm wholeheartedly against 4e. I know some people live and die by additional "crunch", making their game extra complicated each month, and love changing all the rules around every couple of years.

I'm completely the opposite. I want a stable rule base, so I can memorize the rules even though I play infrequently (equivalent of once a month). I do want new rules. I don't want the dozens of modules I've bought to plunder ideas or put together into campaign arcs to be wrecked so I have to do a lot of rework or more likely just toss them. I don't want my players to have to buy new books. So I don't want to switch. And maybe I won't . . . 3.5e is broken in that it's overly complicated, but my campaigns have a lot of legacy now.

I only "downgraded" from 1e to 3.0e in 2002 . . . I skipped 2e entirely as a DM. I'm thinking there's no reason to "downgrade" again . . .

WOTC should find a better way of getting my money than annoying me with new editions. I'd be happy to pay a monthly license fee, if they'd only stop messing up the game every few years. No WOTC products at all is superior to 4e.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

WOTC should find a better way of getting my money than annoying me with new editions. I'd be happy to pay a monthly license fee, if they'd only stop messing up the game every few years. No WOTC products at all is superior to 4e.

I wonder if that kind of "protection money scheme" would fly better than a new edition. Imagine, WotC announcing "For just $9.95 a month, you can save your game from being updated AGAIN! For an additional $9.95, we will make sure the game background of your choice will be perfectly consistent and not blown up every 2 years. And for the small sum of $199.95, we will send out a squad of legbreakers to make sure everybody else is playing the way you play! Get it now while we're feeling generous."

 

[JVisgaitis]

Warhammer is going on... 6th ed?

7th actually. And those games have much higher turn over. 40K just hit 4th edition as well.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I can agree with pretty much everything you said but this. Warhammer would not be the #1 minis game is cost was top priority.

Not only that, they wouldn't do their ridiculous annual price increases. Games Workshop's model is to sell to kids between 8 and 14 and that is their largest market. I've heard it time and time again from people at the studio which is weird because I have never really seen it at local game stores, but it is certainly prevalent if you go to Games Day. The strange thing is its old time vets like me who won't pay the crazy costs to continue with the game, but parents fork out tons for their kids. I don't get it.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I doubt they'd want to get rid of the DM. Just won't happen. They might put more significance to miniatures. They might put a lot significance in combat (not that it was ever different). But they'll keep it an RPG, and they'll keep the DM. They know that they depend a lot on the old players, and won't antagonize them by doing away with an integral part of roleplaying.

Besides, they don't need to do a game with only combat and no DM. They already did that: D&D Miniatures skirmish.

Chainmail?

Chainmail. Not Chainmail the recent minis game based off D&D, but Chainmail the old Wargame D&D evolved from.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

My hat of d20 4e know no limit.

 

[Banshee16]

The question facing Hasbro is not, "is D&D profitable?" The question is, "Is D&D as profitable as other things we could do with the same resources?" Which is a better bet for them, giving operating budget to D&D, or Monopoly, or any one of over 130 other brands they own. In economic terms, while D&D isn't actually losing money, it may be a form of opportunity cost for Hasbro.

Wulf is correct that D&D needs to be with a company that wants it to be wildly successful. What he seems to miss is the difference between companies for whom that wild success would only bring the brand up to par with normal everyday business for them, and companies for whom wild success would be... wild!

I suspect we're saying the same thing here....we're just coming at it from slightly different angles.

The point about the possibility of D&D doing better with a smaller company, to whom it means more, is still valid. And, yes, who might have lower overhead.

I'm not so sure if WotC has lower overhead. Does WotC operate out of Hasbro facilities, or do they have their own facilities? Do they have their own separate benefits systems? In most companies I've seen that have been acquired, the company that was purchased eventually took on the same pension plans, benefits etc. as the parent. If they're using the same facilities, it could be a bigger, more expensive building that costs more to rent. There are all kinds of things.

Who knows?

In any case, upon reflecting, I don't think that the people at WotC are stupid people. They're not going to revise the game in a manner that is going to lose them their sales. Now whether that means that some of the rumours flying around (ie. the game being collectible, modular, smaller, less expensive rulebooks, more of a CCG model) are actually false, or whether my thoughts that implementing those changes would cost them business (ie. maybe kids like buying over and over at $20+ price points to try and get all their rules), or maybe there's a kernel, but it's being completely misunderstood, I'm sure they're not going to try and make the game worse.

Given the announcement on the front page that Eric Noah's source may have been mistaken, perhaps the whole hubbub is premature.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Anyway, this would be much bigger changes than 3.5 was. And 3.5 allowed them to start over re-cycling all the standard splat books and supplements. Six months after 4E you get the FR and Eberron handbooks with the worlds re-visioned to include the new versions of wizards and the inclusion of warlocks as a core base. For example.

It seems as close as you can get to "best of both worlds" from a seller PoV.

Could you imagine if in the new edition, there was *no* MM, but instead, players have to purchase randomized packs of minis, with more detailed, full entry stat cards with all the info/description that would have ordinarily been included for said monsters in the MM? It would definitely force the use of minis, and push that segment of the game. And it probably corresponds with the type of business model they apparently want.

Banshee

 

[Brulack]

You can release a game that's compatible with any other RPG on the market today -- game rules cannot be copyrighted, just the exact expression of those rules.

The challenge is in how you promote your product to the right crowd.

In which case, you are bumping up against trademark law instead of copyright law.

 

[Banshee16]

Seriously, though: I have followed this discussion for years. Just about everyone says they want low cost, perfect-bound, black and white games, but what actually sells is something else.

--Steve

There are plenty of rulebooks that sell (or at least that I buy <g>), which are black and white.

Sure, colour books are nice, but after looking at the pictures a few times, do I really pay attention? What keeps me coming back is the content. Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas line is a great example. A whole series of books, many with excellent content, soft-bound, and with black and white line art. And personally, I find some of them, such as Hamunaptra (not fair comparison, as it's a boxed set), Skull & Bones, Trojan War, and Eternal Rome as good or better in terms of actual content (from a personal like perspective) than many books WotC has released. Have they sold as well as WotC books? Likely not. Unfortunately, the WotC label goes a long way towards getting a book in front of a buyer's eyes.

Banshee