Get Rid of Splatbooks Altogether

[Libramarian]

Shocking how many pages this thread has generated. Theres one big reason why this could never happen. DMs buy adventures, players buy splatbooks. theres 4-5 times more players then there are DMs. Theres a lot more money to be made in Players hanbook 5, and 5e essentials part 3 then there is on an adventure module.

Do we actually have solid evidence for this, or is this just kind of hearsay from 10 years ago? Obviously iterative players handbooks will be big sellers, but something like "Complete Bard" or "Elemental Power" or whatever -- you can't just say this is going to be more profitable because there's 4-5 times as many players as DMs, because it's not marketed at all players, it's marketed at players who specifically like the theme of the book. i.e. player-focused products suffer from market fragmentation as well.

It just kind of blows my mind that adventures would be seen as unprofitable. They seem to me to be such a key product for groups who actually play regularly, especially new groups.

Maybe they could reduce development costs by reprinting some of the classic 1e modules with Next mechanics. That would be pretty sweet.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure if adventures are not profitable - after all Paizo seems to be doing pretty darn well at it. But, by the same token, the question is, is it profitable enough? The cost to produce a module and produce a, say, 96 page hardcover probably isn't terribly far off. Yes, the hardcover is more expensive, but, you can charge more for it as well simply because it is a hardcover.

Which begs the question, how many modules can you sell vs some splatbook? Even if the module sells in similar numbers of units, can you price point the module to the point where it's as profitable as the hardcover?

I have no idea honestly. That's why people get paid the big bucks. But, it could go some way to explaining why modules are not seen as being the big money makers.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Do we actually have solid evidence for this, or is this just kind of hearsay from 10 years ago? Obviously iterative players handbooks will be big sellers, but something like "Complete Bard" or "Elemental Power" or whatever -- you can't just say this is going to be more profitable because there's 4-5 times as many players as DMs, because it's not marketed at all players, it's marketed at players who specifically like the theme of the book. i.e. player-focused products suffer from market fragmentation as well.

It just kind of blows my mind that adventures would be seen as unprofitable. They seem to me to be such a key product for groups who actually play regularly, especially new groups.

Maybe they could reduce development costs by reprinting some of the classic 1e modules with Next mechanics. That would be pretty sweet.

By the same token, not EVERY DM is going like the theme of a book either.

What this tells me is if you have 5 players and 40% like the book, or 1 DM and he has a 40% chance of liking the book, the players will still buy more than DMs.

Adventures (good ones) probably do ok. The problem is, WotC is not known for good adventures anymore. The best Wizards/TSR modules are all from 1st/2nd edition (and a few of those "good" ones are good because of nostalgia, not that they were written well)

 

[Ratskinner]

That's highly debatable- I let my sub lapse back when DDI was at its lowest point and I still haven't been motivated to re-subscribe.

IF DDI produces good quality content every month that doesn't interfere with existing print products (e.g. the endless errata train), then it's a good deal for some groups.

If DDI is anything but a fully optional supplement, though, it sucks. I don't want to refer to electronic media at the table, ever, nor do I want my players to have their heads in a screen instead of in the game. Further, one of the worst things about DDI for 4e is how groups depend on it won't ever use house ruled items, paragon paths, powers etc. because the Character Builder won't integrate them (at least, as of the last time I inquired about it). I've heard the argument that DDI actually discourages creativity, and I have to reluctantly agree- because I know groups that don't have any custom anything because they rely on DDI exclusively for character building and the like. No group has to function this way, but quite a few 4e groups choose to.

Also, DDI encourages overly complex rule systems, because it's easier to let the computer track the minutiae. But overly complex systems are a pain in the butt at the table, and without those electronic tools they practically ensure that character sheets have the wrong numbers in many places.

So- is DDI a good value? On a good month, if you are willing to accept electronic tools as a must have, sure. If you aren't, then it's almost more of a pain in the butt than it is worth.

I totally agree. "This game is so complicated that I had to use a computer to make my character." is the antithesis of good game design. (Unless your working on a computer game, then knock yourself out.)

I cannot emphasize enough how important I think it is that this game be perfectly playable without any electronic aids whatsoever. We are all die-hards, so DDI is fine for us, but many more casual players want an experience closer to beer+pretzels. Having that kind of accessibility is extremely important to garnering new players (even if the beer part can only legally be root beer.) That's true not only for the lone geeks out there who try to pick it up on their own, but for fathers, like me, trying to hook their kids.

Personally, I think Wizards would do better to provide some kind of virtual tabletop environment that was flexible enough to let the DMs handle the rules. Why they seem loath to do so is a mystery to me.

 

[Ratskinner]

Shocking how many pages this thread has generated. Theres one big reason why this could never happen. DMs buy adventures, players buy splatbooks. theres 4-5 times more players then there are DMs. Theres a lot more money to be made in Players hanbook 5, and 5e essentials part 3 then there is on an adventure module.

I generally agree, although DMs buy splatbooks, too...at least I do.

 

[Hussar]

A 4e character by hand isn't any more complicated than a 3e character. I'd even go so far as to say it's considerably easier to build since you don't have a lot of stat changes constantly altering the math if you want to build something higher than 1st level.

I find it quite strange that people claim that you need the DDI to make a 4e character.

Do people need electronic tools to make Pathfinder characters? They seem to be doing pretty well despite having chargen rules that are every bit as complex as 4e.

 

[Ratskinner]

A 4e character by hand isn't any more complicated than a 3e character. I'd even go so far as to say it's considerably easier to build since you don't have a lot of stat changes constantly altering the math if you want to build something higher than 1st level.

I find it quite strange that people claim that you need the DDI to make a 4e character.

Do people need electronic tools to make Pathfinder characters? They seem to be doing pretty well despite having chargen rules that are every bit as complex as 4e.

I think 3e characters were too complicated (didn't at first, but in time..). I've been playing a BECMI/C&C mashup lately. The DM provided each class a 1 page writeup. Its working brilliantly. Yes, casters have to keep a spell list, but whaddyagonna do? (I actually have some ideas, but they aren't very "D&D" in feel.)

The Basic 5e game needs to be much simpler than either 3e or 4e.

Also, Buff spells aren't part of character gen...but did stink, anyway.

 

[Hussar]

Wasn't referring to buffs. I was referring to stat bumps every 4 levels that can have some cascade effects. Also, higher level characters generally had some stat bump items which also could cascade through the character sheet.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Wasn't referring to buffs. I was referring to stat bumps every 4 levels that can have some cascade effects. Also, higher level characters generally had some stat bump items which also could cascade through the character sheet.

What happens every 2 months of real time (a single stat bump that may or may not affect the character sheet) is pretty minor.

 

[Libramarian]

Adventures (good ones) probably do ok. The problem is, WotC is not known for good adventures anymore. The best Wizards/TSR modules are all from 1st/2nd edition (and a few of those "good" ones are good because of nostalgia, not that they were written well)

This idea that adventures are unprofitable certainly seems to have coincided with a decline in adventure quality.