Has D&D jumped the shark?

[Staffan]

RCLs are effectively a "pseudo prestige class", and I think their effects should better have been represented by existing mechanics - such as prestige classes and feats.

Personally, I think racial substitution levels are just a formalized way of modifying classes, as set out on page 174 of the DMG.

 

[Nightfall]

*thinks that jumping the shark jumped the shark WELL before this*

I absoluately LOATHE that particular phrase. Cliched is fine. Repetitive, fine. But Jumping the shark. *big thumbs down*

 

[Psion]

The connections whether or not you agree are implicit in the context of this thread. And though TSR had many woes, fragmenting its market with the overproduction of dreck

Splitting the market was a function of producing multiple competing properties. You'll note that WotC is not in the habit of doing this to the extent that they once were. Unfortunately for those of us who rather prefer some of the less mainstream settings.

 

[Psion]

Personally, I think racial substitution levels are just a formalized way of modifying classes, as set out on page 174 of the DMG.

Someone else made that observation earlier in the thread.

 

[Desdichado]

Splitting the market was a function of producing multiple competing properties. You'll note that WotC is not in the habit of doing this. Unfortunately for those of us who rather prefer some of the less mainstream settings.

I still haven't seen anyone put forward any good evidence that "fracturing the market" is a bad thing, only that there are clearly bad implementations of that strategy. A strategy that is designed to lap up all potential market share, by appealing to all the niche markets, and doing it on a reasonable budget may be an Utopian ideal, but certainly other industries try to do it. Why is it supposedly anathema in the RPG industry?

Frankly, I don't believe it is. I think TSR had a poor implementation of a strategy that --at least at a high, detail-less level-- was potentially sound.

 

[Nightfall]

Splitting the market was a function of producing multiple competing properties. You'll note that WotC is not in the habit of doing this to the extent that they once were. Unfortunately for those of us who rather prefer some of the less mainstream settings.

Like Scarred Lands!!

 

[Psion]

I still haven't seen anyone put forward any good evidence that "fracturing the market" is a bad thing, only that there are clearly bad implementations of that strategy.

I think I heard either or both Keith Strohm and/or Ryan Dancey mention that in regards to why wizards really cut back on the additional properties. I think from the horses mouth is a pretty strong indication.

Not saying they couldn't be wrong. But it makes sense. According to one line manager (I forget which -- this was the late 2e days) they wouldn't put out new lines unless they thought it would sell more than 5000 copies. I think WotC's standards are a step higher than that. Which is why anyone who is really counting will note that there are fewer products per month now than then. Any given product has development costs and other one-time costs associated with it, in addition to a higher per unit printing cost, which means that they get less profit if they split their sales among multiple lines.

A strategy that is designed to lap up all potential market share, by appealing to all the niche markets, and doing it on a reasonable budget may be an Utopian ideal, but certainly other industries try to do it. Why is it supposedly anathema in the RPG industry?

Perhaps they beleive that people will only invest in one of two of their core settings, regardless of how many they have out. Considering how much market research they reportedly do, they would probably be in a better position to make such a determination. Any second guessing we do may be rather uninformed.

But somehow, you give the poster a messageboard, he becomes a market expert who knows better than people whose livelihood depend on this who do have the facts. So while I am not saying they couldn't be wrong, I do tend to beleive they are in a better position to know than an arbitrary fan.

 

[Psion]

Like Scarred Lands!!

Exactly. One of the express purposes of the d20 license was the fact that WotC realizes that supplements main moneymaking role is to sell more core books. They offload the risk of divergant lines to other companies who, in many cases, can operate on thinner margins or minimize their development costs by a less costly infrastructure.

 

[Nightfall]

Or could get a fanboy like me to shout to the rooftops about the glories of the Scarred Lands.

 

[Desdichado]

Perhaps they beleive that people will only invest in one of two of their core settings, regardless of how many they have out. Considering how much market research they reportedly do, they would probably be in a better position to make such a determination. Any second guessing we do may be rather uninformed.

But somehow, you give the poster a messageboard, he becomes a market expert who knows better than people whose livelihood depend on this who do have the facts. So while I am not saying they couldn't be wrong, I do tend to beleive they are in a better position to know than an arbitrary fan.

Oh, no doubt. But they could very easily be wrong -- companies are wrong about that kind of stuff every day.

And when they don't resemble most other markets, that's a good reason to be suspicious of their findings. I'm not trying to say that I know better than Keith Strohm, Ryan Dancey, or anyone else. All I'm saying is that their "findings"; what little we know about them, seem odd. I'd love to see the actual results of their marketing research. From what I remember of the parts they did reveal, there wasn't much in the way of market research that would lead to any conclusion whatsoever about "fragmenting the consumer base." They were more concerned about player habits in general -- how often folks played, how many people played, which games they played, D&D's market share relative to its competitors, etc.

I have a sneaking suspicion that nobody actually knows anything at all about what the market wanted from D&D, various settings, etc. other than gut reactions. What Dancey and Co. probably understood better was the increased overhead and lower overall revenues associated with the scattershot approach of D&D in the waning days of 2e.

But I wonder if maybe the baby wasn't thrown out with the bathwater; the strategy wasn't the problem, but the implementation of it.

Again, sure, I don't have any information to back me up -- just enough of a business background to be passingly familiar with some of these concepts, and seeing "fragmentation of the customer" base in many other industries that does not at all have a negative impact on the profitability of the company, because they know how to do it right so that they can reach niche markets, and reap profitability from them. In fact, in many industries, "fragmenting the consumer base" is a necessity. If you don't do it, you're competitors will gobble up your market share.

Of course, Dancey's market research showed that the market share of D&D's competitors was so low as to be negligible. So maybe they did their cost benefit analysis and figured that the folks they lost due to the more monolithic nature of D&D not split into various subgenres weren't really worth the cost of keeping them. RPGs, still after 30+ years, are essentially a strange breed of monopoly.