D&D General Is DnD being mothballed?

[Alzrius]

Yes, we disagree about what is being discussed. IMO, that (the bold part)was never the discussion. I don't think anyone but you was just talking about 3.5e

I'll point you to the post I initially replied to, which was about 3.5 and 4E. I'm still not sure how we ended up where we've come to since then.

I suggest we agree to disagree and move one.

I don't agree to that.

 

[Alzrius]

As I previously said, it's because the specific consumers for Paizo and WoTC are different.

I don't disagree, though I think that there's more overlap than people think.

Paizo largely relies on a subscription model for people that are deeply invested - the "hardcore." WoTC relies on mass sales to casual gamers and new gamers, including a large number of players under 15.

In other words, Paizo can afford to target a small part of the community, whereas WoTC cannot.

That's why it's a hard sell. Different companies have different business models to target different consumers.

Which is fine. I don't believe I've ever said that WotC wouldn't have to make adjustments or otherwise tweak how they do things. Heck, I'm sure the people working at WotC would be the first to agree with that sentiment! It's just the overall narrative that they were doomed from the beginning that I don't care for, since it's presented in flat-out defiance of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Which is fine. I don't believe I've ever said that WotC wouldn't have to make adjustments or otherwise tweak how they do things. Heck, I'm sure the people working at WotC would be the first to agree with that sentiment! It's just the overall narrative that they were doomed from the beginning that I don't care for, since it's presented in flat-out defiance of evidence to the contrary.

You seem determined to keep arguing this point, Alzrius.

So I'm going to point this out- you wish to keep saying that there is "evidence to the contrary." But that's not true. There is no evidence that WoTC would do better with a faster release schedule, because this has been the most successful edition of D&D ever.

Everything else ... is just noise. So if you wish to keep saying, "I would like WoTC to make more books, because I, Alzrius, play 5e, and I want more official content" then that is totally fine! That's a preference. And other people can argue that they like the current model. And people could probably argue that they want less material, too!

But there is no actual evidence. All we have as actual evidence is that the current release model has resulted in the best-selling edition ever. And after we get past the whole, "Correlation is not causation," we can then understand that people are arguing that either the status quo is preferable (don't rock the boat when things seem to be working out) or they are saying that WoTC should take a chance (make more $$$, yo!).

But none of us is actually privvy to the internal numbers that WoTC is relying on. Or there calculations regarding the long-term strategy and health of the brand. So couching your arguments as somehow evidence-based is not appropriate.

 

[Umbran]

Well then you're not seeing things very clearly.

Mod Note:
Stop making it personal.

 

[Alzrius]

You seem determined to keep arguing this point, Alzrius.

An oddly pointed observation coming from you, Snarf.

So I'm going to point this out- you wish to keep saying that there is "evidence to the contrary." But that's not true. There is no evidence that WoTC would do better with a faster release schedule, because this has been the most successful edition of D&D ever.

I've never said that there is. I don't believe that I've ever said, a single time in this entire thread, that WotC would be doing better than they are now if they'd stuck to a 3.5-style release schedule. That's not the point I've been making, or inferring, or implying. I'm not sure why people feel the need to respond to something I've never said, but here we are.

Everything else ... is just noise. So if you wish to keep saying, "I would like WoTC to make more books, because I, Alzrius, play 5e, and I want more official content" then that is totally fine! That's a preference. And other people can argue that they like the current model. And people could probably argue that they want less material, too!

Again, you're quoting me on something I've never said. Insofar as release schedules go, I (once again) don't think I've ever made it about personal preference. It's about speaking out against the idea that such a schedule was always inherently doomed to fail.

But there is no actual evidence. All we have as actual evidence is that the current release model has resulted in the best-selling edition ever. And after we get past the whole, "Correlation is not causation," we can then understand that people are arguing that either the status quo is preferable (don't rock the boat when things seem to be working out) or they are saying that WoTC should take a chance (make more $$$, yo!).

But none of us is actually privvy to the internal numbers that WoTC is relying on. Or there calculations regarding the long-term strategy and health of the brand. So couching your arguments as somehow evidence-based is not appropriate.

See above. This is a rebuttal to a point I've never made.

 

[Echohawk]

In other words, Paizo can afford to target a small part of the community, whereas WoTC cannot.

I think this claim would be improved by adding the qualifier "Paizo can afford to target a small part of the community with print products, whereas WotC cannot." A lot of the differences between Paizo and WotC's models are much less relevant for digital products, which is likely why we're seeing WotC focus on digital distribution as a means to service the "we want more content" customers.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

An oddly pointed observation coming from you, Snarf.

You have 80 posts in this thread. Which on your last post, is 7% of all posts. Since you started actively commenting in this thread, it's been 11% of all posts.

Admittedly, I have made a lot of posts, for me, in this thread. ..... Nineteen.

I've never said that there is. I don't believe that I've ever said, a single time in this entire thread, that WotC would be doing better than they are now if they'd stuck to a 3.5-style release schedule. That's not the point I've been making, or inferring, or implying. I'm not sure why people feel the need to respond to something I've never said, but here we are.

Again, you're quoting me on something I've never said. Insofar as release schedules go, I (once again) don't think I've ever made it about personal preference. It's about speaking out against the idea that such a schedule was always inherently doomed to fail.

See above. This is a rebuttal to a point I've never made.

I am going to reiterate that you repeatedly state that that the people who argue against you are doing so contrary to the evidence. See, e.g., post #1142, which I quoted (and responded to).

Yet you don't actually have any evidence. You don't have the numbers. You have a conversation at a seminar, and as already discussed, we don't know what the actual numbers are- you have to wait for a book. You don't know the trends. You don't know if the sales of 3.5e were down, or how much. You don't know what WoTC's numbers are.

My issue is that there is this dance you are doing, where you seem to keep arguing that everyone except you is ignoring "the evidence," yet there are no actual evidence that they are ignoring.

Anyway, I don't enjoy arguing about arguing. You can continue the argument with everyone else in the thread.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Because I keep seeing this narrative (i.e. of the inherent inevitability of failure of that type of release schedule) and it strikes me as becoming one of those "everyone knows" things that's actually more myth than fact. I don't particularly care for that, so I find it worthwhile to counter it here.

Well, if it is for your own reasons, well, there your own reasons but I see little point in it. People will believe something different in a while.

 

[Staffan]

You're conflating two separate issues that have been under discussion here. Even if we grant the premise that Paizo treated its employees poorly (and I think it'd be better if you linked to something about that rather than holding that it's true), I don't see that as only being the case because they were underpaying their employees (which seems to be what you're implying here). For instance, insofar as I know their employees aren't being underpaid now, and yet they're still using the same release schedule without issue.

I don't have any links available, but there were quite a lot of stories told about two years ago when Paizo's workers were in the process of unionization, both in terms of actual compensation and in terms of cutting corners elsewhere (like cleaning the office).

 

[mamba]

But there is no actual evidence. All we have as actual evidence is that the current release model has resulted in the best-selling edition ever.

that sounds a lot more like causation when all we really have is correlation.

We have no evidence in either direction, all we know is that this is the best selling edition, and healthier for longer than previous ones too