Is WOTC falling into a problem like the old TSR did

WotC's problem, if indeed there is one, is not the same as TSR's.

Not the same at all.

Perhaps an excerpt needs to be given:
From an e-mail posted to DND-L on March 16, 2000, by Ryan Dancey, WotC Brand Manager for Dungeons & Dragons.
Ryan Dancey said:
I know now what killed TSR. It wasn't trading card games. It wasn't Dragon Dice. It wasn't the success of other companies. It was a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy. TSR died because it was deaf.

Here's a full copy of the e-mail conveniently posted on Dragonsfoot (as the previous host links I have are now dead).

Full E-Mail
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Psion, what sort of products show creative applications of the rules? Adventures? "How to design adventure" books like Heroes of Battle? Could you give a few examples?

Personally, I like how Wizards produce a range of books, hitting most of the bases.

Want to expand what your existing character can do? Check. (Complete series)
Want to investigate a new system of magic for your game? Check. (XPH, Magic of Incarnum, etc.)
Want to investigate a new genre? Check. (Heroes of Horror, Battle...)
Want to have a monster-themed campaign? Check. (Libris Mortis, Fiendish Codex, etc.)
Want to play in an established campaign setting? Check. (Eberron, Forgotten Realms).
Want to have an adventure to play? Check. (More and more these days!)

Cheers!
 

You know what I find ironic? Ever since I switched to Castles and Crusades my enjoyment of the 3E books has increased.

I like the idea behind "9 Swords" and the ideas shown in the various feats/abilities.

I like Dragon Magic, some pretty cool ideas.

PH2, cool alternative class ideas/flavors, and good advice.

DMG2, lots of cool stuff.

Red Hand, Howling Hordes, Twilight modules all good to excellent.

Fantastic locations, neat stuff.

Exp. to Ravenloft. Cool reinterpretations and new ideas/NPC's that I may use.

I think it is because I am absolutely free to ignore anything or, if I use it, I have to "make it my own" in order for it to fit into my C&C game.

So yeah, WOTC is where TSR was at when it fell apart. I have found my "happy gaming groove" and WOTC is producing a ton of product I buy and use small bits and pieces from here and there while ignoring the vast majority of it. Even stuff I have bought. Just like it was when TSR broke down.

But I don't think WOTC is going to go out of business. I think they will do 4E. When? I don't know and I don't really care. This time I am staying in my "happy gaming groove" and I'm not letting anyone talk me out of it again.
 

MerricB said:
Wizards produce...
* Forgotten Realms (about 4 books per year)

And not a single true regional sourcebook on the horizon. *lament*

There's still plenty of books to produce for FR for years down the line.
 

yipwyg42 said:
I am wondering if WOTC is falling into a sort of problem that TSR did. Back in the 2nd edition version of D&D it was settings. Tons of settings and accessories was very bad for the market. With 3.x currently I am seeing an avalanche of feats, prestige classes, does not look like it is stopping anytime soon.

...

All of these things are fine by themselves but when mixed with others from different books, things can break down really fast.

In my mind choice is good, but too many choices can be a headache.

I think it's a plan.

For the moment, more stuff means more money made, and if the system gets saturated (meaning that new stuff becomes less and less original or useful, and sales drop), they reset to a new edition and start again.
 

Li Shenron said:
I think it's a plan.

For the moment, more stuff means more money made, and if the system gets saturated (meaning that new stuff becomes less and less original or useful, and sales drop), they reset to a new edition and start again.

I've heard this a lot and it isn't really based on history. Every new edition except 3.5 was renewed not based on saturation but because players wanted a new edition (not every fan, but enough that their voices were heard).

3.5, the change that stands out, wasn't based on saturation either, because 3.0 wasn't really saturated. They planned on an update to the rules to fix problems when they designed 3.0. It just happened they released it earlier than originally planned, with more significant changes than planned. The reason wasn't a saturated market either.

Historically D&D changes when the fans want a change (again, 3.5 being the exception). Market saturation hasn't been part of it.

If WotC really thinks they've saturated the market, I expect a new campaign setting (just one, not a flood of them) to be released to give them more options. They already have two waiting to be developed that no one has reallly seen outside the company and designers.
 

What I find interesting is that there seem to be more books coming out now each month than ever before.

Kind of a "back-end bloat".

The good news, though (IMO), is that the products coming out are pretty interesting. Most of it I'm finding quite enjoyable to read (since, well, I don't have much time to actually play lately).
 

yipwyg42 said:
I am wondering if WOTC is falling into a sort of problem that TSR did. Back in the 2nd edition version of D&D it was settings. Tons of settings and accessories was very bad for the market. With 3.x currently I am seeing an avalanche of feats, prestige classes, does not look like it is stopping anytime soon.

I don't think that WOTC are falling into that same situation. Not at all. Unlike TSR, WOTC does pay attention to the D&D/D20 community.

What I would prefer they do is release more books in the vein of the environment series (Frostburn, Stormwrack..etc), those that are more than usable in any campaign, and scale back the Complete books and more dedicated books (Book of 9 Swords...etc). Focus more on the general campaign enhancers and less on the new rules/feats/PrC's. IMO thats where the bloat comes from, just too many options books.
 

I don't think it is at all the same problem.

With multiple settings, you get a sort of splintering of your fanbase - all the folks who like a given setting have a tendency to play just that setting, and buy products just for that setting, to the exclusion of others. The result is you end up with having to put out many differeent supplements in small print runs. That's not terribly profitable.

Books of prestige classes, rules options, monsters, and spells don't have the splintering problem. Having bought one of them does not make you much less likely to buy another, so the size of the print runs can stay larger.

Also, we should consider the movement in the market of late. Early on in 3e, WotC published fewer titles, but the 3rd party publishers were cranking things out like there was no tomorrow. Many of those 3rd party people have fallen by the wayside. WotC is now in a position to pick up some of that slack.
 

1. They aren't making the books all interlinked such that they presume you have everything ever published. I really hated in the TSR 2e era, buying a new book only to find it had plenty of places where it referenced books that had been out of print for years, and omitted key details assuming it would be just reprinting what you already had.

2. They aren't splitting up their customer base with their many products. In the 2e era, they had Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Birthright, Mystara and Greyhawk as settings recieving support. Part of the problem is that people would get one or two settings they'd play, and ignore the rest, and it split and factioned up the player base, and the product lines. If a really good book on being a noble PC and running fiefs as a player was made, it would almost certainly be for Birthright, which means players of other settings would pretty much ignore it. A psionics book would likely be for Dark Sun, and might well not be balanced for use outside that setting.

Now, while WotC does produce many books, and they have to to stay profitable and keep their masters at Hasbro happy, they do have a distinctly different take on things. They don't assume every player has every book previously made, just the core (or sometimes they put in material tying to big-selling books like Psionics or Vile/Exalted material, but at least with notes on how to incorporate this in a game if you don't have those books already).

They also don't split the product lines in many ways. Greyhawk exists as a generic default meant to be adapted and exported to other settings. Forgotten Realms is a classic flagship setting. Eberron is the only new one. They made a one-book release of Dragonlance (with future suppliments not published by WotC), Ghostwalk as a one-shot, and a remake of the original Ravenloft module (but not the actual setting). They also are much more likely to make a book that's meant to be generic and usable in any campaign instead of a setting-specific book.

Also, as was noted, WotC makes one very big, fundamental change that TSR never did: They listen to the market. They perform market research, polls, they listen to what the fans write on the message boards, they know that TSR died in large part because they assumed fans would buy whatever they made just because they were TSR.
 

Remove ads

Top