Is WOTC falling into a problem like the old TSR did

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Really, like what?

Whatever product is being produced currently, so one can use it as a basis to predict the imminent arrival of 4E.

The fact that the list of "obvious final products" changes yearly doesn't slow the argument down appreciably. (The argument has been made here since 2004.)

 

[Bert the Ogre]

Therein lies the problem with many complex games: once everything has been done, you either leave it alone, or you reinvent everything! And of course, if you reinvent everything, people who played the previous version will moan and groan that you "ruined everything, in the pursuit of the allmighty dollar," but if you DON'T reinvent everything, people complain that "everything is as boring and stale as the current season of the Simpsons!"

So, WoTC IS in the same boat that TSR was in under both 1st ed. and 2nd ed, all the core ideas have been used, then more and more advanced ideas get used, then you run into the problem of trying to please both the "general" player as well as the "specialist" player. I personally like playing the basic iconic characters, but I know plenty of people who like the odd-ball specialists listed in the "Complete Flavor-of-the Week" books. Neither player is wrong for likeing those types of characters/adventures/etc, but eventually things have to come to an end, then rise like a pheonix from it's own ashes.

And at least this time, it seems like a planned burning, unlike the previous two death and rebirth cycles of our favorite game.

So, since pointless grumbling is just that, what features would you like to see in 4th ed? I know WoTC is making a strong effort to actually take the player's input as they redesign the game? What do you want D&D 4th Ed to be?

 

[LightPhoenix]

My answer is yes, and no.

I think it would be wonderful if WotC could actually put out one book a year and remain profitable, but that's just not the case. D&D would soon be cancelled if that were their approach. Generally speaking, the number of people that buy something declines over time - I'd bet good money that the core books are the same, and the supplements are even worse. After all, not everyone does buy every book, though certainly some do. Now, do I know how many books WotC needs to put out a year to keep up a good baseline of customers? No, obviously, since I don't have access to that information. If I had to guess, I'd say it would be between eight to twelve major products per year - which is about what we get now, I think. That would be "no."

On the other hand, I definitely think that there is room for improvement and innovation over at WotC. The tough thing about that is pleasing enough people enough of the time. What balance I might like to see, regarding campaign vs. generic and flavor vs. mechanics, isn't necessarily the same as anyone else. So, with the caveat that this is all my personal opinion, I think that there's been too much of a shift towards generic mechanics, as opposed to generic flavor, in non-campaign books. Similarly, I think that there needs to be a little more work in taking all the mechanics (prestige classes, feats, spells, so on) and finding their place, if any, in campaigns. In that sense, there's a lot of campaign flavor, and not so much in campaign mechanics. Dragonmarked is a very notable exception to this, and I feel it necessary to point it out.

 

[BlackMoria]

It is not exactly the same problem as TSR had during its final days.

TSR fragmented their market because the majority of their products was focused on a great number of settings. Dark Sun, Planescape, Mystara, Red Steel, Birthright, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, and Greyhawk. I am probably missing some. The main problem is that products done for, let's say, Dark Sun, have poor portability into another setting, like say, Birthright. Also, TSR's print runs were too large and alot of their product sat in warehouses, which further contributed to their financial woes. So the issue was principally not one of buyer fatigue resulting in poor sales, it was too many settings, too focused product support and large print runs.

In contrast, WOTC has not gone the route of "setting of the month". They have retained Greyhawk as the default setting, keep the Forgotten Realms and cut loose the rest. They added Eberron so their stable is only three settings. Also, the product support tends to focus on 'generic' support (usable with any setting) with only a minority being specific to a particular setting. If you compare the old TSR release schedule to WOTC current schedule, you will see that WOTC is releasing less product per month than TSR. Also, I think they have recognized the problems of TSR and kept the print runs small.

I don't think they are making the same mistakes that TSR did but learned from them. They have kept the settings few in number and focused, and have most of the product is 'generic' for maximum utility for a large target audience. I think that if they felt they were reaching market saturation, they would scale back the production schedule and would become even more focused on what they released. The fact that they haven't tells me that sales must still robust.

Just remember, ENWorld members represent only a small percentage of the D&D market. Just because some members feel they don't need another 'Complete ____ ' doesn't mean the majority of gamers/players not represented on these boards feel the same way.

 

[yipwyg42]

So which do yourself prefer

1. Say the company has 5 totally different worlds supporting the core D&D ruleset. They release products at a reasonable rate to support these worlds (Adventures, campaign info, etc...) The company also releases on a less frequent basis splatbooks that add some new classes to the mix and some optional mechanics.

2. The company has two campaign settings, releases campaign support material occasionly. Most of the supplements are to the core D&D ruleset itself. They release a steady stream of a bunch of optional rulesets, classes, and abilities that may or may not be balanced when put together. You have to sort thorough all of this and decide for yourself.

Me, I go for #1.

I guess I'm more interested at this point in my life (just turned 36), where I want a game ruleset that has a steady stream of accessories but not to the point where its like a flood.

 

[kenobi65]

1. Say the company has 5 totally different worlds supporting the core D&D ruleset. They release products at a reasonable rate to support these worlds (Adventures, campaign info, etc...) The company also releases on a less frequent basis splatbooks that add some new classes to the mix and some optional mechanics.

2. The company has two campaign settings, releases campaign support material occasionly. Most of the supplements are to the core D&D ruleset itself. They release a steady stream of a bunch of optional rulesets, classes, and abilities that may or may not be balanced when put together. You have to sort thorough all of this and decide for yourself.

Me, I go for #1.

I guess I'm more interested at this point in my life (just turned 36), where I want a game ruleset that has a steady stream of accessories but not to the point where its like a flood.

The question then, is...under your first scenario, would you only be buying books for one out of those 5 settings?

What is the best scenario for you, the individual gamer / buyer, may not be what's best for the publisher. Under Scenario 1 (which, the conventional wisdom says is how TSR mismanaged their market in the mid-90s), most players won't be at all interested in most of their offerings. Thus, they'd be publishing a lot of stuff with small print runs (less profitable), and even then, might be sitting on more of it longer at the warehouse.

 

[yipwyg42]

Another thing I noticed

Back in 2nd edition

I was a Ravenloft DM
My friend Steve was Dark Sun
My friend Dave was Forgotten Realms

We each had all the books for or corresponding settings.

We mainly used just the 3 core books plus the alternative rules (if any) of our settings.

At that time I pretty much had the rules memorized (mastered)

I find that with all the variables now I can no longer do this, there are just to many exceptions to the default rules depending on what feat, prestige class ability, etc...

I think I may have reached the point where I officially become a grognard.

 

[yipwyg42]

The question then, is...under your first scenario, would you only be buying books for one out of those 5 settings?

What is the best scenario for you, the individual gamer / buyer, may not be what's best for the publisher. Under Scenario 1 (which, the conventional wisdom says is how TSR mismanaged their market in the mid-90s), most players won't be at all interested in most of their offerings. Thus, they'd be publishing a lot of stuff with small print runs (less profitable), and even then, might be sitting on more of it longer at the warehouse.

I admit my thoughts are not necessarily the best scenario for how big of a company WOTC is.
I think I would like to see a middle ground. Steady release of fluff and crunch, not one way or the other.

 

[MerricB]

I think I would like to see a middle ground. Steady release of fluff and crunch, not one way or the other.

They do. What do you think the monster books (e.g. Fiendish Codex) are? They're quite fluffy, in fact.

Wizards produce...
* Forgotten Realms (about 4 books per year)
* Eberron (about 4 books per year)
* Core fluffiness (about 4 books per year)
* General rules (about 12 books per year).

That seems pretty good to me.

Cheers!

 

[yipwyg42]

The new monster manual format is not what i consider fluff.
In second edition a monster might have gotten 2-3 pages of material dealing with ecology, combat, description and such.

Now it is a stat block with the abilities listed and a very short description.