Is WOTC/Hasbro mismanaging D&D?
- Thread starter Sir Edgar
- Start date
Sir Edgar said:
Well, I'm hoping EQ's Monsters of Norahh will fit the bill. I'm shopping for a good MM equivalent. (I don't like players who know all the monsters I'd be using.) I read a review of the Monsternomicon on RPGnet, and, unfortunately, it's a companion to the MM, not a replacement. Hackmaster has its five (!) volumes of monsters, but they're all for the Hackmaster system. And there are all those monster-specific sourcebooks ("Slayer's Guide to XYZ") which provide quality over quantity, which I'm not looking for.
Maybe d20 companies should wake up and, indeed, put out a MM-like book. I liked the idea of the "insert your own monster into the binder" 2e Monstrous Compendium, which, unfortunately, had a terrible execution. (Had there been a website w/ monster downloads to support it and better art, I think it would have done better.) They won't be able to put out **the** D&D monsters WotC owns, but sure can come close.
Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^
Last edited:
Beckett
Explorer
maddman75 said:
Not going into each of your points, but I think this poll should have been broken into two questions. First, is WOTC mismanaging D&D (which I'd vote no), and second, is Hasbro mismanaging WOTC, which I'd vote yes on for many of the same reasons you listed.
Heh. It's a bit older than that. First appearence in The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, and iirc was also included in the original Monster Manual 2. Never before explicitly undead, but certainly not alien.
Khur
Sympathy for the Devil
Ahhhh, napalm!
My answer to this question was an uncertain yes. Why? I doubt my point of view is going to be popular, but here goes. (Remember that I'm not a MBA, or anything.)
It seems WotC (and thus Hasbro) might make more bang for their buck if they followed what seems to be Hasbro policy: buy sure sellers, market them properly, and keep selling them. On the WotC D&D and d20 ends this means less releases, less creative team members, a sharp focus on core books, and very little supplemental material, especially not many adventure modules. It means lots of business work, leveraging licenses and the big, bad OGL. They use the OGL to have small publishers invest their cash flow in riskier products, like adventures, campaign settings and supplements, rules expansions, and so on.
From what I see and hear, this may be the direction WotC is headed, but the past doesn't necessarily support this assertion.
What supports my assertion (not a definitive list):
Finally, as a passing comment on production value, WotC's staffers have always had the daunting task of creating products that are good enough to use, but generic enough to sell widely. Couple that with the legacy issues that 3E includes (like pleasing fans of 2E methodologies or settings), and it's a hard job. For the most part, the crunchiest bits of the material WotC produces have always been fine with me. I can take what I want of the fluff for my own campaign, and trash the rest . WotC has to balance the needs of veteran players, new players (who are just as, if not more, important), legal issues, game balance, and a plethora of other headache-inducing design issues.
I see a lot of complaints on this discussion and others that amount to, "WotC didn't include my pet favorite (x rule, monster, spell, or what have you), and yet they included this other stewpid new junk I don't like." Please. Everything does not exist to please one person in specific. For every person who thinks one thing or another thing is the dumbest pile of goop they've ever seen, there's another (usually not so vocal) person using this "dumb" stuff to dazzle and entertain his or her players or DM. I have an entire science-fantasy campaign setting that makes use of mostly "fringe" monsters from the Monster Manual, such as the digester and ethereal filcher. I changed their names to world-specific ones, but the stats are the same. Few things are useless to everyone.
I will say that 3E got me playing D&D again for the first time in many years.
Two other points:
The bearing of this point on Hasbro's/WotC's mismanagement of D&D is nebulous. If the legal issues from the Infogrames sale interfered with e-tools, it was purely coincidental ... unforeseen ramifications, if you will.
Finally, gnomish paladin/necromancers can potentially fly, so long as they don't choose transmutaion as their prohibited school. Of course, that they can never again advance as a paladin is a forgone conclusion. (Sorry I quoted you out of context, I just felt like joking after all this seriousness.)
My answer to this question was an uncertain yes. Why? I doubt my point of view is going to be popular, but here goes. (Remember that I'm not a MBA, or anything.)
It seems WotC (and thus Hasbro) might make more bang for their buck if they followed what seems to be Hasbro policy: buy sure sellers, market them properly, and keep selling them. On the WotC D&D and d20 ends this means less releases, less creative team members, a sharp focus on core books, and very little supplemental material, especially not many adventure modules. It means lots of business work, leveraging licenses and the big, bad OGL. They use the OGL to have small publishers invest their cash flow in riskier products, like adventures, campaign settings and supplements, rules expansions, and so on.
From what I see and hear, this may be the direction WotC is headed, but the past doesn't necessarily support this assertion.
What supports my assertion (not a definitive list):
- The OGL, the gentleman's agreement with d20 publishers, and the fact that they're putting serious work into the SRD again.
Core Rulebook marketing and sales. Upping the sale price of these books after the initial buying frenzy wore off.
They published definitive adventure modules for an array of levels to show what adventures for characters of that level might include as challenges along with a single campaign module (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil), but they haven't published any others. (I'm counting Into the Dragon's Lair as a FR supplement in this case.)
They published a set of similar, definitive splatbooks for the core classes. While all of the material wasn't stellar, it at least serves as a good example of what another publisher might do. Even the much maligned Hero Builder's Guide Book is useful, especially to new players who need a little help understanding what a character is and can be. Some of my players use it for inspiration.
They defined how they'd handle deities and cosmology in a standard D&D game, but also gave tools for inventing your own. I may agree that the religion section of Deities and Demigods might have served me better as a Dragon article or as part of the Manual of the Planes, but it's still useful, especially for DMs new to the game. Further, many people wanted more on the Greyhawk gods, and the myth sets that were included in Deities & Demigods are popular ones. I personally have little use for avatar stats as presented, but others might like to have campaigns that shake the pillars of Olympus.
They facilitated character progression beyond 20th level with the Epic Level Handbook—the book that everyone seems to misunderstand. Of course they gave us "more of the same", because they had to fit epic progression into the existing infrastructure. Taken as just a character progression book, the work isn't bad. Further, the other sections of the book at least give a jumping-off point, examples, and inspiration for DMs who want to have powerful characters and themes in their games. No product that tries to include so much can be pleasing to everyone. (If you want Gandalf or Sauron, you can have them with the Epic Level Handbook. If you want me to, I'll prove it.)
They've released one major campaign setting in Forgotten Realms, while doing only a little to support Greyhawk. Forgotten Realms is a sure-fire evergreen, sales of he core book were and are assured.
They've licensed core book rights for Call of Cthulhu, The Wheel of Time, and Star Wars. Rumor has it that support for most of these products was always intended to be minimal. Sales would be focused on the core book and just enough supplemental material to serve as examples for GMs to create their own stuff. Licensed games create new players too, and some of those players will drift to other d20 games. (See below for more.)
They'll be releasing a definitive core book for the modern age in d20 Modern
They sold Dragon and Dungeon. This move allows another company (Paizo) to handle the creative and financial strains of producing the magazines, probably increasing the quality of those entities in the long run and supporting the sales of official materials, and the release of official material without requiring the expensive process of putting together books.
They sold internet sales, so another company could bear the financial burden of running such an operation, while WotC still makes money off the operation.
They've been laying off a lot creative staff, while keeping the business end (perhaps a little slimmer) strong. These talented folks will certainly find homes in the OGL publisher community, on their own, or as employees of major firms. The real problem with the layoffs is that so much talent can now go freelance, which pushes aspiring writers (and etc.) farther from realizing their aspirations. On the flip side, WotC may require more freelancers for its own products do to the slim creative team.
- The handling of the OGL and its potential has been a little sloppy, in my (uneducated) opinion. What I mean is:
>>They should have released as much material as OGC in the SRD as soon as possible, to give small publishers all of the official tools they need to make runs on parts of the market that WotC/Hasbro doesn't want to touch (profit's too small). Such a marketplace supports sales of core products.
>>They should have released certain elements of supplemental books, web enhancements, and Dragon magazine articles as OGC as a matter of course. Examples include feats, monsters, spells, and perhaps prestige classes, items, and magic items. I can understand WotC hording some of this material if they plan to compile it into their own products later. There is also a slight possibility that such a practice could hurt sales, but it doesn't seem to hurt the sales of other d20 publishers. More likely, it would increase the utility of WotCs books across the board. I know I would be pleased to have access to splatbook feats just to reference them in my writing, if nothing else.
>>The d20 Reference Guide should have allowed the citing of core books in the manner that it now does all along. (See PHB, Chapter 8, Injury and Death for more information.) This type of referencing also supports the sales strength of core materials. Further, the same Guide should have allowed publishers to cite expansion material like the splatbooks, Manual of the Planes, and etc. I personally don't see how this could hurt WotC, and I feel certain it would support sales of supplemental books. Further, the OGL should have allowed other publishers to put requirement statements about supplemental material on their products, such as "This book requires the Manual of the Planes for full utilty..." or whatever.
>>They should have released the mechanics parts of licensed games (like Wound Points in Star Wars) as OGC, so small publishers could use those mechanics as well. My only concern about this point, is that doing so may have messed up the release of systems that may be found in d20 Modern as OGC. We'll see.
They released a lot of support material for Forgotten Realms, including a 3E adventure set in Cormyr, long before the core book. This could have been handled by sublicensing support for the core setting to another publisher (like Ravenloft and Dragonlance) but keeping the core book, and maybe some core crunchies like Monsters of Faerûn and Magic of Faerûn, as WotC products.
They released some material that's riskier, like The Book of Challenges or the Stronghold Builder's Guide. The release of these books could have also been licensed, or WotC could have just let the d20 publishing community come up with them. However, these products do follow a pattern. They show players and DMs, old and new, how to handle and expand certain aspects of the 3E game. Much of the material is great for idea generating, if nothing else ... even if your whole gaming group has read every encounter. (The PHB, for example, follows the same pattern by presenting Greyhawk as the core setting so new DMs and players have concrete examples from which to start playing. The Epic Level Handbook follows the same pattern with the City of Union. Union might not be the best setting ever depicted, but it does show a possible direction the game can go.)
Licensed materials seem strange ... following no set pattern. Star Wars was probably supposed to be a hot seller and a WotC goldmine, but I've heard sales are cool. Call of Cthulhu will continue to be supported by Chaosium. The Wheel of Time has a large fan base, and might serve to get many persons involved in gaming that would otherwise not be. But if WotC doesn't support this game better, who will?
They are currently engaged in a setting creation process, despite the glut of settings on the market. Of course, other companies are still releasing settings as well, like Blackmoor, Midnight, and etc.
Finally, as a passing comment on production value, WotC's staffers have always had the daunting task of creating products that are good enough to use, but generic enough to sell widely. Couple that with the legacy issues that 3E includes (like pleasing fans of 2E methodologies or settings), and it's a hard job. For the most part, the crunchiest bits of the material WotC produces have always been fine with me. I can take what I want of the fluff for my own campaign, and trash the rest . WotC has to balance the needs of veteran players, new players (who are just as, if not more, important), legal issues, game balance, and a plethora of other headache-inducing design issues.
I see a lot of complaints on this discussion and others that amount to, "WotC didn't include my pet favorite (x rule, monster, spell, or what have you), and yet they included this other stewpid new junk I don't like." Please. Everything does not exist to please one person in specific. For every person who thinks one thing or another thing is the dumbest pile of goop they've ever seen, there's another (usually not so vocal) person using this "dumb" stuff to dazzle and entertain his or her players or DM. I have an entire science-fantasy campaign setting that makes use of mostly "fringe" monsters from the Monster Manual, such as the digester and ethereal filcher. I changed their names to world-specific ones, but the stats are the same. Few things are useless to everyone.
I will say that 3E got me playing D&D again for the first time in many years.
Two other points:
If my memory of working in the video game arena serves me, Hasbro sold its electronic media rights to Infogrames long, long ago (two years or more, maybe). Whether legal issues on that sale "nerfed" e-tools is beyond me, but I'd like to see where you get your data. Will you share?maddman75 said:
The bearing of this point on Hasbro's/WotC's mismanagement of D&D is nebulous. If the legal issues from the Infogrames sale interfered with e-tools, it was purely coincidental ... unforeseen ramifications, if you will.
Finally, gnomish paladin/necromancers can potentially fly, so long as they don't choose transmutaion as their prohibited school. Of course, that they can never again advance as a paladin is a forgone conclusion. (Sorry I quoted you out of context, I just felt like joking after all this seriousness.)
Darn it now we are spoiling movies and not agreeing and I bet it is all Hasbros fault for the mismanagement of D&D which I don't think they are.
IMO they are trying to stay competetive and on top of things, but with less money coming in they are not able to. So they have to cut from every part of their corporation which includes WotC. This is bad for those that got laid off, those that are fans of the people that got laid off, and for the time being the industry as a whole.
This however will turn around. Those people who were let go will more than likely find jobs with other companies or start more D20 companies of their own. Bringing more new and innovative ideas to market and making D&D stronger as a whole.
All of these things will just take time. No matter what we say or do we cannot control what Hasbro does, what WotC does, or what the silent majority of gamers do when it comes to purchasing and creating of items for use in the game.
If you don't like what is out there go ahead create new things, try to get them published, and wait a few months. Given a little time I am certain someone on here will voice their opinion on how they don't like it, what they think it is lacking, and how it could have been better if...
Maybe instead of criticizing go and do something about it. This is my final post to this troll message. Good day to you sir.
IMO they are trying to stay competetive and on top of things, but with less money coming in they are not able to. So they have to cut from every part of their corporation which includes WotC. This is bad for those that got laid off, those that are fans of the people that got laid off, and for the time being the industry as a whole.
This however will turn around. Those people who were let go will more than likely find jobs with other companies or start more D20 companies of their own. Bringing more new and innovative ideas to market and making D&D stronger as a whole.
All of these things will just take time. No matter what we say or do we cannot control what Hasbro does, what WotC does, or what the silent majority of gamers do when it comes to purchasing and creating of items for use in the game.
If you don't like what is out there go ahead create new things, try to get them published, and wait a few months. Given a little time I am certain someone on here will voice their opinion on how they don't like it, what they think it is lacking, and how it could have been better if...
Maybe instead of criticizing go and do something about it. This is my final post to this troll message. Good day to you sir.
Rune
Once A Fool
Sir Edgar, I think that you should consider that the update to 3e was not just an update to the rules, but also to the "feel" and style of the D&D genre. They're reshaping the image of the game, even while they try to hold to "sacred cows."
Anyway, you've said:
I'm sorry, but WotC does not have a monopoly of any kind-- they have copyright and trademark rights for their brand-names and iconic characters and the like, but they hold no monopoly in any industry. At all.
That's a fact, just as my first statement is a completely subjective one...which brings me to my next point.
You've said:
What? That does not follow!
Let's analyze this logically, shall we? I'll take the first statement first.
A=The majority of people who voted voted "yes."
B=The majority of people who voted believe that WotC/Hasbro is mismanaging D&D.
C=People who want the leprechaun and the neireid included in either MM or MM2 are a "vocal minority" that is destroying the market."
Your assumption:
If A, then B. Fair enough, but you leap immediately to
Therefore, ~C.
Woah! That's quite a leap of logic! I'd be very interested in seeing the logical proofs that went into this argument. If there was any possible way that it could be valid, that is.
Okay, next:
A=The poll is evenly split.
B=Half them voters believe that WotC/Hasbro is mismanaging D&D and half believe that WotC/Hasbro is not mismanaging D&D. (B is only implied in your statement, but I'll give it to you).
C=This [presumably that WotC/Hasbro is or is not mismanaging D&D] is a matter of your personal taste.
If A, then B. This works, let's continue.
Therefore, ~C.
Huh? Once again, C has no business being in this argument, as it was never introduced in an assumption.
Really, you can't seriously believe that an opinion that everyone in the world agrees with is still anything other than an opinion, can you?
Okay, now that that's out of the way, I suppose I'll answer your question. I do believe that Hasbro is mismanaging WotC and I also further believe that WotC's ability to manage its product lines has been crippled by Hasbro's mismanagement of the company. This will, of course, trickle down into problems with WotC's product lines, especially the heavily R&D-reliant ones.
But you seem (as has already been stated) to really be interested in production issues.
I don't really have a problem there. I'm a creative enough guy to fill in the blanks, if there isn't a D20 company that hasn't already done it.
P.S: I like your list of names for the MM3.
Anyway, you've said:
I'm sorry, but WotC does not have a monopoly of any kind-- they have copyright and trademark rights for their brand-names and iconic characters and the like, but they hold no monopoly in any industry. At all.
That's a fact, just as my first statement is a completely subjective one...which brings me to my next point.
You've said:
and
What? That does not follow!
Let's analyze this logically, shall we? I'll take the first statement first.
A=The majority of people who voted voted "yes."
B=The majority of people who voted believe that WotC/Hasbro is mismanaging D&D.
C=People who want the leprechaun and the neireid included in either MM or MM2 are a "vocal minority" that is destroying the market."
Your assumption:
If A, then B. Fair enough, but you leap immediately to
Therefore, ~C.
Woah! That's quite a leap of logic! I'd be very interested in seeing the logical proofs that went into this argument. If there was any possible way that it could be valid, that is.
Okay, next:
A=The poll is evenly split.
B=Half them voters believe that WotC/Hasbro is mismanaging D&D and half believe that WotC/Hasbro is not mismanaging D&D. (B is only implied in your statement, but I'll give it to you).
C=This [presumably that WotC/Hasbro is or is not mismanaging D&D] is a matter of your personal taste.
If A, then B. This works, let's continue.
Therefore, ~C.
Huh? Once again, C has no business being in this argument, as it was never introduced in an assumption.
Really, you can't seriously believe that an opinion that everyone in the world agrees with is still anything other than an opinion, can you?
Okay, now that that's out of the way, I suppose I'll answer your question. I do believe that Hasbro is mismanaging WotC and I also further believe that WotC's ability to manage its product lines has been crippled by Hasbro's mismanagement of the company. This will, of course, trickle down into problems with WotC's product lines, especially the heavily R&D-reliant ones.
But you seem (as has already been stated) to really be interested in production issues.
I don't really have a problem there. I'm a creative enough guy to fill in the blanks, if there isn't a D20 company that hasn't already done it.
P.S: I like your list of names for the MM3.
the Jester
Legend
Hopping Vampire said:
All right, I tried, but I can't let this pass.
The 2nd edition DMG was possibly the most useless hardback ever made for any edition of dnd. I played 2e the whole time it was the standard, from the time the 2e PH was released to the time the 3e PH was released, and the ONLY stuff I found worthwhile in it was the overland travel info and the magic item section, with the xp charts a necessary evil. The 1e DMG stayed in my gaming stuff, close to hand, whenever I ran a game. The 2e DMG had a bunch of regurgitated passages from the PH and not much else. It was a waste of money. In fact, by the end of the 2e era, I had FOUR COPIES of it gathering dust on my shelf because nobody cared if they left it behind at my house and never came back for it.
The 3e DMG is extremely useful, between the generic npcs, the condition summaries, the section on special abilities, the 'behind the curtain' info, the bit on environmental dangers, good advice on running an exciting game, the return of random dungeon generation charts, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.
This, of course, is just my opinion; but to say the 2e DMG was better- well, I cannot see it. At all.
the Jester
Legend
Sir Edgar said:
You do realize how many monsters were in past materials? Thousands, I would guess. Heck, in 1e alone we had three books, each monster's description taking much less space than in the 3e books. Then you throw in 2e stuff- which there were a lot of additions- and you're asking for the impossible, imo.
I am disappointed in some of the new critters, especially the tojanida. And I do wish some of the old goodies made it in (tabaxi, mustard jelly, arch-devils and demon princes, modrons, githyanki and githzerai in the MM or MM2, etc), but your wish list doesn't have anything I really miss (except the sylph, who IS in the MM2). I think that fact alone demonstrates that there isn't a default list of 'classic' monsters that everyone wants. Mongrelmen?? No thanks. Don't need an aerial servant either, just gimme a big air elemental.
I love how many of the monsters in the MM and MM2 are weirdos from old editions. The choker is from Mystara and harkens back to OD&D, same with nightshades. The ravid is from Planescape; I love that one. So are rasts. I wish the Zodar had made the cut for the MM2! Old Spelljammer critter, ya know.
About half the MM2 and most of the MM critters are straight out conversions. A few have new names (ragewind was a sword spirit or something lame), but in general the monsters are updated and improved. Heck, just look at trolls! They used to regenerate 3 hp and couldn't rend- now they're even nastier than they used to be.
I really think you should consider the scope of what you want. If the Tome of Horrors (which is going to be a HUGE book, btw) is filling in many of the gaps AFTER two books that together are 75% conversions, how could WotC possibly have fit them all into two books?
Similar Threads
