Is Wotc Slipping?

[Wicht]

You can interpret the "evidence" that we do have if you like, and who knows, you might turn out to be correct. But that would not be the result of some deep understanding of WotC's business; it would be a lucky guess.

There is such a thing as an "educated guess."

 

[Fifth Element]

Heh, Ok +1 for Fifth Element.

But
A) Are you agreeing that the market is now split between these two versions of D&D?
and
B) I think the BRAND element is a key part of the whole 800 lb gorilla thing.

A. Yes. But that in itself is nothing new. Also, the degree of overlap is unclear. Just as many people played both BECMI and AD&D back in the day, many people also play both PF and 4E now.

B. The whole thing has gotten kind of convoluted. Are we comparing WotC to TSR, or WotC now to WotC three years ago, or 4E to 3.5, or what? They key question in any such comparison is, of course, is it a fair comparison. That is, are there factors not being considered that should be?

There is such a thing as an "educated guess."

"Educated guess" is another term for "informed inference." We're missing the "informed" part here.

 

[BryonD]

A. Yes. But that in itself is nothing new. Also, the degree of overlap is unclear. Just as many people played both BECMI and AD&D back in the day, many people also play both PF and 4E now.

Ok, well at "yes" you are agreeing with me. I agree 100% that there are people playing both. But my observations suggest that is not a large slice.

B. The whole thing has gotten kind of convoluted. Are we comparing WotC to TSR, or WotC now to WotC three years ago, or 4E to 3.5, or what? They key question in any such comparison is, of course, is it a fair comparison. That is, are there factors not being considered that should be?

It isn't that convoluted. Some people say that PF is in the same ballpark of 4E. Some people say that we can't observe that. (And some of the latter group go on to suggest that this therefore leaves the default conclusion of 4E's dominance)

"Educated guess" is another term for "informed inference." We're missing the "informed" part here.

No we aren't. It is like the difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".

 

[JoeGKushner]

When asking the question is WoTC slipping, I keep thinking of those commercials. "Is trying to leave a boring meeting in tap dancing shoes a really bad idea?"

When you've got WoTC people chimming up that the reason their Dungeon and Dragon articles are so late, when they appear at all, is poor quality control, and they keep the same people writing them... well, you've got some type of problem. Slippage may be the least of it.

The inability of WoTC to use common words in English to sell their product may be another problem. "Monster Builder" for example has a set of expectations to it that were completely NOT meet.

Slipping? Yeah.

My personal satisfaction with WoTC has been slipping since the online CB and well, it hasn't risen.

Maybe Heroes of Shadow will change that but I am dubious at this point. Seems it was written by more of those people who WoTC needs more time to do that quality control on.

 

[Fifth Element]

It isn't that convoluted. Some people say that PF is in the same ballpark of 4E. Some people say that we can't observe that. (And some of the latter group go on to suggest that this therefore leaves the default conclusion of 4E's dominance)

"Dominant" is not a word I would use for 4E versus PF. For D&D (which includes PF) versus other games perhaps. But then we all probably have our own definitions of "dominant."

No we aren't. It is like the difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt".

I do shudder a bit if people think they can make truly reasonable inferences based on the pittance that we really know. But once again, we all have our own definitions of "reasonable."

 

[BryonD]

"Dominant" is not a word I would use for 4E versus PF. For D&D (which includes PF) versus other games perhaps. But then we all probably have our own definitions of "dominant."

Well, seriously, the whole "lump PF under 'D&D'" ignores the point of discussion. The position that the D&D brand is now sharing its position with the game Pazio produces is in question. You answer says that "yes, WotC is slipping." Adding a reason of PF "is D&D" doesn't change that.

Your point is legitimate in its own right. But it doesn't speak to the question at hand.

I do shudder a bit if people think they can make truly reasonable inferences based on the pittance that we really know. But once again, we all have our own definitions of "reasonable."

Shudders and declarations don't reduce the available information down to "pittance".

 

[Stormonu]

I agree, but even more, it needs to be 100% compatible with the main line, and has to be totally playable in those 1-3 or 1-5 levels. The players should have some monsters, some treasure, several encounters, and a hint of the larger game.

Not easy to do.

I think that's totally false. BECMI proved to be pretty successful without being anywhere near 100% compatible with AD&D.

 

[Wicht]

Weird double post

 

[Wicht]

I do shudder a bit if people think they can make truly reasonable inferences based on the pittance that we really know.

Heh. Maybe we have a different definition of "Pittance," or maybe some of us just have been paying better attention.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Looks like we have again reached the tail chasing, wash, rinse, and repeat stage of this discussion. (Yes, that includes me.)

Anyone have anything new to add?

If not then I will leave this discussion to fizzle out on its own.... Otherwise I am going to get annoyed.

The Auld Grump, when I am annoyed I have a blood pressure. I prefer lying in a state of apathetic shock....