Is WotC still the industry LEADER?

[jbear]

I think it's an interesting point made in the blog.

Leader's aren't always the paragon of good, admirable or someone to be looked up to.
They are those whose actions cause change, and due to such others follow suit. For better or for worse.

Admin edit: Content removed. No politics here, please.


However, are they leading the hobby in a new direction, or at least are they making an attemt to do so? Are they causing change? Trying to be as neutral as possible, I think they are. It seems the new version is aimed at bringing a new generation of gamers who have grown up with video consoles and the internet, into the hobby. A user-friendly version, perhaps. Are they doing this in the best possible way, probably from their point of they are trying.

Time will tell. 4e is still new, finding its feet. There are'nt even any books available in other languages. If they ever pull the digital table top together I'm sure it will cause a big impact. I know I'll be hooked.

 

[ProfessorPain]

You know something that I think is cool, and maybe this should be forked to a different thread but its relevant to the mindset of competitor verses companion. Paizo regularly points its consumers to other companies encouraging them to explore their works. On several occassions, the flagship of the Paizo brand, the AP, has actively called out Chaosium and their work on Call of Cthulhu as something that Paizo readers should investigate and support. Cthulhu isn't even d20 and I'm fairly sure they're not OGL.

Every issue of Pathfinder utilizes creatures from Necromancer and Green Ronin books and identifies those books by name and page number. Though the stats are fully spelled out so the customer does not have to buy another book, the encouragement to support another company is there all the same.

I think its very cool and very much in the cooperative spirit that the OGL was intended.

.

The great thing about gaming, is this is a community. It isn't like Xbox or book shelves. When you buy an RPG, you share it with your friends; and you and your friends are a small patch of a larger network of gamers. We don't just buy games, we take them personally. And we have a much more personal relationship with the companies that sell them. How many of have unkowingly argued with one of our favorite game designers on forums just like this? The great thing about gaming now, is you can have conversations with the people behind the games. But it is a double edged sword, because the players really do feel betrayed when companies do things against the communal spirit.

 

[Wicht]

Jbear, I believe there's a ban on politics here.

 

[jbear]

Jbear, I believe there's a ban on politics here.

oO. ???. Hmmm, don't think I' ve said anything rude, insulting or out of line. If one of the moderators thinks I've done something against the norms I'm sure THEY will swiftly let me know. Thank you.

 

[Piratecat]

oO. ???. Hmmm, don't think I' ve said anything rude, insulting or out of line. If one of the moderators thinks I've done something against the norms I'm sure THEY will swiftly let me know. Thank you.

Okay.

We have a complete moratorium on politics here, including using politicians as examples in posts. I've edited your post accordingly. That isn't me saying your point wasn't bad, just how you chose to express it.

Thanks. Shoot me an email (by clicking on my username) if you have any questions.

 

[Wicht]

But it is a double edged sword, because the players really do feel betrayed when companies do things against the communal spirit.

I think this is true of a segment of the community. I have noticed that those who are truly invested in the hobby tend to feel this way. More casual gamers I am not so sure of.

I am pretty sure in fact that this dichotomy between those that see the gaming community as a family (with its own heritage) and those who are best described as casual gamers is a lot of the reason for the divide between those who are more likely to be upset at WotC and those who are not.

I know that the rejection of the heritage of the game (and thus the community) is a large part of the reason I am not comfortable with the latest edition.

 

[Toben the Many]

I think there seems to be some misconceptions here in this thread.

First and foremost, many people seem to be presuming that a) WotC once was an industry leader and is now no longer an industry leader, or that b) WotC was and still is an industry leader, or that c) WotC was never an industry leader.

WotC is far bigger than just D&D. There's a that Magic: The Gathering thing. Then, there's Pokemon, and other card games. There's Heroscape. Etc. I'm not as in the loop with CCGs as others are, so I don't know if WotC is an overall leader in pulp gaming (games which use paper as their primary medium) or not.

Now, I think a more apt question is - Is D&D still the industry leader, in terms of innovation and game design? And more importantly, are D&D's game design choices leading the industry in a particular direction?

My response is that people need to understand that D&D has not always been the leader in innovation and game design. I remember 2nd Ed as being perhaps the least innovative game on the TTRPG market when it was out. Other systems like ShadowRun, White Wolf, and Deadlands - IMO - were far more innovative in design.

As a quick aside, I think that one could make a good argument that 2nd Ed was fairly innovative in terms of setting, but that's another story.

I think that 3rd Edition was obviously innovative in terms of game design. So many people hopped on board. There was a time in which everything was d20. Not only that, but more importantly, we see echoes of d20 everywhere. Even in the new White Wolf system.

Is 4th Edition innovative? Sure. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that it's not, simply because we've never seen a game system quite like it. However, is it going to lead the industry in terms of game design? I don't think it will.

This is not a knock against 4th Edition, which is a fine system. However, it does what it does in a very, very specific manner. It's not a generic system. When you play 4th Ed, you are playing a particular kind of game. So it's not adaptable to any setting or any genre. For example, if you want to play a gritty, realistic game where you track your rations, you get injured easily, and healing is hard to come by...well 4th Edition is not going to work for you. Here's another example. Let's say you want to play a horror game where the heroes are mere mortals and have very little capabilities against the forces of darkness. Those few abilities they have, too, cost each hero a portion of their sanity or humanity. Can you play a game like that in 4th Ed? No.

I don't think as many 3rd party publishers will hop on board. I don't think that 4th Edition is a "universal toolikit" like d20 was. But, in the end, I think that's good for D&D. I think there will be far less brand dilution.

Finally, look at what the 3rd party publishers are doing. They are going their own way. Wizards & Warlocks, Pathfinder, Warhammer Fantasy, etc. Ultimately, I think this is a good thing. We'll see more innovation over all in this way.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I think this is true of a segment of the community. I have noticed that those who are truly invested in the hobby tend to feel this way. More casual gamers I am not so sure of.

I agree, BUT here is anecdotal evidence such that it is worth:

In my group, I am clearly the most invested in the hobby. My library is easily three or four times the size of the next person, and at least 10 times the next person after that.

I frequent enworld, wizards, necromancer, sinister, and other gaming messageboards. I only have one player who goes to any boards, and that WAS monte Cook's boards before Malhavoc more or less stopped producing new stuff.


Guess who DM's the most? Guess who informs the others about the state of the industry, including news on 4e and whether or not our group might like it or not? Me.


I guess what I'm saying here, is that the most invested will be the one that the others in the group get their info from. If I'm all up in arms about WotC, the rest of my group will find out, and likely either check it out for themselves (the more invested of my group) or just believe me.

If, as a result, I suggest boycotting WotC (or somesuch), they might agree or disagree, and that is fine. They're welcome to do what they like. But if I'm the most invested, and they look to me for information, there is a solid chance that they'll see the picture through my eyes...which will certainly influence them to lesser and greater degrees.


More likely than suggesting that they boycott WotC (I haven't suggested that) I'll simply be boycotting WotC myself. Since I DM most often, I'll run games from slightly different systems...right now I'm running a Midnight Campaign (fantasy flight games) in 3e. None of my current group has even bought a single 4e book. They all have the Midnight 2nd edition core book, which costs about $40, and at least one supplement each.

I'll bet you that if I had been all gung-ho for 4e, we'd be playing that game instead.


Separately:

Someone above me said WotC is far bigger than D&D. I'd also say that D&D is now far bigger than WotC...and that it is slipping away from them. It's fractured, and needs healing, (and this is not 3e vs 4e, this is the entire market's worth of publishers, settings, etc). WotC might be the biggest kid in the schoolyard, but they're not longer running it.

D&D is more than edition. It's more than setting. It's hard to say exactly what it is...that's for the collective consumer opinion to determine. For me, playing in Green Ronin's True 20 Freeport feels more like D&D than playing in 4e forgotten realms. To others, the opposite is true.

 

[Scribble]

Time will tell. 4e is still new, finding its feet. There are'nt even any books available in other languages. If they ever pull the digital table top together I'm sure it will cause a big impact. I know I'll be hooked.

Overall I agree with your point here jbear. A leader isn't a leader just because everyone likes him and wants to be like him.

Sometimes a leader has to make hard choices for the overall good. It's the end result that matters.

WoTC is the biggest company out there, and like it or not that makes them the defacto leader. When they move, the table shakes. When they make choices it effects the RPG industry. And like any other leader's actions, it's the end result that really matters. The question isn't are they a leader or not, it's are they a GOOD leader or a BAD leader.

If in the end, the choices they've made end up improving the hobby (brining in new gamers, which feeds more money into the hobby, making gaming more accepted, and understood, etc...) then they're a good leader.

If in the end the choices they've made end up harming the hobby (less gamers, less money, pretty much the opposite of the above) then they've functioned as a bad leader.

Only time will tell, it's still way to early. Some of the actions Wizards are taking now are pretty new ideas, and new ways of doing things, that will take a while to be fully understood.

 

[mlund]

Frankly, I wouldn't want to lead any competitors in my direction so much as I'd want to get where I was going first and box everyone else out of that market with the best products, services, and infrastructure. Other companies would look at what my firm had done and say, "Crap! Why didn't we think of that? Too late now," then scuff their feet and move on in another direction because they can't see a profitable foothold left from my model.

If that was impossible, I'd want to at least be in there so early and so strong that by the time my competitors have started getting established in my neck of the woods I'm already packs and ready to move onto the next conquest and they are picking at scraps.

I couldn't give a rat's tail whether the competition is following me - just as long as they aren't in my way. I'm not here to improve their business models and products after all.

Now if I were a non-profit enterprise and I wanted to reform some vital public interest like health care, addiction treatment, or education that would be a whole other kettle of fish.

- Marty Lund