Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8978312" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Except that they've then clearly thrown good money after bad, if they've tried <em>three separate times</em> and <em>every single try fails</em>.</p><p></p><p>At this point, it would have netted them <em>some</em> profit to publish <em>something</em>, even if it wasn't universally acclaimed. Remember, the standard we've been told WotC has used in the past is something like 75% approval. If something didn't get 75% approval, it was canned back in D&D Next. They may have relaxed things a bit since then, but they're still almost surely setting <em>really really really</em> high standards. Such standards are good <em>if</em> you can meet them, since that nearly guarantees profits. They are bad when, as the saying goes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.</p><p></p><p>Further...not every product needs to be for every customer. That's the lesson of stuff like extra chunky spaghetti sauce. You can horizontally segment your market and <em>increase</em> your profits--sometimes by an order of magnitude. The issue, again, is NOT that psionics aren't desired. It's that everyone who wants psionics (and it's clearly a significant chunk if they were willing to try <em>three separate times</em> to make it happen) wants THEIR psionics, and (in general) REALLY DISLIKES anything that isn't THEIR psionics.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some want it highly scientific-sounding. Others want woo-woo mysticism. Still others want something more "paranormal."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some want it to function very similar to spellcasting. Others want it to be nothing at all like spellcasting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some want it to be highly diverse and flexible. Others want it to be very focused and specific.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some want to integrate psionics into other things, especially if they're fans of hyper-reductionism. Others want psionics to remain totally separate from other classes. Some take a middle ground and accept "dabbler" subclasses (the psi equivalent of EK.)</li> </ul><p>And the problem is, <em>even if</em> two people agree on their position for each of the four distinctions above, they can <em>still</em> take umbrage with how each other would implement the specific details.</p><p></p><p>IOW, there's like four or five distinct, large camps, that all <em>want</em> psionics and may constitute a majority of players (certainly, it constitutes enough of a bloc that WotC has tried to court them <em>three times</em>, something only matched by their efforts to rework the Ranger), but <em>none</em> of them fully agree on what form it should take. Any specific implementation may only please 60% of psionics fans (if you're <em>lucky</em>), who may be only 70% of all customers. So even though a majority of people might want psionics, and a majority of the people who <em>want</em> psionics may want any given implementation, a distinct minority (.6*.7 = 0.42) of the overall population may actually like <em>that specific</em> implementation.</p><p></p><p>And so we go, around and around, unable to move forward because it's <em>not possible</em> to please 70% of the customer base with any given implementation of psionics, even though "give us psionics" gets 70% approval. Lowering the threshold for "this is good enough to make a profit" would make sense under this hypothesis, because then all the work they've already put into making <em>some kind</em> of psionics would at least finally turn a profit, even if that profit is smaller than the <em>theoretical</em> profit they could get from a (potentially impossible) <em>ideal</em> psionics solution that pleased all of the camps.</p><p></p><p>If they instead came out with psionics rules that at least <em>attempted</em> to horizontally segment the market (say, 2 or 3 psionic classes instead of just one, with one going for a more scientific and focused approach, and another going for a more diverse woo-woo mysticism approach), and included it in a supplemental book like <em>Dark Sun</em> where it can be easily ignored by people who don't like psionics, they might find quite a bit of success. Not <em>as much</em> success as if they could find the silver bullet for all these troubles, but again, the perfect is the enemy of the good.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8978312, member: 6790260"] Except that they've then clearly thrown good money after bad, if they've tried [I]three separate times[/I] and [I]every single try fails[/I]. At this point, it would have netted them [I]some[/I] profit to publish [I]something[/I], even if it wasn't universally acclaimed. Remember, the standard we've been told WotC has used in the past is something like 75% approval. If something didn't get 75% approval, it was canned back in D&D Next. They may have relaxed things a bit since then, but they're still almost surely setting [I]really really really[/I] high standards. Such standards are good [I]if[/I] you can meet them, since that nearly guarantees profits. They are bad when, as the saying goes, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Further...not every product needs to be for every customer. That's the lesson of stuff like extra chunky spaghetti sauce. You can horizontally segment your market and [I]increase[/I] your profits--sometimes by an order of magnitude. The issue, again, is NOT that psionics aren't desired. It's that everyone who wants psionics (and it's clearly a significant chunk if they were willing to try [I]three separate times[/I] to make it happen) wants THEIR psionics, and (in general) REALLY DISLIKES anything that isn't THEIR psionics. [LIST] [*]Some want it highly scientific-sounding. Others want woo-woo mysticism. Still others want something more "paranormal." [*]Some want it to function very similar to spellcasting. Others want it to be nothing at all like spellcasting. [*]Some want it to be highly diverse and flexible. Others want it to be very focused and specific. [*]Some want to integrate psionics into other things, especially if they're fans of hyper-reductionism. Others want psionics to remain totally separate from other classes. Some take a middle ground and accept "dabbler" subclasses (the psi equivalent of EK.) [/LIST] And the problem is, [I]even if[/I] two people agree on their position for each of the four distinctions above, they can [I]still[/I] take umbrage with how each other would implement the specific details. IOW, there's like four or five distinct, large camps, that all [I]want[/I] psionics and may constitute a majority of players (certainly, it constitutes enough of a bloc that WotC has tried to court them [I]three times[/I], something only matched by their efforts to rework the Ranger), but [I]none[/I] of them fully agree on what form it should take. Any specific implementation may only please 60% of psionics fans (if you're [I]lucky[/I]), who may be only 70% of all customers. So even though a majority of people might want psionics, and a majority of the people who [I]want[/I] psionics may want any given implementation, a distinct minority (.6*.7 = 0.42) of the overall population may actually like [I]that specific[/I] implementation. And so we go, around and around, unable to move forward because it's [I]not possible[/I] to please 70% of the customer base with any given implementation of psionics, even though "give us psionics" gets 70% approval. Lowering the threshold for "this is good enough to make a profit" would make sense under this hypothesis, because then all the work they've already put into making [I]some kind[/I] of psionics would at least finally turn a profit, even if that profit is smaller than the [I]theoretical[/I] profit they could get from a (potentially impossible) [I]ideal[/I] psionics solution that pleased all of the camps. If they instead came out with psionics rules that at least [I]attempted[/I] to horizontally segment the market (say, 2 or 3 psionic classes instead of just one, with one going for a more scientific and focused approach, and another going for a more diverse woo-woo mysticism approach), and included it in a supplemental book like [I]Dark Sun[/I] where it can be easily ignored by people who don't like psionics, they might find quite a bit of success. Not [I]as much[/I] success as if they could find the silver bullet for all these troubles, but again, the perfect is the enemy of the good. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road
Top