D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Scribble]

WOTC has all the numbers you have and yet they decided the OGL was not to their liking. I believe the reason is that it went too far. If the OGL didn't allow for other game systems and only allowed modules and campaign settings they'd have kept it. WOTC realized they needed new ip which is why they went the route they took

I'm not really sure that's it...

That's kind of the point of Open Source, which is what the OGL was based on. The idea being the users end up deciding which is "best" based on features, and not because it's just the only thing available.

For my part, I bought the core 3e books, and a couple other WoTC books, but most of my D&D money through the years was spent on 3pp books and products.

So, as I've said before, I think the OGL was great for consumers, and some companies, but maybe not so much for WoTC. (At least not directly.)

One could argue that it increased awareness of D&D, and therefore indirectly increased the player-base and potential customers... But who really knows?

 

[Mark CMG]

I believe that almost all PF players, did purchased 4e core books at launch.

I find that unbelievable.

I do not believe that most of the PF players have never played 4e.

That's not the question.

All the PF players that I know, all played 3e/3.5e, they gamed with myself for years. They tried 4e, but just never really liked the game, or after a while drifted back to a more 3.5e play-style, found in PF.

I know a fair number of PF players that at least tried 4E but very few that bothered to purchase the books to do so.

 

[timASW]

Quite the contrary, the OGL was very successful, the failure was WotC's for jumping off the bandwagon it got rolling and going it alone.

For 8 years it made WotC & D&D the industry leaders, everyone watched their every move and jumped to produce complementary products that would sell along side it.

In economics, there's a concept of a 'complementary good.' If other companies are making jam, you can sell peanut butter. If everyone stops making jam, your peanut butter sales fall.

The problem though is this wasnt Jam and peanut butter. It was Smuckers jam and Wallmart Jam. Same product, Same use, customers only buy one or the other with their dollars. Not complimentary products, competing ones.

Your gonna have to dig up some solid sales studies to prove the OGL helped in order to support added competition for the exact same product being somehow good for those products.

Its a very simple fact of economics that competition is good for the customer, not the producer.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Its a very simple fact of economics that competition is good for the customer, not the producer.

And now, WotC is competing against the OGL (and Paizo et al.), whereas before they had no competition on that level. Monopolies are good for the business, not the consumer, and, compared to the current environment, 3e was a monopoly.

Now, if they could have actually killed the OGL and D&D instead of just moving away from it, things might be different.

 

[timASW]

while simultaneously bemoaning that PF has earned millions of dollars that WotC should have earned and while also claiming that the OGL didn't have anything to do with PF's success. .

I didnt say anything of the sort. The OGL was the cause of pathfinders success. However, whats good for pathfinder was NOT neccesarily good for WoTC.

They are separate, competing companies after-all. They dont share a corporate bank account.

You also would need to ignore the success of many other OGL lines from other companies like M&M from GR. Or you would at least have to claim that the OGL had nothing to do with their success. For your theory to be correct, you have to dismiss example after example of successful OGL products/lines, starting with 3.XE, as having nothing to do with the OGL. I find that to be a theory that struggles against the evidence.

Not at all. Your talking about what was good for the hobby, players, 3rd party publishers and game store owners.

However since gaming isnt a communist collective where they all share profits with WoTC none of that is neccesarily good for WoTC as a business.

Thats why you dont see Apple handing out their technology to competitors left and right hoping that people will buy their stuff anyway because they really love that cool apple logo on it.

 

[timASW]

And now, WotC is competing against the OGL (and Paizo et al.), whereas before they had no competition on that level. Monopolies are good for the business, not the consumer, and, compared to the current environment, 3e was a monopoly.

Now, if they could have actually killed the OGL and D&D instead of just moving away from it, things might be different.

They were ALWAYS competing against the OGL. From day one to today.

 

[timASW]

Sat in on? None. Seen transcripts online of the conference calls made by Hasbro about that very subject (and which have been posted here on ENWorld over the years?) Several.

That's what happens when you've been a member of ENWorld for more than 10 years. You learn stuff.

So transcripts of conference calls where it was discussed prove its rarely brought up...... how do they do that exactly? Do clouds disprove rain? Do shadows disprove light?

 

[underfoot007ct]

So basically, you think that they all put genuine effort into playing 4e, genuinely dislike it from experience, and moved on to PF because they genuinely preferred it? I can think of a few ENWorlders who would really take issue with that (mostly the diehard 4e-ers, as this statement seems to cast it in a rather poor light).

I don't think it's 100% true, though. Even with an edition change, I seriously doubt that the entire player base of the hobby bought new core books that year. Many of them were probably happy with what they were doing and saw no reason to change, others were in long-term campaigns and couldn't change to an incompatible system, others didn't have the money, others read the books and decided no, etc. I do think there was a large portion had the experience you described, and that Paizo caters to disgruntled ex-WotC fans (and employees), but I also think that a large group of people never had that experience.

Well, I cannot attest to 100% of anything, I can related what the player that I know did. I certainly do not know the entire PF fan base, but if they are willing to travel to Connecticut, I'll try.

Yes they made an effort to play 4e, Maybe the PF fans I know are just better quality of people.

Most of the ex-WOTC guys are not disgruntled, I have meet several. They all have played 4e, many hoped to play 5e at the D&D Experience, in Fort Wayne, but could not do so for legal reasons.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yes they made an effort to play 4e, Maybe the PF fans I know are just better quality of people.

I wouldn't posit having tried 4e as indicative of someone's "quality".

My sense of things is that the raw initial sales were large, probably as big as they could have been under the circumstances but that relative to the gaming population they weren't anywhere close to saturation.

 

[underfoot007ct]

I find that unbelievable.

That's not the question.

I know a fair number of PF players that at least tried 4E but very few that bothered to purchase the books to do so.

Things I find unbelievable:

Why people think that they know which editions are bad?

Why people think their preferred edition is the correct one?

How people know so much about a game that they never owned?

Which game out sells others when NO such info is published?

Why people bash everything they don't like?

Why playtest D&D Next if you HATE WOTC so much?

Why so much hate against you fellow D&D fans?


...This is NOT directed at you, just a few things I find unbelievable.

 

[Yora]

But HOW WotC maintains solvency... Hasbro (for the most part) couldn't care less. If WotC has to make X amount of profit each year... then it doesn't matter to Hasbro HOW that happens. And if by some chance Magic: The Gathering produced 95% of that profit and Dungeons & Dragons only 5%... Hasbro WON'T CARE. WotC made their profit... and thus all is good with Hasbro.

So no... I in no way believe HASBRO cares one lick about how well or poorly D&D is doing in of itself, and will take absolutely NO SAY on whether another editions gets published or sold. In fact, from the sounds of all the Hasbro investor meetings... Dungeons & Dragons is never even mentioned. It's a blip on Hasbro's radar (if at all.)

People always say that, but if I were at charge at a publically traded company like Hasbro and had both stock owners who decide my pay and how long I keep my job on the one side, and on the other side I have subsidaries like WotC, then I would care a great deal what's going on at WotC.

If every quarter the numbers from WotC say "Magic made a plus of 1000, D&D made a minus of 600, and Pokemon TCG a minus of 20", then the stock holders will ask the very justified question: "If we would just discontinue D&D, wouldn't that mean 600 more profit that can be cashed out to us?"
And as mangement you could hardly tell them "well, those guys really enjoy spending your money on a product that doesn't make a profit and I think we should let them keep doing it".

 

[Scribble]

People always say that, but if I were at charge at a publically traded company like Hasbro and had both stock owners who decide my pay and how long I keep my job on the one side, and on the other side I have subsidaries like WotC, then I would care a great deal what's going on at WotC.

If every quarter the numbers from WotC say "Magic made a plus of 1000, D&D made a minus of 600, and Pokemon TCG a minus of 20", then the stock holders will ask the very justified question: "If we would just discontinue D&D, wouldn't that mean 600 more profit that can be cashed out to us?"
And as mangement you could hardly tell them "well, those guys really enjoy spending your money on a product that doesn't make a profit and I think we should let them keep doing it".

This assumes the stockholders actually see a breakdown of numbers by department- I doubt they do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This assumes the stockholders actually see a breakdown of numbers by department- I doubt they do.

DING!

That's be like the stockholders of Proctor & Gamble getting investor breakdowns on how well the Mach 3 razor is selling compared to the Fusion because Proctor & Gamble owns Gillette razors.

P&G might care how GILLETTE is doing, compared to some of the other 60+ brands it owns... like Pampers, Clairol, Febreze, and Vicks... but they'd leave it to the VP in charge of Gillette to determine how the razors division runs itself.

 

[Yora]

I'm not an economist, but I think that's where all those bonuses come into play.

It is decided that the people in charge get extra pay if certain departments improve their profits and less if the departmens perform more poorly than in the past.
And at some point there will be someone who sees those numbers and who is thinking "if I can get these numbers to improve, I get paid a bonus, advance my career, and secure my employment." Because someone will be in charge of monitoring the work of the departments and his job depends on making sure the department generates a steady stream of profit. And if Johns supperior sees that the department overseen by John is doing more poorly every year, the superior might not care why this is the case, but just find someone else to do his job.

 

[Mark CMG]

Things I find unbelievable:

Why people think that they know which editions are bad?

Why people think their preferred edition is the correct one?

How people know so much about a game that they never owned?

Which game out sells others when NO such info is published?

Why people bash everything they don't like?

Why playtest D&D Next if you HATE WOTC so much?

Why so much hate against you fellow D&D fans?


...This is NOT directed at you, just a few things I find unbelievable.

Oh, I know it isn't since none of it really applies to me, and I second your asking of the questions. Many of them get to the very heart of the disagreements we routinely see among us as a fanbase.

 

[Mark CMG]

I didnt say anything of the sort. The OGL was the cause of pathfinders success. However, whats good for pathfinder was NOT neccesarily good for WoTC.

Again, this seems to be an example of requiring your theory to struggle against the evidence whereby the simple explanation is applied in one case but not in another.

However since gaming isnt a communist collective where they all share profits with WoTC none of that is neccesarily good for WoTC as a business.

Funny. I assume you mean this as a sort of humorous reductio ad absurdum argument so I'll take it as such with the chuckle you likely mean to elicit.

Thats why you dont see Apple handing out their technology to competitors left and right hoping that people will buy their stuff anyway because they really love that cool apple logo on it.

I don't think the two markets have the parallels you feel support your contentions.

 

[timASW]

I'm not an economist, but I think that's where all those bonuses come into play.

It is decided that the people in charge get extra pay if certain departments improve their profits and less if the departmens perform more poorly than in the past.
And at some point there will be someone who sees those numbers and who is thinking "if I can get these numbers to improve, I get paid a bonus, advance my career, and secure my employment." Because someone will be in charge of monitoring the work of the departments and his job depends on making sure the department generates a steady stream of profit. And if Johns supperior sees that the department overseen by John is doing more poorly every year, the superior might not care why this is the case, but just find someone else to do his job.

My god. Theres at least one other man with a JOB in this dicussion. Who understands how that works.

 

[Emerikol]

I'll be the first to say tha 4e lost a lot. But they are still either #1 or #2 in sales rpg wise. Thats more than enough revenue to sustain a company. They may be a fat and inefficient company but someone out there can make D&D for 25million profit a year. Hey I'd give it a try for 5. .

 

[Emerikol]

Things I find unbelievable:

Why people think that they know which editions are bad?

Since a games sole purpose is fun. I know if it's good or bad for me with 100% accuracy and thats all that matters. I agree though that this is subjective.

Why people think their preferred edition is the correct one?

I think few people truly think any edition is perfect. Rather they like one better than another. Again thats back to the subjectivity of it. For me 3e is better than 4e because for me it would be more fun. The exact opposite though might be true for someone else.

How people know so much about a game that they never owned?

I've owned everything since the red box including a lot of 4e. I think it is a myth that all that many PF players didn't buy a single 4e book.

Which game out sells others when NO such info is published?

I agree exact sales figures are off. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that 4e did significantly worse than 3e sales wise. Not a shocker since Pathfinder exists now and didn't then and PF is at least in the neighborhood sales wise. 4e still sold well by any games standard but D&D.

Why people bash everything they don't like?

it's the internet. People are here to debate.

Why playtest D&D Next if you HATE WOTC so much?

Now here is one I totally agree with. The way some people talk abut WOTC why would they ever do business with them.

Why so much hate against you fellow D&D fans?

The pre-4e crowd is looking for someone to blame for "their" game being stolen. I though have found that over time I develop a fondness even for my most bitter opponents on these boards and the WOTC boards. I do find it useful despite being acrimonious. You just have to filter. I know myself far better now than I did a year ago when it comes to what I want out of a roleplaying game.

4e was the first time I felt the game system failed me. I think my last campaign failed because of the system. All of us just didn't want to keep playing with those rules. Prior to that event, I had never encountered this phenomena.

 

[timASW]

Again, this seems to be an example of requiring your theory to struggle against the evidence whereby the simple explanation is applied in one case but not in another..

Heres the evidence.

Pathfinder pre-OGL. 0 dollars from WoTC's bottom line.
Pathfinder Post-OGL. MILLIONS OF DOLLARS from WoTC's bottom line.

The absolute only way you can argue that is saying that somehow the very existence of OGL products improved awareness and sales enough to balance out those lost millions.

But since there wasnt a single non-gamer who woke up one morning and just magically knew "now theres an OGL, I have lots of choices".....

and there were no commercials on TV, Radio, or Internet advertising saying it existed one has to ask themselves.... HOW DID A SINGLE NON GAMER KNOW ABOUT THE OGL????

Heres the answer. They didnt.

Not one new person who had never gamed before was brought into the hobby because there was an OGL. Not one. It sold more books to existing gamers. And gamers who were existing customers continued to bring new people into the hobby because thats what we do. We didnt do it because there was an OGL. We did it because we wanted to keep full gaming tables.