Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.
 

AL might struggle a bit because D&D is always best with friends you know, but a pick-up-group of randos can be fine, and even a way to get a more personal game off the ground, plus, as you point out, it's kind of free advertising. :)
Just a local anecdote, but Encounters has been very successful at our FLGS - [plug] Isle of Gamers in Santa Clara, CA, http://www.isleofgamers.com/ [/plug] - for the whole run, from the very first 4e season through Princes of the Apocalypse. Always have multiple tables running. It's cleaved off home games (I'm running a campaign that started with Beyond the Crystal Cave, and is currently mid Paragon), created circles of friends and brings in both regulars and new players.

AL is a little restrictive, and some of the regulars don't technically follow all the rules. One 5e DM runs her own homebrew adventures, two of us are still running 4e, but there are three tables of 5e PoA - Wed nights are a full house.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Man, there are two conversations here. The one that interests me more is "why isn't there a good space sci-gi game as good as D&D?" That really needs to be spun off into its own thread. (Has someone started that?)

The other conversation is the tricky nature of the RPG publisher. It's not the same as regular book publishing, it doesn't work like CCGs, and it isn't quite the same as board games. There's nothing else just like it, which makes establishing a buisness model hard. Euro games are the closest non-RPg match.

It's hard to sustain a company just on RPG profits. Relying on accessories seems to be a short term fix that is unsustainable. Relying on side games means dividing your audience and self-competition. Multiple campaign settings means both at the same time.
There's not even a great success story to point to as "that's how you run a tabletop RPG business!" TSR failed multiple times, and D&D wasn't profitable enough for WotC three or do times. Paizo is doing well, but that's arguably a vanity buisness started as the CEO got bored with her Hasbro induced early retirement, so it doesn't need to be as profitable.
How many other RPG companies are even run as a full time buisness and not an after-work hobby? Ten? Twelve? And many of those might be "virtual companies" without a central office and only a handful of full time employes and much of the work handled freelance.
 

My take : VR games are probably going to steal tabletop D&D's lunch money, stick it in a locker, then forget it there all summer until the janitor smells the flies coming out from all the sticky mountain dew residue.

2016 is the year VR is going to take off. And playing D&D just won't really be able to compete. If wizards were smart they would see the writing on the wall. D&D was always meant to be unlimited except by your imagination. But virtual reality worlds are a whole other level. Photorealistic games, where you can swing swords and cast fireballs and fight gargantuan monsters atop flying dragons are going to make table top seem positively stone age in comparison.

Good luck getting a new generation of zero-attention span gamers to hop on board to their grandpa's RPG. Roleplaying can't really compete with full immersion presence. It doesn't need to, it filled its niche during its time and all good things come to an end. Sure, some people will still play it, but developers and companies won't release new rules which produce pennies in revenue compared to making something like a Ravenloft VR Experience. I can't wait. 5th edition is the last D&D I'm interested in playing. It did a good job letting me use my imagination until computer graphics could catch up. D&D is supposed to be immersive, but is stifled by its own tabletop limitations and the problems of a human being trying to run a believable world simulation. They didn't even try to make a sensible item economy in 5th edition, for example. In a VR game, you could easily have a steel longsword break 46% less often, and have a price that varies by design with subtle variations in delay factor and point of balance, all of which affecting combat stats in a physically realistic and also fun way.

I also can't see myself bothering to argue about another edition's rules, I'm finished with that after 5th edition. It's like arguing about a tricycle's pedals not being greased enough, while I can easily step into a shiny Ferrarri over here. It's like a future space man going to the past and getting into a debate with bronze-age shepherds about the nature of the universe.

The big problem with D&D rules is that they're turn-based, which is a pointless limitation for a computer game that is wholly unnecessary. The only thing that will matter in the future regarding D&D are the IPs that its associated with, and how well those are rendered into games, and how successful those games are.

Rodney Thompson is probably realizing this now, how much more intricate videogames are to TTRPG rules, making them quaint by comparison, an anachronism if we're truly being honest. He jumped ship at a good time, before becoming fossilized in a more or less irrelevant and dwindling, market. A market that's probably doomed, and was from the start. It's had a good run though. I hope to play maybe one or two more full campaigns before hanging up my dice bag and moving on to greener pastures.

At a certain point, it's inevitable that most will be forced to admit it's time to put those horse carriages away and pick up a Ford. You can always go up to a farm once in a blue moon, but to get to work, you're going to have to commute like everybody else. And you might not even have a choice. The more people migrate to VR for their fantasy, the less of a market there will be, the less products will be produced, the less players there will be to find, and the futility of it all will finally put it out to pasture.

I see where your coming from Spin and I think we'll get there, I just think its 5 to 10 years down the line before it becomes main stream and has a low enough price point for most people to afford. I look forward to it since who wouldn't rather have their own Star Trek Holo deck to create their adventures! I'll play 5e and other TTRPGs until that day comes.
Now think of the Con atmosphere when it does get here. People walking around with head sets on or a step further, sitting at home but VRing into the Con and interacting with people the same way, buying selling etc. Fun times ahead or at least different.
 

Mike's been telling us this very exact thing for the last nine months. You just haven't wanted to believe him. ;)

Way back last year I offered a proposal for really opening up D&D to a Third Golden Age based on the Free Culture model:

Had my concept been listened to, and enacted, then last January we would have already had a "Free D&D!" community use license and a "D&D Compatible" commercial license: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/free-d-d-community-use-license

Here we are midsummer, and no D&D SRD. It's a closed system, held in a tight corporate grip. We are expected to be good D&D consumers, and build a nice Hasbro-sponsored corporate community.

These tweets seem to be PR justifications for "boardgamizing" D&D and scrapping everything which isn't maximally profitable in the short-term (Forgotten Realm APs).

As for what "fans" will support...it may be that TTRPGs simply aren't economically feasible for corporations the size of the one which Mr. Mearls represents. Might as well retool the factory to churn out D&D-branded widgets.

Frankly, if a smaller enterprise had any one of the mothballed D&D worlds in its hands, they could make a decent living, and further the cultural community which developed around those IPs. I'm reminded of how Bruce Heard pleaded for Hasbro / Mearls to let him bring back Mystara for 5E -- the world which he was largely responsible for designing -- but was totally cold shouldered.

Obviously, smaller, high-quality endeavors are doing just fine through kickstarter (Blue Rose AGE - $28,000 in two days). Though I used to love the D&D Multiverse, it's fine with me if Hasbro sinks and the D&D IP with it.
 

Here we are midsummer, and no D&D SRD. It's a closed system, held in a tight corporate grip. We are expected to be good D&D consumers, and build a nice Hasbro-sponsored corporate community.

No... they hope that those who wish to be D&D consumers and players, do so. And anyone who doesn't want to be... fine. They don't have to be. And WotC is okay with that. Everyone who falls in the latter category just has to accept that WotC is okay with them going elsewhere. But it seems as though many of them refuse to... because they still keep posting every week how they can't believe Mike & Company haven't responded in the positive to all their wants and needs. Despite the fact Mike & Company have been brutally forthright since the beginning that they weren't. So still... they post. And they post. And they post. Almost as if they think if they just post about wanting more stuff enough... WotC will eventually change their minds.

Wherein the truth is probably WotC already knows if and when they are going to produce more stuff... but they just aren't telling anyone yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:



I dont know why years 3 to 5 would be a problem.

Just reprint the core rules as 5.5e or Essential Evergreen and you are golden.
 

To me, the pachyderm squatting in the corner, is:

"yeah, current RPG fans have a script that plays out badly for publishers". (snip)

And I think that's only half of the story. I would put it like this:

"Yeah, current RPG fans have a script that plays out badly for publishers when those publishers are part of a publicly-listed toy company with unrealistic expectations about the value of a tabletop RPG, a problem that disappears when the tabletop RPG belongs, instead, to a smaller, private company."

Hasbro should sell off the rights/licence out the rights to the tabletop RPG for years 3-5+ to a smaller company. Heck, let the current employees lead a small MBO to do so. It's been established that the value is not seen to be in the tabletop RPG but in the ancillary products so monetise the tabletop game by ditching it while retaining the IP rights so that movies and toys etc... can be made.

In reality, the script playing out badly for publishers really only refers to WotC; plenty of other publishers - Paizo, Pelgrane, MCG etc... - seem to have found their niche and are thriving. It's the big corporate expectations which are WotC's problem and hiving off the tabletop RPG while retaining IP rights is the only way to deal with that.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top