D&D 4E My Business Model For 4e

[Gentlegamer]

I don't know about "randomized collectability," but I have always thought adventure modules are the best place to introduce new rules elements, i.e. spells, treasure, magic, etc. Inclusion in a module gives the new element an immediate context and example of use in play. Later, the "best of" these new elements can be included in a new official rulebook.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I think some people are forgetting what you get in exchange for collectibility. You get affordability. Just like minis got cheaper when they started making them collectible, game rules would become cheaper. No longer would you have to shell out 30 bucks for a new splatbook to use two feats, 30 bucks for another splatbook to use three or four spells, and 30 bucks for yet another splatbook to use a prestige class. And don't tell me there are not people who do that. I know many and I know you do as well.

Minis get cheaper because they are manufactured in China and when they cast up 50,000 of a single unit they cost less then a 1 cent to make. Print costs are what they are. Its bad enough carrying around 3 rule books. You want to add reams and reams of cards? No thanks.

Secondly, your trying to add collectibility to something that can't function as a collectible product. Rules for an RPG work for the DM and the Players because there is a common ground and a level playing field where every DM knows what he wants in his game. Add collectibility to that and you lose all of that.

And don't tell me there are not people who do that. I know many and I know you do as well.

Yeah, I know people that do that and they're potato heads. If you want one or two feats, you write the rules down on an index card and you have them for reference. At least if I want that one rule I have the choice to go and buy it. Your taking it a step further in the wrong direction and telling me that if I want this one rare feat I have to spend tons of money on crap I don't want. No thanks.

I like having a choice of what I want to spend my money on. Apparently you don't like free will. Sorry to hear that.

 

[Andre]

I like having a choice of what I want to spend my money on. Apparently you don't like free will. Sorry to hear that.

No need to get personal - let's keep it civil, ok?



Airwalker, while I would love to be able to get (legal) access to just the elements I want (feats, spells, etc.) without buying an entire splatbook, I don't understand how that would work with your proposal.

Miniatures are tangible, physical items that can't be used in a game without the tangible, physical item. Feats, spells, items, etc. are ideas - I can use them whenever I want, however I want. I can create my own. I can modify them to suit my needs. I can allow some in one campaign, and ban the same ones in another. There's simply no incentive to me to buy into the collectible aspect. Quite the opposite. Do you really expect me to tell a player, "No, you can't take feat x - you don't have the feat card."

And just how am I supposed to know which ones I want? Again, miniatures are easy - if I need some ogres, I can go looking for ogre miniatures. But if I already know what a specific feat does, I don't need the card. I can just use it. And if I don't know what it does, I'm not going to buy it sight unseen. At that point, I'll just make up my own feats (which are often better balanced anyway).

Lastly, I agree what others have said - WOTC miniatures are not relatively inexpensive because they are collectible. They're inexpensive because WOTC buys them in huge lots. And while I'm sure WOTC is convinced that making them collectible has helped their sales (and they might be right about that), for myself, they've sold fewer than they otherwise would have, because I can't get the ones I want at a price I'm willing to pay. There are significant trade-offs when marketing something as collectible, and it doesn't always pay off.

 

[JVisgaitis]

No need to get personal - let's keep it civil, ok?

Lets not misconstrue things. I wasn't being personal at all. If someone prefers something that is collectible, they don't have a choice on buying exactly what they want.

Miniatures are tangible, physical items that can't be used in a game without the tangible, physical item.

That's the crux of this whole argument. People collect things that are fun to collect. Miniatures serve a purpose outside of being used for Dungeons & Dragons. There are sets and they can sit on my shelf and I can display them.

That doesn't really work for rules of a game. Its kinda like saying lets go buy a chessboard and make the rules and pieces of the game that are integral to its use collectible. The concept works great for something like Pokemon, not Dungeons & Dragons.

Don't get me wrong, I can see a concept like this for a game with huge mechanized robots that do battle in a Mad Max type world and where the cards represent unique pieces of equipment and weapons players can find to outfit their mechs. That would be cool. Requiring my Fighter to get the Weapon Specialization card so I can do extra damage with my greatsword? Um, no.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

We joked about this at Gen Con last year. "Aww, I got Cleave again? Does anyone want to trade? No dude, that's a Common...."

The dungeons with random card packs of monsters and treasure? That's a cool idea. The rest I'm not so sure about.

 

[hong]

The random dungeon packs indeed sounds great. So you might end up with a beholder, two ettins, a dire octopus and 5 kobolds, or something equally wacky. That's an opportunity and a challenge to come up with a backstory that makes those elements fit together, like the Iron DM or Ceramic DM contests. Even if you don't, it's a nifty way to generate a whimsical night's entertainment. Not all dungeons have to be super-serious and up to their eyeball (stalks) with verisimilitude.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Wow. Collectible aspects to D&D?

I can't think of a better way to piss off, alienate, and otherwise chase away a vast majority of the fan base. If you want to kill D&D's niche market, this is the way to do it.

Plus, you can't enforce it. With minis, sure, it works, because you've got the official tourneys, and you can't show up and play with smarties.

But unless they start paying DMs to keep the Law, they can't keep anyone from printing the feats off the SRD and use whatever they want.

And if they did, too many people would stick to 3e, or play something else.

 

[Ranger REG]

1) To expand the audience of adventures, they ought to include collectibles that appeal to players. Adventures should include random treasure in the form of randomly assorted items, as well as random feats or spells the players can learn from parts of the adventure. For example, location A in an adventure might have a sword master who can teach characters a random martially-oriented feat while location B might contain a treasure chest with a random magic item and location C would contain a book containing a scroll of a random spell. Items would be represented and collected by players on standard-size playing cards of varying rarity schemes.

If you are referring to stat cards of unique arms, armor or weapon that are not featured in the core rulebooks...

THAT can make adventure modules appealing. You need to randomize the item cards for each copies of the adventure module product though. For example, no two Keep on the Borderlands adventure modules would have the same exact set of item cards.

2) The game would be designed to facilitate fast combat, the longest and most involved part of the game. Rules like grappling would need to be streamlined if not overhauled completely. A basic version of the game that contains the most commonly used rules would be quite helpful for more recreational players and advanced rules should build upon the basic rules rather than supplant them. This would have the end result of making the game play faster so that more could be accomplished in a shorter amount of time. Towards this end, adventures should be designed to be completeable within a single 4 to 5 hour period. An expected play time should be listed on adventures, such as 2, 4, and 6 hours to indicate the average expected play time for the adventure. Both of these would attract older players who find the game is more accomodating to their schedule.

3) Adventures should be released as series adventures, or different levels of a dungeon. Castle Greyhawk, for example, could be released as individual levels from the three towers. This would give players a sense of continuity and shared experience. They could all talk about their experiences in Castle Ravenloft. Different adventure series could highlight different campaign settings, and grant access to different kinds of items, feats, and spells to retain setting flavor.

One-shot adventure (i.e., an adventure can can be run in one session of 3-4 hours) is good but not profitable (though Goodman Games can dispute that).

4) To provide variability to adventures and allow DMs the ability to customize their adventures, randomized packs of monsters and villains (and only monsters and villains) would be available for each adventure series including a number of creatures suitable for substitution within the adventure.

See my response to #1 above.

5) Expansion sets including items, feats, and spells serving as suitable replacements for those in the adventure would be sold. Additionally, DMs would be able to allow cards from these expansions in character building, but adventures would contain unique items that couldn't be found within the expansion sets to give people a reason to use them.

Unfortunately, the only person buying those sets would be the DM, which would account just 1 out of 4 customers in an average gaming group.

6) To improve the appeal of the collectible character building tools available, character classes should be designed to be more customizable, such as those in Star Wars. Collectible character building tools like feats and such would indicate which classes they were usable by on the card so it wouldn't be necessary to have lists like fighter bonus feats.

Need elaboration, unsure how to apply this to a D&D game or character-building.

 

[00Machado]

I think point 3 is the strongest.

I think randomized feats and magics won't fly with the fan base.

If instead, you included exclusive miniatures that were only availabe in an adventure supplement, you'd achieve your goal of selling more adventures without alienating the RPG fan base.

RPG'ers can still buy one copy of an adventure for the group. The DM can use all the miniatures. Everyone has a good time.

Miniature gamers will drive up the # of units sold of an adventure, but I figure they don't really care (much) if they're buying a booster of an adventure to get their figures, so won't be put off by the retail model. You can even have miniature scale maps be in each adventure which provides value to both groups of consumers.

Another part of the business model I'd add is online only products targeted at DMs.

If DM products sell less than player products, why not skip the printing of them. Make them available electronically. Save on printing. Make them more economically viable.
I'm mainly thinking of short format, and list/resource products here. Something like Requiem for a God, Ultimate Treasure Table, AEG toolbox, etc.

 

[KingCrab]

This would be the fastest way to ensure I didn't buy any more WotC products for the the rest of my life.