Not Reading Ryan Dancy

[jodyjohnson]

The main avenue seems to be releasing products that make the core experience better.

Which relies more on scattershot supplements which not everyone will buy.

For every game-improving supplement you release it becomes harder to make the next one even better.


I think the stategy from WotC right now is target the player with new options and target the DM with supplements that make running the game easier and more fun (new format adventures, stat block revisions, even mini cards).

Problem is that the first half (new player options) is sucking any gains in the second into the void.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Again--why do I NEED a distributor? Why would the lack thereof drive the hobby into a downspiral???

Because the lack of a distributor would crush every small company in existence. Do you enjoy purchase stuff from small companies like mine? If you do, we need distributors. We sold about 700 books through distribution in 2 months. Through the internet and backed by dozens of great feedback and praise we've sold maybe 50 in 3 years.

If we were to release a print product without putting it to distribution, we wouldn't even bother and we'd be doing something else. No matter how giant the d20 market is, its extremely difficult to get people to know about your company and your products. If I had a marketing guru on staff like Ryan, we would certainly do a lot better.

Since Inner Circle is a few guys in a garage, we're all wearing tons of hats and trying to learn as we go. A distributor helps us get our product in the hands of gamers everywhere and without them, we wouldn't be in business.

 

[charlesatan]

What if I sell on the internet. Marketing is horrible on the internet??? Maybe in pure dollars terms compared to what's spent on TV, but since the price of a TV ad is beyond the scope of even the big six--of what consequence is that? The internet is supposed to be a hot-bed of innovation. A way for dreams to be born. Isn't the bottom line of your predictions just that bad business savvy and a wont to live in the past is what's shackling the potential of the gaming industry? You seem to want new games and new ways to play them. Capitalism supports what works and kills what doesn't. Towards that end, I say again, that any potential gloom in your 07 predictions is only good! Maybe I can't exactly describe in what ways the downfall of entrenched gaming companies will foster new games and new market growth--but I will stand by my statement that some serious trouble at the top can only open up the potential of the new blood that carries the greatest potential of innovating the whole industry. My keystone for the next year or two in my own consumer-minded interest in gaming will be on the small start-ups like Corvus Belli (admittely, European). But, there will always be disposable cash, unless we start putting lead in our pipes and go out like the Romans, and we've got some 25 years--supposing nobody joins the hobby (I think we're ridiculously loyal to the IDEA of gaming)--where we'll still have a widespread gaming community to tap for potential cash-flow when developing that new game that will capture the next generation.

I think you're confusing marketing with advertising. Marketing is a bit wider in scope, and is considered with the public image of the game/company/the individual.

Here's what I inferred from Ryan's post (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of my assuptions):

1) In terms of sheer profits/sales, yes, the Internet works. That's what he meant when he said "making sales".

2) This is where the marketing part comes in. What's your concept of D&D? It's a tabletop game, played with other people with other people in real life. That idea is the result of good marketing. It's not a likely possibility as of the moment, but let's assume all the retailers have gone and the only place you can get your RPG fix is on the Internet (via sites like EnWorld or Amazon or DriveThruRPG for example). When that happens, you're changing the marketing of D&D. Is it still a tabletop game? Yes. But you're muddling the "playing with other people in real life" because sadly (and I'm not saying it has to be) shopping on the Internet isn't a group thing, it's a solo act. Sure, we have Private Messaging, chatting, boards and the like to communicate with other people but there's also the possibility that it's really just you in your birthday suit and all you're really staring at is the monitor and some sites. That's time you're not with your gaming buddies playing tabletops or shopping for table top paraphernalia. Suddenly, D&D books simply seem like game books which you read for yourself and not actually get to actually use in group play. Granted this is all an exagerration and over-simplification. But there's a real dynamic with meeting people in real life and playing a game, or meeting fellow hobbyists in a store (much in the same way people congregate at EnWorld).

3) There's also the browsing part. When I'm in the bookstore or a gaming store, sometimes I don't know what to buy. Honestly it's easier for me to browse through a shelf rather than to browse through web pages because of its near-infinite content. If I know what I'm getting, it's not a problem but for people who want to impulse buy (or get lured by it), the retailers are key.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I am of two minds about "4th Edition".
What I'd like to see is a "4th Edition" which hybridizes MMORPG play and tabletop play, with an RPGA moderation facility, that uses on-line tools to create characters and scenarios, and focuses on bringing the best elements of the tabletop and the digital environments together under the most powerful brand in fantasy adventure gaming. If you ever see a notice that WotC has hired me back to run RPGs, that's the direction I'll be looking to move.
Ryan

I REALLY hope that D&D doesn't head in this direction and, as it becomes more and more tied to miniature play, find myself drifting away from it in search of a system that is more roleplaying/story driven rather than being some fusion of wargaming/MMORPGs.

Castles & Crusades, warts and all, is (too me) a step in the right direction.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

Second, I think WotC may actually try to make "Dungeons & Dragons" mean "a miniatures game with roleplaying", and I could see them creating a whole new way of presenting D&D in a miniatures-centric way that would be worth calling the line "4th Edition".

Those are my thoughts as well.

I think there's a good chance, probably 50/50, that we'll see a 3.75 kind of release in 2007 or 2008. A new set of core books, revised, but basically the same game we already have. I think that product will not be called "4th Edition", nor will it be marketed as 4th Edition.

I disagree on this one, though. My guess is that it will be called 4th edition. However, if there is a 3.75, I'm betting it'll be called PHB III and DMG III (and MM MCXXVII).

 

[Echohawk]

I disagree on this one, though. My guess is that it will be called 4th edition. However, if there is a 3.75, I'm betting it'll be called PHB III and DMG III (and MM MCXXVII).

I'm betting on "Player's Handbook Revised" with no specific number on it. (And the same for the MM and DMG, obviously.)

 

[WayneLigon]

That's a leap I do not believe actually follows. Some, perhaps even many, might play an Internet game as a alternative when a tabletop game canot be found but those who enjoy tabletop RPGs, IME, do not view online gaming as an actual substitute or preference.

I have to agree with this. I'm pretty active on the net but I don't do a lot of gaming on it; it's just not set up to replicate the tabletop experience. I play in a couple of text-based games (MUSH/MUX, not MUD). I've played in a couple PBP games. Neither come even within a whisper of the tabletop experience.

I've played in things like Fantasy Grounds and a couple other similar things: they allow me to get together with people I couldn't ordinarily game with but the experience is excruciatingly slow. I put up with it briefly, but it's much like a MUSH: you get done in an hour what it takes seconds to do on tabletop.

Plus, at least one person in my group will not use a PC; the only reason he even touches one is because his work demands it. Otherwise, nada.

 

[thedungeondelver]

"The biggest competitor to 3E wasn't White Wolf, or Palladium, or any other publisher's game. It was 2E, and 1E, and OD&D."

Boy this gave me pause. Is that why those systems were buried?

 

[Glyfair]

"The biggest competitor to 3E wasn't White Wolf, or Palladium, or any other publisher's game. It was 2E, and 1E, and OD&D."

Boy this gave me pause. Is that why those systems were buried?

I think buried is too strong a word, but yes. When 3E came out many of the public WotC staff stated that earlier editions would not be supported because they didn't want to split their market.

I know, for example, there was a call for 2E adventures in Dungeon along with 3E adventures. That's one case where I know that reason was given.

 

[kenobi65]

I have to agree with this. I'm pretty active on the net but I don't do a lot of gaming on it; it's just not set up to replicate the tabletop experience. I play in a couple of text-based games (MUSH/MUX, not MUD). I've played in a couple PBP games. Neither come even within a whisper of the tabletop experience.

I've played in things like Fantasy Grounds and a couple other similar things: they allow me to get together with people I couldn't ordinarily game with but the experience is excruciatingly slow. I put up with it briefly, but it's much like a MUSH: you get done in an hour what it takes seconds to do on tabletop.

There's a group of folks that I've become good friends with over the years, through online (chatroom-based) play. The group evolved out of a couple of groups that were playing RPGA modules together online; we still do that, though some of us have started an "online home game", as well.

I concur that it's not as good as F2F play, and can be painfully slow and frustrasting sometimes, but the comraderie makes it worthwhile, at least for me. And, I'm able to play F2F with many of these folks once or twice a year, which is a real treat.