Not Reading Ryan Dancy

[Maggan]

I'd drop D&D in favor of their other lines, even if that makes me an outcast of the D&D "in" crowd.

It'd make you as much of an outcast as you yourself chose to be. Not many people on EN World has problems with people playing earlier editions. Some even play earlier editions in addition to playing the latest edition. And some, like me, play other games as well as D&D.

Doesn't make me an outcast.

EDIT: It does seem as if opting to play a new edition would make me an outcast in some circles, though.

/M

 

[Melan]

The 1e PHB supposedly sold about 200,000 units per year for multiple years in a row. That sort of consistency would certainly work fine to support a company.

According to the Acaeum,

In 1989, TSR sold something like 1,000,000 copies of the D&D boxed set in one year.

That's not just 200.000 copies, that's five times as much, years after the huge D&D boom. Plus Basic D&D didn't just sell X copies, it gently guided new gamers towards other lines (Advanced D&D and so on). For all the talk about being an industry giant, WotC doesn't seem to be thinking big on this scale. Per the same page:

Currently, I think they're selling at least 150,000 to 200,000 Players Handbooks per year (probably more with the 3.5 release).

How about selling a million copies of a well designed basic set? We don't know how profitable that Basic set was, but I suppose with those kinds of print runs, there must have been very good economies of scale. Could it be that while everyone keeps thinking about the "advanced" line, it was an evergreen starters' box which was raking in the dough?

 

[Melan]

Not the mid 90's try mid 80's. D&D struggled with a bad rep for many years.

However, there is a world of difference between "bad and cool" and "bad and pathetic". The first drives sales, the second can kill a company.

 

[Maggan]

Could it be that while everyone keeps thinking about the "advanced" line, it was an evergreen starters' box which was raking in the dough?

That's what I think. Without anything to back it up other than a vague recollection of how I and others I know got into D&D.

/M

 

[delericho]

Out of curiosity (if you don't mind answering), how many 3.5 (both WotC and other companies) adventures would you say you had?

Just adventures?

Well, I have every Dungeon since 3.0 was released within easy reach, I have maybe 5 D&D adventures for 3.5, plus the eight 3.0 "Adventure Path" modules and RttToEE, and about half a dozen third-party adventures. This excludes PDFs, but I don't have many of those.

The main things I'm looking to buy this year are adventures. But it's difficult to justify - running a Dungeon Adventure Path takes about a year, and I only have time to be involved in one face-to-face campaign per year. (I might have time to add one online campaign... but my Stone Age PC wouldn't be up to running the software.)

 

[DaveMage]

Just adventures?

Well, I have every Dungeon since 3.0 was released within easy reach, I have maybe 5 D&D adventures for 3.5, plus the eight 3.0 "Adventure Path" modules and RttToEE, and about half a dozen third-party adventures. This excludes PDFs, but I don't have many of those.

The main things I'm looking to buy this year are adventures. But it's difficult to justify - running a Dungeon Adventure Path takes about a year, and I only have time to be involved in one face-to-face campaign per year. (I might have time to add one online campaign... but my Stone Age PC wouldn't be up to running the software.)

I asked because I think the more adventures one has, the more likely that they don't want a revision. Some people (which, unfortunately doesn't include me) are very good at doing conversions on the fly. They can take an adventure from any edition - even other game systems - and adapt them quickly to whatever game they are playing. For those of us who can't, a new edition essentially makes our collection unusable (beyond providing inspiration).

Your point about justifying buying adventure paths is a very good one. I have 7 super adventures of which I will be able to run one in the next year or so (World's Largest Dungeon, Rappan Athuk Reloaded, Shackled City, Ptolus, The Accordlands campaign, The Drow War, and Ruins of the Dragon Lord). The "Expedition" series from WotC is also producing some fine stuff. If there's a new edition coming soon, and it invalidates these adventures as playable (with the new rule set), then I have a tough decision to make regarding switching. If the business model effectively nullifies my ability to use these products during the lifespan of an edition, then I either have to stop buying mega-adventures, or not upgrade. A tough choice.

It's to the point that I hope 4E makes such a radical change that I lose interest.

 

[RyanD]

In 1989, TSR sold something like 1,000,000 copies of the D&D boxed set in one year.

That data is inaccurate. There was a year where more than 1 million D&D boxed sets were sold, but it wasn't 1989. 1979 is more like it. It was an exception to the trend. The data may be in error, or it might represent a 1 time mass market sale of some kind. The data we had from TSR's old computer system was inconclusive.

Ryan

 

[Lord Rasputin]

I'd like to see a game that you can play either on the tabletop, or on the computer. Ideally, you could move characters back and forth between the tabletop and the digital realm, but that might be impossible. You should certainly be able to use one unified toolset to create adventure content that would work both on the tabletop and in the digital realm.

So, what you're saying is a game that lets GMs create their own MORPGs for their personal groups, sort of an RAD for tabletop RPGs. Say, the GM makes a scenario for Greyhawk Online, which has a bunch of locations and NPCs and items predeveloped. He makes a few extra NPCs and tweaks some others to fit his agenda, and sets up a few encounters. He then has his group create their characters, which uses a client that has a D20-based generation system with a visual representation and maybe a few personality traits added (many of the NPCs would be 'bots for ease of GMing, and extending that to the PCs lets a game continue with a missing player's character going as a bot); GURPS with pictures, perhaps.

Now, everyone logs into the server, which has some sort of MMORPG subscription service. Game play works something like RPGs over IRC/AIM/whatever chat system, but there is a visual representation of the game, with sound and actual spoken dialog (customized voices, not just customized pictures ... now everyone is a Real Roleplayer using a funny voice!), so you can actually see combat or NPCs, like a MMORPG. Some of the game can happen without GM input after he has used the electronic tools to create the scenario, so even he can go have a sandwich while everyone else is kicking butt.

(No, this isn't wholly spontaneous; I've been thinking about this for awhile.)

 

[helium3]

(No, this isn't wholly spontaneous; I've been thinking about this for awhile.)

You and everyone else.

 

[ashockney]

I got the feeling from his previous posts around here that he had some personal stake in a new form of CRPG that more closely simulated a tabletop experience but divorced gaming from the requirement of a facilitator/DM. I wouldn't be surprised if what he is predicting coincidentally comes to fruition about the same time some company he is in bed with releases a product to the market. Frankly, his call for transparency with GAMA came true, too, though not in the same sense as some believed he meant.

So, RyanD, you've predicted a new "revolutionary" hobby game segment, that will breakthrough in the $5 million tier in 2007. Has Mark CMG nailed it, or did you have something else specific in mind?

If neither of the above, where is the prediction coming from, observance of overall market saturation or perhaps discussions with game companies who are focused on the truly "innovative"?