Pathfinder 1E Question for the Paizo folks regarding D&D's state of today

[Celtavian]

re

A digital subscription service is more profitable than published books with lower costs associated with the delivery of new content. The model already exists for this type of delivery.

If the tools are high quality, digital D&D would take off.

I still believe the most profitable way to use an intellectual property like D&D and its vast archives is to turn it into an MMORPG like World of Warcraft. The initial investment would be high, but the profits would be enormous if the company didn't cut corners and gave it to highly competent MMORPG designers.

The biggest problem most companies have competing against World of Warcraft is capitalization and quality. Blizzard is a video game company with high standards. They don't release product unless it is pretty darn clean and ready to go. They cut on content a little, but overall they have maintained a high quality game.

Initially Everquest did the same. They were capitalized by Sony. Sony didn't skimp. They spent the money to make the game go. It paid off big.

If Hasbro wants to compete with the big boy MMORPGs, they are going to have spend big money. But if they make the right decisions choosing game designers and don't skimp, I think D&D could rival World of Warcraft and eventually claim the MMORPG throne.

Imagine the limitless content for game designers to play with, the limitless creatures. Expansion packs built around the various world areas like The Dalelands or The Underdark. And quest lines built around Against the Giants, Temple of Elemental Evil, and the like.

It was D&D that inspired many of the designers of fantasy MMORPGs. Yet the grand daddy of RPG gaming hasn't been able to have a strong presence in the MMORPG market because no one has properly used and capitalized a D&D MMORPG.

Someone has to see the value there. I don't for the life of me understand why that value is being left sitting on the scrap heap. Some idgit in Hasbro/WotC created the Eberron setting to be like World of Warcraft rather than realizing the Forgotten Realms has a huge amount of already created content as well as novel lines and loved characters to build the ultimate MMORPG around.

The only reason I can see for why Hasbro hasn't capitalized is because some corporate guy is saying "I want a world like WoW with trains and technology mixed with magic" rather than going with the unique aspect of Forgotten Realms and the massive archive of material. It's ridiculous how stupid businessmen in general.

Give me a worthy budget and the time I could turn D&D and the Forgotten Realms using the 4E ruleset into an MMORPG that would draw MMORPG players like flies to fresh corpse.

I dream of expansion packs when I think of D&D. The Underdark I would save for years knowing that was my trump card for drawing the masses in. Then once they are all sucked in, I give them Planescape and Sigil.

The base world of Faerun with the Dalelands, Cormyr, and north of the Dalelands as the starting pack.

Then I go with the Sword Coast expansion. Then the Frozen North. Once the game really gets going. I get to toss out The Underdark followed up with the beginnings of Planescape and Sigil to start things off.

Then I roll into the Blood War expansions. The Abyss and the Nine Hells.

Man, so much material for an MMORPG that would make WoW look like a small child playing at world building with clay. The grand daddy of RPGs has the best material for an MMORPG and they are doing nothing with it.

How pathetic.

It drives me mad I don't have the money to purchase the D&D intellectual property from Hasbro/WotC knowing how much money could be made off of it in an MMORPG.

I salivate at the idea of a Blood War expansion pack where you get to join the war between the demons and devils. I would not only be helping build the game, I would be playing the game like a madman. How I would love to see a Balor or Marilith brought to life. Or see raid bosses like Asmodeus or Graz'zt. Or see true beholders in action. That would be so damn fun.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Uh, there is a D&D MMO that has just tripled revenue by going FTP. And two upcoming D&D games - one an online-persistent world that will support player-generated content and coop. And a downloadable game set in the Dalelands.

 

[catastrophic]

I hate to breka it to you guys but WoW is dungeons and dragons for millions of people around the world. It has completly eclipsed and replaced it. There is nothing in D&D that would be a better mmo that wow, or somehow more authentic, WoW is the king of generic fantasy and that's all she wrote.

If D&D is going to be more broadly viable property, they can't do it by taking on Wow- and guess what? Everybody at wotc and hasbro already knows this. The D&D->WoW thing is just a fantasy criticism made up by people ranting about 4e. It's got nothing to do with reality.

In reality, hasbro can't do anything with D&D in term of computer games, because another company has those rights currently. That company has been struggling to keep it's head above water, and many people think that the two recent releases (of which neverwinter is one) is just an attempt to retain the rights- there's even legal action involved iirc.

Neverwinter is being made by cryptic, who are notorious for rapidly churning out also-ran MMOs, and there isn't much chance of them doing a good job on the project- but they can do it quickly. The other game is IIRC a genertic 3rd person rpg lite action game like baldur's gate dark alliance and many other such titles.

And as noted, D&DO already exists, and recently went semi-free in a change in it's publishers policy which is apparently working very well for them.

As for wotc's actual actions, everybody is acting like they're going to stop publishing books. More likely, they'll just cut back, and at some point, their print runs might be limited to books like the essentials and red box- starter and intro kits and the like. To be frank, who cares? I like reading books, but if there's a chooice between more books, or a better margin that copanies can put into more staff and/or better stuff, I know which one I'll be choosing.

The industry can only gain from cutting it's production costs, and overcoming the limitations of conventional distribution. If you're so terribly offended by this well, I pity you. You obviously have very poor priorities for a hobby in which having a book in your hand is irelevant to the fun you're having. This is roleplaying, not a book club. What matters is what happens on the table, in the comunication of the group, and within the fictional space that permiates the game. It hardly strikes me as relevant what form your refrence material is in.

Now if they were talking about doing away with Dice, that I could see outrage about. Then again I mostly use the virtual kind, and I can report that they're every bit the fickle little bitch gods we see in their plastic predecessors.

As the complexity of the game increases (again, not trolling for a basic D&D vs 4e flamewar, but there is no arguing that 4e is more complex),

4e is certainly less complex than 3e, even if people rant and rave against many of the measures that allowed this improvement to take place.

The biggest killer for online play is that combat just is not very do-able. A nice virtual tabletop and quick combat resolution would be ideal, this means no opposed rolls, combined attack/damage rolls, and in general much faster combat.

I've been running a VTT 4e game for almost 2 years and 4e combat works just fine. It can drag at time but that has a lot more to do with other grind and drag factors people have criticised and offered solutions to; factors nearly equally at play on a real tabletop.

 

[nedjer]

There's a clear distinction between going html and going online subscription - though subscription sellers would prefer to gloss over that. Switching to a totally must be connected to play, virtual desktops, remote play model is unlikely, as it's a fundamentally different style of gaming.

What does seem highly likely is the expansion of pdf and html publishing for offline use - on grounds of simple convenience and interactive features. This is a bit of a no brainer, as shown by the convenience of simply being able to set up your own bookmarks and fit several books in one handheld device.

There will of course be a decision to take, as some publishers insist on the on-going subscriptions, being logged in, managing and customising content for you, and locking down content. While others will allow open, offline copies and modular plug-ins.

Regrettably, the subscription model has a habit of short-tailing, calling for more investment to freshen-up the content; and therefore greater costs to subscribers. 'Deluxe' TRPGs will survive, but in a world much like Eve, where the best utilities and the fanciest options, and items, are available to be bought digitally.

Sub-free, on/offline digital TRPGs present a 'player choice' option in terms of handing the content over and helping/ letting players shape the content and gameplay for themselves. This is the easier option to fund, but less appealing to larger companies as it goes against the current subs or subs or subs model employed across the entire entertainment industry.

The likeliest result is a deeper divide between young and old, as large companies chase the cash rich oldies; leaving younger players to look at the more open options or adding another three years in the family home to the ten years already incurred through an iPod 4, Sky subscriptions and, on the plus side, the free laundry service.

The family home option seems a touch ironic . . . living at home until you're 33 to get subsidised access to a game that's about exploring new worlds and new ideas . . .

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

It might be easier to find a group and play online via VTT. But i have found that people and groups generally tend to fall apart/disappear after a few sessions. There is also a lot of technical mastery involved for the GM and more constraints and requirement for preperation. The technology just isnt there yet.

 

[Hussar]

You know, I could easily see a game going primarily online, but it would have to undergo a number of changes:

Either:
A: massive reduction in complexity or
B: massive increase in computer handling combat.

The biggest killer for online play is that combat just is not very do-able. A nice virtual tabletop and quick combat resolution would be ideal, this means no opposed rolls, combined attack/damage rolls, and in general much faster combat.

The virtual tabletop is just about there. I could easily see shelling out money to play a fun module... imagine having the "read aloud" text performed by voice actors that the DM could activate with a click. All of the combat maps would be high quality, like the published battlemats...

Basically, the publisher sinks the same amount, or perhaps a litle bit more for art and voice acting, they charge the same amount for the adventures, but there is no printing costs as everything is digital.

Right now I play a one game live and one game is PbP. I could see playing multiple PbP games or live online games with only a slight improvement in technology.

I think people don't have a clear idea of what a Virtual tabletop game really is. It's not like Neverwinter Nights where you play a particular video game based around the D&D mechanics. A VTT is exactly what it says on the box. It's identical to your tabletop, only done in a virtual setup with the players obviously not sharing a single location (excepting, of course, people who use VTT's and projector setups).

There is no animation, no music, no "speeding up combat". Well, you can speed up combat a bit with the use of macros so that all I have to do is click a button and my attack roll is rolled, and the appropriate modifiers are added in.

But, the VTT itself doesn't actually do anything other than provide a tabletop gaming environment.

As far as high quality maps and the like, we're already there. One of the biggest draws for me for the Paizo adventure paths, back when Paizo did Dungeon, was their web enhancements. Cut and paste and I've got beautiful maps to use. I'd say a good half of my prep time is done in artwork for the game.

But, I don't know why you can't have opposed rolls. Existing VTT's already do that quite well.

 

[carmachu]

The online option breaks that down. Now, you can find a game and a group, that fits with your tastes and, just as importantly, fits with your schedule.

That opens D&D (and RPG's) up to entirely new market areas that have traditionally been pretty closed. I can easily see why RPG companies want to get into a more online approach. It makes too much economic sense not to.

Sucks for those who don't want online stuff in their RPG's though.

False deliema. You can get what you need online without taking products online- we're in our 30-40 range and found our game via online, but its all face to face.

Being online doent necessarily translate to virtual table top, DDI and other porducts that are online.

 

[Hussar]

But, Carmachu, while you found your group online, how does that help someone who lives in a small rural community who'd like to play D&D, but the nearest gamer is 20 kilometers away?

Or, someone who works night shifts or other odd working schedules?

Or, someone who'd like to play more times a week than his or her face to face group meets?

Being able to find gamers in your area online is fantastic, but, at the end of the day, doesn't really address the geography issue. If you're the only gamer in the area, you're pretty much SOL.

 

[carmachu]

But, Carmachu, while you found your group online, how does that help someone who lives in a small rural community who'd like to play D&D, but the nearest gamer is 20 kilometers away?

Or, someone who works night shifts or other odd working schedules?

Or, someone who'd like to play more times a week than his or her face to face group meets?

Being able to find gamers in your area online is fantastic, but, at the end of the day, doesn't really address the geography issue. If you're the only gamer in the area, you're pretty much SOL.

Quite a bit actually, helps. What you assume is that we dont have-odd schedules, rural or slower comminties or other such items.

What you dont know is, I happened to live, as I call it, a gaming dead zone. There is NOTHING around me. Nearest game store? about an hour in whatever direction, maybe 45 minutes(so thats, for you Hussar, 30-60 miles away). Howeevr both stores such monkey behinds and have done nothing for me, gaming wise for RPG's.

Online gets you people and places. I am pretty much, judging by the gamer meet up, maybe one of two for the area. I'd have to travel around anyway.

As for more then once a week? Your SOL. We're adults, time is limited. Its not college or HS anymore. Jobs, house, spouse, kids eat up alot of time. Once a week, or 2-4 a month work well for me as an adult.

So in the end? Online is ok, but will never ever take away from face to face. BTDT online gaming. Its ok in a pinch, but doesnt take the place of face to face.

Is it easy to get a group together? No but I am in a dead zone, and fit your critiera. You have to look hard and make it work, and yeah I travel 45 minutes for my game- 30+ miles each way. But its an awesome game, so I'd travel double that one for this game easy.

Games worth having take work.

 

[El Mahdi]

...I can safely say that throughout my entire lifespan, 0% of my D&D will be played online. If I can't get people to sit down at a table and play D&D with me, we'll play Savage Worlds or CoC or Traveller or something else. And if the day comes that I can't get anybody to sit down at a table and play a role playing game with me, I'll just play a minis wargame or a boardgame instead. And if the day comes when tables themselves are abolished and no one will ever sit down with me to play anything, then I'll just do something else with my time.

But I refuse to play D&D or any other tabletop game online. I'll play in my gf's freeform forum game and I'll play WoW or the equivalent, but I won't take something that is made of reality and trade it for something made of electrons. If it's already intended to be made of electrons, then fine. But I'm not trading down. That would be like using Skype with someone who was in the same room with you... just turn around and look at them! It doesn't make any sense.

I don't agree with you, but I do feel the same way (how's that for contradictory).

I feel the same as you, in that I don't want my D&D experience to be an online computer based thing. And I'll resist it for as long as I can, but it's probably inevitable.

However, contrary to my own feelings, rationally I can't agree that D&D "...is made of reality..." and not "...intended to be made of electrons...". My D&D experience, no matter the medium, is primarily within the mind of me and those who I play it with (whether DM or Player). The visuals and the special effects, the story and the interaction...they take place almost completely within our imaginations. Whether the media is provided to me in a physical book or online, that part won't change.

But like you, I don't want it only online...I want my books!...and I also will not ever predominantly play online - I require my physical table. I can use the online service as my "book", but I have to have players sitting around my physical table, with the action playing out on my game mat...or it's just not D&D to me. If our community reaches a point where I can't find anyone interested in this type of play anymore, then I'll probably hang it up also.

But Hey! As long as the two of us are still playing it on a tabletop, then it's still alive...right?! In that circumstance, where there's nobody else playing it around a table anymore, maybe the two of us can get a game going...?

So, where is Barbaria...?

...My guess is that this transition is well in progress, and is behind a lot of what has been going on with the brand lately. I don't think D&D is going away or anything crazy like that, but I think a lot of it is going to go behind an online paywall, and eventually I think a great deal of D&D play is going to take place online...

I think you're probably right, although I am no expert and my opinion carries practically zero weight. But for what it's worth, I agree.

But with that in mind, here's my message for WotC:

I, and many other gamers, do not like 4E and will never play 4E...Period!...even if it's the only game in production. I (and most other non-adopting gamers) have no animosity against it (it is after all, just a game, and didn't "do" anything to us), but it is not a fun system for us, and never will be able to fulfill what we want out of a D&D Experience.

But go ahead and move to an exclusive subscription content model. I don't like it, but it's inevitable. Eventually the whole world will be paperless, and everything will be done on some type of electronic tablet with online connectivity...so, okay. But you still have to provide the content your customers want - and for a substantial portion of your potential customer base, that is not and never will be 4E. You want the rest of these potential customers, then you have to provide online content for past editions, electronic versions of out-of-print products, and the ability to houserule online content. It needs to be adaptable to the customer. A tool by which customers can play their D&D, and not be handcuffed to your D&D. We aren't going to pay for something we don't want. We will pay for something we do want. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Most people who play past editions, prefer those editions to the exclusion of most other games. For the most part, you will not change our minds, and you will not convince us that we'll better enjoy your current offering. It's just not going to happen. If you want our money, you have to provide the game(s) we want to play.

And let's face reality, whether rational or understandable, you pissed off a lot of your potential customers by pulling pdf's. Whatever your reasons for pulling them, and whatever we think your reasons were, a fact you must accept is that a significant number of potential customers will not come back until those products return. It doesn't have to be in pdf format, despite our vocalizations over format preferences...in the end it really comes down to the fact that we just want the books back. There's just no other way around this.

Also, it's very likely a mea culpa will be expected.

But so what?! It costs you nothing, and buys you a lot of goodwill rather cheaply. If the last year or two haven't taught you that goodwill does equal profits, then I'm not sure you're capable of learning that lesson. That would be unfortunate.

Now, I can still play my D&D just fine. I still have a group, and there are still people I know who aren't interested in your D&D. We still play around our tables, using our books, and we don't need you. But if you want us to be paying subscribers...and I'm fairly sure you do...then the above is the only way you can get that to happen. If you don't want us as paying customers, then what the hell are you in business for in the first place?! Ignore this and continue on the path you've been on, and I'm pretty sure you will not remain the industry leader. Erik Mona's humbleness and statements to the contrary aside - there are other's that can, and will, fill the void. If you want to relinquish your place as the industry leader, or worse, end up as an historical entry on Wikipedia (with all the other game companies that no longer exist), then by all means, simply disregard...

So, how about a compromise between you and us...we'll accept the inevitability of subscriber based content, and you'll accept the inevitability that you can't make us want to play, what you want us to play. Then...perhaps...much fun (and money) can be had by all...