D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

[Vigilance]

I think that even AD&D 1st edition should have been revised earlier. Around Unearthed Arcana, I think a new edition of that game would have done wonders for the game.

/M

I think the business folks have come to realize, looking at the way TSR did things, and the way later companies like White Wolf and SJGames did things, that they were leaving a lot of money on the table by 10+ year edition cycles.

The WoD proved that people were willing to buy editions much closer together.

Heck, the d20 Star Wars game proved it. I bought all three SW core books, and so I'm one of those guilty of incentivizing Wizards' current behavior

Of course, since I *liked* all three SW books, I don't really have a problem with that.

 

[Nifft]

It might seem strange, but it is entirely possible to be aware of the general idea of the commercial realities governing the releases of D&D, and still be excited about the changes to the game.

True dat.

Capitalism is excusable only and exactly because it is a mechanism for turning greed into productivity. We don't have to like greed, but we're free to like the results of its domestication.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Vigilance]

True dat.

Capitalism is excusable only and exactly because it is a mechanism for turning greed into productivity. We don't have to like greed, but we're free to like the results of its domestication.

Cheers, -- N

Also, I'm not even sure Wizards *IS* greedy.

Unless paying your employees a living wage and actually *gasp* granting them benefits instead of expecting them to do it "for the love of the game" is what we mean by greed now.

 

[DaveMage]

Also, I'm not even sure Wizards *IS* greedy.

Unless paying your employees a living wage and actually *gasp* granting them benefits instead of expecting them to do it "for the love of the game" is what we mean by greed now.

Oh, I don't think they're greedy (per se). But the size of their staff and the profitability requirements they have set for D&D may be forcing them to make product decisions based more on the bottom line than what would otherwise be good for the game and the consumer.

Since I believe that such damaging decisions are indeed taking place, I think that this will be their (or at least D&D's) downfall.

We'll see if I'm right within about 2 years, I'd guess.

 

[Nifft]

Also, I'm not even sure Wizards *IS* greedy.

Unless paying your employees a living wage and actually *gasp* granting them benefits instead of expecting them to do it "for the love of the game" is what we mean by greed now.

That's largely irrelevant to the argument, though -- up the ownership chain of WotC -> Hasbro -> stockholders, there's gonna be some greed.

I'm just saying that even if everyone at WotC were motivated exclusively by greed -- which I don't for a second actually believe -- the fruits of their labor would not therefore be "tainted".

It's been pointed out many times by now: if you want to make money, you don't go into the business of making RPGs. Anyone working in the industry just for the money is insane.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Vigilance]

Oh, I don't think they're greedy (per se). But the size of their staff and the profitability requirements they have set for D&D may be forcing them to make product decisions based more on the bottom line than what would otherwise be good for the game and the consumer.

So, they're not greedy but the fact that they want a large, well-paid staff of the best designers they can hire, supported by the best artists and graphic designers in the industry causes them to do things that are bad for the game AND the fans while they chase that unrealistic goal of profitability?

Huh.

I was always under the assumption that hiring the best writers, artists and graphic designers around *was* good for the industry (since those people could at least aspire to something approaching an actual job) and *especially* good for the fans.

Again, the notion that any game company should be just struggling to get by or something is wrong. Either they're T$R, or Ha$bro, or their goals for profitability are just so unrealistic!

 

[DaveMage]

So, they're not greedy but the fact that they want a large, well-paid staff of the best designers they can hire, supported by the best artists and graphic designers in the industry causes them to do things that are bad for the game AND the fans while they chase that unrealistic goal of profitability?

Pretty much.

I was always under the assumption that hiring the best writers, artists and graphic designers around *was* good for the industry (since those people could at least aspire to something approaching an actual job) and *especially* good for the fans.

Again, the notion that any game company should be just struggling to get by or something is wrong. Either they're T$R, or Ha$bro, or their goals for profitability are just so unrealistic!

I think you're overstating it. I'm not saying they have to be poor - or even just "get by".

(And I'd also argue that they don't *have* the best writers in the industry - though they do have good ones - but that's a matter of taste.)

Somewhere in the distant past Monte Cook made a point about this. He said (IIRC) that the best thing for the game would be in the hands of a smaller company that didn't have the fiscal damands of WotC/Hasbro (though he did realize that some things would be lost as well).

But since you may be coming at it from a writer/publisher's point of view, I understand your exasperation with what I'm saying. For me as a consumer only, something feels wrong about this whole thing to me - and I won't support it.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I think the business folks have come to realize, looking at the way TSR did things, and the way later companies like White Wolf and SJGames did things, that they were leaving a lot of money on the table by 10+ year edition cycles.

More evidence for the possibility that the 'ten-year cycle' is an aberration--I have found documented proof that 2nd Edition was in the works and known to the Dragon-reading public by the latter half of 1986 ("Letters", DRAGON #114, October 1986). In other words, about the same distance from 1E that the 4E announcement was from 3.0, and I still think those with access to older issues of Dragon might be able to document news of it from a year or two before that. Given the slower pace of communication, data correlation, and production in the late 80s, it begins to feel less like 4E is a rush and more that 2E was gotten ought as soon as was feasible.

In addition, there is evidence that Unearthed Arcana was more of a core book than a 'typical' supplement, given that I've seen characters in later 1E modules (I10 and OP1, to be precise) who depend on it. Perhaps 3.5E differs from that book only in being somewhat more extensive and in weaving the changes through the 3 core books instead of localizing them in a supplement?