Mercurius
Legend
This is being taken from the "If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?" thread. Beginning of the End suggested that this side topic be taken up within its own thread, so I thought I'd start one.
Basically the question is this: Does an RPG company the size of Wizards of the Coast need to "re-boot" every so many years in order to survive at the same level? Or are there alternatives to an entirely new edition, and thus new product cycle?
(I'll paste some context from that thread at the end of this post; I would put it into a hidden "spoiler" tag but I'm unsure how to do so).
Let's go a bit further with this. Let's go back to 2006 or 2007. 3.5E products are rapidly coming out, with hundreds--if not thousands--of OGL products on the market. It is becoming more and more difficult to come up with viable products to sell, if only because each product becomes more and more specialized. It is probable that if something isn't done to revitalize sales, the company will lead to the inevitable downsizing. What to do?
The easiest and most assuredly profitable thing to do would be to make a new edition, and one different enough to encourage people to buy new products. This may also be the least creative option in that it essentially allows the company to remake the wheel once again; instead of the Complete Warrior you have Martial Power; instead of Manual of the Planes you have, well, Manual of the Planes.
But again, the question: What would the alternative be? That is, assuming that you want to keep the company viable and roughly the same size. One alternative would be, instead of creating a 4E, creating a 3.75E, or another revised version of 3rd edition. This would allow some re-doings of splat books, but not the entire line. It also may limit the sales of new products if they aren't needed to play the new revised game.
Another alternative would be to put more focus on campaign settings, adventures, encounter and scenario books, and other products like dungeon tiles. Sounds good, but how profitable is it?
Yet another option, as Beginning of the End stated, would be to take the Magic of Incarnum approach, or even books like Weapons of Legacy or The Book of Nine Swords. This would put the emphasis on quality over quantity, on new ways of playing the same basic game, rather than just piling on more and more options - feats, builds, monsters, etc.
I would agree completely with Beginning of the End that WotC overly focuses on new crunch, on more feats, more Complete-this or X-Power that, which is why I don't buy the "Power" books for 4E. Personally speaking I would rather see far fewer feats, but make them more generalized and customizable. But that's a digression.
I think there is a good argument that with 4E, WotC not only took the easy way out but did so a bit too quickly, that they could have waited another year or two. But even if they had created more Magic of Incarnums, more campaign settings and adventures, eventually sales would have dwindled (if they weren't already). Products would have become increasingly specialized, bought and used only by niche markets. If 90% of 3.5E players owned a Player's Handbook, how many owned Magic of Incarnum? 10%? I have no idea, but it must be rather small.
I am of two minds on this. On one hand, I would like to see WotC focus more on Magic of Incarnum type products, on new ways to play D&D, whether new settings, new magic systems, or new genres or styles of play. On the other hand, there is also the reality of the market, which is that the most profitable thing that WotC can do is reboot the whole game, and thus the whole product line. Of course this has its own problems - an initial surge in sales will lead to new hires, but then we see the yearly layoffs after the initial sales spike and then inevitable decline.
So what is the answer? I honestly don't know, although as I have said a few times now, I do think new editions are necessary in order to keep the game and company from stagnating, although when a new edition is due is debatable. The problem, of course, is that just as a new edition is an obvious opportunity for innovation, it also has the potential for stagnation; it is much easier to come out with a line of Martial Powers than Magic of Incarnums. Just as it is easier to mine the 35+ year history of campaign settings and re-create Eberron or Dark Sun than it is to come up with something new.
I do have my own criticisms of Wizards of the Coast and what I feel is a generally overly conservative approach. But I understand the need for it and rather than choosing either/or, either we follow the same pattern of 7-8 year edition re-boots and product cycles or we take the same game and endlessly tinker with it and add new supplements, I don't see why both can't happen. Yes, come out with new editions, integrate new innovations, try new game mechanics, but also don't be afraid to go in new directions, come out with new products, and for the good of all, stop wasting precious game designer time and energy on Martial Power 6!
I'll leave it there for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically the question is this: Does an RPG company the size of Wizards of the Coast need to "re-boot" every so many years in order to survive at the same level? Or are there alternatives to an entirely new edition, and thus new product cycle?
(I'll paste some context from that thread at the end of this post; I would put it into a hidden "spoiler" tag but I'm unsure how to do so).
Let's go a bit further with this. Let's go back to 2006 or 2007. 3.5E products are rapidly coming out, with hundreds--if not thousands--of OGL products on the market. It is becoming more and more difficult to come up with viable products to sell, if only because each product becomes more and more specialized. It is probable that if something isn't done to revitalize sales, the company will lead to the inevitable downsizing. What to do?
The easiest and most assuredly profitable thing to do would be to make a new edition, and one different enough to encourage people to buy new products. This may also be the least creative option in that it essentially allows the company to remake the wheel once again; instead of the Complete Warrior you have Martial Power; instead of Manual of the Planes you have, well, Manual of the Planes.
But again, the question: What would the alternative be? That is, assuming that you want to keep the company viable and roughly the same size. One alternative would be, instead of creating a 4E, creating a 3.75E, or another revised version of 3rd edition. This would allow some re-doings of splat books, but not the entire line. It also may limit the sales of new products if they aren't needed to play the new revised game.
Another alternative would be to put more focus on campaign settings, adventures, encounter and scenario books, and other products like dungeon tiles. Sounds good, but how profitable is it?
Yet another option, as Beginning of the End stated, would be to take the Magic of Incarnum approach, or even books like Weapons of Legacy or The Book of Nine Swords. This would put the emphasis on quality over quantity, on new ways of playing the same basic game, rather than just piling on more and more options - feats, builds, monsters, etc.
I would agree completely with Beginning of the End that WotC overly focuses on new crunch, on more feats, more Complete-this or X-Power that, which is why I don't buy the "Power" books for 4E. Personally speaking I would rather see far fewer feats, but make them more generalized and customizable. But that's a digression.
I think there is a good argument that with 4E, WotC not only took the easy way out but did so a bit too quickly, that they could have waited another year or two. But even if they had created more Magic of Incarnums, more campaign settings and adventures, eventually sales would have dwindled (if they weren't already). Products would have become increasingly specialized, bought and used only by niche markets. If 90% of 3.5E players owned a Player's Handbook, how many owned Magic of Incarnum? 10%? I have no idea, but it must be rather small.
I am of two minds on this. On one hand, I would like to see WotC focus more on Magic of Incarnum type products, on new ways to play D&D, whether new settings, new magic systems, or new genres or styles of play. On the other hand, there is also the reality of the market, which is that the most profitable thing that WotC can do is reboot the whole game, and thus the whole product line. Of course this has its own problems - an initial surge in sales will lead to new hires, but then we see the yearly layoffs after the initial sales spike and then inevitable decline.
So what is the answer? I honestly don't know, although as I have said a few times now, I do think new editions are necessary in order to keep the game and company from stagnating, although when a new edition is due is debatable. The problem, of course, is that just as a new edition is an obvious opportunity for innovation, it also has the potential for stagnation; it is much easier to come out with a line of Martial Powers than Magic of Incarnums. Just as it is easier to mine the 35+ year history of campaign settings and re-create Eberron or Dark Sun than it is to come up with something new.
I do have my own criticisms of Wizards of the Coast and what I feel is a generally overly conservative approach. But I understand the need for it and rather than choosing either/or, either we follow the same pattern of 7-8 year edition re-boots and product cycles or we take the same game and endlessly tinker with it and add new supplements, I don't see why both can't happen. Yes, come out with new editions, integrate new innovations, try new game mechanics, but also don't be afraid to go in new directions, come out with new products, and for the good of all, stop wasting precious game designer time and energy on Martial Power 6!
I'll leave it there for now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My assertion still stands that the ire directed towards WotC for coming out with 4E is misplaced. Why? Because of something I stated earlier and is key to this whole discussion, IMHO: If Wizards of the Coast had not come out with 4E, D&D would have stagnated and eventually declined into another "Dark Age."
As I said, maybe 2008 was too soon. 2009 might have been better, but 2010 would have been high time and 2011 might have been too late. A company simply cannot retain its size without or revitalizing their product in some way, and in the case of an RPG company that means re-booting the system, starting the product cycle all over again.
Can we agree that this is a necessity? 3.5 was getting awfully close to being tapped out; sure, they could have come out with another new setting or two, but what about crunch? How many splats could they possibly have published? Things were already starting to get watered down.
I am not saying that WotC could not have handled things better. Sure, they could have. They could have offered a new OGL, or at least grandfathered in established d20 publishers. Maybe they could have made a 3.75E instead of a 4E, but I would argue that this would have merely delayed the inevitable.
4E was necessary. I would even say that the degree to which it was a new game and not merely a new edition was also necessary to enable a full re-booting (although I still don't agree that the difference between 3.5E and 4E is greater than 2E and 3E).
I think this a discussion which might require a separate thread, because it's a very different claim from the one that started the thread and about which people are still arguing.
I think there are a lot of separate issues being crammed into this statement:
(1) Did 4E need to be such a radical departure from previous editions in order to reboot the supplements? I would argue no. There's a gray area between "slaughtering sacred cows" and "designing a completely new fantasy RPG and putting the D&D trademark on it", but I think 4E leans pretty heavily towards the latter.
(2) Does an RPG line need to be periodically "rebooted" in order to succeed? I'm not completely convinced that this is true. Although it probably is true when you just keep piling mechanical content on top of your core content like so many Jenga towers.
Take a book like Magic of Incarnum, for example. It was generally well received, but it suffered from the same problem of most such products in D&D: While the sorcerers and wizards are supported by additional content from dozens of supplements, the incarnum-based classes are left with just the one book.
But what if the entire D&D product line looked more like Magic of Incarnum and less like Complete Warrior? Where each supplement was a unique concept and you would never ask the question, "How many more fighter feats do I really need?" Successful supplements could be kept in print; less successful supplements could simply fade into the past.
D&D has suffered from mechanical concepts which have allowed for "low calorie" supplements (more kits! more feats! more prestige classes! more spells!). And when you're doing that you can, in fact, saturate your market. But if you're providing content which isn't just "more of the same", then saturating your market is like saying that you periodically need to reboot English and replace it with a new language because you've saturated the book market with too much content.