Re-booting D&D with a new edition - how necessary is it?

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

From a business standpoint, the problem is simple: maintaining a revenue stream.

In a niche market like RPGs, you saturate the market with product very quickly. Once everyone who is apt to play has a PHB, sales of the PHB plummet, and revenue drops. Up until recently, there's only been one handy solution - release a new edition to drive sales of new products.

It is possible that the DDI subscription model might make a big dent in the need to put out new editions.
 

It is possible that the DDI subscription model might make a big dent in the need to put out new editions.

Based on performance in this area I don't think there is much faith in this model. Content is on the decline and possibly an indicator that resources are being directed elsewhere to minimize investment in it. Collectible cards will be the next attempt at steady revenue and if they don't take off, who knows?
 

From a business standpoint, the problem is simple: maintaining a revenue stream.

In a niche market like RPGs, you saturate the market with product very quickly. Once everyone who is apt to play has a PHB, sales of the PHB plummet, and revenue drops. Up until recently, there's only been one handy solution - release a new edition to drive sales of new products.

It is possible that the DDI subscription model might make a big dent in the need to put out new editions.

Yes, the problem is simple but the solution is rather difficult, especially when you have hordes of nerds ready to explode with rage if you make a wrong move! :lol:

My sense is that there is no one cureall, whether DDI, collectible cards (haven't heard that idea before - is there any truth to that?), or any other gimmick. As I've said, I think re-boot on some level is inevitable; or rather, multiple re-boots, both relatively small (2E black books, 3.5, Essentials) and large (3E and 4E).

3E came out in 2000, with 3.5 in 2003, then 4E in 2008. That's three years between a large re-boot and a small re-boot, and then five years between a small and a large re-boot. Now we have 4E in 2008 and Essentials in 2010 - with about two and a half years between a large and a small re-boot. This would imply that the next large re-boot would be a bit sooner than last time, maybe 2014 or early 2015. In other words:

If:

3E --> 3.5E = 3 years; and 3.5 --> = 5 years

and if:

4E --> Essentials = 2.5 years

then:

Essentials ---> 5E = 4 years?

Who the fxxx knows!!!
 

I think 3.5 was almost bloated to death not because it was a bad system, but because it wasn't a modular system. In that case, in order to maintain/increase the revenue stream, a new edition was vitaly important.

4E did some very basic, very important things right: modular design and the Character Builder basically from the get-go.

With a modular design, there's more design space to work with and we're seeing one such example with the Essentials line. WotC can approach the class and game from a myriad of angles now while not invalidating or marginalizing previous material.

The Character Builder is also a great addition. And it's a renewal subscription resource, leveling sales curves and a way to show steady income and growth rather than trying to extraoplate from spurts.

Will they need a new edition any time soon? Not likely, but that has as much or more to do with the system design as not.
 

Create more games, maybe? When you look at board games and the companies producing them, there are some well supported games (FFGs Runebound and Descent lines for example.)
But they put out other games. The same designers do that.
I guess it might be possible to actually create more than one RPG and other games and run the company by doing so.
Look at FFGs Warhammer 40k line... a very strong license and as of now, three games and they support each with a couple of books a year. Nothing as extreme as WotC and D&D tough.
And I think they could leave Dark Heresy be, and just keep reprinting the books for at least a year or two before the game would really suffer, as it is quite complete.
Maybe if there was a stronger overlap between WotCs TCC department and the RPG department, that would work for them, too.
 

I think the designers for D&D have inadvertently put themselves into an "edition rollover" rut; they have set up their model so the only way the can maintain the revenue stream is by reinventing themselves every few years. However, with each new edition, you're bound to lose part of your customer base - you have to ensure you can pick up an equal or greater number of new customers and with a niche hobby like this, I'll imagine its very hard to get new customers to buy in.

I wish they would sort of go the way Piazo has started; put out a singular ruleset and make your money off the adventures (and campaign worlds), maybe a few sideline items (like power cards, dungeon tiles and minis). An "evergreen" RPG core that is only occasionally reprinted (say every 3-5 years) with errata would be more beneficial to customers, but not to profit margins.

While it's not a perfect parallel, I'd think it would be beneficial if D&D were treated much like another boardgame - say, monopoly.

You can have one base game and many flavors (Simpson's monopoly, Misssissippi monopoly, etc.), but they stand on one rule set that isn't constantly being added too. This would be like putting out the base D&D rules and selling campaign worlds or adventures for the game.

Every once in a while you get a variant (Monopoly City or Monopoly Boardwalk, for example for monopoly, player splatbooks for D&D), but it still uses the same base rules and you aren't buried in additions or variants coming out twice (or more) a month.

In the end, I think D&D has hobbled itself with the mandate of "print or die"; if less pressure was on putting out a constant stream of new (or reprinted) material, the game would steady and grow at a slow, steady rate instead of the expected exponential rate WotC is, I think, hoping for. The problem is that if the money intake slows from what WotC/Hasbro is used to, the game is likely to be canned for "not generating a profit".
 

I think considering how niche of a market it is to begin with, it might be more realistic to realize that your revenue stream will only ever reach a certain level.

Maybe a smaller, leaner brand is the solution.

Constant re-invention only erodes your base over time.
 

Based on performance in this area I don't think there is much faith in this model. Content is on the decline and possibly an indicator that resources are being directed elsewhere to minimize investment in it.

On the other hand, it could be an indication of the success of the model - if the model works, you don't need to put content out as quickly to get the same return, thus forestalling the inevitable edition change.

I think the designers for D&D have inadvertently put themselves into an "edition rollover" rut;

I wish they would sort of go the way Piazo has started; put out a singular ruleset and make your money off the adventures (and campaign worlds), maybe a few sideline items (like power cards, dungeon tiles and minis).

Well, Paizo hasn't yet lasted the test of time with their model - Pathfinder is still young. We don't even know if that is really their long-term plan, and if it is, if the plan will work.


While it's not a perfect parallel, I'd think it would be beneficial if D&D were treated much like another boardgame - say, monopoly.

I don't know if that would work - my understanding is that the Monopoly market is several times larger than the RPG market. Monopoly production costs (and price) per game are much lower, and the time investment a player puts into Monopoly is also generally smaller. The Monopoly model would work if and only if the public bought and used RPGs like they bought basic boardgames, but I don't think they do.


In the end, I think D&D has hobbled itself with the mandate of "print or die"; if less pressure was on putting out a constant stream of new (or reprinted) material, the game would steady and grow at a slow, steady rate instead of the expected exponential rate WotC is, I think, hoping for.

"Exponential" is not a valid synonym for "large". WotC's output is not growing quickly with time.
 

Based on performance in this area I don't think there is much faith in this model. Content is on the decline and possibly an indicator that resources are being directed elsewhere to minimize investment in it. Collectible cards will be the next attempt at steady revenue and if they don't take off, who knows?
With as far as I recall a stated total of about 80 cards # the cards are not really a collectable game yet.
As for the quality of Dragon, dragon quality always varies over time and the variation is different for differetn people. I am happy enough with it for example. I do recall being subscribed to dragon in Paizo where i got serveral issue in row with little or no content that I was interested in.

Another factor is likely that resources were streached with putting out essential ad Dark Sun in close succession. More evidence of this is the failure to get the DDI update out either.

[MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION] I agree with you, 3.5 was hitting the limits toward the end and I think that the modular nature of 4e is th try and get off that treadmill.

I also think that thinking is behind the idea of one setting per year with 2 to 3 book and we're done approach to settings.

So 10 years down the line with 12 settings and 5 sets of alternative builds under their belt, what will Wizards do next?
 

Remove ads

Top