Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5323730" data-attributes="member: 59082">This is being taken from the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/293968-if-paizo-can-why-cant-wizards-coast.html" target="_blank">"If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?"</a> 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.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</blockquote>

Verification