D&D 5E Reasons Why My Interest in 5e is Waning

[Shasarak]

Just because they didn't respond doesn't mean they don't read and consider them, and you would be surprised at how seriously some companies take direct communications from their customers. Many even have policies in place to respond to any and all customer complaints and concerns. How many contacts do you think WotC gets in a week that aren't something like rules questions of WPN issues? The few that they get would be notable just by their existence, and I'm reasonably sure that they would at least get a "thank you for contacting us, we'll take your opinions into consideration" reply.

I guess I will take my chances with the forums rather then sending an email to customer service in India and hoping it gets passed along up the chain.

My concern with the debate threads about WotC's business decisions is it does nothing to support other players, does nothing to improve the game, contributes nothing the community can use as a resource, and just creates dissent for the purpose of dissent. At best it is armchair quarterbacking. The D&D 5th Edition forum here describes itself as "Discuss D&D 5E rules and products". WotC's communication skills and business decisions fit under neither rules nor products. It would be nice if there was a forum on EN World dedicated to discussing the industry and business of RPGs where these discussions would fit better, but currently there doesn't appear to be anything of the sort.

Realistically if you do not like to discuss something then it would be better to just not discuss something. And if it is true that 99% of DnD players never use the forums then discussing 5e is not going to hurt it anyway.

 

[Umbran]

Ahem. Lots of people said 3e was great and it tanked even faster than 4e did. What we say on the boards isn't always what's true.

Especially when we use vague, but emotionally charged words like, "tanked".

So many people so invested in saying what's bad....

 

[chriton227]

Fair enough. But that could also be said for ENWorld.

I read your post as challenging having the discussion here. My main answer is : because it is fun. I'm not here to change anything. My game is going great and that isn't going to change.

If you want to get into the whole "unity" thing, then fine. Everybody agree with me, problem solved.
Obviously I kid.
But I'm not a fan of telling other people not to say things just because I don't like it.

I'm not trying to say you shouldn't have the discussion, I just have concerns that the discussion may not be a positive contribution to the community and that I don't think this forum is the ideal place for it. As I said, I would love to see a forum here for exactly this kind of discussion; it could also serve as a place for members of the industry to post and ask questions of the community, and for the community to speak out to members of the industry about what they would like to see. But in the absence of a more appropriate forum, I concede that there isn't a better place on EN World for the discussion to occur.

I apologize for how I came across, I'm just growing frustrated with the number of threads about the business of the game rather than playing the game, and the number of threads that are being hijacked from their original topics to discuss the way WotC does business and WotC's release schedule.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe Paizo never got the memo that it costs money to produce product?

Paizo vs Wizards.

Paizo: Let's get together and see what great product we can come with next.

Wizards: Let's get together and come up with a way to make the most money.

I'm losing track of the argument.

Are the two of you claiming that WotC is acting irrationally, and failing to make profits that it could easily make? If so, what is your evidence? Pointing to Paizo doesn't count, because - as has been said upthread by multiple posters, and as [MENTION=6776331]Sailor Moon[/MENTION] at least seems to accept - the sorts of returns that WotC/Hasbro insist upon are probably greater than those that Paizo is generating.

Or are you just complaining that WotC is a company that won't sacrifice its economic goals so as to give you stuff you want? If so, why? Wishing and complaining aren't going to change the commercial realities.

I wish that WotC was still publishing 4e material, but it's not. They've decided that there is no money in it. That's life! RPG publishers and brand managers aren't gift-bestowing fairies that leave us presents under our pillows - they're commercial entities competing in a market economy.

 

[pemerton]

Along these lines, it's worth noting that Paizo is in some ways more of an industry leader than WotC.

<snip>

D&D may retake its traditional throne as King of RPGs in terms of profits but I doubt that title will mean the same thing as it did during 3E, where D&D not only made the most money but also had the most influence.

I don't agree that D&D had the most influence in the d20 period - or at least, it had a brute commercial influence (in so far as many publishers gravitated to d20/OGL) but not really a design influence. 3E itself clearly shows the influence of Rolemaster and other skill+stat games (most of which have their origins 15 to 20 years before 3E was released), and the period of 3E's release and the d20/OGL heyday was the period of indie design which was such a big influence on 4e and continues on in 5e's maths, backgrounds and inspiration rules.

But I may have misunderstood what you meant by "industry leader". If you're meaning not design but publishing models then you may be right.

I think they learned a huge lesson from the 4th edition - instead of trying to change the rules to appeal to a wider audience (particularly the computer gaming audience), tie the products together.

<snip>

In other words, focus on the core gamers because they are the ones that are most important. Bringing in the new gamers is important, but doesn't happen if the core gamers aren't promoting the game. So the focus is on making the core gamers happy, which is a bit of a turn-around from the 4th edition.

I think 4e was a pretty gamer-focused game.

My take on 5e is similar to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] upthread - that it is focused on appealing to AD&D players, as far as basic presentation and aesthetic is concerned. What he may not agree with (or may - I don't know) is that it uses the Essentials class designs as the basic mechanical chassis on the PC build side. And a stripped-down version of 3E on the action resolution side (whereas 4e's action resolution was more an amped-up version of 3E mixed with indie influence).

 

[Shasarak]

I'm losing track of the argument.

It is an ironic observation about people who believe that companies are doomed to not be able to produce products because it costs money for them to produce products.

Personally I want to see what kind of DnD lunchboxes we end up with.

 

[bmfrosty]

Personally I want to see what kind of DnD lunchboxes we end up with.

I would totally buy a D&D lunchbox.

EDIT: Can it have bobby the barbarian on it?

 

[BryonD]

I don't agree that D&D had the most influence in the d20 period - or at least, it had a brute commercial influence (in so far as many publishers gravitated to d20/OGL) but not really a design influence. 3E itself clearly shows the influence of Rolemaster and other skill+stat games (most of which have their origins 15 to 20 years before 3E was released), and the period of 3E's release and the d20/OGL heyday was the period of indie design

Very true. It all ties back to the complaints (at the time) about how D20 was slowing innovation because so many people were doing D20 stuff. Though I'll guess you will agree with me that it did end up speeding up the indie effort in the long run as tons of designers started go further and further from core, and ultimately leaving it behind altogether.

I think 4e was a pretty gamer-focused game.

"gamer" is a pretty vague term. WotC made it very clear at the time that they felt like the "gamer" community was vastly bigger than the TTRPG-gamer community and they thought they could change that.

In the general sense, of course 4E was intensely "gamer-focused". But the vast majority of non-TTRPG gamers remained non-TTRPG gamers.
In the TTRPG sense 4E was highly gamer focused if you were in the niche it fit, notsomuch if you were not. Which of course means the term ends up not having a useful definition for this use.

 

[Hussar]

Just to be clear, are you referring to 3.0 as opposed to 3E generally?

Yes.

 

[Hussar]

New shinny core books = more monies. Monte Cook said that a .5 was planned from the start.

I didn't say 4e was drop because people complained. That is a strawman. I said that people complained because they didn't like 4e. If they didn't like it, they didn't buy it. If people do not buy it, WotC won't produce it.

Also, my main point was that boards are a reflection of gamers. If a lot of people say they do not like 4e and won't buy it, there is a good chance it is what a lot of people who aren't on the boards are thinking and doing. If a lot of people say D&D isn't capturing their interest because of low support, no PDF, no OGL, no promoting their up coming products, well it might mean that a lot of people who aren't the boards think it.

So again, why 3.0 after only 2 years. Yup, Cook planned 3.5 from the start, but it was supposed to be a couple of years more down the road. People didn't complain about 3e though. It was a pretty darn well received. So, what happened? If there is a correlation between views on message boards and sales, doesn't that mean that 3.0 sold about as well as 4e?