Repeating the Mistakes of the Past

It's been said that history does not repeat itself but it rhymes.
While discussing the failures of TSR in a thread elsewhere I decided to hunt down the long bit of prose Ryan Dancy wrote about the fall of TSR and failures of the company. I found it here.

Some passages struck me as rather... topical.

In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.
No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.

We heard some things that are very, very hard for a company to hear. We heard that our customers felt like we didn't trust them. We heard that we produced material they felt was substandard, irrelevant, and broken. We heard that our stories were boring or out of date, or simply uninteresting. We heard the people felt that >we< were irrelevant.

Our customers were telling us that 2e was too restrictive, limited their creativity, and wasn't "fun to play'? We can fix that. We can update the core rules to enable the expression of that creativity. We can demonstrate a commitment to supporting >your< stories. >Your< worlds. And we can make the game fun again.
Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.
Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.
Our customers told us they wanted a better support organization? We can pour money and resources into the RPGA and get it growing and supporting players like never before in the club's history. (10,000 paid members and rising, nearly 50,000 unpaid members - numbers currently skyrocketing).
Our customers were telling us that they want to create and distribute content based on our game? Fine - we can accommodate that interest and desire in a way that keeps both our customers and our lawyers happy.

I heard a lot complaints regarding WotC that seemed very similar in the last few years.
The desire to refocus on allowing DMs more creativity is a big part of 5e. The glut of products at the end of 4e. Limited focus on making the game your own. The sidelining of the RPGA. The restrictive GSL that made content generation awkward.

Interesting that less than ten years after TSR imploded from mismanagement, dividing the audience, and poor communication and WotC was arguably making similarly bad decisions.

Thoughts?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I decided to hunt down the long bit of prose Ryan Dancy wrote about the fall of TSR and failures of the company. I found it here.

It was right under your nose along with tons of other stuff! I hope the hunt was enjoyable, though! :D

And although Merric was a bit curt with his response above, he has a point: the amount of stuff that came out for 4E didn't begin to compare to that TSR situation. I don't think the two are comparable in terms of scale. They produced astonishing amounts of stuff back then, all of it competing with itself.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
Well according to Wikipedia TSR went bust in '97 so a tad more than 10 years but I find it extraordinary that one could say that a company that during he lifetime of 4e could sift the database of the online character builder, and look at the article download patterns and has just done a year of public playtesting complete with surveys as not in touch with its customers.
 

I think you have absolutely no idea what "glut" means.
I'd call monthly hardcovers a "glut".
While not the same as the disgusting volumes that came from TSR, much of that was spread out over several different lines. There was monthly content but not all of it was being aimed at everyone to the same extent. The 3.5e and early 4e release schedule was crammed with material being produced far faster than it could be tested or consumed.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I heard a lot complaints regarding WotC that seemed very similar in the last few years.

My thoughts are simple.

We have had the largest playtest and surveying during game design we've ever seen, running for a year and more, but you hear folks complain that WotC gives them no voice.

I question whether those complaints are well-founded.
 

My thoughts are simple.

We have had the largest playtest and surveying during game design we've ever seen, running for a year and more, but you hear folks complain that WotC gives them no voice.

I question whether those complaints are well-founded.
One of the reasons for the playtest was getting back in touch with the fans. WotC has certainly improved and the D&D team is really trying to get back in touch with the fans.
That was also the reason they started the five weekly D&D columns (now down to three).

My point was that WotC found themselves doing the very same thing TSR had been doing. They're trying to fix it now, but it's a good lesson to avoi letting it happen again.
 

My thoughts are simple.

We have had the largest playtest and surveying during game design we've ever seen, running for a year and more, but you hear folks complain that WotC gives them no voice.

I question whether those complaints are well-founded.

I don't question whether the voices are being ignored, I'm sure of it. I've playtested parts of 3.5, 5e and recently the Advanced Class Guide for Pathfinder. All three playtests had some problems, many of which are repeated. Since it's different companies, I think this is an industry problem and not a specific company problem.

By the time the "alpha material" gets to the playtesters, the designers are very limited in what changes they can or are willing to apply.

As an example, complaints about saving throw issues in 5e were ignored until the embarrassing "ghoul incident". Perhaps WotC actually was listening, but they didn't leave that impression, and I'll skim the MM 1 5e ghoul entry to see if they actually did listen. (It didn't help that while the problem was finally acknowledged, there was probably one solution per playtester. Along with some playtesters saying it wasn't a problem.)
 
Last edited:

I think the relevant part of the quote is the bit about supporting "your worlds and your stories". A lot of people on this board have been complaining that 5e is more interesting in promoting the D&D brand than the individual DM's ability to world-build.
 

jodyjohnson

Adventurer
The 3.5e and early 4e release schedule was crammed with material being produced far faster than it could be tested or consumed.

::burp::

Good thing we had 3 lean years to finish digesting it.

And I still want Next to be relatively rules complete (core, standard, advanced) in 15 months or less.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top