Repeating the Mistakes of the Past

[Yora]

Hard to say, there isn't really enough data available for WotC.

They tried to replace 3rd Edition with 4th Edition, which apparently didn't work out to their satisfaction. But how much that was caused by starting a new edition or by that edition not meeting the demands of the market can't be identified just by that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Crunch and fluff is also not arbitrary,
You don't need to test fluff. Fluff does not need to be balanced. A glut of fluff doesn't result in power creep, option creep, or option paralysis.

Crunch is different. If you release crunch faster than you can test you have problems. It's bad for the game.

The underlying problem is that crunch and fluff are so divorced from each other. This separation causes fluff ( or the meat of what is important in the game setting) to be an expendable game component and the root cause of the game serving the rules. Balance in fluff should matter more in the overall scheme of things. The mechanics should be subservient to the rest of the game. 3E and 4E got this backwards.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The underlying problem is that crunch and fluff are so divorced from each other. This separation causes fluff ( or the meat of what is important in the game setting) to be an expendable game component and the root cause of the game serving the rules. Balance in fluff should matter more in the overall scheme of things. The mechanics should be subservient to the rest of the game. 3E and 4E got this backwards.

Agreed except for one point. By design the 4e mechanics are subservient to the fluff; the power structure is a way of writing fluff down and turning it into game mechanics and the monster roles and math are just ways of filling out the fluff and providing information on likely effectiveness. Unfortunately not all the designers followed the fiction first approach. Indeed the argument about reskinning is one about whether the crunch should follow the fluff (as the refluffers and reskinners believe - you decide what you want then pick rules that match that) or the fluff should follow the crunch (as those who don't think you should reskin believe).

 

[Jester David]

But it can result in poor gaming material.

WotC spent a lot of effort on story element design for 4e (see eg Worlds & Monsters) and seems to be spending a lot of effort for D&Dnext too (see eg Wandering Monsters).

A bad story element is not going to unbalance the game, and people are more likely to ignore it rather than seek it out for exploitation.
I don't disagree that bad story should be avoided and care should be taken to produce high quality monster and world lore, but it requires far less editng and development passes.

Putting to one side the quality vs quantity issue - I personally think there is a lot of quality in the 4e books - from WotC's point of view why is it a problem that the edition doesn't last so long? They are interested in revenue per time period, not endurance of editions. Unless there is evidence that edition churn hurts revenue. Is there?

I'm not saying that WotC books were low quality. Or that 4e was low quality. There was a LOT of great material. But there was also a lot of just okay material. And some just plain bad material. Because there was just so very much.
Really, I'm just saying that the overal quality could have been higher during late 3e and early 4e by focusing on fewer must-buy tentpole books rather than more kinda-okay books.

Edition churn. Without having a look at WotC we can' the certain, but they have said in convention panels that a long edition can be profitable.
The thing is, making a new edition takes time. A couple years where in-house staff is not making money. Even if they continue to release products, like during the 3e to 4e transition, they're relying on freelancers which so costs are still up. By the time the edition releases the company is in the hole.

While most books need to just recoup their immediate production costs to show a profit, the first few books of a new edition also have to pay for two years of development time for a handful of people. The longer an edition can last as a sustainable product, the more profit the initial books generate.

 

[Kinak]

Ramp-backs on the Modules line had more to do with internal staffing and our ability to get these specific products out on time (or the lack of said ability), along with a format switch to a larger format, coupled with the chaos of the impending Emerald Spire Superdungeon release, and honestly didn't have much to do with sales at all. I do think it smarter to produce fewer, larger adventures, and the audience seems to agree, since sales have indeed increased since we made this change. But it as an internal logistical change more than anything to do with sales.

Right from the source! Hard to argue with that.

Thanks for dropping by!

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right from the source! Hard to argue with that.

so If I found a WotC high up... say mike mearls saying "4e out sold 3e, and we didn't have a problem with sales" that too would be" right from the source and hard to argue with?"

 

[Rygar]

But it can result in poor gaming material.

WotC spent a lot of effort on story element design for 4e (see eg Worlds & Monsters) and seems to be spending a lot of effort for D&Dnext too (see eg Wandering Monsters).

Putting to one side the quality vs quantity issue - I personally think there is a lot of quality in the 4e books - from WotC's point of view why is it a problem that the edition doesn't last so long? They are interested in revenue per time period, not endurance of editions. Unless there is evidence that edition churn hurts revenue. Is there?

You could make the case that it does. Given that a video game takes 2-3 years to develop, a short lived edition causes problems with developing video games. It's conceivable that some company could have started developing a game in 2011, and be releasing a 4th edition video game months after 5th edition releases. That could easily hurt revenue, it doesn't necessarily hurt revenue, but it could.

It's also potentially harmful to the ability to obtain outside contracts. Fast edition churn means a business person in a video game company may be less likely to approach WOTC for the rights if they think that by the time they're done they'll be releasing an "Outdated" game.

It becomes a limiting factor as well. Look at D&D Online, IIRC using the 3rd edition rules. That precludes the acquisition of people who started with and loved 4th edition, and it'll preclude the acquisition of people who start with and love 5th edition. The revenue stream for DDO is locked into the 3rd edition customer base and likely can never tap into the current customer base.

It's a major issue with revenue when you consider that World of Warcraft had more than 10,000,000 people paying a subscription for years, and Skyrim sold more than 10,000,000 copies. If WOTC wants to tap the video game market, they need stability and longevity, churning editions just harms their ability to expand the brand.

 

[Kinak]

so If I found a WotC high up... say mike mearls saying "4e out sold 3e, and we didn't have a problem with sales" that too would be" right from the source and hard to argue with?"

Honestly, yeah. Particularly if he provided a reasonable alternate explanation like Erik did.

All of my knowledge of Mike Mearls is second hand. He's not always the clearest when he's explaining things, but I certainly haven't heard anything to make me believe he'd flat-out lie. Even if it someone from the corporate side I'd never heard of before, I'd read more into how they said it and what they didn't say, before assuming they were lying.

If Mike had something to say in the form of "4e was selling fine, we're making Next because..." I'd be very interested to hear it. And I would find it hard to argue with.

I certainly don't agree with all of Mike's design decisions. I don't agree with all of Jason Bulmahn's either. Does that mean I should expect them to lie to me?

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I do think it smarter to produce fewer, larger adventures, and the audience seems to agree, since sales have indeed increased since we made this change. But it as an internal logistical change more than anything to do with sales.

Carry on.

--Erik

I like an occasional megadungeon, but on the whole, my group, and really every group I've played in over the last 30 some years, seems to prefer shorter adventures. Something that can be played in a couple nights or so. They are also easier to plug into a campaign than a huge 6 volume adventure path.

 

[Jester David]

so If I found a WotC high up... say mike mearls saying "4e out sold 3e, and we didn't have a problem with sales" that too would be" right from the source and hard to argue with?"

Depends on the higher-up and date.

Mike Mearls is a fairly reliable source, although, like all WotC he can drift into Talking Head territory. It is a company heavy with spin. But if he said it back in 2009, well, he wasn't in charge of the brand then and might not have access to the full figures.

The CEO, Greg Leeds IIRC, is much less... well... reliable. I don't want to call him an outright liar but... um... no comment. He's crammed with doublespeak and half of his interviews seem like reiteration of talking points while not actually saying anything.
He did say something similar to "we're satisfied with 4e sales" after they had just slashed the schedule of books and started work on 5e. You can almost feel the asterisk in his sentences. "We're satisfied with 4e's sales*."
*For a game product we're ending.