Reports and News from D&D XP

[eyebeams]

Oh, the statement has meaning. If we take the speaker to be knowledgable and honest, it says that by whatever measure WotC is using, the year was a success. One might extend that into expecting them to continue whatever strategy gave them that success.

It just means that someone whose job it is to promote the brand is promoting the brand. They are blameless. It's their *job* to say good things about D&D and get fans pumped up. But without any specific metric, statements like this are neither honest nor dishonest. They're just optimistic. They may be positive by one metric and negative by another. For example, events like the D&D Experience cost money, but may increase sales, so that more books are getting into gamers' hands without the company actually making much more money.

I tire of this, "You're accusing some guy from WotC of being a liar!" implication every time I bring this up. I'm doing nothing of the sort.

It does not give us specific sales information, nor insight into whether we would consider the year a success. That just means we are not in a position to critique the statement - but that different than having no meaning.

Actually, you are. You just have to go and read publicly available information and discuss the relationship between that information and general statements. In any questions about the performance of the D&D RPG are different than questions about the brand.

The questions I would like answered would be:

1) Is the D&D RPG reported and managed as part of the games or publishing segment?

2) What percentage of any change in that segment can be attributed to D&D?

3) What proportion of the D&D brand reflects RPG performance, and what are some points of correlation between the RPG end of the brand and other segments? Are minis sales following RPG sales, or diverging? How about novels?

 

[BOZ]

I'll see what I can do, but... what does Erik getting yet another slave do for me?

when Erik's done with Razz, you get to eat him?

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Could Greyhawk have been as profitable if it had as many novels to its name as the Forgotten Realms? I don't see why not.

Only as long as they kept Rose Estes far, far away from them.

 

[Chiaroscuro23]

If the success my "IRON HEROES vs. [INSERT CONVERTED 20 YEAR OLD D&D MODULE]" series of events at recent Chicago Gamedays is any indication... More than few people would be clamoring to play them.

I'd like to know more about this. Have a link to a past thread or an actual play or anything? Pretty please?

 

[Vocenoctum]

Keep in mind that while D&D is this Cyclopean thing from the POV of RPG manufacturing, in Hasbro's general reportage it is largely treated as an output of WotC's minis and publishing concerns. Then again, this could be because they're afraid of D&D's lingering PR problems and don't want to draw attention to it. But D&D as a thing in of itself doesn't register much, in any event.

They don't call out any of the properties individually, there's no reason to assume that it means Magic or D&D, or any other particular brand is good bad or whatever. You're making assumptions and basing discussions around those assumptions.

Where should D&D be mentioned? It's a book that's published. "Minis" encompasses SWM and DDM, does that mean SW is somehow a failure?

 

[Vocenoctum]

It just means that someone whose job it is to promote the brand is promoting the brand. <snip>

I tire of this, "You're accusing some guy from WotC of being a liar!" implication every time I bring this up. I'm doing nothing of the sort.

That's not what he said. He said that no matter the qualifications of "best year ever", we can assume that "best" means they are on a path that is rewarding for them and they will continue it with minor tweaks. Whether "best year ever" means 100% better profit than last year, or just means they sold 1 more book, they did better on that metric than previously and will continue with their course.

The questions I would like answered would be:

I think the problem is that, in an absence of actual answers to these questions, you use your own assumptions as facts to base the discussion on.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Only as long as they kept Rose Estes far, far away from them.

I think it's a given we wouldn't be envisioning disaster.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I like Greyhawk because to me it means generic fantasy = core books (pantheon & spells) + various supplements from Dragon & Dungeon magazines + our imagination for everything else.

I have to admit that I have never seen the point of calling your setting "Greyhawk" if you're not using more setting information than what you find in those sources.

For instance, the article "Core Beliefs: Wee Jas" talks about the fallen Suloise empire. While I guess in some ways it would be entertaining to take these names and make up whatever you like about them, I don't see how your setting is "Greyhawk" as opposed to "a homebrew using some Greyhawk names" if you don't go into extra setting information to determine what Veluna and Furyondy and the Free City of Greyhawk are supposed to be like - and if you're not using any of the locations of Greyhawk, it's really not Greyhawk you're playing in.

So I guess I have a question: how do you make your games Greyhawk games as opposed to what Third Edition would call core D&D games?

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I have to admit that I have never seen the point of calling your setting "Greyhawk" if you're not using more setting information than what you find in those sources.

For instance, the article "Core Beliefs: Wee Jas" talks about the fallen Suloise empire. While I guess in some ways it would be entertaining to take these names and make up whatever you like about them, I don't see how your setting is "Greyhawk" as opposed to "a homebrew using some Greyhawk names" if you don't go into extra setting information to determine what Veluna and Furyondy and the Free City of Greyhawk are supposed to be like - and if you're not using any of the locations of Greyhawk, it's really not Greyhawk you're playing in.

So I guess I have a question: how do you make your games Greyhawk games as opposed to what Third Edition would call core D&D games?

Reference what is in the Living Greyhawk book, plus old canonical material from old modules, GH98 material that catches my fancy, work in references to the ancient migrations and empires.

 

[Umbran]

I tire of this, "You're accusing some guy from WotC of being a liar!" implication every time I bring this up. I'm doing nothing of the sort.

I made no such accusation, sir. I stated the conditions under which we could draw some meaning out of the statement. And I think that meaning is greater than "somoene was just trying to pump up the brand". Either the statement is true or it isn't. If it is true, then it has meaning. Not huge amounts, but some.

Actually, you are. You just have to go and read publicly available information and discuss the relationship between that information and general statements.

The publicly available information (at least that which I've seen) does not seem to me to be sufficient for the task. We need to infer too much for reasonable confidence in accuracy of our conclusions. That is by design - there's no percentage in it for WotC to be forthcoming with what we'd really need to judge.