D&D 5E Should D&D Next be having the obvious problems that it's having at this point in the playtest?

[hamstertamer]

I doubt shareholders have much of any influence in the game design of D&D next (unless a specific shareholder just happens to be a rpg fan). There really isn't any evidence that WOTC are under any sort of pressure, more than any other company big or small, and this hypothetical pressure is affecting their game designing. In fact, I bet that WOTC feels a bit cushioned with time and money more than a small company. And frankly, neither the D&D next design team or and shareholder knows how to make the most profittable version of D&D. No one knows. The trouble they are having is the conflict with the game designer's personal tastes and the varied tastes of people they want to sell to. There just isn't any way to make a perfect highly profitable D&D anymore. Furthermore RPG companies (table-top) don't seem to be concerned about high profitability anyway, at least not in a serious way, otherwise they would selling D&D books in Wal-mart and Target for kids to see but they don't they only sell to specialty shops for adults (like comic book companies foolishly decided to do) . This is also why game design theory based on the argument "to bring in a new generation" is a non-starter. RPG companies are focused on selling to adults that can drive to gaming stores and conventions.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I doubt shareholders have much of any influence in the game design of D&D next (unless a specific shareholder just happens to be a rpg fan). There really isn't any evidence that WOTC are under any sort of pressure, more than any other company big or small, and this hypothetical pressure is affecting their game designing. In fact, I bet that WOTC feels a bit cushioned with time and money more than a small company. And frankly, neither the D&D next design team or and shareholder knows how to make the most profittable version of D&D. No one knows. The trouble they are having is the conflict with the game designer's personal tastes and the varied tastes of people they want to sell to. There just isn't any way to make a perfect highly profitable D&D anymore. Furthermore RPG companies (table-top) don't seem to be concerned about high profitability anyway, at least not in a serious way, otherwise they would selling D&D books in Wal-mart and Target for kids to see but they don't they only sell to specialty shops for adults (like comic book companies foolishly decided to do) . This is also why game design theory based on the argument "to bring in a new generation" is a non-starter. RPG companies are focused on selling to adults that can drive to gaming stores and conventions.

Shareholders are never involved in the making of a product. All they do is look at the numbers and if they aren't happy then it get's scraped or something is changed. Wizards of the Coast is still a money maker for Hasbro, they don't get to do what ever they want with all the resources they want.

 

[Tovec]

I'm happy for you but we are talking about Wizards letting obvious mistakes slip through their fingers. People find kicking a can down the street is fun but I wouldn't rely on that as a future seller.

Unfortunately my group and I have not been having fun and we are worries that D&D is going to fall flat on its face but could be avoided with a bit more focus on their end of the playtest. If they find something wrong then I expect them to fix it, I don't want them to show me what they made an error on. Obvious mistakes take up space in th playtest which can prolong the whole process.

A completely valid concern but not really the one you have been making to this point.

I also completely agree there are concerns with feedback and them not working on the "holes" in the game and instead working only on what is liked. That is my concern with expertise dice and the current HP systems and magic, but that is not the same thing as not having a foundation at all.

 

[Kobold Stew]

We need both positive feedback and negative. Also, we need people to be honest about their feedback and not post positive feedback just because you want to look good during an internet discussion or your a fan that doesn't want to bad mouth the product.

Working on whats wrong is more productive than working on what went right.

You know very well that I am not suggesting only saying nice things or trying to look good (who would bother?). You know that from this thread, and from the other threads in which we've both posted.

Constructive criticism identifies faults, works to propose satisfactory solutions, and (failing that) asks others to contribute in working towards an improvement to an identified issue. In this context, it also recognizes that actually playing the game is a useful tool towards doing that.

It's easy to argue against an imagined position that no one actually is adopting -- straw men don't fight back, after all. It's also easy to say the sky is falling. You say you are worried about the next edition, and that you want to work on what's wrong with the playtest document and be productive. Good! I look forward to seeing that.

 

[the Jester]

Shareholders are never involved in the making of a product. All they do is look at the numbers and if they aren't happy then it get's scraped or something is changed. Wizards of the Coast is still a money maker for Hasbro, they don't get to do what ever they want with all the resources they want.

Yep. The reason shareholders influence the production process is that they can kill it if there isn't a good business case for it.

One hopes that the folks at WotC presented a good case to the suits before starting a multi-year development process. The lack of Christmas layoffs (*crosses fingers*) seems to indicate that the money is backing a more long-term plan.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's why I think companies like Paizo are better suited for table top role playing games because they don't have the pressure of suits breathing down their necks. I honestly think the suits at Wizards still haven't gotten the point that you can't produce fast paced RPG's using overhead and rake in the profits, mass produced RPGs in a way.

I couldn't disagree more. WotC has put literally nothing RPG related out since August. There's no cashflow other than from DDI. If D&D wasn't owned by a company with suits they'd have to lay everyone off, turn the lights off, and go home because they have no cashflow. (Especially as the system neutral Mezzobaranzan probably only sold a few hundred copies and the Dungeon Survival Handbook probably deservedly did badly (although not quite that badly)). Which means the last decent book WotC put out for D&D was February (Heroes of the Elemental Chaos).

Ten months without a decent book, and with a decent sized development staff to support. Without the suits it would be creditors breathing down the game designers necks by now. The suits are being incredibly lenient.

 

[billd91]

I couldn't disagree more. WotC has put literally nothing RPG related out since August. There's no cashflow other than from DDI. If D&D wasn't owned by a company with suits they'd have to lay everyone off, turn the lights off, and go home because they have no cashflow.

Not true. D&D isn't the only product line WotC puts out, nor is it the most profitable product line WotC makes. If the suits at and from Hasbro are being lenient, it's probably because WotC has bought itself wiggle room through Magic's performance.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I couldn't disagree more. WotC has put literally nothing RPG related out since August. There's no cashflow other than from DDI.

RPG Related: 3.5 reprints, 3 dungeon tile packs, Elminster's Forgotten Realms
D&D Related: Dungeon!, 2 Dungeon Command packs, 6 novels
Non-D&D: Magic (IIRC, more successful than ever), Kaijudo, Avalon Hill

There's plenty of cashflow.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not true. D&D isn't the only product line WotC puts out, nor is it the most profitable product line WotC makes. If the suits at and from Hasbro are being lenient, it's probably because WotC has bought itself wiggle room through Magic's performance.

You think WotC doesn't have suits? My point is that D&D is only allowed to do this because it's part of a huge company. Without there being suits the whole thing would have turned out the lights.

RPG Related: 3.5 reprints, 3 dungeon tile packs, Elminster's Forgotten Realms
D&D Related: Dungeon!, 2 Dungeon Command packs, 6 novels
Non-D&D: Magic (IIRC, more successful than ever), Kaijudo, Avalon Hill

There's plenty of cashflow.

Sorry, I meant to the RPG section. And forgot about the reprints. WotC is doing fine - but I believe D&D is being heavily subsidised by the rest of WotC - and hence the suits.

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC is doing fine - but I believe D&D is being heavily subsidised by the rest of WotC - and hence the suits.

And according to Peter Adkinson, who was President (I believe) of Wizards of the Coast at the time they purchased the D&D brand from TSR... the entire reason why they bought in the first place was because they knew they could subsidize D&D with the rest of WotC's product... and thus they were in the position to keep the D&D brand in a stable enviroment even if product was not readily available on shelves. Which has been to the brand's benefit all these years.