The D&D Business Model

WOTC business strategy:

Pokemon, Magic = Wildly profitable, marketable to young gaming demographics (8-14 year olds)

D&D = Inevitable sales decline after core RPG demographics have purchased rule books.

Solution:

Make D&D = Pokemon & Magic for profitability by making it more like those
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mark said:
They should sell non-randomized Orcs swordsmen, Orc Archers, Orc spearmen, and Goblins (in different varieties), Hobgoblins (same), Skeletons, Zombies, etc. in packs of 24 or so without cards for RPG usage.

Had another thought that might solve your want for non-randomized minis.

I don't know if they are still in business, but you could buy rubber molds of fantasy figs made by Prince August. They are (maybe were) located in Ireland near Cork. Their molds and figs (they had the LotR license for minis 2 or 3 iterations before GW) were sold in the US, but I haven't seen them in awhile. The made black rubber molds of single figs and 3 fig molds. The early ones they did were in 25mm scale which means their early orcs are more scaled towards the current 28mm goblins. The later molds are 28mm.

Once you buy the mold, you can produce dozens (maybe hundreds) of figs before the mold gives up the ghost. You'll need lead or some other white metal to melt on the stove top then gravity fill the mold. You can buy metal of varying qualities (softer gives you greater detail on the fig) on line or go to your local Walmart that has a tire changing facility and walk around the parking lot near the bays and pick up all the discarded tire weights that are laying around poluting the local water supply.

Disclaimer: if the metal you are using has lead in it...don't eat the mini.

Thanks,
Rich
 

rgard said:
I think their are two answers and they may be mutually exclusive:

1. The designers have to produce a superior version of the game to get the current players to shift to the new system. I can't see making the move unless it is a better system.

2. It should be backwards compatible with the 3.5. Again, from a personal stand point, I have too much $ invested in 3.5 books and minis (I use the cards during RPG sessions) to justify having them gather dust on the shelf while I spend more money on the new version.

A bit of a paradox for those already heavily invested in the current version, yes? That said, it is not an issue for those who currently don't own or play 3.5.

Thanks,
Rich

I agree that it's tough to reconcile these points. I think backwards-compatibility negates some of the business reasons for doing a reset (in that you aren't compelling gamers to purchase new versions of old material), so I'd probably focus on #1 and hope to do a good enough job there to win people over (it's old material made better).

I gave my thoughts on one approach to this back on post #20 in this thread; I'd certainly like to hear your thoughts on it.
 

I really love what the 3rd party market has done using the GOL; however, I wonder how muc that affected 3.x viability in the market. If WotC had held their IP, they would have a broader range of products to produce themselves. Now, maybe many products would be too niche for them to produce at a profit;but, with .pdf publishing, POD, etc. they would have a lot of outlets for scaled production of small run products. They also could have still licensed out certain products to smaller companies, while retaining rights (and still collect fees).

I'm not sure what their current options are. I could see back to a core-rules hardcover(s) and then branching out to more small/random/collectible/inticing packs instead of all hardcovers, all the time. Would be less expensive to produce and possibly sell more volume, bringing back profitibility. I could definately see small Player Pack add-ons which might include: campaign setting specific backgrounds, maps, character sheets, etc.

Anyway, my 2cp
 

Anson Caralya said:
I agree that it's tough to reconcile these points. I think backwards-compatibility negates some of the business reasons for doing a reset (in that you aren't compelling gamers to purchase new versions of old material), so I'd probably focus on #1 and hope to do a good enough job there to win people over (it's old material made better).

I gave my thoughts on one approach to this back on post #20 in this thread; I'd certainly like to hear your thoughts on it.

Hi, I went back and read post #20.

I do like the idea of building the customer's sense of ownership by having more playtesting available. Nobody gets turned down for playtesting.

My 2 oldest sons and I playtested Traveller T20 and I will use that system before I'd ever run a D20 Future game.

You could probably increase the frequency of editions using the above. I like the idea and it would only cost WotC the cost of server space for the .pdfs (and guy who maintains the server..yada, yada, yada) and their decision on how many people-hours to devote to reviewing and incorporating any of the playtest feedback.

Thanks,
Rich
 

rgard said:
Hi, I went back and read post #20.

I do like the idea of building the customer's sense of ownership by having more playtesting available. Nobody gets turned down for playtesting.

My 2 oldest sons and I playtested Traveller T20 and I will use that system before I'd ever run a D20 Future game.

You could probably increase the frequency of editions using the above. I like the idea and it would only cost WotC the cost of server space for the .pdfs (and guy who maintains the server..yada, yada, yada) and their decision on how many people-hours to devote to reviewing and incorporating any of the playtest feedback.

Thanks,
Rich

Cool, and I like the idea of doing it through pdf. "Click here to download 4E.X1 core rules and updated Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" and "Click here to provide feedback on the four major areas of change in this ruleset." Run one beta per year. I'd wager after 3-5 years you'd have something many people would accept as a clear improvement over the previous system. Although I would still charge for it.
 

Vigilance said:
As to the rules being relatively static, GURPs has gone through 4 editions since it was created in 1986. This is a MUCH faster revise, reset, reset schedule than D&D (5 editions since 1974). In fact I would say that GURPs and White Wolf are two of the pioneers of the 3R business model.
A point of order: GURPS 1st ed was released in 1986, yes, and the current edition (4th ed) was released in 2004. However, the first few editions of GURPS went by pretty fast - 3rd edition was released in 1988 (at least there's a "2nd to 3rd edition update" file on SJGames' site that's dated 1988), and then they stuck with 3rd ed until 2004. That's 16 years, which is longer than the 11 years that went between AD&D 1e and 2e and 2e and 3e.
 

Staffan said:
A point of order: GURPS 1st ed was released in 1986, yes, and the current edition (4th ed) was released in 2004. However, the first few editions of GURPS went by pretty fast - 3rd edition was released in 1988 (at least there's a "2nd to 3rd edition update" file on SJGames' site that's dated 1988), and then they stuck with 3rd ed until 2004. That's 16 years, which is longer than the 11 years that went between AD&D 1e and 2e and 2e and 3e.

I'll note that it was common to go through multiple editions in the early days of roleplaying.

Runequest
1st edition: 1978
2nd edition: 1980
3rd edition: 1984

D&D (Original): 1974
AD&D: 1977

Champions
1st edition: 1981
2nd edition: 1982
3rd edition: 1984

Call of Cthulhu
1st edition: 1981
3rd edition: 1983

GURPS
1st edition: 1986
2nd edition: 1987
3rd edition: 1988

Ars Magica
1st edition: 1987
2nd edition: 1989
3rd edition: 1992

Paranoia
1st edition: 1984
2nd edition: 1987

Rolemaster
1st edition: 1980
2nd edition: 1984

Star Trek (FASA)
1st edition: 1982
2nd edition: 1983

Even today

Savage Worlds
1st edition: 2003
2nd edition: 2005
 

Vigilance said:
Boy Im not sure where you got this idea but as a longtime GURPs player it doesn't jive with what I see.

Well, first of all, I wasn't citing Gurps as a platonic ideal of that option.

Vigilance said:
As to the rules being relatively static, GURPs has gone through 4 editions since it was created in 1986.

It's natural for a game to go through many revisions early & for the pace of change to get slower & slower over time. Once 3/e was out, though, change was slow. Sure, you had some books that were nothing but experimenting with new rules. & eventually you had the Compediums compile those. But plenty of people were playing 3/e w/o most of the additional rules right up until 4/e came out.

Vigilance said:
As to the rules content, GURPs books are NOT low in rules content. Picking a GURPs book off my shelf, GURPs WWII we see the following: History of WWII pages 1-34 (all fluff); Combats pages 35-56 (all fluff); Characters pages 61-85 (crunch); armoury 86-116 (crunch); vehicles 116- 155; campaigns 157-173 (fluff).

Well, I can't speak to that particular book, but the Character section in most of my books really isn't all that crunchy. The "types of characters for this kind of campaign" section is usually 100% cream. Even the crunch that is there (typically new ads, disads, & skills) aren't really crunch but additional cream spread over the existing crunch. Their descriptions are often just as useful with other systems as they are with Gurps.

Likewise, the chapters on arms & armor in my books are at least as much cream as crunch. Usually the crunch is just a table of stats for the weapons & no new rules. Again, lots of description that's useful no matter what system you're using.

Now, the vehicle stuff got a bit out-of-hand there towards the end of 3/e. Crunchy gear-head mayhem. Never got any of that stuff myself. But it was more the exception than the rule.
 

Anson Caralya said:
So what’s wrong with my thesis? What am I missing? Are Amazon sales ranks not indicative of total sales? Are margins on books much better than those on miniatures?

Amazon sales are only statistically telling in the area of internet sales. I wouldn't say however that this isn't "generally" true of all rpg sales.

Anson Caralya said:
If you, as a fan of the game, were also an owner – the Greenbay Packers model (Greenbay Grognards?) – what would you do? If D&D had to be run as a business, with an attractive enough return to secure funding, what business model would you propose?

First, if I ran Wotc as a business, I would minimize resources spent on D&D and increase them on developing other breakthrough games in partnership with Hasbro. I'd be trying to hit the next Pokemon every 3 - 5 years.

Second, if I were a D&D shareholder (Greenbay Grognard), I would refocus the energy of my development staff to provide mass-appeal products, almost exclusively. Today, mostly DM focused products are produced. I would provide core rulebooks, and I would be very clear about doing it on a six year cycle. Two years of buzz, two years of development, and two years of exploration.

What do ALL players need to play this game? PC's require the standard rules (PH), Character Sheets, Character Development Options, Miniatures, Campaign Information, and Dice. In the two years of buzz, I would spread out the development and distribution of products such as the three to six core rulebooks, and three to six character development books. During the two years of development, I would launch a COMPLETELY fleshed out campaign. It should include dozens of pregen characters, with different tailored options, personalized minis, color-coded dice. I would market this product set completely differently, providing it essentially for free to DM's. I would include pdf's for download that would detail the what, why, and how behind all design decisions for the adventure path, for the different characters, etc. The primary marketing material would be through providing all the options to the players, with extra cool stuff including character pictures, campaign maps, specific campaign notes, that would all tie in together to the adventure path). I would put time and energy into developing a "fan site" to create and nurture shared experiences, and I would pull people in with "exclusive" events that would be played at conventions. The Adventure Path would be a simultaneous launch with cross-pollenation including books, comic books, computer based games, card games, and a board game (you could play with your kids). I would go to great lengths to tie these products together and offer rewards for brand loyalty. You could obtain information, maps, minis, customized dice, "power ups" for spells and abilities, and one-shot items by doing the "other things". Finally, during the two years of exploration, I would produce a ton of material that pushes the boundaries of the game, and really challenges everyone to think...essentially an extended playtest for the next edition of the game. I would sell of the rights to sub-license all the "existing" core products such as Eberron, FR, Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, etc. These would be great opportunities for other smaller d20 publishers to grow and develop terrific product and to leverage some of the best brands.
 

Remove ads

Top