The many worlds of White Wolf, disproving WotC conventional wisdom?

[Lord Pendragon]

WotC could have a subsidiary for particular lines that may have marginal profitability.

Why? Why would WotC want to set up a subsidiary that doesn't make them any money?

 

[Ranger REG]

So?

You're either being intentionally obtuse to my point, or are just not aware of how the RPGA functions today.

Ooh, them's fightin' words.

But honestly, I really don't know what is RPGA's true function these days. It is also safe to say that I may never become a member.

It seems, based on this post, that you consider that something must bring in directly talliable revenue to count. I fundamentally diagree. I once was a triad member in the Living Greyhawk campaign, and that may mean to you that I have a biased perspective, it also means that I know just how much work the RPGA volunteers put into what they develop, author, and publish.

Nothing is a "product" unless is carries a price tag? Okay... fine. It is irrelevent to my point, that WotC has a familiarity with working with a group of authors who function with a great degree of separation from the operations of the main organization. That is the current status quo for LG right now that is relevent to my comment. At least that is what I was thinking about when I said what I said. That WotC doesn't gets direct revenue from what the volunteers do, as I said, is irrelevent to my point that WotC has a "subsidiary" that has a huge output of "product". They could leverage this experience to start a subsidiary for each of their retired settings thtat have little likelihood of infringing on the fan-base of FR, Core or Eberron (Planescape, Dark Sun and Spelljammer), or start subsidiaries for other marginal concepts.

I'm NOT saying that WotC would set up an "RPGA" for each one, earning no directly talliable revenue. I'm saying that, like White Wolf has done with Arthaus, or how White Wolf has teamed with Malhavoc and Necromancer, WotC could have a subsidiary for particular lines that may have marginal profitability.

Look, I agree with you totally, though I don't think WotC is in any position to establish subsidiary companies yet, other than having acquired/assigned Avalon Hill (it still under Hasbro's umbrella).

As for RPGA, what is currently stopping them from making -- as you say, "products with price tags"? I mean what are you or RPGA (if you have inside connection) doing to quell those Greyhawkers in Wizards' forum they want more "products" in their FLGS shelves?

To put it bluntly, Are we going to see a hardbound Greyhawk Campaign Setting Sourcebook (or GHCS) anytime soon?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

WotC could have a subsidiary for particular lines that may have marginal profitability.

Why? Why would WotC want to set up a subsidiary that doesn't make them any money?

Because marginal profitability is not equal to losing money. And besides, marginal profitability to WotC is often a blockbuster to a smaller publisher.

Ooh, them's fightin' words.

Tee hee!

Didn't mean to me incendiary! Glad you didn't open up the napalm in return.

And, Oh brother! , do I want to see a Greyhawk hardbound so badly, but I also see that the LGG is the hardbound book in regards to content without the hardbound cover. The LGG is almost all of the content that was meant to go into the once-planned Greyhawk hardcover book. I don't think WotC would see much of any value would be brought by producing a Greyhawk hardcover with the same content, but adding obligatory prestige classes, new equipment, new spells. I do disagree, seeing how much the Complete books are selling with so much pretige class content previously showing up in earlier books...

On a tangent, I'd rather see something where two books were done. One would be almost a total reprint of the LGG (but updated for timeline), and a second book of crunchy rules (prestige classes, regional feats, spells, racial substitution levels, equipment, ...) This way the fluff book would appeal to Greyhawk purists who game with alternate rule systems or those who only play with the core books, and the crunchy book would have enough new stuff for those who are looking for the little extra and don't mind the added complexity.

But what's the RPGA doing for Greyhawkers? Well, from those I have spoken with, they are basically fine with the status quo that, on occasion, an Living Greyhawk Journal article will appear every now and then in Dungeon. The demise of the LGJ is just a technicality, as Erik Mona is still publishing in Dungeon articles with a "Living Greyhawk Approved" stamp. So, really, the RPGA is stuck in the mud here. They has no incentive to support, for their free labor, those who aren't playing in the Living campaigns. The rare LG author who wants to go above and beyond usually contacts Erik Mona with a proposal.

Again, unfortunately, neither the RPGA or WotC has incentive to change things to publish a product at a cost and with a price, like a hardcover campaign sourcebook, for Greyhawk. The last hope to seeing Greyhawk in print again (as things stand now) is to pester Paizo to publish a compilation of their LGJ and LG "Approved" articles.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

 

[Vocenoctum]

It has been long conventional wisdom that one of TSR's failings was proliferation of worlds. Also, that this practice of TSR's wouldn't be redone by WotC.
(Snip)
, like White Wolf is doing with it's vast portfolio of active settings. The comparison is stark it seems to me.

Well, here's the thing, WW had Changeling, and Wraith and plenty of settings that died off. They DID stretch stuff a bit thin for their fanbase. They were always trying to diversify WoD1 with more settings, Hunter, Demon, Mummy, and sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't.
Now, here comes WoD2, which is (for now at least) Vamp, Mage and WW. (Compared to D&D Core, FR and Eb, maybe three is the right number?

But, I'm not sure that all the lines were really selling through to their desire. When WoD1 was ending, they had a "buy $30, get X&Y free, buy $75, get Z free too!" sale. During that sale, I saw plenty of times when they had Limited Edition books as free (Mage, Werewolf, etc). They had an awful lot of books for their different games, and that was after their 6.66 sale to clear stuff out.

So, WW's "success" may not be all it's cracked up to be. I'd certainly say Wizards makes a better profit at the end of the day.

 

[Wolfspirit]

Well, I personally would break WoD1 into multiple settings myself; allthough they were technically the same world, there were major differences between, say, Mage and Werewolf.

Allthough the two can be run together, the cosmology alone can cause problems. If you compare, say, Vampire and Wraith, then you've got even bigger issues. A problem I saw is that there was too much, all of which they had to figure out how it effected each other. Even though several "mini-settings" died off (Changeling, Wraith, Mummy, etc), they sometimes still had to figure out how each new book dealt with the old settings, especially when it dealt with advancing the meta-plot. There was also a glut of products as every possible playable character was explored. (Who's up for a game of Kinfolk and Hedgemages? Anyone?)

Allthough WoD went out with a bang (depending on which game you played, quite litteraly), I think it was a good thing because the supported material was close to reaching critical mass.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Who's up for a game of Kinfolk and Hedgemages? Anyone?

I don't know. My group had a lot of fun telling Jed to move away from there.

 

[reanjr]

It has been long conventional wisdom that one of TSR's failings was proliferation of worlds. Also, that this practice of TSR's wouldn't be redone by WotC.

But here I saw on ENWorld's news page that White Wolf will be publishing products this upcoming quarter for the worlds of Scarred Lands, DragonMech, Ravenloft, Everquest II, and City-state of the Invincible Overlord, Warcraft RPG.

Of course, White Wolf also has the Gamma World license too, and prints Malhavoc's stuff, including The Diamond Throne.

On top of all this, White Wolf does all of the World of Darkness, Vampire, Exalted, and Mind's Eye Theater. Add it all up!

Am I right to start to doubt WotC's claim that multiple worlds is too difficult for a single company to pull off? That instead, the the problem is that WotC is just incapable of figuring out how to do it?

Yeah, I know, WotC right now has a few, with Star Wars, FR, Eberron, and it's Core "setting" (if a setting is what it really is). WotC has done one-shots with D20 modern and since abandoned, like Urban Arcana, and the D&D one-shot "Ghostwalk", and the effective-one-shot of Wheel of time. But those are abandoned, and not supported, like White Wolf is doing with it's vast portfolio of active settings. The comparison is stark it seems to me.


Regards,
Eric Anondson

I've always felt the argument was sort of bs. It's an excuse for why TSR did poorly, not the reason.

 

[eyebeams]

When it comes to D20, calling it all "White Wolf" is something of a misnomer. WW, S&S and Arthaus are all separately incorporated. Operational budgets cross over as little as possible. If an S&S title bombs, World of Darkness money never goes to shore it up, and vice versa. Every line and every company is expected to earn its keep. Practically speaking, the whole affair is structured so that you could hack off big, bloody chunks of business and still be left with a viable enterprise.

If TSR had run things this way, then it might have stayed viable. But TSR wasn't in any position to do so. The collected WW family of companies has followed a strict bottom line since the late 90s. At one point, TSR might have floated campaign settings whose development was contingent upon initial and continuing success.

The WW companies are also pretty good about planning ahead in case something does succeed. Scarred Lands material rolled out according to a coherent plan very, very quickly. Compare this with FUBARs such as the Greyhawk and Dragonlance hardcovers, both of which were positioned too close to 2e's release and were haphazardly written, but also tacitly assumed that the buyer was already into the settings. This made those books capstone products -- ends of lines, not foundations. Forgotten Realms was never treated like itt was being given a retirement party, and it prospered accordingly.

 

[eyebeams]

Why? Why would WotC want to set up a subsidiary that doesn't make them any money?

At a small enough scale, it would make some money, but in terms of the time it would take to start getting a modest return, it wouldn't work for the parent, which lives and dies by quarterly earnings.

Plus, remember that WotC has released and supported things that compared to D&D and even some industry top 5ers, are smaller potatos than you might think. D20 Modern is one example of this.