D&D 3E/3.5 the worst thing about 4e is the best thing about 3e...

[Wicht]

It was mentioned in the news thread that Paizo's CEO plans to keep their business small, which will allow them to keep focusing on the product they do best, IMO.

Small in this context being rather relative. Forty+ employees makes them a rather large RPG company, and they are successful enough to help sponsor Gen-con, so I would think that they are doing fairly well financially. I would hazard, also, that their adventures (at least the APs) outsell their splat-books.

As an aside, anyone know what the size of the RPG department at WotC is?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Small in this context being rather relative. Forty+ employees makes them a rather large RPG company, and they are successful enough to help sponsor Gen-con, so I would think that they are doing fairly well financially. I would hazard, also, that their adventures (at least the APs) outsell their splat-books.

The same thread I pointed to certainly indicates they are doing well financially. They are one of the fastest growing companies. WRT what I was talking about, their size is only relative as it relates to WotC/Hasbro. They have their own bar set for financial feasability, one that most large companies would share. If Paizo is "rather large" then WotC/Habro is "MEGA LARGE" and has different stakeholders to answer to than Paizo does. None of this is a slap against Paizo. They have different goals in place, and according to their CEO, one of those is to stay away from the large corporate "ivory tower" structure.

As an aside, anyone know what the size of the RPG department at WotC is?

I don't. But being part of Hasbro means that the size of their RPG department has little bearing on how it is expected to perform in the larger corporate structure. That's just the way large corporations run.

I wish it weren't so. I wish WotC could leverage some of the same techniques that makes Paizo and other "rather large RPG companies" successful. FtP, PoD, etc.

 

[Wicht]

I don't. But being part of Hasbro means that the size of their RPG department has little bearing on how it is expected to perform in the larger corporate structure. That's just the way large corporations run.

Somehow I doubt this is strictly true, if for no other reason than it is nonsensical in a cost/benefit analysis. It is unrealistic to expect every game to sell equally well or for every market to perform the same. It is also silly to think that a department with only ten people should be as productive as the one with a hundred people. I somehow doubt Hasbro is run by idiots. If I have two departments and one costs me three times as much because of three times as many employees, I'm going to demand more of it, profit wise, than I do of the one costing me less. I would think that would just be common sense. But I don't work there so what do I know?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Somehow I doubt this is strictly true, if for no other reason than it is nonsensical in a cost/benefit analysis. It is unrealistic to expect every game to sell equally well or for every market to perform the same. It is also silly to think that a department with only ten people should be as productive as the one with a hundred people. I somehow doubt Hasbro is run by idiots. If I have two departments and one costs me three times as much because of three times as many employees, I'm going to demand more of it, profit wise, than I do of the one costing me less. I would think that would just be common sense. But I don't work there so what do I know?

I understand that. That's not what I'm saying. Splat books from WotC have a history of selling just shy of one book per group member. WotC adventures have a history of selling just shy of one book per group. Which would you rather invest your money in? The answer from a large group of shareholders historically is the books that outsell adventures 4:1.

Paizo has less overall shareholders and can take risks that the larger group at Hasbro is unwilling to. This will make them money. But it will never make them the money that a large public company needs to satisfy shareholders. Luckily, that is not one of Paizo's current goals.

 

[Wicht]

I understand that. That's not what I'm saying. Splat books from WotC have a history of selling just shy of one book per group member. WotC adventures have a history of selling just shy of one book per group. Which would you rather invest your money in? The answer from a large group of shareholders historically is the books that outsell adventures 4:1.

I'm on record as saying this is a poor model for sustained growth, and while it may be true (I don't actually know that the shareholders decide these things; I suspect that blaming this on either shareholders or Hasbro is slightly off from how WotC actually decides these things), its a good example of killing the goose; long-term sustained profitability is always more desirable than short term windfalls imo.

Paizo has less overall shareholders and can take risks that the larger group at Hasbro is unwilling to. This will make them money. But it will never make them the money that a large public company needs to satisfy shareholders.

Paizo actually only has two shareholders that I am aware of; if by shareholders you mean owners. And I'm not actually convinced that the last part is true. I suspect Paizo' RPG profitability right now is at least on par to WotC RPG profitability.

 

[billd91]

Somehow I doubt this is strictly true, if for no other reason than it is nonsensical in a cost/benefit analysis. It is unrealistic to expect every game to sell equally well or for every market to perform the same. It is also silly to think that a department with only ten people should be as productive as the one with a hundred people. I somehow doubt Hasbro is run by idiots. If I have two departments and one costs me three times as much because of three times as many employees, I'm going to demand more of it, profit wise, than I do of the one costing me less. I would think that would just be common sense. But I don't work there so what do I know?

I'm not sure Hasbro isn't run in a clueless manner in some respects. Did you see Ryan Dancey's post some months back about the $50 million core brand issue and WotC? It appears that Hasbro doesn't really have criteria fine enough to distinguish between D&D and Magic departments at WotC in setting their expectations of maintaining core brand status... and there's a big difference in revenue between the two. Adkison's vision had been to use Magic's profits to subsidize D&D. But because of some licensing issues, Hasbro viewed Magic and D&D as separate brands that had to hit the $50 million mark independently to be considered core and that's a much harder target for D&D - and one not hit by 4e by all appearances.

One hopes that the right lesson has been learned. Rumors to that effect have trickled out and I suspect they're largely true otherwise I don't see Hasbro signing off on 2 years of R&D for D&D Next.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm on record as saying this is a poor model for sustained growth, and while it may be true (I don't actually know that the shareholders decide these things; I suspect that blaming this on either shareholders or Hasbro is slightly off from how WotC actually decides these things), its a good example of killing the goose; long-term sustained profitability is always more desirable than short term windfalls imo.

And I agree with your opinion! Absolutely. But the bulk of shareholders in most large corporations want to see increasing stock value NOW, not later. And yes, I think this is bad for business, bad for employees, bad for customers, and bad for the economy in general. But my and your voice make no difference on how corporations push for higher and higher share value.

Paizo actually only has two shareholders that I am aware of; if by shareholders you mean owners. And I'm not actually convinced that the last part is true. I suspect Paizo' RPG profitability right now is at least on par to WotC RPG profitability.

The two owners allow for decisions on a finer level. They can drive the small picture, while shareholders in a large corporation view practices from too high a level.

And it does not matter if Paizo is as profitable as WotC in RPGs. The two different structures have different needs, different goals, and different people to answer to.

If Paizo were to sell to a company like Hasbro and become part of a larger corporate machine they would begin to suffer the same restraints as WotC. WotC was willing to open its game to us. Hasbro owned WotC is not. People were relatively happy with WotC when it took over D&D. And if you trace back to the point where people truly became dissatisfied with them, I'm sure you will see it started after Hasbro's takeover.

Look at 5E. WotC has to have a goal of trying to get EVERYONE back! Many think that's impossible. I'm certain it will be hard. Paizo strives to cater to its fans. Added market share is incidental to their good quality, not the driving force behind their business decisions.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) By the way I have to disagree with the 4E Adventure Quality. The first Adventures were just crawls, but the later Adventures where quite praised for the quality .. not unlike 3E where the first Adventure-Series really sucked but the later ones became a goldmine. (snip)

Like a few others here, I think the early 3E adventures like Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury and Speaker in Dreams (a personal favourite) have stood - and will stand - the test of time. Ditto for the initial 3E adventures in Dungeon.

As for 4E, by later adventures I assume you mean Slaying Stone, Reavers of Harkenwold etc... because E modules, in particular, were truly horrid. The ideas were good but the execution was faulty.

 

[pemerton]

Like a few others here, I think the early 3E adventures like Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury and Speaker in Dreams (a personal favourite) have stood - and will stand - the test of time.

I own SC and SiD (but not, as far as I remember, FoF). I've read through SC and have not been able to work out what makes it so acclaimed. SiD, on the other hand, I think has plenty of interesting story elements, and I've used quite a few of them (appropriately adapted) in my 4e game.

 

[Wicht]

I own SC and SiD (but not, as far as I remember, FoF). I've read through SC and have not been able to work out what makes it so acclaimed. SiD, on the other hand, I think has plenty of interesting story elements, and I've used quite a few of them (appropriately adapted) in my 4e game.

Sunless Citadel is a very good 1st level dungeon crawl. It has story elements within the dungeon but exists almost unto itself and can be played either as part of a campaign set just about anywhere, or just as a romp through the dungeon. The 3e tagline, or one of them, was back to the dungeon, and Sunless Citadel delivered on that. The maps were good, some of the NPCs were good role-playing fodder, and the challenges were interesting. If you want a good story, Sunless Citadel isn't going to do it for you, but if you are looking for a dungeon crawl, you could do much worse.

Personally, while I think most rpgers like to graduate up to story driven plots, the soul (so to speak) of Dungeons and Dragons is the dungeon crawl and Sunless Citadel helped capture the classic feel of that experience.