Negflar2099
Explorer
I'm really reluctant to dip another toe into these dark waters but the recent thread about what you would have wanted 4e to be, got me thinking about another (albeit similar) topic. Namely for those who don't find 4e suitable to their tastes I ask what would you have had Wizards do if you could have chosen their path?
Before you answer let me explain what I mean. Lets send our minds back a few years to the closing wrapup of 3.5. You're Wizards of the Coast. Your Hasbro bosses are asking for a plan for the next few years of D&D. What do you tell them?
Do you:
A) Tell them we're closing shop permanently? That is, do you close down D&D and cancel the line forever? Now I know that there are those of us who are so angry at Wizards right now that we would say yes, but try to remember that this was before 4e came about and you have total freedom to make the next few years of D&D just like you want them to be. Would you seriously cancel the line? Would you say well we had a good run but the days of D&D are done?
B) Close down shop for a few years to give the end of 3.5 a little breathing room? You close down D&D and give the fans a chance to grieve for what for many is their favorite system. Then when you come back you benefit from that space and maybe the fans have had a chance to clamor for the next version. Not a bad idea but it's not without risk. For one thing it means firing every game designer, artist, tester, editor, project manager, writer and everybody in your company. Those people might not be happy to hear that they are out of work until you decide to reopen your doors. They may not come back. Also we all know how a temporary solution might become permanent. D&D might never recover. Then there's the issue of time. How much time do you give the fans to grieve 3.5? Five years? Ten? How much time is necessary?
C) Continue to produce 3.5 product? Again not a bad idea but this is really just delaying things, don't you think? I mean you can't go on producing 3.5 product forever. There just aren't enough new ideas that wouldn't radically alter the game. Heck they were altering the game pretty radically as it was with the last few supplements. I suppose you could continue to produce new campaign settings (and maybe reissue a few old ones) but remember, under the 3rd edition model every campaign setting competes with every other campaign setting since ideas weren't really usable across multiple campaign settings (in most instances). How long do you reasonably think this could continue? Lets say they managed to squeeze out a few more years of product, they would still have to make a choice about what to do eventually. This choice is sort of like choosing not to choose.
D) Issue a 3.75 edition? That is do you produce a new edition of the game that doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the game, but instead just refines things? Perhaps using the SAGA system or something more like Pathfinder. This seems to be the choice a lot of those who dislike 4e seem to want, but I question how viable it is. After all just a few years ago Wizards did this exact thing when it issued 3.5 and that was almost universally panned as a bad idea. Fans were outraged. How could they expect us to repurchase all these old books when they haven't really changed anything? That was the cry, remember? People were almost ready to storm the Wizards offices (and probably would have if not for bad Seattle weather). If you were a designer would you really risk doing the same thing over again and lets say you did, in the end there's still a lot of product you wouldn't be able to reissue because it wouldn't change that much. That's great for a small company like Piazo but terrible for a large company like Wizards that depends on a relatively sizable and constant revenue stream in order to remain viable. As with option C you might just be delaying things here.
E) Issue a new edition that doesn't change much (like Option D) but call it 4th edition? As with Option D above, this seems right now to be a popular option but I can almost guarantee you that if Wizards did this people would have been upset. I mean this is pretty much the same as Option D but with the added plus of insulting the intelligence of their fans by pretending the new edition is not derivative of 3.5 edition. I can't imagine how this wouldn't end with the company shutting down.
F) Take the game back to formula? Really think about what makes D&D what it is and put the hard work into producing a real "new" edition of the game that rightfully deserves that title? Well obviously this is what they did and it's clear that it has it's own risks such as alienating a very entrenched fan base. Of course each of us, were we in charge of development, would have done things our own way. We would have gotten rid of different things and left different things. Every person is different and we all have a different idea about what D&D is. Bottom line were we in charge of 4e, each of us would have designed a different game entirely. That's where the risk comes in with this option. Your design, no matter how amazing you think it is, will most like not totally vibe with anybody else but you. It might be close but it won't be exact. So don't think about how the game did or didn't turn out. Just think about the option itself. Would you have redesigned the game knowing you might alienate people but also knowing that you can produce a game closer to what you think D&D is?
So what would you have done? What do you think they should have done? Don't confine yourselves to these options either. I'm sure I missed something. Bottom line is this is a very tough business. It's a niche market with a very demanding fan base. I happen to think they made the best decision they could but obviously it's been a rough ride. What do you think?
Before you answer let me explain what I mean. Lets send our minds back a few years to the closing wrapup of 3.5. You're Wizards of the Coast. Your Hasbro bosses are asking for a plan for the next few years of D&D. What do you tell them?
Do you:
A) Tell them we're closing shop permanently? That is, do you close down D&D and cancel the line forever? Now I know that there are those of us who are so angry at Wizards right now that we would say yes, but try to remember that this was before 4e came about and you have total freedom to make the next few years of D&D just like you want them to be. Would you seriously cancel the line? Would you say well we had a good run but the days of D&D are done?
B) Close down shop for a few years to give the end of 3.5 a little breathing room? You close down D&D and give the fans a chance to grieve for what for many is their favorite system. Then when you come back you benefit from that space and maybe the fans have had a chance to clamor for the next version. Not a bad idea but it's not without risk. For one thing it means firing every game designer, artist, tester, editor, project manager, writer and everybody in your company. Those people might not be happy to hear that they are out of work until you decide to reopen your doors. They may not come back. Also we all know how a temporary solution might become permanent. D&D might never recover. Then there's the issue of time. How much time do you give the fans to grieve 3.5? Five years? Ten? How much time is necessary?
C) Continue to produce 3.5 product? Again not a bad idea but this is really just delaying things, don't you think? I mean you can't go on producing 3.5 product forever. There just aren't enough new ideas that wouldn't radically alter the game. Heck they were altering the game pretty radically as it was with the last few supplements. I suppose you could continue to produce new campaign settings (and maybe reissue a few old ones) but remember, under the 3rd edition model every campaign setting competes with every other campaign setting since ideas weren't really usable across multiple campaign settings (in most instances). How long do you reasonably think this could continue? Lets say they managed to squeeze out a few more years of product, they would still have to make a choice about what to do eventually. This choice is sort of like choosing not to choose.
D) Issue a 3.75 edition? That is do you produce a new edition of the game that doesn't fundamentally change the nature of the game, but instead just refines things? Perhaps using the SAGA system or something more like Pathfinder. This seems to be the choice a lot of those who dislike 4e seem to want, but I question how viable it is. After all just a few years ago Wizards did this exact thing when it issued 3.5 and that was almost universally panned as a bad idea. Fans were outraged. How could they expect us to repurchase all these old books when they haven't really changed anything? That was the cry, remember? People were almost ready to storm the Wizards offices (and probably would have if not for bad Seattle weather). If you were a designer would you really risk doing the same thing over again and lets say you did, in the end there's still a lot of product you wouldn't be able to reissue because it wouldn't change that much. That's great for a small company like Piazo but terrible for a large company like Wizards that depends on a relatively sizable and constant revenue stream in order to remain viable. As with option C you might just be delaying things here.
E) Issue a new edition that doesn't change much (like Option D) but call it 4th edition? As with Option D above, this seems right now to be a popular option but I can almost guarantee you that if Wizards did this people would have been upset. I mean this is pretty much the same as Option D but with the added plus of insulting the intelligence of their fans by pretending the new edition is not derivative of 3.5 edition. I can't imagine how this wouldn't end with the company shutting down.
F) Take the game back to formula? Really think about what makes D&D what it is and put the hard work into producing a real "new" edition of the game that rightfully deserves that title? Well obviously this is what they did and it's clear that it has it's own risks such as alienating a very entrenched fan base. Of course each of us, were we in charge of development, would have done things our own way. We would have gotten rid of different things and left different things. Every person is different and we all have a different idea about what D&D is. Bottom line were we in charge of 4e, each of us would have designed a different game entirely. That's where the risk comes in with this option. Your design, no matter how amazing you think it is, will most like not totally vibe with anybody else but you. It might be close but it won't be exact. So don't think about how the game did or didn't turn out. Just think about the option itself. Would you have redesigned the game knowing you might alienate people but also knowing that you can produce a game closer to what you think D&D is?
So what would you have done? What do you think they should have done? Don't confine yourselves to these options either. I'm sure I missed something. Bottom line is this is a very tough business. It's a niche market with a very demanding fan base. I happen to think they made the best decision they could but obviously it's been a rough ride. What do you think?
