Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5533962" data-attributes="member: 59082">I think you're right. This is also about the time that it seemed WotC started shifting from the open source/Dancey approach to publication back to a more traditional one. The GSL and DDI furthered this development.On the other hand, while I agree that with 3.5 WotC "overcompensated in reaction to mistakes" there is an inherent problem to offering an open source product: third party publishers are going to be pissed whenever you make changes to the game, but the only way to improve the game is to make changes. So you end up being caught between a rock and a hard place: either keep the game unchanging, or only slowly changing, but remaining viable for 3PPs or continue to evolve and develop the game, adding new ideas and approaches.I tend to prefer the latter, mainly because I enjoy a changing game - I like trying out and playing new versions of D&D. But I wish there was a way to keep the 3PP door as widely open as possible.Well, this is just another grain of sand on the pile. My point is that if you look at the total picture, I personally have never seen as much ire and dissent around a given edition of D&D. Now because of the internet, we really can't go much further back than about 15 years. But within that span of time, the D&D community is more fractured than ever (since 4E came out) - and it isn't even close. Good point. Unlike many, I also think Mearls' recent articles are authentically meant in good spirit.Yes, you are right that PHBs and, to a lesser extent, the other two core books make up the bulk of D&D sales. My numbers--which, as you say, are entirely made up but simply serve as illustration--probably relate more to unique titles. My guess is that in terms of gross sales, you have 20% of fans spending about 50% of the money, which is still significant.Obviously we can't just look at our anecdotes. Yes, thanks for repeating what I said in my previous post! Not many, but does it matter? Again, I'm going upon what I've heard, mainly on message boards. But I am willing to at least meet you halfway - that groups are split between those with one diehard and a bunch of casual fans (maybe with one or two "inbetweeners"), and groups with a bunch of diehards and one or two casual fans.It may be more useful to not look at groups but individuals. If we made a scale of 1-5 (with speculated percentage of total active players in parentheses), we could come up with something like this:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Very casual players (20-30%?) - perhaps the spouses of more serious players who don't own anything behind maybe some dice and a PHB and perhaps not even that. This also includes the people that try a game out once or twice and never come back.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Casual players (30-50%?) - probably own one or two books, dice, shows up regularly, but probably never DMs or thinks about the game outside of the session.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Dedicated players (15-25%?) - starts thinking about the game outside the session, expanding their collection, tries their hand at DMing, etc. Probably doesn't think about the hobby or industry beyond the game itself.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Serious players (5-15%?) - has an RPG collection, regularly DMs, spends a fair amount of time thinking the game and hobby (and the industry) outside of sessions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Diehard players (<5%?) - these are the game room folks with vast collections, maybe playing and running in multiple games. For them gaming is probably their primary hobby, maybe primary interest. May be game designers.</li> </ol>My assertion is the bulk of RPG items - in terms of unique products - is bought by categories 3-5, yet the higher you go in categories the less total numbers of players. The majority of active gamers are probably Very Casual or Casual, and the only items either buys are dice, maybe a miniature, and a core rulebook - and perhaps not even that.My point of all of this is that a game company, in order to survive beyond the initial release of the core rulebook, has to keep the Dedicated-to-Diehard fan base (maybe 30% of the total number of active players) happy.But again, don't get too caught up on numbers - they're not meant to be definitive but illustrative (and highly speculative). They could be way off, although I think the general spirit of the proportions is about right. Remember, we're talking about millions of gamers - so to say that less than 5% are Diehard and about 10% are Serious, is still to say that there are some hundreds of thousands of gamers that are serious about roleplaying. I was talking about fan reaction, not other publishers. I don't remember there being a lasting outcry from the fanbase and a mass exodus to other games like we've seen with 4E.Good point. I think what we saw in the early 90s was the "Boomer" generation of D&D players (those who started in the late 70s and early 80s and made up the bulk of the so-called "25 million" D&D players of the early-to-mid 80s) growing up. That generation, my generation, went off to and graduated from college and then focused on their social lives and careers. In my opinion, part of the 3E boom was due to the fact that a lot of these folks came back - or at least those that had been at least Dedicated players - and started to settle down a bit with families, and wanted some form of creative/fun outlet that wasn't drinking or poker.The Vampire wave was a new sub-generation of slightly younger players with a more postmodern outlook. I don't think this group was taken away from D&D as much as it was created, a new cultural group.It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I personally think that Pathfinder has more of a cap on total players than D&D does, partially because of the brand name but also because of the game itself. There are a large group of D&D players that won't go to Pathfinder, that prefer 4E and may be open to 5E, but feel that Pathfinder is "going backwards" to 3.5. I admit to being one of them (this is not to say that I wouldn't play and enjoy Pathfinder - and I do buy quite a few of Paizo's products - but that I prefer 4E and am curious as to what the next iteration of D&D might be).True, but it is an important segment - it is a significant portion of the Dedicated, Serious, and Diehard fanbase that is active on message boards and ends up being influential because of the loudness of its voice.Except that they didn't "dump dragon dung" on the fans, they mildly made fun of the older game. If I remember correctly, that is. Certainly it wasn't the best PR, but people have blown this way out of proportion, imo.Well put - and this is crucial. Yes, 4E is (probably) doing fine overall, but if you are the Hasbro exec in charge of oversight of WotC, or if you are the D&D bigwig (Bill Slaviscek?) you're probably not satisfied with "fine." The crucial part is that D&D as a brand could be doing much better - that is the point. To put it into letter grades, I think WotC's handling of 4E has been in the D to C range; a D is still a passing grade and a C is still adequate, but neither are good. And when you have the hottest brand name in the industry you should be doing much better than adequate.Now it may be that 3E was catching lightning in a bottle and that the world has moved on and we'll never see another traditional tabletop RPG renaissance. But if you're WotC, you're looking for ways to manufacture another renaissance, a new Golden Age - you simply can't operate under the assumption that the Golden Days are gone and RPGs are a dying hobby...otherwise you might as well make as much money as you can for as long as possible and start preparing to sell the brand.To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly what WotC is doing. But only time will tell. What someone described as WotC throwing all sorts of stuff at the wall to see what sticks may be their last gasp efforts to find something profitable enough to continue. If nothing sticks, or sticks well enough, we may be seeing the final days (years) of WotC D&D.</blockquote>

Verification