Why D&D is slowly cutting its own throat.

[philreed]

"The fluff is more valuable than the crunch"

Again, if this thread is ONLY about D&D as a brand then I'll agree with you. But i do not feel the RPG is the source of fluff for D&D these days.

 

[Celebrim]

I disagree - I think Eberron's value as intellectual property is being built by the novels and (especiallly) by the upcoming D&D Online, which is Eberron based.

Congradulations. You've made the one of the first really intelligent responces to me on this thread, and believe me I appreciate it.

I didn't think of that, but there is some merit to the idea. It's entirely possible that there are alot of good ways for WotC to develop the value of their intellectual property that don't involve publishing memorable modules, because they can make memorable adventures now in other ways. Certainly for example in the case of FR, arguably more of the value of the intellectual property came from the success of the novels (themselves adventures of a sort) than ever came from things like the 'Time of Troubles' modules.

So, is the age of the module truly dead in your opinion, or has the module transformed by economical necessity into being a primarily an electronic medium?

UPDATE: Phil made about the same point at the same time.

 

[Storm Raven]

"The fluff is more valuable than the crunch"

Not to a publisher. The crunch is what makes money. And what players buy.

I'm trying to make an argument that even if most of your money is being made at any given time on the crunch, that its the fluff that keeps people playing the game and keeps up peoples appetite for the crunch. If you neglect the fluff for too long, then you lose out to someone who has got great fluff, even if your crunch is better than his crunch.

Are you kidding? 1e D&D was all crunch - there was virtually no "fluff" anywhere. No settings, no novels, the rule books didn't even have any fluff to speak of. And yet it sold like gangbusters. What keeps people coming back is (a) a playable system, (b) nostalgia, (c) and familiarity.

somewhat misses the point. I'm not arguing that crunch isn't a money maker, and in fact is the best short term investment. I'm arguing that not enough long term investments are being made, and that your fluff is your long term investment. Thus the 'slowly cutting its own throat'.

No, it doesn't. And no they aren't. They farmed out much of the "fluff", and thus cut their responsibility to produce loss-leaders, while retaining the profitable portion of their business. Which has allowed mammoth volumes of "fluff" to be produced. It was a canny and far-sighted move.

Again, maybe not directly, but its all those fond memories of things like that which are primarily responsible for keeping us and bringing us back into the game.

But the fond memories aren't generally attributable to the published adventures. Most people spent most of their time playing home-brewed adventures. And even the published adventures didn't generate the fond memories - playing the game did, the published adventures were just a vehicle. Does it truly matter if your 3e memories are driven by playing The Sunless Citadel, Terror in Freeport, or Three Days to Kill? You will still have fond memories of playing D&D, and will keep coming back. Which is exactly what WotC wants.

In point of fact, since you can build your character exactly as you want him to be using the monstrous amount of "crunch" available, you probably had more fun in those than you did back when you played your class straight out of the book with no customization options.

 

[buzz]

You can have the best game system in the world, but if you don't have great intellectual property - if you don't have great ideas and stories - you are likely going to be a flash in the gaming pan and a foot note in gaming history.

HERO system has been around since 1981 without being tied to any massively-popular IP. Sure, the Champions Universe is beloved by many, but it's not a feature of the system. The system is the feature of the system.

Sure, it's not D&D popular, but nothing is.

The problem I have with what I believe you're saying is that it is a matter of record that the TSR business practices that you're citing as successful were, in fact, not. FR and DL have indeed proven very profitable IP. Planescape, Al-Qadim, Birthright, and Mystara have not. As others have pointed out, TSR was also pumping out ginormous amounts of player-centric crunch books. TSR's insistence on continually creating new settings and adventures was one of the reasons they went belly-up.

FR and DL have been successful becasue they are interesting worlds that were lucky enough to have both good design teams and talented authors pumping out novels. IMO, R.A. Salvatore and Weis/Hickman are the prime movers behind the popularity of their corresponding settings.

And if the recent downturn in the RPG industry has shown anything, it's that IP alone will not make a game successful. Plenty of RPGs have used licensed settings far more popular overall than even FR or DL, and it didn't automatically result in strong sales. Plenty of RPGs tied to popular IP have bombed. E.g., LOTR is probably the most popular fantasy setting on earth, but I don't remember seeing a single Decipher LOTR RPG event on the roster for this year's GenCon. Or, heck... the most recent Marvel or DC RPGs, anyone? I didn't think so.

The simple fact is, the current business practices of WotC that you are lamenting are far more sound strategically than anything TSR ever did. The vast diversity of settings is there for people who want it, thanks to the OGL: Midnight, Kalamar, Scarred Lands, Arcanis, Oathbound, etc.

And where are the great modules? All over the place: WotC, Necromancer, Atlas, Goodman, Green Ronin, Malhavoc... You just can't get all nostalgic about them yet.

 

[buzz]

Again, maybe not directly, but its all those fond memories of things like that which are primarily responsible for keeping us and bringing us back into the game.

This, I think, is the primary fallacy in your argument. I don'y play D&D becasue I liked it then. I play it because I like it now.

I would also direct you to Storm Raven's post. When D&D was at its most popular was when it had the least amount of modules, settings, novels, and other media support. DL didn't appear until 1984, and FR was not published as a setting (never mind novels) until 1987.

Ergo, I think that what you're getting at ("Where are all the classic modules of today?") really doesn't have anything to do with the success or failure of D&D. It's just nostalgia. If TSR had included some module other than "Keep on the Borderlands" with msot of the Basic sets, we'd all be fondly remembering that instead.

 

[buzz]

If this thread is really about D&D as a brand and IP I feel it's very, very short-sighted to even consider the RPG side as relevant to the brand. In my opinion, these days, it's the computer games and novels that are important to the IP. The ONLY reason I can see that modules were important during the early days of 1e was that there weren't novels.

Seriously, how many copies of Neverwinter Nights sold compared to the PHB? What are sales comparisons between the RPG and novels?

Just wanted to add a "Booyah!" here.

 

[el-remmen]

/mod hat

Let's refrain from calling or not so subtly implying that other posters are idiots or any other pejoriative term.

If you want to disagree - please do it respectfully.

Thanks.

 

[philreed]

Let's refrain from calling or not so subtly implying that other posters are idiots or any other pejoriative term.

Even if I'm calling myself an idiot?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Most of my fondest memories of the Basic and AD&D games were from the homebrew games that I played. But most of the nostalgia discussion comes from the published modules simply because all (or at least many) of us can relate and compare our experiences. It is much harder for people to compare and relate to "the time when I was in high school where my party had to fight through some demons to release a powerful being who had been our patron from level one that we called Drunkard..." than it is to, "the time we faced off against Lolth in Q1"

And I think the modules are not the key content that WotC needs to be developing. What they need to continue to develop are vibrant settings for which they produce supplements, maybe laced with a module here and there to help DMs with less experience or less time get into using these supplements. They then also need to have player supplements which add unique flavor for characters playing in these areas so they are not only marketing to the DMs.

I have never had a subscription to Dungeon magazine, so I have no idea about this: do adventures published in Dungeon contain WotC setting specific information? Basically what I'm asking, is does Paizo have permission to use WotC non-OGL material in the magazine? I would contend the best thing for WotC is to allow this (if they don't already). Let readers submit adventures for the settings. Each month have a Greyhawk, an FR and an Eberron adventure included along with generic adventures. This way TSR does not have the expense of publishing modules, but reap the benefits of people buying setting and supplement books.

 

[frankthedm]

Second edition was known for the great settings.

along with a pile of refuse to rival the million monkeys working a million years on recreating shakespears works.