WotC WotC needs an Elon Musk

[darjr]

Lets look at part of the credits for Explorers Guide to Wildmount.



Well, looks like a quite a few WotC folks and WotC regular contributors. Imagine that?

 

[Clint_L]

Yet they still clearly want people to replace their hardcover books. They're just giving less reason to do so with this half-measure new edition.

Yes, eventually, but not all at once, out of a sense of forced obligation.

They haven't announced replacements for all their hard cover books, and they have explicitly stated that they don't want a situation where they make all people's existing hardcover books obsolete.

What they have described is wanting to move to a paradigm where, instead of expecting folks to replace their entire collection every 5-10 years, they can continuously sell books, adding updates as they feel the game needs. Which seems like a much better economic model - the old "editions" model only happened out of financial desperation and was always a stop-gap measure rather than a long-term strategy.

WotC is trying to move from short-term tactics to a long term strategy. That is explicitly how they have described OneD&D, as rejection of that old "editions" paradigm of planned obsolescence. They are envisioning that they can sell more books incrementally by NOT throwing the baby out with the bathwater as the old "editions" system did. So, yeah, they wanna sell more books. And they are arguing that they can do so by not continuously rebooting the game and driving customers away.

Look at it this way: they think they have developed a healthy system. They are probably largely through the rapid growth phase, so the question is "how do we get to sustained growth" while keeping the game healthy. Jettisoning 5e is a huge risk, and there is no need to do so because the game has a big, healthy base. So instead of jettisoning it, they have to train players to stop thinking of D&D in terms of editions, and instead think in terms of one continuous game that evolves incrementally, with no obvious dividing points. Because from a sales perspective, you don't want to divide a healthy customer base.

They have stated, point blank, that they DO NOT like the old "editions" paradigm. It is a problem. It is bad for business. They reject it.

 

[Velderan]

Al Qadim and Kara-Tur are interesting places to visit, but I really don't trust WOTC to do them with any sort of tasteful handling (I've heard good things about the fan Al-Qadim book on the DMG).

If I'm remembering the recent DMG Al Qadim book correctly, one of the co-authors is actually Middle Eastern so they're far more likely to actually get the culture they're drawing inspiration from correctly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There IS a lot of content for D&D!

So much one of the common complaints is that there is so much, "wont people think of the poor other games!"

Not my common complaint. Those other games have plenty of content too. For example, I have a rather large collection of books for Star Trek Adventures.

 

[Aldarc]

There IS a lot of content for D&D!

So much one of the common complaints is that there is so much, "wont people think of the poor other games!"

I'm not sure if the former is the reason for the latter. Most criticisms I see has less to do with whether D&D has a lot of content but rather with its market hegemonic dominance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, eventually, but not all at once, out of a sense of forced obligation.

They haven't announced replacements for all their hard cover books, and they have explicitly stated that they don't want a situation where they make all people's existing hardcover books obsolete.

What they have described is wanting to move to a paradigm where, instead of expecting folks to replace their entire collection every 5-10 years, they can continuously sell books, adding updates as they feel the game needs. Which seems like a much better economic model - the old "editions" model only happened out of financial desperation and was always a stop-gap measure rather than a long-term strategy.

WotC is trying to move from short-term tactics to a long term strategy. That is explicitly how they have described OneD&D, as rejection of that old "editions" paradigm of planned obsolescence. They are envisioning that they can sell more books incrementally by NOT throwing the baby out with the bathwater as the old "editions" system did. So, yeah, they wanna sell more books. And they are arguing that they can do so by not continuously rebooting the game and driving customers away.

Look at it this way: they think they have developed a healthy system. They are probably largely through the rapid growth phase, so the question is "how do we get to sustained growth" while keeping the game healthy. Jettisoning 5e is a huge risk, and there is no need to do so because the game has a big, healthy base. So instead of jettisoning it, they have to train players to stop thinking of D&D in terms of editions, and instead think in terms of one continuous game that evolves incrementally, with no obvious dividing points. Because from a sales perspective, you don't want to divide a healthy customer base.

They have stated, point blank, that they DO NOT like the old "editions" paradigm. It is a problem. It is bad for business. They reject it.

I know what they said, I just don't think it will work out that way, and I don't expect they'll succeed in "training players" to accept their "new paradigm".

 

[Gradine]

This is the first time I've come across it and curious to learn.

Do you think the trope itself isn't accurate?

The trope is inaccurate.

Generally speaking, the most significant historical moments are precipitated by natural forces (particularly climate catastrophe and disease), or by broader movements of peoples as a whole (from migration to political movements). Leaders do emerge but are often reacting to historical moments rather than making them. There are a few exceptions, to be sure, but as a whole the historical obsession with "Great Men" requires ignoring the absolutely necessary role that the many (and entirely other forces outside humanity's control) play in history's most significant moments

 

[J.Quondam]

The trope is inaccurate.

Generally speaking, the most significant historical moments are precipitated by natural forces (particularly climate catastrophe and disease), or by broader movements of peoples as a whole (from migration to political movements). Leaders do emerge but are often reacting to historical moments rather than making them. There are a few exceptions, to be sure, but as a whole the historical obsession with "Great Men" requires ignoring the absolutely necessary role that the many (and entirely other forces outside humanity's control) play in history's most significant moments

It might be renamed to "The Great Men theory of taking credit".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It might be renamed to "The Great Men theory of taking credit".

Though I think that, that might be a tad unfair to the "Great Men (some of whom were women)". I think that the "Great Men" thing is a reflection the desire for a simple narrative to hang history upon. Couple with a desire to claim we can control our destiny rather than accept a more humble status as reactors in a more chaotic environment.

 

[JEB]

Maybe they were encouraged to cater to the hardcore fans who wanted older Gen X settings rather than the settings the current casual audience would actually find interesting.

If they were catering to Gen X with Ravenloft and Spelljammer, they wouldn't have rebooted the settings. I'm sure they were hoping for Gen X to spend money on them anyway, because nostalgia, but reboots are intended to hook new audiences, not cater to old ones.