Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Hussar]

I don't think there's very much innovative in the mechanics of 4e, unless you consider "New to D&D" the same as innovative. In many ways, the mechanical changes seemed like an attempt to get back to results similar to those of earlier D&D, where 2e and (much more so) 3e had moved towards the "Magic is Better" paradigm. Now, some of the setting elements they use do seem pretty innovative. As for DDi, if the apparent original intention had been carried through, then I think it would have set a new standard in terms of integration of computer tools in play. That would in my opinion have been a very good innovation, though since it fell apart in the implementation I'm less inclined to be generous to it.

Now this I will disagree with. One of the biggest innovations in 4e is breaking the initiative paradigm. That's not only new to D&D, but, new to a lot of RPG's. Yes, I know you had AOO's in 3e. Sure. But, that was reactive, not pro-active. You, the player, could not take an action outside of your turn in initiative.

4e radically changed that. Now, every class can take actions outside of their turn in initiative, and, not only that, but can grant other people actions outside of their initiative as well.

It's a very big shift in play. Players have to pay attention all the time, because, at any point in time, you can possibly be called on to act. Previously, you could largely walk away from the table when it wasn't your turn, and, so long as you came back before the DM's turn, you would not miss anything.

3e's big innovation was tying everything to the PC generation rules. Everything in 3e is made just like a PC. For D&D, at least, and a lot of RPG's as well, this was pretty new. The idea of creating a balanced framework for making virtually anything you wanted in the game, either as a PC or an NPC, was pretty unique to 3e. Gave DM's all sorts of tools that, previously, were largely only seen in point buy games.

 

[Sunseeker]

What? Oh, you're looking at it from the perspective of a player observing other players, aren't you? I guess I can see how it might seem that way from that point of view.

[begin John Wayne]That's a might big assumption there partner. [/end John Wayne]

From my perspective behind the screen, all DDI does is make /everyone/ a powergamer. Admittedly, that does solve the problem of player capability discrepancy, but it absolutely does not "overcome systems mastery."

I have ran 4e games on multiple occasions. You are confusing "powergaming" with "not sucking", which was the systerm-mastery problem evidence in prior editions. It wasn't just that there were lots of choices, but there were good choices and bad choices, and players were punished for making decisions they thought were good, even non-powergaming decisions, because those choices were objectively BAD. We're not even talking about "creative" or "fluff" choices, there were numerous feats and prestiege classes that to an unknowing player were absolutely horrid to pick.

It's not powergaming to want to make good choices. Powergaming is desiring a powerful character over all other facets. It is not desiring to be free from detrimental choices.

What it does do is free developers up to build an insane cyclopean machine*, safe in the knowledge that all of their players have access to their cross-referenced L-space data repository and can engage their monstrous, unforgivable sin of design as equals.

It sounds to me like you're one of those kinds of DMs and players who wants others to suffer for their choices, to force them to master the game or GTFO. Frankly, that strikes me a disgusting attitude.

I don't want to run a game that is made easier by a DDI-like tool. It's too close to a game that requires a DDI-like tool. I'll stick with my books and hypertext SRD.

There is no difference between the SRD and the tool, aside from the fact that tool is more user-friendly.

Frankly, it sounds like you simply want to make life difficult for people. I have no desire to make the game difficult by supporting false-choice options and then allowing the game to punish players for simple ignorance. With the sheer volume of content in nearly every edition of D&D, it's unrealistic to expect players to always know a bad choice when they see it.

And please don't retort with "no choice is ever bad", because yes, some are. Anyone who has ever played 3.X knows this. Denying it will not help your case.

 

[Zardnaar]

The one true wayism of 1st ed and BECMI tend to protect you from bad choices.

 

[pemerton]

there are stories of 4E books selling less than 1000 copies.

I thought that was the Menzoberranzan book, which is actually system neutral. Here is what my thought is based on:

Menzobaranzan which was systemless and if I've read between the lines of the State of the Mongoose only sold a few hundred copies.

If revenue= players

Unless you have a subscription service - which Paizo and WotC both have - then my guess is that it doesn't.

Dancey is on record as saying D&D is a 25-30 million per year business

Is that revenue or profit?

In any event, I assume that a fair bit of that, if not the majority, comes from non-RPG sales: books, boardgames, etc.

4E lost over 70% of the 3.5 market

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures for player bases. But are you suggesting that the D&D arm of WotC has had it's revenue shrink by 70% since 2008? That strikes me as pretty unlikely - if that had happened, wouldn't it have been shut down? Not to mention many more layoffs than we've heard about.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And please don't retort with "no choice is ever bad", because yes, some are. Anyone who has ever played 3.X knows this. Denying it will not help your case.

Personally, 3.X is my favorite form of D&D, and I am of the opinion that no choice is bad as long as it models the way you want your PC to work.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

2xpost

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought that was the Menzoberranzan book, which is actually system neutral. Here is what my thought is based on:



Unless you have a subscription service - which Paizo and WotC both have - then my guess is that it doesn't.

Is that revenue or profit?

In any event, I assume that a fair bit of that, if not the majority, comes from non-RPG sales: books, boardgames, etc.

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures for player bases. But are you suggesting that the D&D arm of WotC has had it's revenue shrink by 70% since 2008? That strikes me as pretty unlikely - if that had happened, wouldn't it have been shut down? Not to mention many more layoffs than we've heard about.

More or less based on what Dancey said vs what we know DDI would be getting and there is a high and low figure one can go with there as well. We also know how much Paizo is getting and their growth rate. There is only around a dozen people working on D&DN IIRC so the 6 million or so from DDI would cover that. So yes WoTC has lost around 70% of its revenue since 2008 maybe close to 80% depending if you want to go with Dancey's 25-30 million figure which seems in the ball park since D&D is estimated to have earned about a billion dollars in 40 years (avg 25 mill per year) and there are figures for what TSR was earning and D&D was not making massive amounts until 81 or so so Dancey's figure seems to be in the right ball park. I think the the 25-30 million figure was referring to 2006 as the context Dancey was using was the lead up to the development of 4E.

You can also work out Paizo's income figures in 2011 when it was official Paizo was outselling 4th ed and they were in the 8-9 million range. As of 2012 around 18 million of Danceys figures are accounted for leaving around 7-12 million unaccounted for which could indicate the number of 3rd ed players who did not migrate to PF or stick with 4E long term. With D&DN being announced in Jan 2012 and 4E for all intents and purposes (outside of DDI) going out of print WoTC seems to have lost 70% of their revenue in the D&D franchise maybe more- close to 80%. Without accurate DDI income figures it is hard to say for certain but DDI does tell you how many people are on it and you can multiply that by the yearly or monthly subscription rates to get a range.

 

[pemerton]

So yes WoTC has lost around 70% of its revenue since 2008 maybe close to 80% depending if you want to go with Dancey's 25-30 million figure

You seem to be assuming that all of that revenue comes from RPG sales. I don't know why you would make that assumption. It seems pretty clear that a good chunk of that revenue must come from book and non-RPG game sales.

If a unit of WotC had really had its revenue drop by 80% in 5 years I don't think they would have them working on a new edition of the game! They would close them down, wouldn't they?

 

[Hussar]

Personally, 3.X is my favorite form of D&D, and I am of the opinion that no choice is bad as long as it models the way you want your PC to work.

But, even within that, there are numerous choices that are still bad based on that criteria. Lots of choices don't actually model the way you want your PC to work because they wind up being trap choices.

 

[Zardnaar]

You seem to be assuming that all of that revenue comes from RPG sales. I don't know why you would make that assumption. It seems pretty clear that a good chunk of that revenue must come from book and non-RPG game sales.

If a unit of WotC had really had its revenue drop by 80% in 5 years I don't think they would have them working on a new edition of the game! They would close them down, wouldn't they?

Or try and redo it for cheap. They have contracted out the art to China IIRC and DDI will pay the wages of the D&DN crew which is only around a dozen people IIRC. Paizo has over 40 people working there just for a sake of comparison. They did shut it down when 4E went out of print in effect. No new D&D product for 2 years is even longer than the TSR- WoTC transfer and gives Paizo a free 2 years of unopposed sales to grow PF and they were maintaining a 35% growth rate per year while 4E was still in print. All the other ediitons were more or less printed up to 6 months or so before the new one landed, 2 years of no new product is unique in D&Ds history. Well they sold a playtest version at Gencon I suppose but you get what I mean.