# Ryan Dancey - D&D in a Death Spiral



## mhensley

some very interesting comments by Ryan Dancey about the whole pdf fiasco here-

Why Are Any of You Surprised? So, WoTC has very suddenly… | RPGpundit's Xanga Site - Weblog



> This is a classic example of Death Spiral.  As things go bad, the regressive forces inside the organization (lawyers, commissioned sales people, creative folk who feel stifled by history, precariously tenured executives) are increasingly able to exert their agenda.  It always makes a bad situation worse, but there's no magic bullet that would likely make the bad situation better so you get a rapid unbalance in the Corporate Force towards the Dark Side.
> 
> > OGL?  Risky (someone might make us look bad, steal our ideas before we print them, or create a competitive brand that siphons off sales), and lack of faith in network marketing devalues ROI assumptions.  Kill it.
> 
> > PDF?  Causes endless problems with hardcopy partners creating pressure on sales team they could really do without, and revenues are so small as to be non-strategic.  Cut it.
> 
> > Online?  Every time you talk about it someone produces a $10 million minimum cost estimate to "do it right".  After spending 3-5x this amount in a series of failed initiatives (lead by utterly unqualified people), executives assume Online is plutonium.  No qualified lead or team will touch it.
> 
> > Evergreen?  Sales of each unit are going down and few products have any staying power.  The only (seemingly viable) solution is to put more books in production - make up for the revenue hole caused by lack of evergreen sales by getting more money out of each customer.  The Treadmill.
> 
> The next things that will take hits are the RPGA (costs a lot to operate - slash it's budget), then quality (put fewer words and less art on fewer pages and raise the price), then consistency (rules varients generated by inexperienced designers and/or overworked developers start to spawn and cohesion in rulings breaks down leading to ad hoc interpretations as the de facto way to play).
> 
> Meanwhile sales just keep going down, the gap in the budget keeps getting bigger, and no matter how many heads roll, there isn't any light at the end of the tunnel.
> 
> Wizards is about to be forced into the D&D end-game which is something that many publishers have gone through but none ever with a game the scale and impact of D&D (TSR walked right up to this cliff but WotC saved them from going over the edge).  There are 3 outcomes:
> 
> 1:  A total collapse, and the game ceases meaningful publication and distribution at least for one gamer generation and maybe forever.
> 
> 2:  Downsizing until overhead matches income; could involve some kind of out-license or spin off of the business - think BattleTech in its current incarnation.
> 
> 3:  Traumatic rebirth, meaning that someone, somewhere finds some way to cut out the cancers that are eating the tabletop game and restarts the mass market business for D&D.
> 
> Note that 2 and 3 can be mileposts on the road to 1.




in other words-


----------



## OchreJelly

His follow-up response is also interesting.  This is in response to a comment about PHB2 scarcity:


> Let's think this through.  I can give you some pointers, because I've been in the room when these kinds of decisions were made.
> 
> Wizards knows how many PHB1 they printed.  They know how well they've been selling since release.  A quick look at my local B&N shows me how many 4E products they've pumped out in the ensuing time, and they know the sales on each of those products as well.  They are operating in what I would call an "information rich" environment.
> 
> They also know roughly how many units the buyers at the big chain bookstores are going to take long before the books are printed.  The solicitation cycles for the bookstores are longer than the production cycles which means Wizards often has the luxury of "printing to order".  When I left the company, book store sales were about 50% of the total volume.  Since there's been about a 50% dieoff in hobby gaming retailers since then I assume that the ratio is now closer to 75%.  The book chain buyers have very good data warehouses and are able to inspect sales on a title by title, store by store basis.  While they don't always do as much research as they could, they often do enough to get pretty close to the expected run rate for a given title.  They too are "information rich".
> 
> What does this tell us about scarcity for PHB2?  It tells us that 4E in general is selling poorly.  It tells us that given the insider information, the publisher and the market-maker both had less confidence in this signature product than necessary to meet demand.  That's a scary, scary mistake to be making at this stage in the game.  The driver behind this is overstock.  Neither the sales team at Wizards, nor the buying team at the chain bookstores, wants any overstock inventory.  If the book does not become evergreen, the overstock will have to be liquidated and due to the way cost accoutning works, the "charge" for that liquidation will come in some time period other than the period where the profits were made.  For a host of accountancy reasons, that can be a budget - and comission - killer.
> 
> The natural reaction of a sales team in a declining, underperforming market is to undershoot the demand curve - to genreate artificial scarcity.  They'll sell all the books that get produced and lock in their gains, and if some customers don't get the product, well, that's not too harmful in the scheme of things.  (Well, it's not too harmful unless your underprinting chokes what might have been a resurgence in demand leading to a recovery in the business, but that's a bird in the bush scenario and these are scary ing times for publishers and retailers alike!)
> 
> Or maybe it's just a fluke, and there's inventory sitting in stores in one area of the country unsold while books in other areas are flying off shelves as fast as they can be stocked.  Or maybe there's another wave of books coming, because the production run had to be split into two for logistical reasons.  Or maybe there's an astroturfing campaign underway to simulate consumer demand that doesn't really exist, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> By my money is on "internal decision maker doesn't believe in the product" as the reason you're seeing scarcity.
> RyanD


----------



## mhensley

OchreJelly said:


> His follow-up response is also interesting.  This is in response to a comment about PHB2 scarcity:




Wow, I didn't see that one.  Pretty strong words...


----------



## Mournblade94

What Ryan Dancey said is what I discuss with my Local Gamestore owner (and good friend).  I feel the reception to the part of the players handbook that should of been released with PHB1, was much less than the original.

My gamestore DID sell out of all copied of the players handbook 2 but he only ordered 12.  I told him he should of bought more, but I would have over estimated.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

so is this guy always a glass half empty type, or only in regards to this?


----------



## Zaukrie

All of what Ryan says could be true. It could also be true that we are in the worst economic conditions in this country in some time, that the video game industry is nigh unbeatable at this point, and it doesn't matter what decisions WotC makes or doesn't make. Many, many things are likely at play here.


----------



## Fenes

Very interesting, and from someone who knows the business very well.


----------



## S'mon

Zaukrie said:


> All of what Ryan says could be true. It could also be true that we are in the worst economic conditions in this country in some time, that the video game industry is nigh unbeatable at this point, and it doesn't matter what decisions WotC makes or doesn't make. Many, many things are likely at play here.




Dancey says in that thread he thinks that pen and paper RPGs are finished as a commercial proposition - ie the 'video game industry is unbeatable' - hence the death spiral.


----------



## hexgrid

GMforPowergamers said:


> so is this guy always a glass half empty type, or only in regards to this?




He's been predicting the death of table top RPGs for quite a while now.


----------



## D'karr

hexgrid said:


> He's been predicting the death of table top RPGs for quite a while now.




Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.


----------



## Kask

"What does this tell us about scarcity for PHB2?  It tells us that 4E in general is selling poorly."

This is interesting.  I have 3 each of BN & Borders in my area.  All carried 3.x for the entire history of those versions.  All carried the release of 4.0.  NONE of them restocked 4.0 and don't carry it anymore.  I asked the mgrs of the stores and they said it was because of lackluster sales compared to 3.x...


----------



## OchreJelly

S'mon said:


> Dancey says in that thread he thinks that pen and paper RPGs are finished as a commercial proposition - ie the 'video game industry is unbeatable' - hence the death spiral.




I wonder if he felt that way too back in 2000 at the birth of 3E when he was involved.  Back then everyone was talking about video games and CCGs signaling the death knell of table-top rpgs (not to mention TSR's death throes).  Today there's even more penetration of video gaming as MMOs have come into their own, but evidence there shows that the gaming market as a whole is growing.  If that market is bigger, wouldn't some of those gamers become table-top gamers?

That said, I partly agree with his comment.  I have felt that table-top needed to evolve for the online age, and I thought DDI was going to take us in that direction, but I digress...


----------



## Charwoman Gene

So the Chief Marketing Officer for the #2 RPG Company, which is also an MMO company, sends up some FUD about his interpretation of recent events, which coincidentally, reflect feelings he's had for years, and validate the strategies his company implements.


----------



## Piratecat

It's probably obvious, but discuss his ideas without taking personal shots.

Dancy burned a lot of his industry credibility a few years back with the GAMA debacle. I'm also willing to consider that he has a horse in this race, and I'd have trouble believing that he's a purely neutral pundit. I find it an interesting analysis, but I'm not going to give his opinion more weight than it deserves.


----------



## frankthedm

GMforPowergamers said:


> so is this guy always a glass half empty type, or only in regards to this?



Not only is the glass half empty, it probably has been poisoned.


----------



## C_M2008

Charwoman Gene said:


> So the Chief Marketing Officer for the #2 RPG Company, which is also an MMO company, sends up some FUD about his interpretation of recent events, which coincidentally, reflect feelings he's had for years, and validate the strategies his company implements.




My take exactly. Someone posting anti-WoTC sentiments that has everything to gain from doing so. Meaningless drivel. 

4e seems to be doing pretty well from were I'm sitting. I won't bother posting my ancedotal evidence, since obviously that's not solid evidence just like what Mr. Dancey wrote isn't.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Couple bones to pick with his analysis.

First, I would be very, very surprised if retail booksellers *increased* the percentage of RPG sales they accounted for.  That would fly in the trend of every other kind of book sale.  Amazon, OTOH, likely accounts for far more of the RPG sales than they did 9 years ago.  Using retail markers to base any analysis on seems error-prone to me.

Second, sales of secondary 'core' books (and god how it irks me that the term 'core' has been debased) are largely irrlevant.  They've always been less than 'true' core, and the way WotC decided to break things out IMO just increases the chance that a single copy per group will be acquired.  If you aren't going to be playing one of the PHB2 classes, there's zero reason to get the book.  The ancillary crunch that applies to other classes isn't enough to justify having multiple copies.

And anyone with a DDI sub is less likely to buy the newer books.  Which, really, is what I think the real agenda is.  The books are here to sell DDI subs; the $10/month/player is far more important to the bottom line than the sales of the books, since the penetration of the non-core books is a small fraction of the player-base.

The farm has been bet on DDI.  The question is, will the degree to which  it cannablizes dead-tree sales outweigh the revenue?


----------



## xechnao

What is "evergreen"?



Piratecat said:


> It's probably obvious, but discuss his ideas without taking personal shots.
> 
> Dancy burned a lot of his industry credibility a few years back with the GAMA debacle. I'm also willing to consider that he has a horse in this race, and I'd have trouble believing that he's a purely neutral pundit. I find it an interesting analysis, but I'm not going to give his opinion more weight than it deserves.




GAMA debacle?


And a comment regarding the analysis. I believe I read somewhere that chain stores can return product while LFGS can not. Is this correct? If so perhaps since chain stores make 25% more of the business this is the reason Wotc prints less now? Since it seems that it would have a higher risk of overstocking itself than in the past.


----------



## Jack99

xechnao said:


> GAMA debacle?




Yeah, I wanna hear this too.


----------



## frankthedm

xechnao said:


> What is "evergreen"?



A Book that is not tied to a ruleset. I.C.E.'s [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Nightmares-Mine-Rolemaster-Standard-System/dp/1558063676/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239296477&sr=8-1"]Nightmares of mine[/ame] is a fine example of such. 







xechnao said:


> GAMA debacle?



[ame=http://ogrecave.com/2004/07/30/board-breaking-at-gama-karate-not-involved/]OgreCave » Board breaking at GAMA, karate not involved[/ame]


----------



## Derren

C_M2008 said:


> My take exactly. Someone posting anti-WoTC sentiments that has everything to gain from doing so. Meaningless drivel.
> 
> 4e seems to be doing pretty well from were I'm sitting. I won't bother posting my ancedotal evidence, since obviously that's not solid evidence just like what Mr. Dancey wrote isn't.




Still, there is some truth to his words. Its not normal that the PHB2 is sold out. It means that the demand of it is either really huge or really small. No room for a middle ground.

I also think its strange that in light of not being able to produce enough physical books WotC decides to stop the sale of PDFs which can fill this gap.


----------



## Aus_Snow

If it's true that he has been saying that 'the MMORPG star killed the tabletop star', basically, I would be more than a little wary of his commentary on RPGs of any kind since the time he started saying so, especially given his current place of employment and position there.

Damn.  I thought better of the guy, not knowing such things 'til now. He still did some great things, some time ago now, but yeah. . . damn. [edit --- this second bit is referring to that GAMA move - yeesh.]


----------



## Ourph

Derren said:


> Still, there is some truth to his words. Its not normal that the PHB2 is sold out. It means that the demand of it is either really huge or really small. No room for a middle ground.



Is it really surprising that the PHB2 would be very popular? People have been talking excitedly about the PHB2 since the core books came out last summer. It contains three core classes (the Barbarian, Bard and Druid) which have been the most talked about "missing" classes in 4e. Plus, it's the only major release for 4e right now. It makes perfect sense to me that it's selling really well.


----------



## Mark Hope

frankthedm said:


> A Book that is not tied to a ruleset. I.C.E.'s Nightmares of mine is a fine example of such.




I thought that "evergreen" was a book that sold consistently throughout the lifespan of a game's edition, like the PHB.  Supplements have a limited shelf-run, but the PHB is always in stock and always sold.  Guess I could be wrong on that, though.  Wouldn't be the first time


----------



## Derren

Ourph said:


> Is it really surprising that the PHB2 would be very popular? People have been talking excitedly about the PHB2 since the core books came out last summer. It contains three core classes (the Barbarian, Bard and Druid) which have been the most talked about "missing" classes in 4e. Plus, it's the only major release for 4e right now. It makes perfect sense to me that it's selling really well.




People have been talking excitedly about nearly all books.
The other theory is that a lot of gamers tried the core books and found out that 4E was not for them or that the core books are enough and don't buy the PHB2. Or at least that WotC and the retailers thought that this would happen.
Without having actual sales numbers we can't say.


----------



## guivre

C_M2008 said:


> My take exactly. Someone posting anti-WoTC sentiments that has everything to gain from doing so. Meaningless drivel.





Interesting, so one can assume that you will discount any pro-wotc information from WotC employees since by your logic that would also be meaningless drivel.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice

Seems like, in light of the fact the the PHB2 was on the WSJ bestseller list, maybe WotC might have a good reason to not guess the demand accurately. PHB2 was a really big seller, bigger than previous books. It was obviously more anticipated than they realized. Why does there have to be ulterior motives or a doomsday prophecy to explain that it did better than predicted? It did realy well. Whoops, they underestimated that it would do this well. 

Nice pot-shot Ryan, but your biases are obviously getting in the way. Sad.

EDIT: Sorry Derren, your analysis is a bit off. The PHB2 sold out, and it sold huge numbers. If it had just sold out, but not huge numbers, maybe you would have a leg to stand on.


----------



## filthgrinder

Kask said:


> This is interesting.  I have 3 each of BN & Borders in my area.  All carried 3.x for the entire history of those versions.  All carried the release of 4.0.  NONE of them restocked 4.0 and don't carry it anymore.  I asked the mgrs of the stores and they said it was because of lackluster sales compared to 3.x...




So, just to be completely clear here. A book store ordered stock on a book which sold out. The book is on best seller lists. The book store decides not to order anymore...

I guess this is why Borders is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. You've basically said, "The new Harry Potter book came out, and it sold out and it's on best seller lists, but we aren't going to order anymore of it because the first Harry Potter book sold more".

The majority of bookstore managers who determine stock levels will look at what books sold in there store, what books sold in nationwide trends (best seller lists) and will stock those. 

Anyways, Ryan's view is obviously colored by his personal and professional situation. We know te 4E books have hit best seller lists and sold out their print runs. People are really intent on coloring that as a failure.


----------



## coyote6

Charwoman Gene said:


> So the Chief Marketing Officer for the #2 RPG Company, which is also an MMO company, sends up some FUD about his interpretation of recent events, which coincidentally, reflect feelings he's had for years, and validate the strategies his company implements.




Wait, Dancey works for CCP/White Wolf now? I hadn't realized that. And he posts at RPGPundit's site -- that's kind of amusing.


----------



## Fifth Element

Mark Hope said:


> I thought that "evergreen" was a book that sold consistently throughout the lifespan of a game's edition, like the PHB. Supplements have a limited shelf-run, but the PHB is always in stock and always sold. Guess I could be wrong on that, though. Wouldn't be the first time



No, you're quite right. Evergreen in this sense refers to a product that produces significant sales for a significant amount of time after its initital release. Most products sell when first released, then trickle off to little or nothing. Evergreen products continue to sell for a long period of time.


----------



## Ourph

Derren said:


> People have been talking excitedly about nearly all books.



YMMV, but it seems to me that people (people who were actually interested in 4e that is) were much more excited about getting their hands on PHB2 (again, primarily b/c of the Barbarian, Bard and Druid) than they were about _Manual of the Planes_ or _Open Grave_. I really wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that someone underestimated demand.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Hitting any non-fiction bestseller list isn't that hard.  For April 2nd, when the PHB2 was #14, "Who Moved My Cheese" was #15, and it's an eleven-year-old book.


----------



## avin

I don't know.

If he is biased against 4E and his arguments aren't valid due to this I can't think any Wotc employee arguments are valid, also, because they are biased too 0o

My feeling is PHB2 sold too well because of Bard, Barbarian and Sorcered.


----------



## malraux

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Hitting any non-fiction bestseller list isn't that hard.  For April 2nd, when the PHB2 was #14, "Who Moved My Cheese" was #15, and it's an eleven-year-old book.




True, one time appearance on a best seller list isn't all that big a deal.  That said, appearance on multiple different lists is.  As is appearance on yearly best seller lists.


----------



## kenmarable

filthgrinder said:


> The majority of bookstore managers who determine stock levels will look at what books sold in there store, what books sold in nationwide trends (best seller lists) and will stock those.



Having worked at Borders HQ a while back, it's actually not the bookstore managers that even make that decision, but the team of Buyers at the corporate offices that decide how many of what gets ordered and sent where. (For the big chains, at least. Of course, local bookstores may be different.) At least back in the late 90's when I worked there (corporate tech support, so I fixed people's PCs all over the offices), I believe there was 1 guy who handled all role-playing, fantasy fiction, sci fi, and horror, too, I think. Obviously RPGs were a pretty minor part of his job compared to those other sections.

In the decade since, I'm sure it's changed somewhat, but I still seriously doubt that the hundreds of Borders managers, and thousands of Waldenbooks managers really have much individual say in what gets purchased. It's a combination of tons of sales data, and huge stacks of review copies of books. 

When I was an employee there, it was always a good idea to get in good with the buyers, because they had literally boxes of books sitting outside their cubes free for the taking. I know it sounds fun getting an advance copy of pretty much every book released in your area of interest, but every day they had to alternate reviewing row after row of numbers, and quickly thumbing through a dozen or more books a day.

Now, this is just my guess from how I know their workload was before, but I'm figure that something like the PHB2, being in the RPG section from an established publisher, probably garnered maybe a half hour attention one afternoon to determine how many were ordered for all Borders and Waldenbook stores. After all, there was probably stacks and stacks of "the next great sci fi author" novels to sift through that day. Of course, if someone from WotC was pushy and tried directly courting more sales, that's a different story. Like I said, that's just my guess from seeing these people work almost a decade ago, so take it as you will.

But the big chain orders would be almost entirely dependent on a brief review of actual sales data appearing in some ugly report (they were still running it all off of a 20 year old pain in the butt mainframe up until '99 at least), and maybe or maybe not some sweet talking from WotC about how awesome this book is going to be (just like how awesome every book every publisher tries to sell to the stores).

Lastly, I'm not surprised if they are doing poorly. I could tell you some horror stories about how bad that place was run - especially around the sordid history of Borders.com.


----------



## Mournblade94

PrecociousApprentice said:


> Seems like, in light of the fact the the PHB2 was on the WSJ bestseller list, maybe WotC might have a good reason to not guess the demand accurately. PHB2 was a really big seller, bigger than previous books. It was obviously more anticipated than they realized. Why does there have to be ulterior motives or a doomsday prophecy to explain that it did better than predicted? It did realy well. Whoops, they underestimated that it would do this well.
> 
> Nice pot-shot Ryan, but your biases are obviously getting in the way. Sad.
> 
> EDIT: Sorry Derren, your analysis is a bit off. The PHB2 sold out, and it sold huge numbers. If it had just sold out, but not huge numbers, maybe you would have a leg to stand on.




Obviously no one is really an expert here.  Ryan Dancey is the closest to an expert in the field, that has posted here.

Derren's analysis is just as good as anyone else's here.

The game store dealers I know tend to agree with Ryan Dancey.

I think Derren's analysis was as accurate as any othere here.  PHB2 on the best seller Non fiction list is not that difficult a feat.  In fact I think it would HAVE to make it on the list to continue the line.  If it didn't make it I would be surprised.


----------



## Kask

filthgrinder said:


> So, just to be completely clear here. A book store ordered stock on a book which sold out.




After a period of time that was much longer than 3.x books & not worth the shelf space.



filthgrinder said:


> The book is on best seller lists. The book store decides not to order anymore...




Not relevant to how many books move in a particular book store as evidenced by local sales.


----------



## hexgrid

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Hitting any non-fiction bestseller list isn't that hard.  For April 2nd, when the PHB2 was #14, "Who Moved My Cheese" was #15, and it's an eleven-year-old book.




Still puts a big dent in the theory that the PHB2 selling out means 4e is doing bad.


----------



## Dragonblade

An evergreen product is one that sells consistently year after year.

As far as the GAMA debacle, basically Ryan made a bid to take over GAMA and it looked like he would be successful but then a scandal erupted when it was revealed he had had access to and had been secretly reading a privileged GAMA e-mail list that was normally restricted to GAMA insiders which Ryan was not at the time.

I think Ryan is a smart guy and generally knows what he's talking about. He may even be right about WotC's internal numbers and conversations. But I will say this: My gaming group has been playing D&D more avidly and enthusiastically with the release of 4e than we have since we were kids playing 1e all those years ago.

3.5 basically killed our inner D&D child, and we wouldn't be gaming at all if 4e hadn't come out. The bottom line is that 4e is a fun game and we enjoy it a lot. If it dies, we don't become Paizo customers, or GR customers, or customers of any other gaming company. We just quit playing tabletop completely and all the dollars we spend on peripheral products or 3PP materials will just go to video games, or some other hobby altogether.


----------



## Kask

filthgrinder said:


> So, just to be completely clear here. A book store ordered stock on a book which sold out.




After a period of time that was much longer than 3.x books & not worth the shelf space.



filthgrinder said:


> The book is on best seller lists. The book store decides not to order anymore...




Not relevant to how many books move in a particular book store as evidenced by local sales.


----------



## jaerdaph

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> "Who Moved My Cheese" was #15, and it's an eleven-year-old book.




Ironically, a lot of edition warrior gamers would benefit from reading this book...


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

hexgrid said:


> Still puts a big dent in the theory that the PHB2 selling out means 4e is doing bad.




I don't think it says anything about that theory.  We don't know what the print run was or what the threshold was for hitting the list.


----------



## Mournblade94

Dragonblade said:


> An evergreen product is one that sells consistently year after year.
> 
> As far as the GAMA debacle, basically Ryan made a bid to take over GAMA and it looked like he would be successful but then a scandal erupted when it was revealed he had had access to and had been secretly reading a privileged GAMA e-mail list that was normally restricted to GAMA insiders which Ryan was not at the time.
> 
> I think Ryan is a smart guy and generally knows what he's talking about. He may even be right about WotC's internal numbers and conversations. But I will say this: My gaming group has been playing D&D more avidly and enthusiastically with the release of 4e than we have since we were kids playing 1e all those years ago.
> 
> 3.5 basically killed our inner D&D child, and we wouldn't be gaming at all if 4e hadn't come out. The bottom line is that 4e is a fun game and we enjoy it a lot. If it dies, we don't become Paizo customers, or GR customers, or customers of any other gaming company. We just quit playing tabletop completely and all the dollars we spend on peripheral products or 3PP materials will just go to video games, or some other hobby altogether.




I think at this point Green Ronin and Paizo are at least as big as TSR was before the aquisition.  If WOTC sunk (which it will not because of Magic), or if the D&D brand was cancelled, I think there is plenty of interest to keep Paizo and Green Ronin, Mongoose, and white wolf afloat.

WOTC alienated alot of people.  I easily spend minimum of $200 a month on gaming product.  I USED to spend that money on WOTC product.  Unfortunately I did not really explore the 3pp enough to see how high quality they actually were.  

Gaming would exist with or without D&D brand name.


----------



## Doug Sundseth

xechnao said:


> What is "evergreen"?




Most products have a demand spike at publication, then a steep fall off.  After not very long at all, the demand for is quite low.  Classic examples of this sort of product in RPGs are most adventures -- the people who want them will almost all buy them in the first couple of months.  After that time, there is no point reprinting, as the publisher will not even make back the printing costs.

An evergreen product, OTOH, maintains significant demand for quite a long time (see, for example, the PHB for the D&D version of your choice).  A product line with lots of evergreen products is usually quite profitable, as the fixed costs (writing, art, editing, overhead) will be covered in the first sales spike and the profit margin for sales after that point is much higher.


----------



## occam

jaerdaph said:


> Ironically, a lot of edition warrior gamers would benefit from reading this book...




Appreciating (and agreeing with) this comment is, I think, the first positive thing I've ever taken away from reading that book.


----------



## Gothmog

Piratecat said:


> Dancy burned a lot of his industry credibility a few years back with the GAMA debacle. I'm also willing to consider that he has a horse in this race, and I'd have trouble believing that he's a purely neutral pundit. I find it an interesting analysis, but I'm not going to give his opinion more weight than it deserves.




Yeah, I'd have to say between the GAMA fiasco and his possible vested interest in the failure of 4e, anything Ryan Dancey says is questionable at best.   While his thoughts are an interesting read, they can't be taken as anything more than that.

As for anecdotal evidence for the state of 4e, my FLGS has sold over 100 PHB2s since its release, and gets another shipment of 8 in every week, which also sell out (they also still move about 5-10 PHB1s per week).  My FLGS is also packed every Saturday night with people who participate in Delve Night, and the D&D gamedays for 4e are extremely busy- something that was never seen during the 3e era.  The local B&N and Borders also carries at least 5 PHB2s every time I've been in there (as well as the full range of 4e books, including multiple PHBs, MMs, and DMGs), and from what the sales staff tell me there, 4e continutes to be a strong seller.  We also know the initial print run for 4e was larger than for 3e, and 4e has sold through its first two printings faster than 3e did.  This data, along with the fact the 4e PHB2 is sold out, AND it appears on several bestseller lists and at higher rankings than the 3e books when they were released seems like pretty solid evidence that 4e isn't going away anytime soon.  So while some people seem to hope and pray for the demise of 4e, it really requires some convoluted logic and reinterpretation of data and events to come to the conclusion that 4e is dying.  

4e being successful is good for everyone in the RPG business and our hobby- I really don't understand the hatred and conspiracy theories some people seem to keep pumping out and are obsessed with.  We all win when the gaming industry is strong, and we all lose when its not.  Play whatever floats your boat, but there is no need to fight amongst ourselves.


----------



## darjr

Ryan Dancy, self admittedly, broke into a Gama site and read others email? I never knew that.

That is extremely low, I'm not sure I can trust him at all.


----------



## Old Gumphrey

He also works for White Wolf, which is basically D&D's biggest competitor for largest tabletop game franchise. Anything negative Dancey says about D&D can _only_ benefit his company. He's certainly not losing anything by convincing people that OMG DND IS DYING LOL


----------



## jgsugden

Old Gumphrey said:


> He also works for White Wolf, which is basically D&D's biggest competitor for largest tabletop game franchise. Anything negative Dancey says about D&D can _only_ benefit his company. He's certainly not losing anything by convincing people that OMG DND IS DYING LOL



I don't think I agree with these types of comments.

If D&D has a slow death wherein interest in the game falls off slowly, I think it will have a *negative* impact on *all* other table top RPGs. As D&D dies off, a majority of people would probably not be switching to other RPGs, but would instead be leaving the market. This would reduce the viability of brick and mortar game stores, reducing channels of exposure for other RPGs. 

As such, (and I think Dancey will probably agree with this statement) D&D is still a very important contributor to his paycheck, and he wants it to thrive UNTIL such time as his products can be built up to rival D&D. In other words, he doesn't want D&D To decline - he wants his products to rise up to rival it.

As for whether D&D is in a death spiral - certain decisions made by WotC, as well as certain failures to produce promised electronic products, smack to me of a disconnect between development and management. These types of disconnects often occur in offices following large series of layoffs wherein the developmental staff is reduced disproportionately compared to management and sales staffing. (I've certainly seen it up close and personal.) 

As for whether his doom and gloom predicitions are accurate: only time will tell. However, I'm comforted by the knowledge that even under the gloomiest of predicitions, if D&D died I'd still have nough materials to run great games for the rest of my life.


----------



## Beginning of the End

Dragonblade said:


> As far as the GAMA debacle, basically Ryan made a bid to take over GAMA and it looked like he would be successful but then a scandal erupted when it was revealed he had had access to and had been secretly reading a privileged GAMA e-mail list that was normally restricted to GAMA insiders which Ryan was not at the time.




Well, for values of "privileged" which include "available on a public website". And for values of "secretly" which include "I told you I was reading it".

It's like accusing lurkers here at ENWorld of secretly reading our privileged forums.



Mournblade94 said:


> I think at this point Green Ronin and Paizo are at least as big as TSR was before the aquisition.




That seems... unlikely. Maybe if you mean specifically during those few months when TSR was effectively out of business and teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and complete collapse.


----------



## RefinedBean

jaerdaph said:


> Ironically, a lot of edition warrior gamers would benefit from reading this book...




Getting to Yes should be up there as well.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I'm not willing to bet that WotC just isn't experiencing the general economic hardships and publishing rigamarole that everyone from Random House to Penguin is experiencing. Bookstores are going through a little bit of what CD stores went through a few years back. 

If 4e isn't selling as predicted, that's because someone failed to predict a second Great Depression + Publishing Revolution perfect storm, which I can't blame them for. The blame comes in how they react to this unfortunate position they've been put in. That...could end up being a death spiral. But I don't think the move to ditch PDF sales is entirely emblematic of that. Talk to me in a year or two or three when they start flatly denying 5e.


----------



## Puggins

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Hitting any non-fiction bestseller list isn't that hard.  For April 2nd, when the PHB2 was #14, "Who Moved My Cheese" was #15, and it's an eleven-year-old book.




The obvious conclusion then would be that many roleplaying books have made the list in the past, right?  After all, if the PHB2 didn't sell that well and managed to only beat "Who Moved My Cheese," then a 3.5e book like "The Complete Warrior" or "Draconomicon," both of which sparked an entire series, should have at least made the list, right?

Let's take a look.  Here's an archive for the list:

New York Times Best Seller List

The Complete Warrior was released in November of 2003.  It was the first major supplement for 3.5e and is widely considered to be extremely successful- as evidenced by the conintuation of the Complete Series for the next five years.

I'm betting you can already guess where it is on the list.


----------



## Glyfair

xechnao said:


> What is "evergreen"?



An "evergreen" title is a title that will keep profitably selling overtime.  Traditionally it applies to the core rules of a game in the RPG industry.  Occasionally a few "almost core" books are evergreen.

Most RPG books sell a majority of their total sales in a very short period of time (I'm guessing the first month or two).


----------



## kenmarable

Mournblade94 said:


> I think at this point Green Ronin and Paizo are at least as big as TSR was before the aquisition.



I have my doubts as well... well, at least taking into account that Green Ronin and Paizo aren't even remotely the same size as each other! 

Now, comparing Paizo to late TSR, maybe. I don't have any numbers, but my gut feeling is that Paizo is still smaller than TSR, but at least in the same league. Green Ronin is very small. At it's height I doubt they had more than 5 or 6 full time employees - which, I have to say, looking at the quality of products they have is a real testament to how great and hard working they are.


----------



## dm4hire

Rumor has it they already have pushed 5e back due to current situations.  At least that's what I've heard with the rumor being they were going to announce it in two more years.

As for Dancy, he has his reasons I'm sure but as mentioned even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Sales are going to vary depending on location as has been mentioned.  One store maybe selling consitently while others are stuck with glut.


----------



## xechnao

Dragonblade said:


> We just quit playing tabletop completely and all the dollars we spend on peripheral products or 3PP materials will just go to video games, or some other hobby altogether.




If you enjoy it so much why would you have to stop playing?


----------



## dm4hire

Double post


----------



## xechnao

Puggins said:


> The obvious conclusion then would be that many roleplaying books have made the list in the past, right? After all, if the PHB2 didn't sell that well and managed to only beat "Who Moved My Cheese," then a 3.5e book like "The Complete Warrior" or "Draconomicon," both of which sparked an entire series, should have at least made the list, right?




I would rather compare PHB2 to 3.5 PHB instead of "complete warrior". 

I feel like these chart games we are having here are a bit stupid (my dad is stronger than yours or something like that)


----------



## xechnao

dm4hire said:


> Rumor has it they already have pushed 5e back due to current situations. At least that's what I've heard with the rumor being they were going to announce it in two more years.




Is this a joke or not?


----------



## danbala

xechnao said:


> I would rather compare PHB2 to 3.5 PHB instead of "complete warrior".
> 
> I feel like these chart games we are having here are a bit stupid (my dad is stronger than yours or something like that)




There is some logic to it. The question is whether 4e is a "failure." The only definition we have of success is 3.0/3.5 (no one would call that edition a commercial failure). So it seems like our best way to guess at the "sucess" of 4e is to compare it to 3e.

Wasn't there a 3e PHB2? Did that make the best sellers list? Did any 3e books besides the core books make the list? If not, that would be strong evidence that the 4e strategy of serial core books is working.

(I acknowledge that there are other possible explanations such as 3e having more robust competition if non-fiction books in general were selling more in the past or for similar reasons).


----------



## f33b

Puggins said:


> The obvious conclusion then would be that many roleplaying books have made the list in the past, right?  After all, if the PHB2 didn't sell that well and managed to only beat "Who Moved My Cheese," then a 3.5e book like "The Complete Warrior" or "Draconomicon," both of which sparked an entire series, should have at least made the list, right?
> 
> Let's take a look.  Here's an archive for the list:
> 
> New York Times Best Seller List
> 
> The Complete Warrior was released in November of 2003.  It was the first major supplement for 3.5e and is widely considered to be extremely successful- as evidenced by the conintuation of the Complete Series for the next five years.
> 
> I'm betting you can already guess where it is on the list.





1. This means nothing without sales data on the titles you reference.
2. The archived lists only contain the top 15, so not even the PHB2 would appear in the archives.


----------



## Agamon

occam said:


> Appreciating (and agreeing with) this comment is, I think, the first positive thing I've ever taken away from reading that book.




Or even this thread.


----------



## Kask

danbala said:


> Wasn't there a 3e PHB2? Did that make the best sellers list?




Again, not apples to apples.  In 4.0 they split up what would normally be in a 1st PHB & made 2 PHBs.  Neat mktg ploy though.  Better would be to compare PHB, MM & DMG sales after one year for both editions.


----------



## Thanlis

f33b said:


> 1. This means nothing without sales data on the titles you reference.
> 2. The archived lists only contain the top 15, so not even the PHB2 would appear in the archives.




Here's some fun data on the various PHBs and the USA Today bestseller list.

3.0 PHB: three weeks in the top 150, peaked at #45.
3.5 PHB: two weeks in the top 150, peaked at #57.
4.0 PHB: four weeks in the top 150, peaked at #47.
4.0 PHB2: one week in the top 150, peaked at #28.

Oh, hey, MM and DMG!

MM 3.0: 2 weeks, peaked at 58.
MM 3.5: 1 week, peaked at 112.
MM 4.0: 1 week, peaked at 143.

DMG 3.0: 2 weeks, peaked at 58.
DMG 3.5: 1 week, peaked at 92.
DMG 4.0: 1 week, peaked at 128.

And: 

4.0 Core Gift Set: 2 weeks, peaked at 57.

Figure some number of DMs just bought the core set, which might explain why the 4.0 PHB did better but the MM and DMG did worse. Or it could be something else entirely.

However, no matter how the books are performing relative to the best-seller list, we can't draw conclusions about absolute numbers. So it's still possible that absolute numbers are down. On the other hand, if relative numbers are up, that'd mean D&D as a brand is outperforming book sales as a whole. Which is good. Good enough? Don't ask me, I don't have the raw numbers to look at.


----------



## darjr

Are there any numbers for the raw sales of books for each time frame? That would go some way to make the comparison more concrete.


----------



## Puggins

f33b said:


> 1. This means nothing without sales data on the titles you reference.
> 2. The archived lists only contain the top 15, so not even the PHB2 would appear in the archives.




1) It would mean nothing if I claimed that PHB2 outsold any 3.5e supplement.  But I didn't.  I was refuting Rodrigo's casual claim that making the top 15 in non-fiction is not at all remarkable.  That no 3.5e supplement made it implies that the top 15 is a bit harder to crack than he would imply.

2) Since PHB2 is #14 in the non-fiction list, it will indeed appear in the archives.


And no, I don't recall any 3.5e supplement cracking the top 15 in non-fiction.  But hey, I could be wrong.  Anyone know which was the most popular 3.5e supplement?


----------



## Mournblade94

kenmarable said:


> I have my doubts as well... well, at least taking into account that Green Ronin and Paizo aren't even remotely the same size as each other!
> 
> Now, comparing Paizo to late TSR, maybe. I don't have any numbers, but my gut feeling is that Paizo is still smaller than TSR, but at least in the same league. Green Ronin is very small. At it's height I doubt they had more than 5 or 6 full time employees - which, I have to say, looking at the quality of products they have is a real testament to how great and hard working they are.




Yeah probably not true.  I probably should have said same league.  In any case I think Paizo will grow with the fractured D&D market.  Paizo certainly has talent hired that is as good as when WOTC started taking over TSR.

Green Ronin has some of the highest quality bound books on the market. THat is why I included them (I haven't researched company size really) I think their binding quality at least outshines mongoose.  Even the WFRP is not as well bound as Green Ronin books.


----------



## lutecius

Gothmog said:


> So while some people seem to hope and pray for the demise of 4e, it really requires some convoluted logic and reinterpretation of data and events to come to the conclusion that 4e is dying.
> 
> 4e being successful is good for everyone in the RPG business and our hobby- I really don't understand the hatred and conspiracy theories some people seem to keep pumping out and are obsessed with.  We all win when the gaming industry is strong, and we all lose when its not.



I read that a lot from posters on both "sides" but... how so?

I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me? 

The better it sells, the more it will influence other games and the longer i'll have to wait for a new edition (possibly one I do like.)
4e isn't "the gaming industry" and if it fails and nothing takes its place (which I doubt) I'm still not losing anything.



jgsugden said:


> If D&D has a slow death wherein interest in the game falls off slowly, I think it will have a *negative* impact on *all* other table top RPGs. As D&D dies off, a majority of people would probably not be switching to other RPGs, but would instead be leaving the market. This would reduce the viability of brick and mortar game stores, reducing channels of exposure for other RPGs.



The end of flgs would be sad but wouldn't necessarily mean the end of rpgs. The internet gives more exposure to obscure games than brick and mortar ever did and Amazon sales have often been touted as proof of 4e's success. Actually, e-commerce is far more likely to put local stores out of business than dnd's failure.


----------



## Ace

*my pot from over there*

Now as to the WOTC thing. The suits weren't too smart. It makes WOTC look like the RIAA and organization 1st up against the wall -- you know the rest. It will  stop  people from  putting up watermarked PDF's on Scribd or something  but so what? OCR software is everywhere

As for the sales drops -- 6 reasons

#1 and the big one

 The US and most of the world are in a depression. A lot of the main market is broker than usual. The unemployment rate among young people, 4e's main market is scary.Even those with jobs are cutting back.

The rest in no particular order 

#2  A good chunk of the market is fragmented. Sure people play 4e but lots still play 3x, 2x, and older editions and have no intention of "upgrading" . I suspect more than a few 4e players have gone rero-clone too

#3 Yes piracy, kinda. Books are functionally free now Most marginal buyers don't need to buy. In the past they'd bum a buddies book and if it really clicked might buy it. Now the download it and unless they use it all the time there is no reason to buy

#4 Smaller Market.  Its not a lazy Saturday in  1981, There are a lot more things to do now. Tons of choices that didn't exist then, many of whom provide the sam experience as mediocre gaming. Poeple play TTRPG's because they want to play TTRPG's not because they are bored and have nothing better to do. Even when they want to game they can play all sorts of things free and legal. The Runequest and Traveller and D20 SRD's are enough for hundreds of hours of gaming. Throw in free stuff like Pathfinder and the OGL wiki and you'd never need buy a book.

 #5 Its not that much fun for some people. This is entirely subjective and you can love it and be right and I can dislike it and be right  but I suspect many gamers see little value in the 4e rules set.The fluff is great but the game is well its -- heck I'll say it. Its a mini wargame with RPG elements. OK I know that 1e was too but it was all we had (till I switched to Runequest) Compared to 3x (especially my modestly houseruled version) 4e is a strait jacket

#6 Saturation. Lots of people bought tons of 3e and are full up.


----------



## Gothmog

lutecius said:


> I read that a lot from posters on both "sides" but... how so?
> 
> I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me?
> 
> The better it sells, the more it will influence other games and the longer i'll have to wait for a new edition (possibly one I do like.)
> 4e isn't "the gaming industry" and if it fails and nothing takes its place (which I doubt) I'm still not losing anything.




Other folks have answered this before (and probably more eloquently than me), but I'll give it a shot.

D&D always has been the most recognizable brand name in RPGs, regardless of which company has had the rights to it.  It has always had the greatest amount of resources available to it, the name recognition, and market penetration.  When someone thinks of RPGs, most likely D&D is the first thing that enters their heads.  

If D&D were to fail, most gamers wouldn't know there are alternatives out there, and certainly far fewer new gamers would be attracted to the hobby.  We have to face the fact that those of us who frequent message boards are not "typical" gamers- we're the fanatics, the ones who follow the trends and development of RPGs.  Most people who play tabletop RPGs never even visit a forum site.  D&D is the "gateway game" for many folks by name recognition alone, who eventually branch out and try other systems they may or may not stick with in the long term.  If 4e D&D fails, for all intents and purposes, tabletop RPGs are dead in the public eye, and as a result, fewer people will be buying the RPGs of other publishers.  Most will probably just quit gaming.  As sales dwindle, other RPG companies will begin to fold, as they cannot maintain their razor-thin profit margins, and fairly soon there simply wouldn't be anyone able to produce RPGs as a viable business.  In addition, tabletop RPGs already have to fight with MMOs for a segment of the player base (especially younger players), so if D&D were suddenly to be gone, most people who didn't know other RPGs were available would most likely switch to MMO play, which frankly is faster to get into and you can play according to YOUR schedule and whims, and is much flashier than tabletop RPGs.  The few people who come to gaming via MMOs are probably told that "D&D is the precursor to MMOs", and check it out due to curiousity to see where their favorite online games roots came from.

So without D&D, Paizo, Green Ronin, FFG, and many other publishers are simply DEAD (the possible exception being White Wolf).  Even without competition from D&D, the other companies I mentioned simply don't have the resources to flood the market with enough product to really make a difference, and tabletop gaming would most likely die a slow, lingering death over about a 5-10 year period.

Personally, I disliked 3.0 and 3.5, but I knew a lot of people enjoyed it, and I didn't wish for its demise like some people do for 4e today.  Instead I branched out and discovered new games during its run that I enjoyed more (WHFRP2, Savage Worlds, nWoD), and I'm better off for it, as are the companies whose products I purchased.  4e has returned D&D to a game my group and I enjoy, and fans of 3.x still have tons of published materials from its run, as well as Pathfinder to explore.  What doesn't make sense to me is why quite a few people rant and rave about having D&D cater to their exact whims, when there are other games that DO cater to them already in existence, but which they refuse to investigate further.  That smacks of some people trying to dictate how everbody else should play, and that they are trying to determine what is "badwrongfun" for everyone.  What is good for one person's specific concept of what D&D should be isn't always the best thing for the long-term health of the hobby.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Puggins said:


> 1) I was refuting Rodrigo's casual claim that making the top 15 in non-fiction is not at all remarkable.  That no 3.5e supplement made it implies that the top 15 is a bit harder to crack than he would imply.
> 
> 2) Since PHB2 is #14 in the non-fiction list, it will indeed appear in the archives.
> 
> 
> And no, I don't recall any 3.5e supplement cracking the top 15 in non-fiction.  But hey, I could be wrong.  Anyone know which was the most popular 3.5e supplement?




You've refuted nothing.  You've taken a single data point and extrapolated an unverifiable conclusion.  

How many other relatively recent D&D books were there?  More books divides the market, making it harder for any individual title to score big numbers even if the aggregate sales were spectacular.

What percentage of sales were online vs brick and mortar?  It's trivial to pre-order a book online, which inflates early sales numbers.

What time of year was it released?  Seasonal variations are pretty noticeable.  Complete Warrior was an early December release; that might have meant increased sales (if people were buying it to give for Christmas), it might have deflated sales (people had less disposable income to spend on themselves), or it might have delayed sales (spending your Borders gift certificate you got from grandma).

In other words, making any sort of assertion about the health of 4e based on a blip on a list is an exercise in wish-fullfilment.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Puggins said:


> I'm betting you can already guess where it is on the list.




Probably hiding out on the WSJ list.



> Since PHB2 is #14 in the non-fiction list, it will indeed appear in the archives.




A book that ranks #14 on the WSJ list can be found in the archives of the NYT best-seller list?


----------



## Beginning of the End

lutecius said:


> I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me?




Because D&D remains the #1 primary gateway product into the industry. The more successful D&D is at drawing new people into the hobby, the more people will gravitate to different games (including games that you like).

This is why it's a pity that there hasn't been a true introductory version of D&D available in nearly 20 years.

D&D's mainstream penetration has been declining ever since they stopped producing a mainstream gateway product. The corrective measure for fixing this seems self-obvious to me, but WotC just keeps up TSR's folly of churning out pay-to-preview products while identifying a 900-page set of $100 rulebooks as the true entry point for the game.



Gothmog said:


> So without D&D, Paizo, Green Ronin, FFG, and many other publishers are simply DEAD...




None of those publishers actually produce D&D-compatible material any more. So your thesis seems a trifle questionable.



> What doesn't make sense to me is why quite a few people rant and rave about having D&D cater to their exact whims, when there are other games that DO cater to them already in existence, but which they refuse to investigate further.




Personally I just miss having the D&D trademark on a game that actually plays like D&D. But that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Gothmog

Beginning of the End said:


> None of those publishers actually produce D&D-compatible material any more. So your thesis seems a trifle questionable.




While its true that none of them currently support D&D compatible games anymore, they still indirectly depend on the success of D&D.  None of those companies produce games that could be considered introductory games, or that are visible enough that they allow for immediate name recognition with people (with the possible exception of Warhammer and Dark Heresy for FFG).  Those companies depend on customers who are already familiar with the roleplaying hobby to be their customers.  If the pool of gamers shrinks when D&D is gone, then those companies customer base also shrinks.  Since they depend on sales with a much narrower margin for survival than WotC, it wouldn't be long before they were dead in the water too.  Hopefully it will never come to that (and I don't even remotely think it will)- I don't want to see anyone making games for a living losing their jobs, dreams, and financial well-being.


----------



## haakon1

D'karr said:


> Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.




Not if it's digital . . .


----------



## Lanefan

lutecius said:


> I mean, I don't know how well 4e is doing (neither does anyone here I think) and I'm not praying for its demise or obsessed with it, but how is a game i dislike being successful good for me?



Because it draws people into gaming at all; thus providing more potential players for your edition-x game down the road.

3e, for all its many other failings, was great for that.  The release of 3e rebooted gaming's visibility and drew lots and lots of new players in.  I've been merrily poaching them for my old-school games ever since. 


> The better it sells, the more it will influence other games ...



::shrug::  Fine.  Over time, people will strip out the good ideas that 4e presents (and there are a few, if you look carefully), meld them into their own games, and let the rest of 4e fall by the wayside.

Lan-"one must forage where one can"-efan


----------



## Raduin711

Beginning of the End said:


> This is why it's a pity that there hasn't been a true introductory version of D&D available in nearly 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to say it, but... D&D miniatures?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ariosto

I literally don't know about the merits of D&D today as a "gateway" -- and I don't think anyone else does either. A lot of what I see suggests that it might mainly be dependent on a shrinking market the very brand loyalty of which makes it a demographic _less_ likely than others to branch out to other games. Moreover, its dominance may be a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of retailers who don't give other games shelf space.

My FLGS has a lot of shelf space devoted to long-unsold 3E products. I don't think they're likely to be any more desirable to 4E players, and such a track record might make one wary. World of Darkness now gets more shelf space than D&D, and Rifts is roughly on par.

It's not so easy to sell what you don't have, and the variety on offer there is much less than what it once was. There may be a "feedback loop" going on that leaves both WotC and specialist retailers with a skewed perspective.

If the status quo falls, that might actually clear the way for a more vibrant market to emerge.

Again, I literally do not know!


----------



## Tetsubo

Removed by Admin. Threadcrapping and trying to incite edition wars get you suspended. ~ PCat


----------



## Michael Morris

Mournblade94 said:


> Yeah probably not true.  I probably should have said same league.  In any case I think Paizo will grow with the fractured D&D market.  Paizo certainly has talent hired that is as good as when WOTC started taking over TSR.




That's because, for the most part, it *is* the talent WOTC hired when they took over TSR.  Most of the 4e writers are new blood. New blood with absolutely no respect whatsoever for the traditions of the game IMO. But that's another thread.


----------



## Jack99

dm4hire said:


> Rumor has it they already have pushed 5e back due to current situations.  At least that's what I've heard with the rumor being they were going to announce it in two more years.




Huh, what, where? Seriously, your local FLGS owner who hates 4e has no insider knowledge. Whatever he told you is a lie and wishful thinking. Of course, I could be totally wrong and your source could be B.S. (see what I just did there?) himself. So, lets hear it, who is your source?


----------



## Gothmog

Tetsubo said:


> D&D isn't dying. It's already dead. Killed off by WotC with their abomination 4E.
> 
> 3.5 is the last edition of D&D.




We get it, you're the edition warrior.  You've beat this drum a million times before.  People aren't falling for the nerdrage trolling anymore.  So either contribute something meaningful that furthers the discussion, or don't visit these threads.


----------



## BryonD

Gothmog said:


> Personally, I disliked 3.0 and 3.5, but I knew a lot of people enjoyed it, and I didn't wish for its demise like some people do for 4e today.



I think the kernel of the animosity is in this statement.
There are certainly people who like both games, but the back and forth is between people who like one and dislike the other.

Peter likes 3E and points out something that supports his game of choice.
Peter is more likely to notice things positive of 3E and is less likely to question them.

Paul likes 4E and points out something that supports his game of choice.
Peter is more likely to notice things positive of 4E and is less likely to question them.

Peter reads Paul's post.
Paul reads Peter's post.

Peter gets mad at Paul and complains that at least he isn't trying to destroy 4E the way Paul is trying to destroy 3E.

Paul gets mad at Peter and complains that at least he isn't trying to destroy 3E the way Paul is trying to destroy 4E.

Actual conversation never starts in the first place.


Clearly, I'm on the 3E side.  I think the straight jacket comment up thread is in the ballpark of a good summary of how 4E services what I want from a game.  But I still want 4E to be as much of a success as it can.  The better 4E does the more money and energy there will be for 5E and my hopes that it will swing back to what I want.  Or even without 5E that someone else will make the next "better mousetrap" for me.

But, it just so happens that everything is not one dimensional.  It is possible for me to want 4E to do well, and at the same time have a biased perception of its performance, and at the same time also set aside that bias and make reasonably objective assessments of what is actually happening.

Now, maybe Dancey is biased here.  But he has put together a detailed argument.  If that argument is totally bogus and based purely on biased and agenda-laden fiction, then it will be a terribly fragile argument.  Deconstruct it.  Tear it apart and show it for its absurdity.  

Saying "Of course this guy would say that" and not addressing the argument itself, seems to be a weak attempt to change the subject.

A week or so ago Mearls threw out a very short post that basically said 4E is doing great.  (don't recall word for word)  A lot of people replied more or less "There is a guy that would know.  End of discussion".  And a lot of people thought "of course a wotc guy would say that".  Neither of those responses actually make the claim stronger or weaker.

But in this case at least there is a reasoning to speak to.

Personally, I think there can be some truth to all of the above.  I still think 4E is new and hot.  And I still think it has much less depth of buying market and a shorter ultimate lifespan.  I have chuckled at the praise of PHB2 sales not because I question them, but because if that particular title isn't doing well just 9 months after the game came out, then things are bad indeed.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Gothmog said:


> We get it, you're the edition warrior. So either contribute something meaningful that furthers the discussion, or don't visit these threads.




I agree-- it's extremely annoying and I can't understand why it is allowed to continue.


----------



## Erekose

BryonD said:


> . . . Now, maybe Dancey is biased here.  But he has put together a detailed argument.  If that argument is totally bogus and based purely on biased and agenda-laden fiction, then it will be a terribly fragile argument.  Deconstruct it.  Tear it apart and show it for its absurdity.
> 
> Saying "Of course this guy would say that" and not addressing the argument itself, seems to be a weak attempt to change the subject . . .




I can't believe it's taken this long in the thread for someone to post this I was just about to say something similar . . .


----------



## Bacris

I have to admit, I was on the fence about 4E, from the build-up, the transcripts / recordings at the cons, the previews - I saw stuff I liked, and stuff I didn't.

Then it arrived and my DM got rid of all of 3.x sourcebooks and made the decision to migrate fully to 4E permanently.

Since then, our gaming group hasn't had more than 4 game sessions... The DM has tried (and succeeded in a couple instances) to get other gaming groups going, but 4E hasn't really grabbed us the way 3E has.

I don't know if it's resistance to the new edition, the actual rules, or what, but I have bought exactly one book for 4E.  Compare this to the dozens of books I bought for 3.x and the fact that I also have dozens of books for 2nd Edition... and... well... I dunno, I thought I was the exception to the trend, rather than the rule...

But as a third party publisher, I've seen 3.x products continue to sell - and in some cases, sell well, while 4E products (admittedly, we only have two and one is an unusual publishing style) are rather luke-warm.  I'm not inclined to disagree with Ryan, despite his affiliations or past deeds.

Personally... 4E's fracturing of the market, lack of psionic support, my DM's firm stance of only playing 4E, and overall feel has somewhat put me off from RPGs.  I've tried other gaming groups and enjoy it less than my DM's 4E games (which aren't bad from a DM perspective, mind you...)


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I agree-- it's extremely annoying and I can't understand why it is allowed to continue.



You do know that was _way_ too subtle, right?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Jeff Wilder said:


> You do know that was _way_ too subtle, right?




So subtle even _I_ missed it.

I was serious. I have no problem with nerd-rage on either side, but Tetsubo never has anything to say other than "4e killed D&D!"

You can't engage with that.


----------



## Puggins

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> You've refuted nothing.  You've taken a single data point and extrapolated an unverifiable conclusion.




My _hypothesis_ is that your assertion is wrong, not that 4e is doing well.



> What time of year was it released?  Seasonal variations are pretty noticeable.  Complete Warrior was an early December release; that might have meant increased sales (if people were buying it to give for Christmas), it might have deflated sales (people had less disposable income to spend on themselves), or it might have delayed sales (spending your Borders gift certificate you got from grandma).




An excellent point- one that I implied by asking you or anyone else to point out ANY supplement for D&D that managed to make the XXX WSJ top 15, regardless of other factors like time of year.

EDIT- Wulf has pointed out that I linked to the wrong archive.  I can't locate an archive for the WSJ, so I can't verify the success of the 35e supplements.  Something tells me that we would've heard about them making the top 15 if they had, but that's hardly firm ground.  Of course, Rodrigo's case isn't exactly watertight.



> In other words, making any sort of assertion about the health of 4e based on a blip on a list is an exercise in wish-fullfilment.



You, sir, are tilting against a straw man in order to look righteously above the fray.  I didn't make ANY assertion about the health of 4e in this thread.  My assertion is that _you are wrong_ about the significance of the XXX WSJ  bestseller list.  Show me ANY 3.5e supplement that made this list, if you please.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I was serious. I have no problem with nerd-rage on either side, but *Tetsubo never has anything to say other than "4e killed D&D!"*
> 
> You can't engage with that.



This is only one example, straight from Google, but it will do for just fine this purpose, I expect:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/art-ga...253653-weapon-illustrations-new-4-3-09-a.html

So, on the contrary, it is mischaracterisation such as yours, right there, that cannot be engaged with, or - often - reasoned with.

IL+1 (total: 3, btw)


----------



## Puggins

Wulf Ratbane said:


> So subtle even _I_ missed it.
> 
> I was serious. I have no problem with nerd-rage on either side, but Tetsubo never has anything to say other than "4e killed D&D!"
> 
> You can't engage with that.




He's implying that you're saying the same thing about Gothmag.  I was thinking along the same lines- your wording kept that door open.  Obviously not your intent, though.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Puggins said:


> He's implying that you're saying the same thing about Gothmag.  I was thinking along the same lines- your wording kept that door open.  Obviously not your intent, though.



Right.  Moral of the story: On EN World, don't trust your own double-take.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Aus_Snow said:


> This is only one example, straight from Google, but it will do for just fine this purpose, I expect.




My bad. He also posts weapon illustrations.

Which of course completely absolves Testubo of the impression_ he has fomented_ that he only shows up in _discussion _threads to proclaim the death of D&D.

I'm sure Gothmog (a 4e fan) and me (a 3e fan) both just _completely _misread Tetsubo's habitual threadcrapping.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Wulf Ratbane said:


> My bad. He also posts weapon illustrations.
> 
> Which of course completely absolves Testubo of the impression_ he has fomented_ that he only shows up in _discussion _threads to proclaim the death of D&D.
> 
> I'm sure Gothmog (a 4e fan) and me (a 3e fan) both just _completely _misread Tetsubo's habitual threadcrapping.



Heh. You just made the 'shortest time ever on my EN **** list' record, fwiw.* 

Sorry, it was my version of a hissy, EN-style. Now I've thought about it, I realised I was out of line. To be honest, I haven't a clue as to whether Tetsubo is usually - in your words - 'threadcrapping' when it comes to D&D discussion. So, I _assumed_ you were being unfair. Which, ironically, was kinda unfair as well. 

Guh, these threads and me = a poor mix, sometimes. But I'll just say again that, for all I know, Tetsubo might indeed always post in such a way, or very rarely! So, for me, "the jury's out".


* The list that, in '08, went to 11!  No, really. _Actually_ eleven. So two's not so bad, really.


----------



## Sunderstone

Im going to agree with Ryan Dancey's points on this as tarnished as his reputation may be.
I think if the PHB2 sold as well as people stated, there would be cause for another print run, even a smaller one.
I also tend to believe that it sold well because it may have only had a limited print run to begin with and there might be a few folks left out in the cold.

Bacris has a good point about people who were on the fence when the new edition was coming. I know a few people who tried 4E but it didnt grab them either and they didnt consider it what D&D should have evolved to. I also have a friend that moved to FL and is DM'ing 4E because its the only D&D fix he can get. He says its "passable" for now. But like most of you say.... these are purely anecdotal.

Time will tell, but I expect more doom and gloom to come. Ryan may have been predicting this for awhile but theres no denying the fractured fanbase/market this time around, the economy impacting company decisions, etc.

On a slight tangent, ive read in a few places over the last few months that the video game industry is going strong. Someone mentioned that the economy hit there as well, I would disagree here too. There were few developers changing HQs and a closing or two, but this is all normal.


----------



## Jan van Leyden

Well, without any insider knowledge and only going by Ryan Dancey's analysis:

The analysis seems to be well thought out, but may be off on one important point. It may be that  the decision makers' environment is not so "information rich" in the case of PHB2. PHB2 is a new kind of product for the D&D line.

It's not a regular supplement like, say, Dungeon Delve or Open Grave, for which a good estimation of prospected sales can be made.

It's not a core book, so placing it at the same level of sales as PHB1 would also be wrong.

I assume WotC has tried placing it somewhere in between these models and convincing their (corporate) customers to do likewise. If they marketed it as "probably not as strong as PHB1, but much stronger than Open Grave", the environment is, by necessity, not as information rich as in other cases. Thus, the number of pre-orders may be less than accurate.

Add in the current economic climate - WotC will have no interest in overstocking - and the print run is not as accurate as it should be. Luckily for WotC, they printed to few, not too many copies.

Again, I have no insider knowledge, so my theory may be not worth the bytes it's made off.

Oh, and I apologise for binging this thread back to its origin.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

haakon1 said:


> Not if it's digital . . .




My VCR flashing 12:00 is still right twice a day.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jan van Leyden said:


> It's not a regular supplement like, say, Dungeon Delve or Open Grave, for which a good estimation of prospected sales can be made.
> 
> It's not a core book, so placing it at the same level of sales as PHB1 would also be wrong.
> 
> I assume WotC has tried placing it somewhere in between these models and convincing their (corporate) customers to do likewise. If they marketed it as "probably not as strong as PHB1, but much stronger than Open Grave", the environment is, by necessity, not as information rich as in other cases. Thus, the number of pre-orders may be less than accurate.




I had a simalar thought.

      I see Wotc marketing saying "everything is core" and hopeing it sticks, but deep down I don't think even they belived it. So when they came to PHB2 they played it like a suplment...but it sold like core.
       From what I have seen (Localy) most players bought PHB2 if they had PHB1 and where actively playing...(I would say 60-70%) well only about hafl of them (so 30-35% over all) were buying things like open grave, martial power...
        I think Wotc printed much more then open grave, but much less then PB1...and sold closer to phb1


((((All things stated in this post are opionons please don't ask for what my proof))))


----------



## billd91

Brown Jenkin said:


> My VCR flashing 12:00 is still right twice a day.




But it's also not broken.


----------



## Spatula

BryonD said:


> Now, maybe Dancey is biased here.  But he has put together a detailed argument.  If that argument is totally bogus and based purely on biased and agenda-laden fiction, then it will be a terribly fragile argument.  Deconstruct it.  Tear it apart and show it for its absurdity.



I don't see any argument, just a hypothesis that things are going to get worse.  And maybe they will, maybe they won't.  But a hypothesis is proven or disproven by later data - there's nothing to "deconstruct" or "tear apart."  Dancey doesn't have any more information that we do, which is to say, nearly none.  All of us are just reading the tea-leaves and making simplistic predictions.


----------



## danbala

Kask said:


> Again, not apples to apples.  In 4.0 they split up what would normally be in a 1st PHB & made 2 PHBs.  Neat mktg ploy though.  Better would be to compare PHB, MM & DMG sales after one year for both editions.




I understand that. But if you are trying to gauge the comparitive success of the editions, surely the fact that 4e is able to sell more PHB2 (for whatever reason) would be of interest, no?


----------



## danbala

Erekose said:


> I can't believe it's taken this long in the thread for someone to post this I was just about to say something similar . . .




I've have some questions about Dancy core theory. His theory about PHB2 -- as I understand it -- is that it sold out early because it was under solicited by the bookstore chains. He guesses that this is because either (1) WotC lacked confidence in the product or (2) the bookstore chains lacked confidence.

I have two problems with this: (1) First I question the logic of the "under order" theory; and (2) even if this is true it could more easily be explained by the observable market conditions.

The second point first. It seems to me that there is a simpler reason for under ordering than a lack of confidence in the product. Several of the big book store chains are flirting with bankruptcy -- in particular Borders. Retailers in general are under ordering across the board and deliberately depleted their warehouse stock. So it _very _likely that the under ordering was the result of over cautiousness caused by the recession – rather than a commentary on the long term prospects of table top gaming. In fact, the high PHB2s sales can be seen as evidence that RPGs -- like comics and some movies -- are "recession resistant" because the core fanbase continues to turn out despite the macro conditions.

Moreover, I have a question about whether deliberate under ordering is really a factor. We know, for example, that the core books sold out their first printing based solely on pre orders. That would seem to fly in the face of the “lead time = perfect knowledge of numbers needed for print runs” part of the theory. If WotC can predict months out what the book store chains will buy, then why would they ever print less copies than where needed even for the pre-orders? It seems to me that unexpectedly high demand is the only reasonable conclusion.

I think Occam’s Razor would suggest that retailers are under ordering because they are skittish in general and don’t understand the significance of a new edition to the players. It would seem that demand has outstripped expectations for the product.


----------



## BryonD

Spatula said:


> I don't see any argument, just a hypothesis that things are going to get worse.



I think you are confusing "argument" with "proof".  It certainly isn't proof, and doesn't claim to be.  But it is beyond mere hypothesis.

And again, rather than address the claims, a dodge is presented.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic

frankthedm said:


> A Book that is not tied to a ruleset. I.C.E.'s Nightmares of mine is a fine example of such.




Not a definition I've ever heard.  I've always heard it referred to as a product that will have relatively stable and meaningful sales for an extended period of time such that a bookstore could continually restock to a certain level and be confident of selling the product.

So, for example, a store could set up their inventory system so that whenever they sell a PHB they order another one and they could let this system continue for ever (realistically until it's reprinted/new edition) since people are continually being brought into the hobby and buy PHB's.

As for GAMA, it amounts to Dancey thinking he could make a profitable version of the RPGA and run Cons but it went horribly, horribly wrong.  Taking on the herculean task of converting Living City was a huge problem but their show running wasn't very good either.

Edit: And I somehow manage to not notice the other five pages of the thread.


----------



## haakon1

Brown Jenkin said:


> My VCR flashing 12:00 is still right twice a day.




Ah.  My old alarm clock is just black in all its LED's, though . . .


----------



## kaskoid

*To the person posting under the name of Kask*

I must insist that you cease using my name to post under.

Timothy J Kask
The real one, not some poseur.


----------



## Felon

Hmm. He forgot to cite the cancellation of the DDM game in favor of packs of three $dollar minis as part of the trend.


----------



## Spatula

BryonD said:


> And again, rather than address the claims, a dodge is presented.



Give me something that isn't pure conjecture and I can address it.  I probably wouldn't bother, because I have no horse in this race, but at least you would have a valid point then.

What outside parties think is going to happen to D&D in the future is mostly useless, in the same way that a layman's thoughts  on what the weather is going to be in the future are mostly useless.  Hey, when I woke up this morning and there were dark clouds overhead, I was positive it was going to rain.  One precipitation-less hour later, the sun was out.  Maybe the reactionary decision-makers will think they have reason to make more cuts, maybe they won't.  It could be that sales will slide down because 4e has no evergreen product or it could be that sales are actually healthy.  Perhaps the global recession will kill the RPG market, or perhaps D&D is somewhat recession-proof.  We have no way of knowing - not being privy to internal WotC sales data, debates, & politics - and neither does Dancey.  Unless he's reading someone else's emails again.


----------



## SkidAce

Spatula said:


> Give me something that isn't pure conjecture and I can address it.  ... Unless he's reading someone else's emails again.




Or he is using his experience in the industry to notice trend indicators that point towards a probable outcome.

You are correct, there is no "proof".  but that does not make it simply conjuecture either.


----------



## Kask

kaskoid said:


> I must insist that you cease using my name to post under.
> 
> Timothy J Kask
> The real one, not some poseur.




I can see that some grammar school level education was missed by you.

*-oid* 
Resemblance to, joined properly to words formed from g. Roots; equivalent to eng. -form. 
Origin: g. Eidos, form, resemblance


As you can see by the definition, kaskoid means you are simply a poor copy of myself...


----------



## JohnRTroy

Kask said:


> I can see that some grammar school level education was missed by you.




Kaskoid is the usual screen name of Tim Kask on other forums.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23223&start=1665

To be honest, Tim Kask is a known old school guy who was with Gary, Dave, and the others at TSR.  I think he's legitimately concerned your name of Kask might be convincing people that you're him, after that question was asked.  

This might be an overreaction by Mr. Kask.  But I can understand the point--If somebody was named "Gygax" and wasn't Gygax, I think people could understand.  

If you insist on keeping the name (especially if it's your real name), you probably should consider a disclaimer in your signature.


----------



## Kask

JohnRTroy said:


> "If you insist on keeping the name (especially if it's your real name), you probably should consider a disclaimer in your signature.



"

I don't think so.  

I've used this as a nick since '77.  I've been gaming since then and have never heard of this guy, I don't think he has anything to worry about...


----------



## Kask

kaskoid said:


> I must insist that you cease using my name to post under.
> 
> Timothy J Kask
> The real one, not some poseur.





Funny, I just checked your profile.  1st post, new.  Umm, do you run around forums randomly trying to claim exclusive rights to the word "kask"?


----------



## JohnRTroy

Kask said:


> Funny, I just checked your profile.  1st post, new.  Umm, do you run around forums randomly trying to claim exclusive rights to the word "kask"?




Well, instead of insulting him back (even if you perceive his statement as an attack, and I will admit it was sort of rude), you should consider his concern, like I said.  

I am in agreement that your pseudonym Kask is not Tim Kask and is doubt to cause confusion, but I think you can understand that type of concern.  After all, it would be nicer if we had more old-schoolers participate on forums, considering all the death going on in the industry.


----------



## Kask

JohnRTroy said:


> I am in agreement that your pseudonym Kask is not Tim Kask and is doubt to cause confusion,




Correct.  



JohnRTroy said:


> but I think you can understand that type of concern.




Following the logic of the 1st point, no, his concern doesn't make sense.



JohnRTroy said:


> After all, it would be nicer if we had more old-schoolers participate on forums, considering all the death going on in the industry.




Correct, so why do you want to harass an "old schooler" (myself)?


----------



## JohnRTroy

Kask said:


> Correct, so why do you want to harass an "old schooler" (myself)?




I'm not harrasing you at all--I was just suggesting that you not to engage in personal attacks, even if it was done to you first--as well as making sure you understood what he was trying to achieve.  (And by Old Schooler, I mean famous publishers from the TSR days, not the players).


----------



## Umbran

Gents,

If there's some confusion in names, please take the problem to e-mail with a moderator or admin.  Our e-mail addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta Forum.

Please do not continue confrontation on the matter in-thread.


----------



## Kask

JohnRTroy said:


> I'm not harrasing you at all--I was just suggesting that you not to engage in personal attacks, even if it was done to you first--as well as making sure you understood what he was trying to achieve.  (And by Old Schooler, I mean famous publishers from the TSR days, not the players).





This is way off topic.  If you wish to communicate, PM me.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Old Gumphrey said:


> He also works for White Wolf, which is basically D&D's biggest competitor for largest tabletop game franchise. Anything negative Dancey says about D&D can _only_ benefit his company. He's certainly not losing anything by convincing people that OMG DND IS DYING LOL




So where's the Exalted SRD? What type of license does the Exalted OGL come with?


----------



## Nifft

JoeGKushner said:


> So where's the Exalted SRD? What type of license does the Exalted OGL come with?



 I too would be quite interested in some Exalted OGL / SRD.

Dancey, make it happen.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## BryonD

Spatula said:


> Give me something that isn't pure conjecture and I can address it.  I probably wouldn't bother, because I have no horse in this race, but at least you would have a valid point then.



  lol
There is plenty there, both conjecture and non-conjecture, that may be addressed.  You are using circular logic.  You don't need to demonstrate a lack of substance because after all, there is no substance....   sigh

Of course, even if it was 100% conjecture, false conjecture can be exposed.
Go for it.



> What outside parties think is going to happen to D&D in the future is mostly useless, in the same way that a layman's thoughts  on what the weather is going to be in the future are mostly useless.  Hey, when I woke up this morning and there were dark clouds overhead, I was positive it was going to rain.



I think equating Dancey to an outsider equivalent to a total layman weather forecaster is either ill-considered or intentionally misleading.

That said, I do agree that it isn't that big a deal.  
To me the amusing observation is that so many people toss his claims out the window (still without actually responding to the points themselves) because he "has a horse in the race".  And yet the people most worked up here are the ones who take WotC comments as gospel.  I find it quite amusing.  

The benefit that other games would gain from a perception of D&D decline is minimal.  Whereas the gain or harm WotC would see based on how the status of D&D is perceived would be much more significant.  Though even that is far from the factor that will make or break the game.

I think that demonstrating a position as wrong is better than ad hominem attacks.
I think that declaring a position to be unsubstantiated and therefore refusing to offer any form of rebuttal is a very weak form of dodge.  I think that consistently avoiding rebuttal and leaning on change-the-subject responses is pretty damning of the opposing stance.
I think even if Dancey is correct in his PHB2 claims, it is way over-stated to claim this constitutes a "death spiral".
I think WotC has vastly more reason to spin the data than Dancey.
I think that PHB2 sales are good.
I think that 9 months after the release of the game itself, PHB2 sales better be good or the game is in real trouble.
I think that, taken as a whole group, the 4E target audience is distinctly less inclined to buy a lot of supplements than the 3E target audience was.  
I think the people who told me the edition wars would be over by the end of last summer were wrong.


----------



## Invisible Stalker

I'm having a contest between D&D, comic books and horse racing as to which one I can spend money and support yet drive into extinction at the same time.


----------



## pawsplay

The solution to the "death spiral" is pretty straightforward.

- Develop products slowly.  Forget about constant growth. This may be heretical to Hasbro, but in the end, there are only so many people in this world willing to sacrifice their Saturday afternoons to pretend to slay orcs for gold. Instead, tend your customers lovingly and patiently.
- One substantially new edition every ten years, at most. Instead, focus on fixing errata and improving the readability of the books. 
- Roll out new supplements that are fairly modular. This is your evergreen stuff. 
- Sell objects of convenience. Pre-made NPCs, modules, nonstandard monsters, equipment packs, etc. 
- Lifestyle items. The day will not come when you cannot sell a T-shirt with a dragon on it to a geek. 

How to do things wrong:
- Continually try to establish a beachhead on a mass market for RPGs that does not exist. There is plenty of untapped market out there, but they are not lurking in Borders or the mall waiting to be pried away from their Pokemon, WoW, or collapsible skooters.
- Repeat the costly cycle of development often. 
- When trying to create a product that could be either awesome or disdained (e.g., an adventure module, more monsters), set deadlines and force production to move ahead, rather than letting development follow the availability of qualified, careful people. 
- View your customer's wallets as well-defended fortresses that must be breached and conquered, or else die trying. 
- Try to create material that is not likely to be offensive to the parents of the typical fifteen year old.


----------



## Spatula

BryonD said:


> There is plenty there, both conjecture and non-conjecture, that may be addressed.  You are using circular logic.  You don't need to demonstrate a lack of substance because after all, there is no substance....   sigh
> 
> Of course, even if it was 100% conjecture, false conjecture can be exposed.
> Go for it.



Well I had a long post typed out but the 404 goblins ate it.  So quick summary:

"The regressive forces are in control."  Are they?  Maybe he has an accurate picture of the current polticial situation inside WotC's management.  Seeing as he hasn't worked there in years (and furthermore, works for the competition so his views are potentially biased), I am skeptical.  Whatever information he's getting from friends still working there is second-hand and most likely incomplete.

It's equally possible that the "regressive forces" have scored a one-time victory with the PDF thing, having an easy case to make to the prime decision makers: low sales, high piracy, creates conflict with loyal retailers.

"OGL."  That decision happened long ago, so if the "regressive forces" were running the show at that point, other signs of the apocalypse other than the PDF thing would have turned up by now, no?  D&D is still more "open" to 3rd party participation than it was pre-OGL, and moreso than most (all?) other major RPGs (that aren't d20-derived, and thus open by definition).  Not embracing 100% open gaming isn't a sign of regressive leadership, unless White Wolf and other non-d20 industry players are all equally backwards-thinking.

Everything else: conjecture & predictions based on conjecture.  The RPGA hasn't been cut to my knowledge, no one outside WotC knows the status or the current funding of the flubbed DDI apps, no one outside WotC has WotC's sales data, quality hasn't been cut, etc. etc.

And even if some or all of those business contractions did happen, is it because of the "regressive forces" are running the show, or because we've been teetering on the edge of a global financial meltdown?  Or some mixture of the two?



BryonD said:


> I think equating Dancey to an outsider equivalent to a total layman weather forecaster is either ill-considered or intentionally misleading.



If he's basing his statements off some inside info (which he makes no claim of), he can cough that up.  Otherwise it's just an opinion regarding a business competitor, one whose leaderhip has partially rolled back the one (good) thing that he's known within the industry for.  Like I said before, we're all stuck reading the tea leaves.  The people who have the actual data that one could form meaningful predictions from aren't going to make it public, making this whole conversation irrelevant.

and yet here we are on page 7.... sigh.


----------



## Thauredhel

pawsplay said:


> Forget about constant growth. This may be heretical to Hasbro,




Heretical might be an understatement. It is "Profit Growth or Close Shop. If we arn't Expanding we are Dying!!!1!1!1!!!ZOMG! and we should just close it down right now to avoid throwing good money after bad!"


----------



## BryonD

So you are not going to expose any false conjecture.  You are just going to be round about in agreeing that it is conjecture and we don't know the truth from either side.

Simply being conjecture doesn't make it false.  You are conjecturing that he doen't have good data.  By your reasoning, you have now been proven wrong.

Obviously, it does not work quite that way.

Again, my point is that he makes a reasonable case that may be correct.  It may not, but it certainly may.  And WotC has vastly more reason to spin than he does.

Anyone who says the case is closed because WotC says so is fooling themselves.

I'll just say that my own anecodtal evidence supports the idea that WotC's talk involves a good chunk of spin.  And more and more I hear secondary sources, most with little reason to advocate, that WotC's story doesn't smell quite right.  Could all that still be wrong? Of course.  But it could also be right and being closed minded in blind faith to one side is silly.


----------



## carmachu

Old Gumphrey said:


> He also works for White Wolf, which is basically D&D's biggest competitor for largest tabletop game franchise. Anything negative Dancey says about D&D can _only_ benefit his company. He's certainly not losing anything by convincing people that OMG DND IS DYING LOL






Gothmog said:


> Yeah, I'd have to say between the GAMA fiasco and his possible vested interest in the failure of 4e, anything Ryan Dancey says is questionable at best. While his thoughts are an interesting read, they can't be taken as anything more than that.




So then, by an extention of that logic, anything Scott Rouse says, or other WotC employees come on and say, is questionable at best since they have a very vested interest inthe success 4e?

I'm curious to see where exactly the line is going to be drawn.


----------



## Spatula

BryonD said:


> So you are not going to expose any false conjecture.



So, show me where I ever said anything about "false" conjecture.



BryonD said:


> You are just going to be round about in agreeing that it is conjecture...



Well, yes.  Dancey's statement was a hypothesis of future events, based on unknowable data.  That was my point this whole time, but you kept insisting that someone should disprove it somehow.  Both the future and WotC's internal numbers are unknown to Dancey and to everyone here, so refuting his words is rather impossible.


----------



## avin

BryonD said:


> I think that demonstrating a position as wrong is better than ad hominem attacks.
> I think that declaring a position to be unsubstantiated and therefore refusing to offer any form of rebuttal is a very weak form of dodge.  I think that consistently avoiding rebuttal and leaning on change-the-subject responses is pretty damning of the opposing stance.
> I think even if Dancey is correct in his PHB2 claims, it is way over-stated to claim this constitutes a "death spiral".
> I think WotC has vastly more reason to spin the data than Dancey.
> I think that PHB2 sales are good.
> I think that 9 months after the release of the game itself, PHB2 sales better be good or the game is in real trouble.
> I think that, taken as a whole group, the 4E target audience is distinctly less inclined to buy a lot of supplements than the 3E target audience was.
> I think the people who told me the edition wars would be over by the end of last summer were wrong.




XP for you.


----------



## Miyaa

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Hitting any non-fiction bestseller list isn't that hard.  For April 2nd, when the PHB2 was #14, "Who Moved My Cheese" was #15, and it's an eleven-year-old book.




I just find it amusing that the D&D stuff, being about how to play in a *fictional *world is classified in the *non-fiction* category.

I'm not sure if we are close to the end of D&D as an entity. Deaths usually are either going out as a whimper or one last supernova burst before dying out. But a lot of other death scenarios are possible.

I think Wizards's input into D&D is on a death-spiral, considering how and why things are being produced. (As an aside, I find it interesting that Stan! and others have commented on how Wizards has produced way too much material, where I would contend that they are produce no where near enough considering how the production came out with 3rd edition and 3.5. It's like one rule book, one module, and maybe one or two tie-in novels per month instead of the multiple books and modules that they usually get. But that's neither here or there.) If you compare the timing of when they are producing books versus when they were producing similar stuff for 2nd and 3rd editions, I think you'll see that they've sped up when these things ought to be published, which is both a blessing and a curse for how they decided to organize and market the eventual complete game set.

I agree that the solution is to slow down on production, but not to slow that you inadvertently wean the customers off of your crack, er, product. Ever notice that WoW will produce a new chapter once every year and a half? They're really good at getting people hooked on something, and just when the thought of that they are almost getting tired of the game sets in, hey, here's an expansion set.  And then they don't mind the half-day wasted downloading and upgrading their stuff. That's what Wizards ought to do.

And then they can be less concerned that piracy is taking a good chunk away from their presumed market share.


----------



## billd91

Miyaa said:


> I just find it amusing that the D&D stuff, being about how to play in a *fictional *world is classified in the *non-fiction* category.




It is kind of funny. But makes sense too, not being a narrative work and all.


----------



## BryonD

Spatula said:


> Well, yes.  Dancey's statement was a hypothesis of future events, based on unknowable data.  That was my point this whole time, but you kept insisting that someone should disprove it somehow.  Both the future and WotC's internal numbers are unknown to Dancey and to everyone here, so refuting his words is rather impossible.



There are reasonable arguments presented.  That does not need to consitute proof.  It seems you are inferring that because the capacity for proof is withheld, that no reasonable analysis of what knowledge is available should be permitted.

If his reasoning his flawed, then the reasoning itself may be shown to be wrong without ever needing to know the absolute conclusion.  

You are falsely equating a reasonable estimate with a claim of absolute value.
WotC's internal numbers are not required to refute the generalizations presented.


----------



## Intense_Interest

BryonD said:


> If his reasoning his flawed, then the reasoning itself may be shown to be wrong without ever needing to know the absolute conclusion.
> 
> You are falsely equating a reasonable estimate with a claim of absolute value.
> WotC's internal numbers are not required to refute the generalizations presented.




Yet how is anything he says reasonable?  Dancey's point is so embedded in rhetoric that it is impossible to derive a reasonable conclusion from it.

Paragraph 1: Who are these regressive people, specifically?  I can't even imagine that calling a group the "Corporate Force of the Dark Side" is part of a reasoned debate.  

Paragraph 2-5: Show me where WotC has made any of these claims.  Ryan Dancey is an outsider who alludes to this knowledge, and is speculating that all of these conclusions are true.  He has no concrete data.

Paragraph 6-8: There is no actual correlation to any of these events.  They are a collection of word-salad excretions of a paranoid schizophrenic.  It would qualify as reasoned debate only in a Conspiracy Theorist's convention.

Paragraph 9-12: Slippery Slope ahoy!  Any person with real-world experience of bankrupt companies can throw out numerous cases of formerly-bankrupt corporations or companies on the brink of insolvency fighting through it.  His claim requires the sight of a Prophet to be even reasonable.

When Ryan Dancey shows up with something reasonable, then maybe we'll take his side into account.


----------



## AngryMojo

Honestly, the comments seem a bit to Chicken Little to me to really be taken seriously.  If 4e is selling poorly, it could be that everything is selling poorly right now.

That being said, whenever gaming books sell out of multiple print runs and hit bestseller lists, it's generally a good sign for sales.  There's no actual way to tell without looking at actual sales figures, but we do know that 4e print runs are larger than 3.5 print runs were, and 4e is having to be reprinted more rapidly than 3.5 was.

When I say 4e and 3.5 I'm specifically referring to the Player's Handbook.  The true indicator of any RPG's sales are it's main player book.  If your sales are high on that, you're in good shape.


----------



## Jasperak

Can we as a community make a wiki page that lists the resources that we use to get all of these numbers that people are throwing back and forth? One single page that we can all reference to make our respective points?

Where are we getting the numbers for how fast the print runs are going for 4e and went for 3e and 3.5e? And sizes of those print runs? Where is this information? I know some have posted links to USA Today and I think NY Times for the Best seller Lists, but where are the rest of these numbers coming from and does it benefit anyone to have to search through twenty different threads to find those links as opposed to one single resource?


----------



## Mirtek

Sorry to be a thread necromancer, but after reading the recent The Escapist interview with Mike Mearls, and finding Ryan's statement mentioned, this thread was among the first few google hits.

Now, reading Ryan's one and a half year after he made them, I am shocked how many of them came true:



> The next things that will take hits are the RPGA (costs a lot to operate - slash it's budget)



 Done


> then quality (put fewer words and less art on fewer pages and raise the price),



 See the declining quality of the online mags.


> then consistency (rules varients generated by inexperienced designers and/or overworked developers start to spawn and cohesion in rulings breaks down leading to ad hoc interpretations as the de facto way to play)



 Giving up the unified system with Essentials and Arcana Unearthed? Done


----------



## AngryMojo

Mirtek said:


> Sorry to be a thread necromancer, but after reading the recent The Escapist interview with Mike Mearls, and finding Ryan's statement mentioned, this thread was among the first few google hits.



I think the biggest argument against Ryan's views is the state of the industry today, compared to the state of every other niche industry during hard economic times.  Everybody is suffering, but a year and a half after his comments about a death spiral, guess what's still around.

People have been doing chicken little impressions for decades.  D&D has lasted through recessions before, they'll last again.  If anything, be happy WotC is releasing the game with a lower price point through Essentials.  That's what the industry needs, a lower introductory cost.


----------



## Piratecat

Mirtek said:


> Giving up the unified system with Essentials and Arcana Unearthed? Done



Actually, the online database has almost completely eliminated redundant and contradictory rules sub-systems. I've been surprised in that regard.


----------



## delericho

Agreed. While I don't like what WotC have been doing of late, there's no evidence that they're doing noticably worse (in terms of sales) than they were 18 months ago.

Now, if we see an announcement of 5e within the next 12 months, that probably would be a warning sign of something being badly wrong... but I'm really not expecting such a thing.


----------



## El Mahdi

As for your last point:



> then consistency (rules varients generated by inexperienced designers and/or overworked developers start to spawn and cohesion in rulings breaks down leading to ad hoc interpretations as the de facto way to play)






Mirtek said:


> ...Giving up the unified system with Essentials and Arcana Unearthed? Done




Let's break it down:

Are Essentials "_rules variants generated by inexperieced designers"_? - Nope! Essentials was designed by some of WotC's most experienced and tenured designers.  Just so I can't be accused of conjecture here's the main designers of Essentials: *Mike Mearls* - Lead Developer of 4E (if anyone understands the ins and outs of the 4E rules, this is the man); _*James Wyatt*_ - writing for D&D for 14 years, working for WotC for 10 years, and author of the 4E DMG; *Bill Slavicsek* - designing RPG's for 19 years, and was originally hired when D&D was still published by a little company called TSR! - Inexperienced? - I don't think so! (just check out his resume at WotC or on Wikepedia)
_"...cohesion in rulings breaks down leading to ad hod interpretations as the defacto way to play." _- I think the jury is FAR from making a decision on this one.  But so far, it looks like the essentials are quite consistent.  And where it appears there may have been conflict with existing rules, the rules were changed and apply retroactively to previous material.  Also, with all changes updated to DDI, the consistent, _unified_ system hasn't gone anywhere.  They have also been _*very*_ pointed in saying that Unearthed Arcana material will not be included in the Compendium and will be completely optional in home games, and have provided plenty of caveats and warnings that such material may be unblalancing or at best, _experimental_.
I believe you're declaring old conjecture as _fait accompli_ with no real evidence that it is so.  I think that only time will tell if Essentials is the harbinger you believe, but it's way to early to declare it so.


----------



## samursus

Mirtek said:


> See the declining quality of the online mags.




Although I don't disagree with your assertion, this is not what Dancey was referring to in his original post.  He was talking about the *rulebooks*.  As far as I have seen the quality of the books has gotten better, reflecting the desires of the customers (more fluff).  And the DDI hasn't changed price since they introduced the Monster builder. 

Secondly, as a company with finite resources, I am not surprised that the online offerings have been sparse this month, what with the launch of Essentials and returning from 2 big conventions.  I am not saying this is "OK", but for a subscription based service I am willing to see what happens next month, and if things continue to be sub-par, in my opinion, I will consider investing my $5/month elsewhere (although, in truth, I don't where that $5 would get me more value).  

My ENWorld subsciption costs me $3/month, and I don't get near as much content for *the game I play (4e)*, but I still feel I get my moneys worth.  Its all in your perspective.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ariosto said:


> I literally don't know about the merits of D&D today as a "gateway" -- and I don't think anyone else does either.




Just from a marketer's perspective, it almost has to be.  Like Kleenex, Xerox, Coke and other brands that lead their industries, "D&D" has become a name that many use as a synonym for any product within the industry, for the hobby itself.

When non-gamers ask you if you play D&D, they may not know there are other RPGs out there- I've even heard non-gamers refer to RPGs like HERO and the like as "other kinds of D&D."

To them, "gaming" refers only to whatever they can plug into an X-Box or other electronic game.


----------



## Obryn

I sure don't see declining quality in the book offerings.  I'd say 4e is comfortably in its stride...  The Dark Sun setting is, IMO, the very best book released for 4e to-date.  The DS Creature Catalog is likewise impressive.  Essentials looks great right now - and judging from some posts on rpg.net, it is indeed getting people who passed on 4e to give it a second look.  (And I'm loving the new ideas, I have to say, even if it will never replace my PHB.)

So...  I guess I'm saying I don't see it.

-O


----------



## AngryMojo

Obryn said:


> I sure don't see declining quality in the book offerings.  I'd say 4e is comfortably in its stride...  The Dark Sun setting is, IMO, the very best book released for 4e to-date.  The DS Creature Catalog is likewise impressive.  Essentials looks great right now - and judging from some posts on rpg.net, it is indeed getting people who passed on 4e to give it a second look.  (And I'm loving the new ideas, I have to say, even if it will never replace my PHB.)
> 
> So...  I guess I'm saying I don't see it.
> 
> -O




Not to mention that Demonomicon and Monster Manual 3 were both excellent.  The fact that the Monster Manuals keep getting _better_ as their number increases is a wonderful change from last edition.


----------



## Mr. Wilson

AngryMojo said:


> Not to mention that Demonomicon and Monster Manual 3 were both excellent. The fact that the Monster Manuals keep getting _better_ as their number increases is a wonderful change from last edition.





QFE.

Sure, I'm not exactly thrilled with the content of Dragon and Dungeon atm (but we did finally get an Eberron article this month), but hopefully it will turn around.

The last few supplements have been outstanding.


----------



## cdrcjsn

Mirtek said:


> Now, reading Ryan's one and a half year after he made them, I am shocked how many of them came true:  [snipped]




Regarding cutting the budget of the RPGA...

Big fan of the RPGA here.  When I look at how LFR was let go by WotC and turned into a mostly volunteer-run organization, I can't help but look at D&D Encounters and Game Days and see where the organized play money went.   

LFR is fine as a volunteer run organization.  The only problem I see with it right now is that sometimes the campaign leadership is too slow to make major decisions, waiting to hear from higher ups for instructions (such as whether or not to include Themes or other options from Dark Sun or incorporating the Essentials rules into the campaign).


----------



## megamania

Interesting read

makes sense on many levels


but.... but as one person has already said, there are many other factors involved.  The sales / conditions in 2000 and in 1988 are different from now.


But still..... there are things there to consider.....


----------



## pneumatik

cdrcjsn said:


> LFR is fine as a volunteer run organization.  The only problem I see with it right now is that sometimes the campaign leadership is too slow to make major decisions, waiting to hear from higher ups for instructions (such as whether or not to include Themes or other options from Dark Sun or incorporating the Essentials rules into the campaign).



Waiting for WotC response was a problem with living greyhawk, too. Though in LG we often waited for the senior volunteers to make rulings, and for the local volunteers, too. Not that I can think of an easy fix. More helpers would have required more time to manage them, and lack of volunteers' time was the root of the problem to begin with.


----------



## Failed Saving Throw

Obryn said:


> I sure don't see declining quality in the book offerings.  I'd say 4e is comfortably in its stride...  The Dark Sun setting is, IMO, the very best book released for 4e to-date.  The DS Creature Catalog is likewise impressive.  Essentials looks great right now - and judging from some posts on rpg.net, it is indeed getting people who passed on 4e to give it a second look.  (And I'm loving the new ideas, I have to say, even if it will never replace my PHB.)
> 
> So...  I guess I'm saying I don't see it.
> 
> -O




I'm gonna have to totally agree with you on Dark Sun; in fact, it's the recent purchases on the Campaign Setting and Creature Catalog that have me suddenly doubting the future for WoTC. The Campaign Setting is a pretty solid effort, but the art in the book is all over the place, and on some pages it's obvious that they pulled art from wherever they could just to fill space (there's too many examples of people in metal armor, wielding metal weapons, etc.). The Creature Catalog is perhaps the most shockingly lazy 4E product I have seen to date. It did nothing more than recycle some of the "core" monsters from previously published versions of Dark Sun. There is not a single new monster in the Creature Catalog. Not one. In other words, there was no creative growth in the monster department whatsoever. The book is nothing more than a big "stat bloc conversion" of 2E monsters into the world of 4E. 

Plus, the interior art is largely , too small, and fails miserably to live up to the genius visions of Brom and Baxa from 2E. 

I'm gonna go into this in greater detail later, but I just bought the Creature Catalog yesterday and it really, really pissed me off.

Oh, and let's not forget that because WoTC simply refuses to hire enough qualified people to run DDI, the inclusion of all the Dark Sun material has been delayed "until early October," which in WoTC parlance means "some time before New Year's."


----------



## Jhaelen

Failed Saving Throw said:


> There is not a single new monster in the Creature Catalog. Not one. In other words, there was no creative growth in the monster department whatsoever.



I think you may have failed your saving throw 

In my book that's a good thing. I wouldn't have wanted to see a new monster take up the space of an old favorite. Put new monsters in the regular monster manuals, please. The Dark Sun Creature catalogue is for Dark Sun monsters. And it can't be a Dark Sun monster if it's a new monster!

I don't think I've seen new monsters in the Eberron Campaign Guide either (Can't talk about the FRCG, since I don't have it). And to be honest: I'm missing quite a few favorite Eberron creations.

Now, several setting-specific (Dark Sun or Eberron) monsters have become part of mainstream and thus have appeared in regular monster manuals, but that is something I don't like a lot. 

The monsters tend to lose what made them special by ripping them out of their roles in setting. At the very least such monsters should include a sidebar telling about their place in their origin setting.

E.g. in 3e several Dark Sun monsters were released in MM2 and several monsters obviously created specifically for the Eberron setting in MM3. At least MM3 had sections describing how to use the monsters in the most important settings, but you still couldn't tell about their true origins.

P.S.: I just noticed I'm completely getting off-topic here, so:

Nope, Mr. Dancey wasn't right, so far. Or rather, his predictions are about as right as a typical random prediction by Nostradamus.


----------



## delericho

Failed Saving Throw said:


> The Campaign Setting is a pretty solid effort, but the art in the book is all over the place, and on some pages it's obvious that they pulled art from wherever they could just to fill space (there's too many examples of people in metal armor, wielding metal weapons, etc.).




This is something of a problem, though it might just be a communication issue - maybe whoever ordered the art wasn't sufficiently familiar with the setting?



> The Creature Catalog is perhaps the most shockingly lazy 4E product I have seen to date. It did nothing more than recycle some of the "core" monsters from previously published versions of Dark Sun. There is not a single new monster in the Creature Catalog. Not one. In other words, there was no creative growth in the monster department whatsoever. The book is nothing more than a big "stat bloc conversion" of 2E monsters into the world of 4E.




I have to ask: what more is really needed? After all, the 4e Monster Manual (the first one) has hardly any (if any) new monsters, but that's hardly a problem - the book is there to do a particular job, and it does it well. Doesn't that also apply here?


----------



## Dire Bare

Failed Saving Throw said:


> I'm gonna have to totally agree with you on Dark Sun; in fact, it's the recent purchases on the Campaign Setting and Creature Catalog that have me suddenly doubting the future for WoTC. The Campaign Setting is a pretty solid effort, but the art in the book is all over the place, and on some pages it's obvious that they pulled art from wherever they could just to fill space (there's too many examples of people in metal armor, wielding metal weapons, etc.). The Creature Catalog is perhaps the most shockingly lazy 4E product I have seen to date. It did nothing more than recycle some of the "core" monsters from previously published versions of Dark Sun. There is not a single new monster in the Creature Catalog. Not one. In other words, there was no creative growth in the monster department whatsoever. The book is nothing more than a big "stat bloc conversion" of 2E monsters into the world of 4E.
> 
> Plus, the interior art is largely , too small, and fails miserably to live up to the genius visions of Brom and Baxa from 2E.
> 
> I'm gonna go into this in greater detail later, but I just bought the Creature Catalog yesterday and it really, really pissed me off.
> 
> Oh, and let's not forget that because WoTC simply refuses to hire enough qualified people to run DDI, the inclusion of all the Dark Sun material has been delayed "until early October," which in WoTC parlance means "some time before New Year's."




Bwuh?  Sorry, still don't see it.  Art is subjective, and just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a sign of WotC's decline.  There is a lot of fantastic art (IMO, of course) in both the Dark Sun Campaign Book and Creature Catalog . . . but, as usual, there are pieces that I think suck . . . or are good but don't match the tone of the overall work.  But that doesn't worry me.

And, what did you actually expect with the Creature Catalog?  The whole point was the conversion of older, iconic Dark Sun monsters to the new edition.  Sure, it would have been cool to see some new monsters in there, but I think your expectations were a bit off.  What about the Campaign Setting?  They didn't really invent much new "fluff", but converted the older setting to the new edition.  Why doesn't that piss you off?


----------



## Vorpal Puppy

Mr. Dancey's speculation that Wizards could have spent $30-$50 million on their online initiatives is shocking to me.  I know absolutely nothing about web development, but I always imagined the number would be much, much lower.

If anyone here does know something about web development and has some ideas about this speculative estimate, I'd love to hear them.

I have not read all ten pages of this thread so if this ground has already been covered, I apologize.


----------



## Shemeska

Vorpal Puppy said:


> Mr. Dancey's speculation that Wizards could have spent $30-$50 million on their online initiatives is shocking to me.  I know absolutely nothing about web development, but I always imagined the number would be much, much lower.




That range fits with the number I was told. My reaction was much the same.


----------



## nedjer

Vorpal Puppy said:


> Mr. Dancey's speculation that Wizards could have spent $30-$50 million on their online initiatives is shocking to me.  I know absolutely nothing about web development, but I always imagined the number would be much, much lower.
> 
> If anyone here does know something about web development and has some ideas about this speculative estimate, I'd love to hear them.
> 
> I have not read all ten pages of this thread so if this ground has already been covered, I apologize.




If they did, it would be safe to say they didn't get best value  There are some almost amusing cases of companies hiring webtech without specifying what they want properly - then paying out endlessly as they add stuff on a feature by feature basis. But $50 million for a database and a few apps - with no 3D object and animation costs - (which could probably be structured after existing Sourceforge code). 

Be interested to know more about what went on with that though, as I remember some comments somewhere about money being lost but there wasn't any detail?


----------



## Umbran

Vorpal Puppy said:


> Mr. Dancey's speculation that Wizards could have spent $30-$50 million on their online initiatives is shocking to me.




I find it... incomprehensible, to be honest.

Take your typical Full Time Employee (FTE).  Let's think about their salary and benefits for one year, and find a round number for it - $100K for our "back of the envelope" consideration.

Spending $30 million would have been paying for _300 person-years_ of effort - that's like a team of 30 people working on it for a decade!

I do not believe it possible that WotC, which has otherwise shown some solid comprehension of economics, would spend such money on the online initiatives.  

If they had... well, I think several upper management would have needed to be fired.


----------



## Shemeska

Umbran said:


> I do not believe it possible that WotC, which has otherwise shown some solid comprehension of economics, would spend such money on the online initiatives.
> 
> If they had... well, I think several upper management would have needed to be fired.




Remember the "digital reconsolidation" and the layoffs during that period? They did have a management shakeup after all the outsourcing and subsequent contraction back in-house.

It was enough to deserve mention as a continuing expenditure in a quarterly Hasbro report around the time too.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Three things of note:

(1)  Although I don't play 4e, I certainly hope (and expect) that Mr. Dancy is wrong.

(2)  All of the reasons why Mr. Dancy's opinion should be doubted would apply rather equally, I think, to the TSR situation he had previously commented on.  If motive is a big reason to say WotC is failing now, motive was just as strong when describing why TSR failed then -- esp. as at least one TSR employee openly said it wasn't so.

(3)  From my POV, 4e under-performed based on WotC's projections (partly due to the PR fiascos, partly due to lack of VTT, partly due to the level of change involved in the edition, partly due to lackluster initial adventures).  But I've seen nothing that indicates that WotC hasn't learned from at least some of its mistakes.  Skill Challenges are, to my understanding, much better than with initial release, Essentials attempts to gain back some grognards, and I hear the Essentials DM set has a pretty good adventure in it.

If 4e had continued as it was, the GSL might have started a death spiral, as it kept some of the better adventure publishers from committing to 4e materials, and thus damaged support.  And the first WotC 4e adventures were meh at best.

But they have started turning it into a game that I would be willing (from my position of limited information) to play, if not to run, and that is saying something.

I very much doubt that D&D is in a death spiral.  No SoD, remember?  It just failed (IMHO) its first save.  The edition gets two others before death.  



RC


----------



## Umbran

Shemeska said:


> Remember the "digital reconsolidation" and the layoffs during that period? They did have a management shakeup after all the outsourcing and subsequent contraction back in-house.




I honestly haven't paid attention to exactly who was in what seats at WotC.  Did they lose their CEO?  If not, then they probably didn't throw away that kind of money.

In order for it to have cost that much, we'd have to believe that Hasbro would have allowed them to spend it and not stop them.  We are told that Hasbro does not meddle much in the day-to-day operations, but recall again that $30 million is on the order of 300 person years of compensation - certainly several years worth of WotC's payroll budget.  Hasbro didn't see that just whirling out the door?


----------



## eyebeams

Many of these symptoms were actually there by 3.5. Basically, WotC avoided the so-called "supplement treadmill" for perhaps 3 years (and given how line management works this was probably contemplated as early as 2002). The company dropped brown softcovers pretty damned quick and eventually took over the niches they'd left to third party publishers. 

I remember hilarious complaints from WotC staff that publishers weren't using the OGL properly. Good companies apparently should have just done D&D adventures and settings that were PHB-centric, and were Bad for wanting to nurture independent identities. That tells you how well management thought the OGL was helping D&D sales.

DDI follows the pattern of promising more than the company can deliver on the electronic front, but we're talking about a project that was struck by some disasters (such as a murder-suicide) that can't be blamed on a poor strategy. Estimates based purely on salary aren't going to work because the IT infrastructure costs money too.

The truth is probably that the ideal of an evergreen set of core rules is foolish to pursue and fails to deal with the hobby games market's nature, and this was true even when 3e was launched -- it was just disguised by the fact that an overhaul of D&D was long overdue. Yes, greying geeks like the idea of an edition that will last forever, but a winning business model is more like to resemble WH40K's, with a regular cycle of iterative updates (which is better for us greying types since we can kludge things when the rules are very similar). Perhaps Essentials reflects this awareness, though it is a confusing execution.

So I would say that yes, sales are declining. I would also say that this was probably par for the course for 3e, too, because "reprint the PHB forever" was a failed plan in all incarnations.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Umbran said:


> I find it... incomprehensible, to be honest.
> 
> Take your typical Full Time Employee (FTE).  Let's think about their salary and benefits for one year, and find a round number for it - $100K for our "back of the envelope" consideration.
> 
> Spending $30 million would have been paying for _300 person-years_ of effort - that's like a team of 30 people working on it for a decade!
> 
> I do not believe it possible that WotC, which has otherwise shown some solid comprehension of economics, would spend such money on the online initiatives.
> 
> If they had... well, I think several upper management would have needed to be fired.



While I agree with the reasoning here I could still see them spending that kind of money but not all on software.
If they outfitted a datacenter and all that goes with it trhat would be a fair chunk of change. But mosty of that spending is still of value even if the specs are in excess of current requirements. 

Of course if they did not build their own datacenter then I really do not see where that money would go.


----------



## Raven Crowking

eyebeams said:


> I remember hilarious complaints from WotC staff that publishers weren't using the OGL properly by just writing D&D adventures and settings that were PHB-centric.




If so, that is a direct consequence of not making part of the new material OGC, and hence usable, by 3pp.

If more of the later materials had been made OGC, 3pp would have used that material, which would have essentially been advertisement for the WotC book it was from.


RC


----------



## Jacob Marley

Umbran said:


> I honestly haven't paid attention to exactly who was in what seats at WotC.  Did they lose their CEO?  If not, then they probably didn't throw away that kind of money.




August 2007 - WotC announces 4th Edition
March 2008 - Loren Greenwood steps down as CEO, Greg Leeds takes over
July 2008 - WotC announces Gleemax to be discontinued
December 2008 - Randy Buehler (VP of Digital Gaming) et al. let go by WotC

I do not remember exactly when Gleemax was announced or what (if any) relationship existed between what WotC was trying to do with Gleemax and what WotC was trying to do with M:tG Online or DDi. However, it seems that everyone, including top management, who were involved with Gleemax are no longer with the company.


----------



## Umbran

ardoughter said:


> While I agree with the reasoning here I could still see them spending that kind of money but not all on software.
> If they outfitted a datacenter and all that goes with it trhat would be a fair chunk of change. But mosty of that spending is still of value even if the specs are in excess of current requirements.
> 
> Of course if they did not build their own datacenter then I really do not see where that money would go.




It is easier for money to disappear like that if they don't build their own datacenter - if they contract to some other organization for such, then they spend money but have no hardware to show for it in the end.

Mind you, hardware is cheap, by comparison to people.  I've had occasion to work in MIT's IT shop - fully half their budget is simply salaries and employee benefits.  The other half is _everything_ else.  Hardware costs are only one piece of that everything else.  



Jacob Marley said:


> August 2007 - WotC announces 4th Edition
> March 2008 - Loren Greenwood steps down as CEO, Greg Leeds takes over
> July 2008 - WotC announces Gleemax to be discontinued
> December 2008 - Randy Buehler (VP of Digital Gaming) et al. let go by WotC




Okay, that is consistent with someone having screwed up royally.  Color me somewhat less skeptical.


----------



## Stoat

eyebeams said:


> The truth is probably that the ideal of an evergreen set of core rules is foolish to pursue and fails to deal with the hobby games market's nature, and this was true even when 3e was launched -- it was just disguised by the fact that an overhaul of D&D was long overdue. Yes, greying geeks like the idea of an edition that will last forever, but a winning business model is more like to resemble WH40K's, with a regular cycle of iterative updates (which is better for us greying types since we can kludge things when the rules are very similar). Perhaps Essentials reflects this awareness, though it is a confusing execution.




Wasn't Games Workshop in pretty serious financial trouble a few years ago?  Have they been able to pull themselves together?


----------



## eyebeams

Stoat said:


> Wasn't Games Workshop in pretty serious financial trouble a few years ago?  Have they been able to pull themselves together?




Yeah, in 2008. They're still around. Another example is of course WotC itself with Magic: The Gathering.


----------



## AngryMojo

eyebeams said:


> Yeah, in 2008. They're still around. Another example is of course WotC itself with Magic: The Gathering.




Also with Palladium in 2006.  Game companies can survive hard times.


----------



## eyebeams

I was speaking more about the rapid edition turnover. Palladium . . . sheesh. Not touching that one.


----------



## MortalPlague

eyebeams said:


> but we're talking about a project that was struck by some disasters (such as a murder-suicide)




Wait, what?!  I must have missed that.  What happened?


----------



## nnms

MortalPlague said:


> Wait, what?!  I must have missed that.  What happened?




http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ds-coast-employee-commits-murder-suicide.html


----------



## malraux

Umbran said:


> Okay, that is consistent with someone having screwed up royally.  Color me somewhat less skeptical.




The excess money spent was enough to justify a specific mention in the HAS 10-K for that year.  That's a report that often just mentions the fact that WotC exists.  It had to have been huge for that to occur.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Mind you, hardware is cheap, by comparison to people. I've had occasion to work in MIT's IT shop - fully half their budget is simply salaries and employee benefits. The other half is everything else. Hardware costs are only one piece of that everything else.




FWIW, that's typical of a LOT of businesses and institutions: take a look at the bottom line for the US Army or the NFL and you'll see likewise.

For small businesses, it can be an even higher percentage.  My Dad's main expense in his medical practice is staff.  My law practice is likewise.


----------



## LuckyAdrastus

Mirtek said:


> Giving up the unified system with Essentials and Arcana Unearthed? Done




Leaving aside Essentials threadwaring, I don't see the complaint against Arcana Unearthed as it has been announced and implemented so far.  It's clearly labeled as experimental and speculative material and isn't included in the character builder.  The only way I could see for it to "negatively" effect 4e is if they stopped producing new material because they were only producing Arcana Unearthed stuff.  Clearly that isn't happening -- we've had, what, one Arcana Unearthed Article in the weeks since they announced it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mirtek said:


> Giving up the unified system with Essentials and _*Arcana Unearthed*_? Done




and



LuckyAdrastus said:


> Leaving aside Essentials threadwaring, I don't see the complaint against *Arcana Unearthed* as it has been announced and implemented so far.  It's clearly labeled as experimental and speculative material and isn't included in the character builder.  The only way I could see for it to "negatively" effect 4e is if they stopped producing new material because they were only producing _*Arcana Unearthed*_ stuff.  Clearly that isn't happening -- we've had, what, one _*Arcana Unearthed*_ Article in the weeks since they announced it?



_(emphasis mine)_
That should be _"Unearthed Arcana"_- _"Arcana Unearthed"_ is an alternative 3Ed PHB/Setting from Malhavoc Press, designed by Monte Cook, that eventually became _Arcana Evolved_ (essentially, its 3.5 revision).


----------



## AllisterH

Raven Crowking said:


> If so, that is a direct consequence of not making part of the new material OGC, and hence usable, by 3pp.
> 
> If more of the later materials had been made OGC, 3pp would have used that material, which would have essentially been advertisement for the WotC book it was from.
> 
> 
> RC




Except that this "competing" started even BEFORE 3.0 was officially released. Remember the Scarred Lands Monster book came out BEFORE the 3.0 books did.

I distinctly remember people chuckling that WOTC was being upstaged.

Personally, while paizo has shown that adventures CAN sell, rules supplements seem to be an EASIER sell.

Of course, if DDI was available back then, I also believe that rules supplements would be as dead as a doornail as they are now for 3pp in 4e.


----------



## vegaserik01

Jhaelen said:


> Nope, Mr. Dancey wasn't right, so far. Or rather, his predictions are about as right as a typical random prediction by Nostradamus.




Oh I'm sure Nostradamus did predict the complete collapse of rpg's in 2011! 


4E seems to be doing just fine in my neck of the woods - yeah there are a few people who won't touch it saying it's not D&D, but I'm sure there are those types everywhere.


----------



## WizarDru

The idea that MMORPGs will become the inevitable victors over pen-and-paper RPGs certainly didn't help Realtime Worlds and APB very much.  DDO wasn't terribly profitable until it changed it's financial model last year.  Star Trek: Online and Champions: Online are struggling.  The fact of the matter is that unless you're World of Warcraft, Lineage II or maybe SW: The Old Republic, you're not turning very big numbers at all.

It also assumes that D&D and other pen-and-paper RPGs were EVER more than a niche entertainment.  Other than the outlier caused by the early 1980s, RPGs have never been mainstream or huge.  For many, they're as dated as Hammer Pants.


----------



## kenmarable

Umbran said:


> I find it... incomprehensible, to be honest.
> 
> Take your typical Full Time Employee (FTE).  Let's think about their salary and benefits for one year, and find a round number for it - $100K for our "back of the envelope" consideration.
> 
> Spending $30 million would have been paying for _300 person-years_ of effort - that's like a team of 30 people working on it for a decade!
> 
> I do not believe it possible that WotC, which has otherwise shown some solid comprehension of economics, would spend such money on the online initiatives.
> 
> If they had... well, I think several upper management would have needed to be fired.




I believe this was originally outsourced, so the cost would go up dramatically. Back when I did software development on a client basis, my employers would typically charge $100-150 per hour for my time (of course, I sure wasn't making that much per hour by a long shot but it still cost clients that much for my time). 

It is still a heck of a lot of money, but could easily be more like 100 person years. If it was uinder development for a couple years under that, and had a large team of programers, artists (and there was a lot of 3d work and support that was developed but never finished), db admins, project managers, etc - it can add up fast.

I'm not saying it isn't way too much money, and they certainly didn't seem to get their money's worth, but outsourced projects like this that go on for years can add up REAL fast especialy if the client keeps changing or adding onto the requirements.


----------



## Raven Crowking

AllisterH said:


> Except that this "competing" started even BEFORE 3.0 was officially released. Remember the Scarred Lands Monster book came out BEFORE the 3.0 books did.
> 
> I distinctly remember people chuckling that WOTC was being upstaged.
> 
> Personally, while paizo has shown that adventures CAN sell, rules supplements seem to be an EASIER sell.
> 
> Of course, if DDI was available back then, I also believe that rules supplements would be as dead as a doornail as they are now for 3pp in 4e.




(Shrug)

So?

I still bought the Monster Manual.  Everyone I know who played the game bought the Monster Manual.  From my understanding, the Monster Manual sold well.

It was when WotC greenlighted the Tome of Horrors, and then put out competing stats for some of the same monsters, that problems began.  Not only was ToH truer to the orignals, but it was OGC, so that others could use them.  Had WotC put out official OGC versions, it would probably have beaten the ToH....but as things stood, ToH became the single most useful 3pp book out there!  (IMHO of course)

Likewise, there were tons of environmental books before WotC jumped into the arena, some of them were much better than the WotC books, and they had OGC so that other 3pp could build off of them.  Had there been official OGC -- had WotC even simply made official the OGC they thought best -- I feel certain those books would have sold better.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that a major factor in 3pp purchases for me was the % of OGC that I could rework, and a major factor in my decision to bypass several WotC offerings was the lack of same.



RC


----------



## Dire Bare

Raven Crowking said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that a major factor in 3pp purchases for me was the % of OGC that I could rework, and a major factor in my decision to bypass several WotC offerings was the lack of same.




I'm no expert on the d20 boom, although I purchased my fair share of products, both WotC and 3rd Party.  But, really, how many publishers took advantage of other companies OGC?  I know some did, of course . . . but outside of compilations of other peoples work, I never saw much of it.

And as a consumer, how much of a product is/was OGC is meaningless.  I don't need "open" content to use in my games, the legality and licensing of it doesn't matter.  It only matters if I wish to make the leap to publisher, which the vast majority of us had no desire to do.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Well, it is important to *me*!


----------



## carmachu

Stoat said:


> Wasn't Games Workshop in pretty serious financial trouble a few years ago? Have they been able to pull themselves together?




Depends on what you mean by "pull themselves togther" exactly. They are in better finacial shape then they were before-removed debt, reduced costs. However, long term? If you look at their unit sales they seem to still be shrinking overall, not growing. I wouldnt call it a death spiral, but I wouldnt exactly call it healthy either.


----------



## billd91

Dire Bare said:


> I'm no expert on the d20 boom, although I purchased my fair share of products, both WotC and 3rd Party.  But, really, how many publishers took advantage of other companies OGC?  I know some did, of course . . . but outside of compilations of other peoples work, I never saw much of it.




Paizo uses a fair amount of OGC stuff now, and to good effect. But then, they have good reason to since they've been cut off from the official non-open content.


----------



## Jhaelen

Raven Crowking said:


> Well, it is important to *me*!



Yeah, but I doubt you'd be surprised to find you're in the minority. 

The amount of OGC has never influenced my buying behaviour.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Dire Bare said:


> I'm no expert on the d20 boom, although I purchased my fair share of products, both WotC and 3rd Party.  But, really, how many publishers took advantage of other companies OGC?  I know some did, of course . . . but outside of compilations of other peoples work, I never saw much of it.




Pick any 3pp book you own and flip to the back page, OGL, Section 15. 

I doubt you really looked, or would have known it if you saw it, or would have cared if you did.


----------



## AllisterH

Raven Crowking said:


> (Shrug)
> 
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that a major factor in 3pp purchases for me was the % of OGC that I could rework, and a major factor in my decision to bypass several WotC offerings was the lack of same.
> 
> 
> 
> RC




Um..I'm confused.

Why would a book having OGC affect your HOME game unless you were a publisher?

Personally, I stand by my belief that if WOTC had DDI running in 3.x, they could've even made EVERY book they produced OGL and STILL killed off the vast majority of the 3pp market.


----------



## Dire Bare

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Pick any 3pp book you own and flip to the back page, OGL, Section 15.
> 
> I doubt you really looked, or would have known it if you saw it, or would have cared if you did.




Huh?  Not sure if we're talking about the same thing (we might be).  I'm not saying that 3rd Party publishers didn't use the OGL license, but how many of them used significant OGC content from other companies works?  Granted, I didn't scour the section 15's of all the books I own, but I really doubt it's significant . . . . or am I way off base here as you seem to imply?

I'm certainly too lazy to head out to the garage, unbox some of that stuff, and start looking . . . .


----------



## Raven Crowking

AllisterH said:


> Um..I'm confused.
> 
> Why would a book having OGC affect your HOME game unless you were a publisher?
> 
> Personally, I stand by my belief that if WOTC had DDI running in 3.x, they could've even made EVERY book they produced OGL and STILL killed off the vast majority of the 3pp market.




You know, this came up for me first because I ended up allowing options into my home game.  And then, to make things easier for my players, I began to consider how I could make those options available to them.  Could I, for example, make a campaign web page with optional rules posted?  Could I share them with others?  Could I use an online database to allow players in other parts of the world to partake in my game?

If they were OGC, I could do that without having any shadow of a problem.  If not, well, not.

I found myself in a quandry between using the best rules I could, OGC or not, and limiting the scope of how I used them, or using the best OGC rules I could, allowing me to throw the scope wide open.

And, suddenly, it became obvious to me just how inclusive the OGL could be, and publishers who provided plenty of OGC were.  They were helping me make my game my own, and helping me share it with others.  OGC says "This game is yours" while closed content says "But this is ours".  I discovered that I value the former.

And now I am working on a free ruleset that I can share, which will be well over 90% OGC, which can be used by other GMs to tinker with other rulesets, or run as-is, or whatever they like.

Because I value that, and I want the scope, and I want to contribute.



RC


EDIT:  Oh, and Dire Bare, the Section 15 will show you where OGC was taken from.  Many publishers have built on, and modified, each other's work.  That is a good thing, and has led to some great products!


----------



## Hussar

AllisterH said:


> Except that this "competing" started even BEFORE 3.0 was officially released. Remember the Scarred Lands Monster book came out BEFORE the 3.0 books did.
> 
> I distinctly remember people chuckling that WOTC was being upstaged.
> 
> Personally, while paizo has shown that adventures CAN sell, rules supplements seem to be an EASIER sell.
> 
> Of course, if DDI was available back then, I also believe that rules supplements would be as dead as a doornail as they are now for 3pp in 4e.




Heh, the Scarred Lands books even listed themselves as "Core" rulebooks.  Nice.


----------



## Hussar

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Pick any 3pp book you own and flip to the back page, OGL, Section 15.
> 
> I doubt you really looked, or would have known it if you saw it, or would have cared if you did.




Care to specify a date?

3e era OGC?  Not so much cross pollination.  Post 4e?  Lots and lots more.

It took a heck of a long time for 3pp to get their act together and start cooperating.

I've got a stack of Scarred Lands books that don't use a single bit from other publishers.  Living Imagination?  Nope.  Mystic Eye Games used a single creature for it's Urban Blight book.  I've got four years of Dragon magazines without a single line of OGC (Granted, they weren't allowed.).  Never mind a bucket full of pdf's with pretty sparse Section 15's.  I've got half a dozen AEG books, none of which use material from other publishers.  My Mongoose books don't either.

How much cross pollination was going on depends on when you want to start counting.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Dire Bare said:


> Huh?  Not sure if we're talking about the same thing (we might be).  I'm not saying that 3rd Party publishers didn't use the OGL license, but how many of them used significant OGC content from other companies works?  Granted, I didn't scour the section 15's of all the books I own, but I really doubt it's significant . . . . or am I way off base here as you seem to imply?
> 
> I'm certainly too lazy to head out to the garage, unbox some of that stuff, and start looking . . . .




I think it depends on publishers.  Some were liberal with stuff, but others didn't use anything but the core SRD and their own rules.  

At first, I personally swallowed the OGL concept and really believed in it, and I wanted to support stuff that was 100% OGL, and reference many works in one main adventure.

Practically speaking, however, using a lot of OGL sources has a catch-22 effect.  Ideally, for economic reasons, you'd probably want to just reference content in short form "stat blocks", and the OGC section would hopefully lead to more sales for the creator.  But I can see from the consumer end, they might resent having to buy 3-6 books to find out the details.  And if you end up including the whole shebang, like put the full monster stats in the appendix, then you're sort of leeching more from the original publisher, and discouraging the person from purchasing the original source.

From what products I purchased, I noticed very little re-use of 3pp content outside of the SRD, with the exception of two items.

1)  Creature Catalog and Creature Catalog 2, which were the first big OGL products from a major publisher, so they were first to market.

2)  Tome of Horrors I--which pretty much IMO did not have to do with Necromancer's own brand, but simply because it was an authorized collection of monsters that we all knew, created by E-Gansta Gygax and Da You Kay Crew (from Fiend Folio), with assistance from TeaSaR posse.  In other words, the product mostly benefitted from the D&D legacy rather than anything new.

Beyond those two, I didn't see many, maybe one or two isolated references in individual products.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Raven Crowking said:


> You know, this came up for me first because I ended up allowing options into my home game.  And then, to make things easier for my players, I began to consider how I could make those options available to them.




But all the examples you said if there wasn't an OGL aren't that restricted.  The only thing the OGL gives you is the freedom to publish.  And if you're not a commercial publisher, you don't really need it.  Without the OGL, here are the rules.

In your mind, no problem, there are no thought police.

In your home, on your own computer, in your house, same here.

Share a campaign on the Internet, well, let's see.  There are lots of options there.  You can keep it private and distribute data via e-mail.  You can have a private network or peer to peer or sharing.  And some game publishers may not mind stuff being published on a web site.  You don't have to have all the game stats listed--in fact, I would think you'd want to HIDE stuff from the players.  You can describe a world, a setting, and not violate WoTC or copyrights as long as what you publish is more generic.  

The only thing the OGL gave people is an implicit right to PUBLISH.  And I have a feeling most of the D&D players and DMs don't give a damn about publishing their stuff.  (If the OGL was really a big deal, more people would have resisted 4e).  But at the end of the day, unless you have a money making business as a 3pp, it doesn't make that much of a difference from the player or DM side of things.


----------



## BryonD

Dire Bare said:


> or am I way off base here as you seem to imply?



You are pretty far off base.

Certainly there was a lot of stuff without any "building" elements.  But well before 4E, a lot of the big names had very extensive Section 15s.

Grim Tales
Spycraft
Nearly everything Necromancer did
A lot of Green Ronin's stuff

It was there.


----------



## Raven Crowking

JohnRTroy said:


> But all the examples you said if there wasn't an OGL aren't that restricted.  The only thing the OGL gives you is the freedom to publish.  And if you're not a commercial publisher, you don't really need it.




Sorry, but that is untrue.  Not being a commercial publisher does not give you free reign with the IP of others.  RCFG is not a commerical publication -- I make nothing off of it -- but you can be certain I am not using non-OGC materials taken from anyone.



> Share a campaign on the Internet, well, let's see.  There are lots of options there.  You can keep it private and distribute data via e-mail.  You can have a private network or peer to peer or sharing.




See, from my POV, hiding the materials and sharing the materials are diametrically opposed goals.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jhaelen said:


> Yeah, but I doubt you'd be surprised to find you're in the minority.
> 
> The amount of OGC has never influenced my buying behaviour.




I would not be surprised if I were in the minority, the majority, or somewhere close to 50/50.  I have no data on which to form a firm opinion, and merely speculate.

Would you be surprised to learn you were in the minority?



Hussar said:


> 3e era OGC?  Not so much cross pollination.  Post 4e?  Lots and lots more.
> 
> It took a heck of a long time for 3pp to get their act together and start cooperating.




Using the OGL means having to copy all of the Section 15 data from every book you use.  Working on RCFG has meant having to copy an awful lot of Section 15 data.  I can assure you, cross-pollination occurred well before 4e.

What you see post-4e (or late 3e) is the production of additional rulesets, which tend to cross-pollinate more than sourcebooks or adventures do.  But, once there is enough material to work with, cross-pollination is pretty regular.  Green Ronin, for example, actively encouraged other publishers to use monsters from _*Jade Dragons and Hungry Ghosts*_, because they could see the obvious advantages of doing so.

Fifth Element, working on the Grand OGL Wiki, might know a bit more about it!


RC


----------



## Jhaelen

Raven Crowking said:


> Would you be surprised to learn you were in the minority?



Of course! 

Naturally, all the evidence I have is anecdotal. If I asked everyone I personally know and game with what they think of OGL/OGC, I would get nothing but blank stares. They probably wouldn't even know what I'm talking about.

In fact that's an experiment I might try 
However, you'd dismiss the results as meaningless, anyway (which in a way they certainly are).

I think, this board is the only place I've ever seen long discussions about the topic. And that's probably because a lot of publishers visit this board.

A minority of D&D players visits internet forums. Of them a minority visits this board. Of them only a minority engages in discussions about OCG/OGL. That alone indicates that only a minority cares about OGC/OGL!

But, yeah, I cannot prove you're in the minority which is quite likely all you care about


----------



## Raven Crowking

Jhaelen said:


> But, yeah, I cannot prove you're in the minority which is quite likely all you care about




Again, I would not be surprised if I were in the minority, the majority, or somewhere close to 50/50. I have no data on which to form a firm opinion, and merely speculate.

I may hold a belief regarding where I fall, but I would not be surprised at all to learn (in this case) that my belief is wrong.  My level of evidence in determining that belief is very low, and, as a result, it would take a pretty low bar to shift me in that belief.


RC


----------



## JohnRTroy

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but that is untrue.  Not being a commercial publisher does not give you free reign with the IP of others.  RCFG is not a commerical publication -- I make nothing off of it -- but you can be certain I am not using non-OGC materials taken from anyone.




You miss my point.  My point is that, if your goal is to share your campaign with your _players_ or collaborators, you don't need the OGL to be a DM.  If your goal is to publish to the world, regardless of your size, then yes, but then you cross the line from just running a campaign to running a publishing house.  Your initial statements made it sound like the lack of an OGL prevented you from legally sharing stuff with your private group, and that's not true.  You simply aren't allowed to publish.

And I would say 99% of players and DMs don't give a damn about publishing their stuff, sharing their work, etc.   Even creative DMs might just keep some sketchy notes and play their campaign "on the fly".  Not every DM is suited to write for the public, and they may not have the desire.

As far as the evidence, well, considering how well 4e took over, it doesn't seem that the OGL truly mattered in terms of making the game more or less popular.  While some fans have specifically rejected it because of the OGL, I suspect more people reject the new D&D because it is different, and the OGL itself is a very minor consideration.   Ryan actually stated that the OGL would prevent WoTC from effectively changing the game too much without "forking" the game.  While the "fork" did happen (Pathfinder, et al), it turned out the brand loyalty was stronger than this principle.


----------



## Raven Crowking

You miss my point, I suspect.

My goal is to open my campaign world up to pbp players, who must have access to the rules.  I have no intention of limiting myself to the subset of potential players *I am playing with now*.  And key to that is the ability to say "Here is the ruleset.  Here is the campaign guide.  Who is interested?".

If I wanted to supply info solely to current players, you would of course be correct.


RC


----------



## eyebeams

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but that is untrue.  Not being a commercial publisher does not give you free reign with the IP of others.  RCFG is not a commerical publication -- I make nothing off of it -- but you can be certain I am not using non-OGC materials taken from anyone.




The above demonstrates how the OGL has seriously damaged fair use in our community. I actually hope people avoid open licenses in favour of fair use whenever they can, lest any legal test that observes community standards decide that since you weren't using your rights, you never deserved them.


----------



## Raven Crowking

"Fair use" =/= "Free Reign".

I'd rather not have to worry about fair use, except in cases where it seems crystal clear (to me).


----------



## PaizoCEO

Umbran said:


> I honestly haven't paid attention to exactly who was in what seats at WotC.  Did they lose their CEO?  If not, then they probably didn't throw away that kind of money.
> 
> In order for it to have cost that much, we'd have to believe that Hasbro would have allowed them to spend it and not stop them.  We are told that Hasbro does not meddle much in the day-to-day operations, but recall again that $30 million is on the order of 300 person years of compensation - certainly several years worth of WotC's payroll budget.  Hasbro didn't see that just whirling out the door?




Remember that the DDI was only a small part of the whole online initiative.  There was the whole Gleemax social networking website and they had a number of online games in the works that they were hoping to use to make an online game portal.  I've heard the same big number, but it was for all the online initiatives, not just DDI.

-Lisa


----------



## billd91

eyebeams said:


> The above demonstrates how the OGL has seriously damaged fair use in our community. I actually hope people avoid open licenses in favour of fair use whenever they can, lest any legal test that observes community standards decide that since you weren't using your rights, you never deserved them.




I think you overestimate the protection offered by fair use to anything posted on the internet that isn't for educational, satirical, or review purposes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> I think you overestimate the protection offered by fair use to anything posted on the internet that isn't for educational, satirical, or review purposes.




I'm an Entertainment lawyer, and I endorse this statement.

"Fair Use" is a powerful but very tricky safe harbor in IP law.


----------



## eyebeams

billd91 said:


> I think you overestimate the protection offered by fair use to anything posted on the internet that isn't for educational, satirical, or review purposes.




I think it's hilarious that you're saying this on a site that could not exist if it was actually too dangerous to talk about your games and house rules and such. The same is true for many fora as well as places like Obsidian Portal. The field left between fair use and the uncopyrightable nature of bare rules themselves (though not their expressions) is significant.

See Bill, the unfortunate part is that there are in fact arguments being readied in various quarters to scale back these rights considerably via a novel interpretation where values and systems are treated as a form of software. These if course will be helped by communities willing to capitulate.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

eyebeams said:


> I think it's hilarious that you're saying this on a site that could not exist if it was actually too dangerous to talk about your games and house rules and such. The same is true for many fora as well as places like Obsidian Portal. The field left between fair use and the uncopyrightable nature of bare rules themselves (though not their expressions) is significant.
> 
> See Bill, the unfortunate part is that there are in fact arguments being readied in various quarters to scale back these rights considerably via a novel interpretation where values and systems are treated as a form of software. These if course will be helped by communities willing to capitulate.




Copyright arises automatically upon the creation of IP, so its not "dangerous" to post things about your game or HRs or such.



> *USA Copyright Law*
> Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
> 
> 
> The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
> The nature of the copyrighted work
> The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
> The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work




In all probability, something posted on a website _like this _is either subject to terms of use that would prevent someone from enforcing a copyright claim (I haven't checked anyone's terms of use to verify this) or would be deemed to be released into the public domain, barring an actual notice that the work in question was not being placed into the public domain.  And if someone DID happen to put up such a notice, I wouldn't be surprised to see mods take the post down, just to cover the site from potential liability.

(I say probably because, AFAIK, nobody has ever tried to enforce such a claim.)

But lets say someone did try to assert such a claim: I seriously doubt any Court would uphold a copyright claim against someone using material from ENWorld in their private game.

What if they tried to incorporate a HR posted on ENWorld into a commercial product?

Well, 



> *USA Copyright Law*
> Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.




That rule would probably not be deemed to be copyrightable.

However, if you posted a monster writeup containing fluff & mechanics, that unique bit of text covering fluff would be fully copyright protected...barring the Court finding that posting it here placed it into the public domain.

What I think Bill was getting at is that if someone created IP, then someone else posted it on the internet without permission and then you used it in a commercial product, you're not protected by fair use.  IOW, you put yourself at risk of a lawsuit by using material found on the internet that you don't know who its original creator is, and fair use will not help you one bit.

It will also not help you if the work is not commercial, but also not of an educational nature (that's test #1)- and that's pretty narrowly construed to cover only use in a recognized academic setting- or if the use substantially damages the market value of the copied IP (test #4).


----------



## billd91

eyebeams said:


> I think it's hilarious that you're saying this on a site that could not exist if it was actually too dangerous to talk about your games and house rules and such. The same is true for many fora as well as places like Obsidian Portal. The field left between fair use and the uncopyrightable nature of bare rules themselves (though not their expressions) is significant.




It's not a question of posting house rules or anything original. It's a question of reproducing text from someone else's work like RC is talking about. Using it for entertainment purposes isn't included in fair use. That's one positive value of the OGL. Follow the license and open content can be reproduced publicly.


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> 
> Using the OGL means having to copy all of the Section 15 data from every book you use.  Working on RCFG has meant having to copy an awful lot of Section 15 data.  I can assure you, cross-pollination occurred well before 4e.
> 
> What you see post-4e (or late 3e) is the production of additional rulesets, which tend to cross-pollinate more than sourcebooks or adventures do.  But, once there is enough material to work with, cross-pollination is pretty regular.  Green Ronin, for example, actively encouraged other publishers to use monsters from _*Jade Dragons and Hungry Ghosts*_, because they could see the obvious advantages of doing so.
> 
> Fifth Element, working on the Grand OGL Wiki, might know a bit more about it!
> 
> 
> RC




Sorry, wasn't quite clear.  I was mostly saying that from about 2000-2005 (ish), basically 3e to early 3.5, you don't see much cross pollination.  It isn't until, as you say, late 3.5 that you really see things kick off.

And while Green Ronin and Necromancer certainly did do it, the big boys didn't.  AEG, Sword and Sorcery Press, Mongoose - those are some pretty skeletal Section 15's.

But, I would love to see what Fifth Element's experiences are.  I'll freely admit that I didn't actually buy a lot of Green Ronin's stuff, but I did buy a lot of S&S Press and AEG's books.  So it could simply be perception filters kicking in.


----------



## Raven Crowking

(Shrug)  You see more cross-pollenation later because there is more stuff to cross-pollenate with.  If the earlier material had been less generous with OGC, there would be precious little to use later.


RC


----------



## Hussar

Raven Crowking said:


> (Shrug)  You see more cross-pollenation later because there is more stuff to cross-pollenate with.  If the earlier material had been less generous with OGC, there would be precious little to use later.
> 
> 
> RC




Really?  How many 3e 3pp titles are there compared to 3.5?  There were lots of books for 3.5, don't get me wrong, but, the bubble was firmly in 3.0.  Yet, you don't see much, if any cross pollination by the big boys.  It isn't until the field is almost empty - Mongoose out, S&S Press mostly out, AEG out, that you start to see a lot of cross pollination between 3pp titles.

But, then again, this is entirely anecdotal.  I've got no proof at all, just a gut feeling.

I'm very happy that they are finally doing it, but, I have a strong feeling that it is too little too late.  This should have been going on in 2001, but, it wasn't until almost the end of 3.5 edition before you start seeing serious attempts to cross pollinate works.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> I'm very happy that they are finally doing it, but, I have a strong feeling that it is too little too late.  This should have been going on in 2001, but, it wasn't until almost the end of 3.5 edition before you start seeing serious attempts to cross pollinate works.




I think you have to lay a lot of the blame for this at WotC. They put the game out via OGL and shortly thereafter the OGL champions were gone. There wasn't a centrally coordinated effort to realize the potential of the OGL, an effort that should have been led by the source of the licence and base rules, WotC.


----------



## Raven Crowking

*EDIT:  This is a response to Hussar.*

I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is to what I said.

As more material is available to cross-pollenate with, more cross-pollenation will occur.

So, yes, a big glut occurred early, but that big glut included a lot of material that was very short on OGC.  Good books, some of them, but not helpful for cross-pollenation.  As 3e was coming to its end, a lot more OGC was released (based on the books I own, anyway!), and then more in the 3.5 era, and then even more with the OSR.

During that early glut there was some really fine OGC produced as well, but it required some time to (1) identify it, and (2) realize how cool it would be to use it.  The ToH comes immediately to mind as perhaps the most-referenced 3pp OGC ever.

Even so, there was some early adoption of cross-pollenation almost from the start.  Quite a few books with large amounts of OGC proclaim it boldly and often on the (usually back) cover or 1st page; clearly the publishers thought that was a selling point.



RC


----------



## Mirtek

El Mahdi said:


> - Nope! Essentials was designed by some of WotC's most experienced and tenured designers. [...]the essentials are quite consistent.



 Yet they're variants and a step away from the unified system 4e used to be.


samursus said:


> Although I don't disagree with your assertion, this is not what Dancey was referring to in his original post.  He was talking about the *rulebooks*.  As far as I have seen the quality of the books has gotten better,



 Having just received my rules compendium from amazon I can't see this "book" as anything but a decline in quality of the printed rule books.


LuckyAdrastus said:


> The only way I could see for it to "negatively" effect 4e is if they stopped producing new material because they were only producing Arcana Unearthed stuff.



 Or produce less new material because of the working hours going into Arcana Unearthed. If the page count of Dragon increases by the page count of the AU articles it would be fine. I doubt that, the page count will stay the same (or even decrease) and thus any page of UA is a page less on new material


----------



## Raven Crowking

billd91 said:


> I think you have to lay a lot of the blame for this at WotC. They put the game out via OGL and shortly thereafter the OGL champions were gone. There wasn't a centrally coordinated effort to realize the potential of the OGL, an effort that should have been led by the source of the licence and base rules, WotC.




Disagree.

They okayed making a lot of IP OGC with the Tome of Horrors.  They included OGC from at least one other publisher in the MM 2, and did so in a very cool way to boot.  Lots of the psionics, epic, and deity information was included in the SRD shortly after release.  When UA came out, again, it included tons of OGC.

They dropped the ball on utilizing the best of the OGC out there for a new version of the game -- which is perhaps the saddest failure of the OGL, IMHO.  With 4e, they sought to address specific problems of 3e -- and, again IMHO, these were real problems that needed addressing -- but they sought to address them in a vaccuum.  AFAICT, this was specifically to make a clear break between 4e IP and OGC.

Had 4e been an OGL game, I think we would have seen the same resurgence in interest that we did with 3e.  I think WotC's sales would have been greater (and I am not saying that they are not great), that WotC's commitment to the OGL would have made 3pp produce even more OGC, and that this would have given the designers an amazing breadth of materials with which to craft 5e, when it eventually appears.

But I'm just blowing smoke in that last paragraph; I have no way to know.

What I do know is this -- WotC had some really strong early support for the OGL.  It was not until later that they began to withdraw that support....right around the time that they were doing "design tests" as it were for 4e.  And even then, it was announced that 4e would be an OGL game ("some form" of OGL) for a while, because WotC clearly understood how important the OGL had been.  

And still is, to some of us.

All IMHO.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## MrMyth

Mirtek said:


> Having just received my rules compendium from amazon I can't see this "book" as anything but a decline in quality of the printed rule books.




Out of curiousity, why? 

Is it the format as a paperback? Or are your complaints about the actual production value of the book or the content within it?


----------



## billd91

Raven Crowking said:


> They dropped the ball on utilizing the best of the OGC out there for a new version of the game -- which is perhaps the saddest failure of the OGL, IMHO.




That's largely my point and, I believe, WotC's failure with the OGL. They  incorporated virtually nothing new or innovative or even revisionary from 3rd party publishers. The monsters they included were minimal in number.




Raven Crowking said:


> What I do know is this -- WotC had some really strong early support for the OGL.  It was not until later that they began to withdraw that support....right around the time that they were doing "design tests" as it were for 4e.  And even then, it was announced that 4e would be an OGL game ("some form" of OGL) for a while, because WotC clearly understood how important the OGL had been.




I think I'd date WotC's lack of support for the OGL far earlier than you. Yes, Unearthed Arcana and 3.5 Psionics ended up in the SRD. But none of the splat books did, for 3.0 nor 3.5. No Practiced Spellcaster feat, no reserve feats, no divine feats, no PH2 feats or base classes, not even the feats that people saw as pretty useful for giving the fighters the improvements they needed to better balance mechanically vs full spellcasters.

I would have expected all of that as well as supporting a clearing house of other OGL offerings and incorporating good ideas into the core rules of the SRD as being hallmarks of *good* OGL support from WotC. Since we got none of it, I'd blame WotC for squandering what could have really been a dynamic opportunity.


----------



## Hussar

Hang on a tick though Bill91.  No one else was ponying up to the plate either.  In fact, a number of the OGC producers were pretty vehemently against including any of their OGC in any sort of SRD.  

There's a reason we didn't get a OGC wiki until after the release of 4e.

Pointing fingers at the only company that actually did put anything into the SRD and saying they should have done more lets to the 3pp off the hook way too easily.  Between broken Open Content and publicly decrying any attempt to have any sort of public OGC SRD beyond what WOTC published, I think the 3pp should be wearing some of this at the very least.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick though Bill91.  No one else was ponying up to the plate either.  In fact, a number of the OGC producers were pretty vehemently against including any of their OGC in any sort of SRD.
> 
> There's a reason we didn't get a OGC wiki until after the release of 4e.
> 
> Pointing fingers at the only company that actually did put anything into the SRD and saying they should have done more lets to the 3pp off the hook way too easily.  Between broken Open Content and publicly decrying any attempt to have any sort of public OGC SRD beyond what WOTC published, I think the 3pp should be wearing some of this at the very least.




I'm not saying that 3pp shouldn't bear some blame, but whose licensing program was it? WotC should have borne the lion's share of the responsibility, thus I believe they should bear the lion's share of the blame for any failure to use the OGL's potential.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> I'm not saying that 3pp shouldn't bear some blame, but whose licensing program was it? WotC should have borne the lion's share of the responsibility, thus I believe they should bear the lion's share of the blame for any failure to use the OGL's potential.




Hang on a second.  WOTC provides the opportunity for companies to share ideas through different products.  WOTC provides the base rule set for companies to use in order to set some sort of standard on what will be shared.

But WOTC is to blame for companies not sharing?

What more could they have done?  I suppose they could have started including more OGC in their books, but, since for the first several years of 3e at the least, very few companies actually sharing each others material, what incentive did they really have to provide yet more material for sharing?

They could have used some other companies OGC in their materials, but, then again, no one else was doing that either.  

I'm not sure why they should bear the lion's share of the blame for what other companies choose to do.  There was nothing stopping companies from using each other's OGC.  Yet we still got four (at least) OGC d20 naval supplements in 3e before WOTC tossed its hat into that ring.  (Living Imagination's Broadsides!!, Mongoose (name escapes me), 7th Sea, Sword and Sorcery Press - Seas of Blood, just to name the ones that I actually own.)

In a market so limited as what d20 publishers had, the fact that they chose to compete against each other (since they certainly weren't competing with WOTC) and cannibalize eachother's markets is not something you can blame WOTC for.  

IMNHO at least.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Hang on a second.  WOTC provides the opportunity for companies to share ideas through different products.  WOTC provides the base rule set for companies to use in order to set some sort of standard on what will be shared.
> 
> But WOTC is to blame for companies not sharing?




WotC bears the majority of the blame for the OGL not living up to its potential. They put it out there and pretty much let it languish rather than use it to improve the core rule set. They should have been cross-pollinating with suitable improvements in rules once the first 3pp were off and running. They did not. The example they set was "Here's the rules. Use them. Share stuff. Oh, but we're not going to pollute it with *your* stuff. And most of our additional stuff won't go in there, so you can't use that." They set a terrible example despite being in the best position to get leverage out of the OGL.

If you want to decry other publishers not sharing what other people are producing, go right ahead. I'm not about to stop you. But I still don't think there's any getting around WotC's abdication of leadership with the OGL.


----------



## ggroy

billd91 said:


> WotC bears the majority of the blame for the OGL not living up to its potential. They put it out there and pretty much let it languish rather than use it to improve the core rule set. They should have been cross-pollinating with suitable improvements in rules once the first 3pp were off and running. They did not. The example they set was "Here's the rules. Use them. Share stuff. Oh, but we're not going to pollute it with *your* stuff. And most of our additional stuff won't go in there, so you can't use that." They set a terrible example despite being in the best position to get leverage out of the OGL.




Sounds like the "not invented here" syndrome at work.

Not Invented Here - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hussar

What do you mean, "Left it to languish"?

As I recall, they added psionics, Unearthed Arcana, and the Epic rules to the SRD.

What did any 3pp make available appended to the SRD?

There was no incentive at all for WOTC to make their material OGC.  It wouldn't help them in the slightest.  They made the core game available, they made a fair amount of supplementary material available.  

But they also should have been cherry picking from 3pp as well?  When virtually none of the 3pp publishers were doing it and were actually vocally opposed to any sort of OGC initiative like the current OGC wiki?

The 3pp made their bed.  WOTC gave them all the opportunity in the world and they dropped the ball.  Let's not forget that a couple of years before 4e was even announced, virtually all 3pp were gone.  Even Green Ronin was only publishing a handful of modules by the end.  

They did very little to help each other, why should WOTC have helped them?


----------



## Hussar

ggroy said:


> Sounds like the "not invented here" syndrome at work.
> 
> Not Invented Here - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Just out of curiosity ggroy, would you equally apply that to 3pp?

I would.


----------



## ggroy

Hussar said:


> Just out of curiosity ggroy, would you equally apply that to 3pp?
> 
> I would.




It can go both ways.


----------



## Mirtek

MrMyth said:


> Out of curiousity, why?
> 
> Is it the format as a paperback? Or are your complaints about the actual production value of the book or the content within it?



 Being a paperback (which is part of the actual production value), the size, thickness and font size. 

When I saw the package I thought "hm, what's this? Did I order a DVD I don't remember?" I just didn't think the RC would be in this small package and after seeing it I only thought "What? That's it?"

If I had known in advance what this was going to be, I wouldn't have ordered it (and yes I could have known at least the size in advance if I had bothered to translate the cryptic size information from amazon into the metric system values the civilized world uses ). Now that I have it, my laziness prevents me from sending it back, but I am glad that I didn't also already order HotFL which I am now not going to order after having seen the RC.


----------



## jonesy

When I think of this thread, I think of this:


----------



## MrMyth

Mirtek said:


> Being a paperback (which is part of the actual production value), the size, thickness and font size.




Fair enough. Still, I don't know if it is reasonable to bash it as a decline in quality for being a smaller paperback that is also _cheaper_ than the usual larger hardcover. The product line features these cheaper books to make them more accessible to new gamers, in theory. And for myself, the portability of the RC is a selling point. 

I can certainly see preferring hardcovers to the paperbacks, but it seems strange to consider it a decline in quality without acknowledging a lower pricetag on the books has to come from _somewhere_.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Hussar said:


> What do you mean, "Left it to languish"?
> 
> As I recall, they added psionics, Unearthed Arcana, and the Epic rules to the SRD.
> 
> What did any 3pp make available appended to the SRD?




Third party publishers *have no ability* to add anything to the SRD. 

Everything published as Open Content by a 3rd party publisher was (and still is) Open Content.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, but they were pretty quick to make sure that no one appended something like an OGC wiki to the d20 SRD too, Wulf.

Look, I'm not saying WOTC couldn't have done more.  They likely could have.  But, the 3pp are hardly blameless victims here as well.


----------



## prosfilaes

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Third party publishers *have no ability* to add anything to the SRD.
> 
> Everything published as Open Content by a 3rd party publisher was (and still is) Open Content.




But let's be honest; looking at Sword & Sorcery's _Creature Collection_, the descriptions of the creatures aren't open content, making the creatures hard to reuse, and the names(!) aren't open content. (Not, mind you, just stuff that might reasonably be proprietary, like Carnival King, Jack of Tears or Slarecian--the example given in the license text of a non-open content name is Undead Ooze.) So there's absolutely no way to refer to a creature from the Creature Collection without renaming it and copying it into your text. And part of the joy of the SRD is that everyone knows what a red dragon is; if you had to call it a flaming drake in your product, it would defeat part of the value of using the SRD.

Sword & Sorcery could have tried to make the Creature Collection into a standard reference work of monsters. What they made was something unusable by other publishers. And S&S was comparatively fair; I've seen a number of books that seem to go out of their way to make it difficult to reuse anything.


----------



## mattcolville

Hussar said:


> Hang on a second.  WOTC provides the opportunity for companies to share ideas through different products.  WOTC provides the base rule set for companies to use in order to set some sort of standard on what will be shared.
> 
> But WOTC is to blame for companies not sharing?




Advocates of the Open Source movement often blame a lack of "true openness" when their pet project fails. If only they'd been more open, more fully open, more openly open open open, then it would have been a hit.

I think the Third Party Market was essentially an illusion created by the absence of real e-tools, such as we have now.

If you sum over the history of D&D3, you'll see that WotC was constantly putting out more product, more rules, more options, than any group of players could possibly exhaust in a lifetime of play. And their designers are among the best in the industry.

In other words, I don't think there was a market for innovation. I think there was a market for ease of use, and since there WAS no ease of use, since a S&S product or a Green Ronin product was just as easy to use as a WotC product, it created a false equivalence between the products. 

If D&D3 had the same robust e-support D&D4 has, I think that what we think of as the third party market would never have evolved. Not because it wouldn't be compatible with the e-tools, but because customers would conclude "why buy another company's product? I don't have time to use all the crap I've already got!"


----------



## prosfilaes

mattcolville said:


> I think the Third Party Market was essentially an illusion created by the absence of real e-tools, such as we have now.
> 
> If you sum over the history of D&D3, you'll see that WotC was constantly putting out more product, more rules, more options, than any group of players could possibly exhaust in a lifetime of play. And their designers are among the best in the industry.
> 
> [...]
> 
> If D&D3 had the same robust e-support D&D4 has, I think that what we think of as the third party market would never have evolved. Not because it wouldn't be compatible with the e-tools, but because customers would conclude "why buy another company's product? I don't have time to use all the crap I've already got!"




Yes, I think that DDI would have hurt Mongoose's Quintessential series and any similar series. But the Scarred Lands sold to people who weren't happy with the settings WotC was putting out, and that has nothing to do with DDI. I can think of some series that competed directly with what WotC was doing, but there were a lot of series that weren't. TSR/WotC has always been the big dog in roleplaying, and no one has ever had time to use all the crap they put out, but that hasn't stopped the roleplaying industry from having a number of companies.


----------



## AllisterH

Personally..if DDI was around for 3.x (WITH the added support of WOTC actually issuing errata), I'd say any of the following type of books would never got off the ground...

Monster books and player option/crunch books.

Settings and adventures..for sure, those would still flourish IMO but anything else?


----------



## Cergorach

mattcolville said:


> If you sum over the history of D&D3, you'll see that WotC was constantly putting out more product, more rules, more options, than any group of players could possibly exhaust in a lifetime of play. And their designers are among the best in the industry.



I would like to point out that WotC produced around 185cm of official RPG books (not novels) for D&D 3(.5)E between 2000-2008. WotC produced around 85cm of books between 2008-2010 for 4E. So if the current tempo holds, we'll have around 340cm of books by 2016 (the same eight year run the previous version of D&D had). That's ~84% more books then 3(.5)E. But WotC tends to panic when their line does not as well as they had hoped, so we either see significantly more or significantly less (as in no books).

As I mentioned somewhere else, this will probably be the last year I'll be buying 4E books/boxed sets. My bookshelves are getting full (again) and I think there are more worthy RPG products to populate my shelfs (the same already goes for WFRP 3E). I've been buying D&D RPG books for over twenty years, so it is a hard addiction to kick ;-)


----------



## Scribble

prosfilaes said:


> Yes, I think that DDI would have hurt Mongoose's Quintessential series and any similar series. But the Scarred Lands sold to people who weren't happy with the settings WotC was putting out, and that has nothing to do with DDI. I can think of some series that competed directly with what WotC was doing, but there were a lot of series that weren't. TSR/WotC has always been the big dog in roleplaying, and no one has ever had time to use all the crap they put out, but that hasn't stopped the roleplaying industry from having a number of companies.




Speaking as a Scarred Lands fan- I bought Scarred Lands because I liked the setting, not because I was unhappy with anything WoTC was putting out.

Actually, originally I just wanted a map to steal for a home brew campaign, so I bought the gazetteer.  I then fell in love with the setting.


----------



## Raven Crowking

prosfilaes said:


> But let's be honest; looking at Sword & Sorcery's _Creature Collection_, the descriptions of the creatures aren't open content, making the creatures hard to reuse, and the names(!) aren't open content. (Not, mind you, just stuff that might reasonably be proprietary, like Carnival King, Jack of Tears or Slarecian--the example given in the license text of a non-open content name is Undead Ooze.)




This bothered me too.  It is definitely true that, in the earliest days, few publishers realized how making a bunch of stuff OGC could cause others to reference back to their books, and thus increase their sales.



mattcolville said:


> Advocates of the Open Source movement often blame a lack of "true openness" when their pet project fails. If only they'd been more open, more fully open, more openly open open open, then it would have been a hit.




I haven't seen any of that, although I am sure it has happened.  OTOH, depending upon what you mean by "a hit", I have seen a lot of hits, too.  Retro clones, Mutants & Masterminds, Pathfinder, stuff from Necromancer Games, Bastion Press, Green Ronin.....Ptolus, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.....even the WLD seems to have sold through its print run (I have one!).



> I think the Third Party Market was essentially an illusion created by the absence of real e-tools, such as we have now.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In other words, I don't think there was a market for innovation. I think there was a market for ease of use, and since there WAS no ease of use, since a S&S product or a Green Ronin product was just as easy to use as a WotC product, it created a false equivalence between the products.




And yet, strangely, the 3pp seem to have a larger market share now, when the ease of use is there, because they provide innovation in different directions.

For me, the 3pp market was always about innovation, and how various niches were filled.  Frost & Fur beats Frostburn; Dungeonscape beats the WotC book, which I own, but whose name escapes me.  Wildscape likewise.  Where both a Tome of Horrors and an official WotC version of a monster exist, the ToH version is almost always truer to the source material.  

I buy 3pp for innovation.  I buy 3pp based also upon their OGC, so that I can reuse that innovation in other products.

I may be unique in that way, but I somehow doubt it.


RC


----------



## ggroy

AllisterH said:


> Settings and adventures..for sure, those would still flourish IMO but anything else?




Not every module-heavy publisher flourished during the d20 era (2000 -> 2008).

Some of the module-heavy publishers stopped producing new modules or exited the d20 3PP market during the middle of the d20 era, such as:

- Monkey God
- Alderac
- Fantasy Flight
- Fiery Dragon
- Troll Lord

Nevertheless a few remained in the d20 module market to the very end, such as:

- Goodman
- Necromancer


----------



## AllisterH

Cergorach said:


> I would like to point out that WotC produced around 185cm of official RPG books (not novels) for D&D 3(.5)E between 2000-2008. WotC produced around 85cm of books between 2008-2010 for 4E. So if the current tempo holds, we'll have around 340cm of books by 2016 (the same eight year run the previous version of D&D had). That's ~84% more books then 3(.5)E. But WotC tends to panic when their line does not as well as they had hoped, so we either see significantly more or significantly less (as in no books).




Er, I'm not sure thickness is a fair way to look at it...Weren't most of the 3.0 books SOFTCOVERS which would naturally be less thick than their 3.5 and 4e counterparts.

I'm pretty sure I've seen Echohawk post his table showing that WOTC is basically on the same track as they have always been since they acquired TSR. Basically, 1 book per month.


----------



## prosfilaes

Raven Crowking said:


> This bothered me too.  It is definitely true that, in the earliest days, few publishers realized how making a bunch of stuff OGC could cause others to reference back to their books, and thus increase their sales.




Earliest days? I see no huge pattern in what I've looked at; there's certainly still publishers with pretty narrow OGC clauses. The main change I see is that Paizo got into the third party business with very generous OGC policies.


----------



## Cergorach

AllisterH said:


> Er, I'm not sure thickness is a fair way to look at it...Weren't most of the 3.0 books SOFTCOVERS which would naturally be less thick than their 3.5 and 4e counterparts.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've seen Echohawk post his table showing that WOTC is basically on the same track as they have always been since they acquired TSR. Basically, 1 book per month.




If that's true, we should see ~24 products (2 years 4E). How come I see ~2.5 times that number of 4E books on my shelf? 

More book space means that WotC is getting more money out of the property, either by producing more books, more hardcover books, or thicker books. Sure that softcover 3.0 adventure might be less thick, but that 4E adventure is 2.5 times as expensive ($9.95 vs. $24.95). The same sized adventures are 50% more expensive ($9.95 vs. $14.95) WotC has now moved to publishing very tiny race books. Half of that difference might be due to inflation, the other half on color prints and poster maps?


----------



## AngryMojo

Cergorach said:


> If that's true, we should see ~24 products (2 years 4E). How come I see ~2.5 times that number of 4E books on my shelf?



By the end of the 3.5 run, WotC was releasing right about three products a month, between miniatures expansions, adventures, hardback books, and campaign setting books.  If you add all the FR and Ebberron glut to your calculations, 4e is still a slower pace.


----------



## Hussar

Didn't I just see a post somewhere that there are actually no 4e products between October and December?  There's D&D Essentials, but no actual 4e books.



			
				RC said:
			
		

> And yet, strangely, the 3pp seem to have a larger market share now, when the ease of use is there, because they provide innovation in different directions.




Larger than what?  Larger than 3pp had at the tail end of 3e?  Well, the entrance of Paizo would account for a lot of that.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I have noted a lot of 3pp "retro-clone" games seem to have become more popular as well.


----------



## Jhaelen

Hussar said:


> There's D&D Essentials, but no actual 4e books.



I'm not sure you're using the word 'actual' correctly, since all Essentials products are *actually* 4e products.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, ok.  You know what I meant.  No 4e books that aren't linked to a specific (Essentials) line.  How about that?


----------



## Ourph

Hussar said:


> Yeah, ok.  You know what I meant.  No 4e books that aren't linked to a specific (Essentials) line.  How about that?



I can't speak for Jhaelen, but I'm still confused about the distinction you are trying to make. The Essentials books seem to serve the same purpose as any other 4e book; expanding options and adding new material to the core game.


----------



## Obryn

There's also a focus on Gamma World over the next few months, I believe, which is for some reason considered a D&D product. 

-O


----------



## Hussar

Ourph said:


> I can't speak for Jhaelen, but I'm still confused about the distinction you are trying to make. The Essentials books seem to serve the same purpose as any other 4e book; expanding options and adding new material to the core game.




I thought their purpose was to market the game to new audiences in order to draw in new gamers and expand the player base.

Granted, I could be totally wrong in that. 

So, basically, we should draw no differences between something like the Essentials line and, say, a new Eberron book, or a new Martial powers splat?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

It seems like a bit of a silly distinction to make.

4e has books coming out, they're just Essentials books.  They're different, yes, but they're still 4e.


----------



## Tallifer

Indeed. The only "Essentials" book which is exclusively for new players is the Red Box Starter Set, which does not even have character generation rules for its premade characters.

All the other Essentials books introduce additional material which is integrated seamlessly into the existing Fourth Edition game system.


----------



## MrMyth

Hussar said:


> I thought their purpose was to market the game to new audiences in order to draw in new gamers and expand the player base.
> 
> Granted, I could be totally wrong in that.
> 
> So, basically, we should draw no differences between something like the Essentials line and, say, a new Eberron book, or a new Martial powers splat?




As I see it: 
Essentials Primary Goal - Draw in new players. 
Essentials Secondary Goal - Draw back in lapsed players from classic editions.
Essentials Tertiary Goal - Provide new options and resources for existing players. 

Other elements may have influenced the design, but the material in them is 4E material usable by 4E players. Now, some people may not want or need that - just like some might not pick up the Eberron Player's Guide because they don't need any new Eberron material, or Martial Power 2 because they don't play any Martial classes. 

If you liked the idea of playing a Seeker, it was worth picking up the PHB3. If you like the idea of player a Thief or Cavalier, you can pick up the appropriate Hero book. DM's Kit and Monster Vault may not be _quite_ as expansive as the DMG2 or MM3, but there probably are useful elements in them for existing players as well. 

Really, the Red Box is the only thing that is for new players only. The rest are perfectly viable products for existing 4E players.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

In my experience, these sort of threads tend to be categorized by one or both of the following:

1. People who conclude that D&D is dying because D&D no longer caters to their preferences.

2. People who would like to see D&D fail, so it can be remade in a manner better suiting their preferences.


I would assert that the two above statements are just as applicable to Ryan Dancy as they would be to the average anonymous forum poster.


----------



## ggroy

thecasualoblivion said:


> In my experience, these sort of threads tend to be categorized by one or both of the following:
> 
> 1. People who conclude that D&D is dying because D&D no longer caters to their preferences.
> 
> 2. People who would like to see D&D fail, so it can be remade in a manner better suiting their preferences.
> 
> 
> I would assert that the two above statements are just as applicable to Ryan Dancy as they would be to the average anonymous forum poster.




There's one simple explanation for this:  ego.  

Some individuals are so resentful about the fact that they themselves are not calling the shots.  If they cannot have something (their way), then nobody else can have it.  They rather see something destroyed which is a product of somebody else calling the shots.


----------



## Ron

Cergorach said:


> If that's true, we should see ~24 products (2 years 4E). How come I see ~2.5 times that number of 4E books on my shelf?
> 
> More book space means that WotC is getting more money out of the property, either by producing more books, more hardcover books, or thicker books. Sure that softcover 3.0 adventure might be less thick, but that 4E adventure is 2.5 times as expensive ($9.95 vs. $24.95). The same sized adventures are 50% more expensive ($9.95 vs. $14.95) WotC has now moved to publishing very tiny race books. Half of that difference might be due to inflation, the other half on color prints and poster maps?




Not necessarily. One could argue that this is a sign they are concentrating in a very niche market where a few customers will buy several products to keep the money flowing.

I don't know if this is really happening. Only Wizards has access to the kind of data necessary to evaluate the situation. All we have now are wild guesses.

Quite frankly, people take Ryan Dancey too seriously. He is probably having some fun, enjoying the fact people are all worried by his unfounded opinions.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

ggroy said:


> There's one simple explanation for this:  ego.
> 
> Some individuals are so resentful about the fact that they themselves are not calling the shots.  If they cannot have something (their way), then nobody else can have it.  They rather see something destroyed which is a product of somebody else calling the shots.




I agree it's pure ego, but I think it's even simpler then that.  I don't think it's rooted in their desire to be calling the shots; rather, I think that's one of the many causes of something else.

Everyone wants to think of themselves as the model customer.

It's not something you just see in tabletop gaming either.  "If I don't like it, nobody likes it, because my tastes are what the majority shares."  It doesn't matter what the tastes are, be it someone decrying that Blizzard will fail because they dislike the art direction of Diablo 3 or someone proclaiming that _this_ MMO will finally be the WoW killer, or someone deciding that it's so obvious Watchmen was a complete failure, I mean, _I_ didn't see it.

It's the idea of "I represent the norm."  And thus, when someone doesn't like "thing" and doesn't buy "thing" they assume nobody else is either.

Proclamations of 4e's doom have been around since _before it came out_.  They all find their way to the same root.  "I didn't like it, and I don't know of anyone else who liked it, so it's going to fail."  Nevermind that often times _they totally know people who liked it_.  It's those first four words that cause everything else.  The same thing happened to Pathfinder on places like The Gaming Den: "We don't like it, so it must be a complete economic failure."


----------



## DumbPaladin

So, I have a question:

It's fairly safe to say (having seen nothing posted that suggests this) that there's no concrete evidence that 4E is doing badly or a drain on WotC, or even a mild failure.

Is there also no concrete evidence that it's doing well? Selling well? Making a profit? My own opinions about 4E aside, I'd actually like to know the facts.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> It's fairly safe to say (having seen nothing posted that suggests this) that there's no concrete evidence that 4E is doing badly or a drain on WotC, or even a mild failure.
> 
> Is there also no concrete evidence that it's doing well? Selling well? Making a profit? My own opinions about 4E aside, I'd actually like to know the facts.




Yeah, this is right. There's no concrete evidence either way.

The reports we've heard from WotC directly aren't very useful, because WotC has an ulterior motive (they'd want to talk up the success of the game, and talk down the failures of the game, so the reported numbers are unreliable, or, at least, heavily skewed in favor of "it's selling like gangbusters!"). And no one else has any concrete information. Like most smart corporations, WotC isn't sharing sales information with the public. 

Which is why even Ryan Dancey's comments seem narmed to me.

The earliest we can get an accurate picture of how 4e is doing/has done as an edition in comparison to 3e (because before that, there's no concrete sales info) will be when they announce 5e and start talking about all the things that 4e is doing wrong/has done wrong/will have done wrong, economically. What sold and what doesn't.

Everything before that point, if it ever comes, is vapid theoretical conjecture fueling partisan nerd rage.


----------



## prosfilaes

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And no one else has any concrete information.




There's a bunch of concrete information out there. Amazon is pretty generous with information, and compares with other companies.

For one little bit of information, on Amazon, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook is #2,133 in book sales and there is no used books being sold under what Amazon would charge. The 4E PHB is #7,504 in sales and gently used books are being sold at 25% off--many of them labeled as remainders. 2E and 3.0 can be had for $6 (including shipping), but 3.5 is $25, $30 (including shipping) if you want one in good condition, and is #5,432 in sales.

Bestsellers in Gaming
#1: 4E Rules Compendium (#416 in sales)
#2: 4E Heroes of the Fallen Lands
#3: 4E Dungeon Tiles Master Set - The Dungeon
#4: Warhammer 40K RPG: Deathwatch Core Rulebook (#1,380 in sales)
#5: Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game: An Essential D&D     Starter (#1,963 in sales)
#6: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook (#2,133 in sales)
#7: Lords of Madness: A D&D Miniatures 6-pc Booster Pack 
#8: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (#2,814 in sales)
#9: 4E Essential Dungeon Master's Kit (#2,857)
#10: 4E D&D Gamma World Roleplaying Game (#3,781)
#11: Dark Sun Campaign Setting: A 4th Edition D&D Supplement
#12: Player's Handbook 2: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook
#13: Monster Manual 3: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook
#14: Psionic Power: A 4th Edition D&D Supplement
#15: 4E Essentials Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
#16: 3.5 PHB (#5,432)
#17: 4E Essentials Monster Vault
#18: Rogue Trader: Into the Storm (Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay)
#19: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: The Pathfinder Bestiary
#20: Player's Handbook 3: A 4th Edition D&D Core Rulebook
#21: 4E PHB (#7,540)

just looking at core books

#24: Dungeons and Dragons Core Rulebook Gift Set, 4th Edition (#9,598)
#29: Legend of the Five Rings 4th Edition RPG (#12,552)
#36: 3.0 PHB (#16,744)
(There are no systems not otherwise noted in the first 36 books.)

So D&D is still the monster of the roleplaying world. The problem is the forms of D&D are not entirely controlled by Hasbro; both Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 have significant followings. I'd say the fact both the Pathfinder core rulebook and the 3.5 PHB outsells the 4.0 PHB at Amazon is a big deal, along with the fact that the 4.0 PHB is starting to get remaindered and is starting to get undercut by used copies.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

prosfilaes said:


> There's a bunch of concrete information out there. Amazon is pretty generous with information, and compares with other companies.



None of that tells is what WotC considers a success in raw quantity. They budgeted for some quantity and we don't know if they hit that despite impressive-looking rankings. Then there is year-over-year sales numbers . . .


----------



## M.L. Martin

prosfilaes said:


> There's a bunch of concrete information out there. Amazon is pretty generous with information, and compares with other companies.




  The problem is that Amazon is 'snapshot' data--how things are doing over an uncertain but apparently fairly short and recent period of time--and purely comparative. It makes it hard to tell how things are doing over the long term, or exactly how well a product ranked at X is doing compared to one ranked at Y.

  It's still useful for seeing what's hot and what isn't, but it's not going to give us a very good picture of how 4E is doing over a two-year period in comparison to Pathfinder, or to the 3.5E launch.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> There's a bunch of concrete information out there. Amazon is pretty generous with information, and compares with other companies.




In addition to the above points, I'd note that Amazon's snapshot is only one datapoint in an ocean of datapoints that we don't have. DDI subscription rates, FLGS sales, D&D Encounters or RPGA participation, expenses (including shelling out for DDI stuff), and even sales of things like board games and novels play into how well "D&D" is doing. 

Again: No one has any real information that could truly sway the debate. It's speculation upon speculation, unless you happen to be a Hasbro accountant maybe.


----------



## DumbPaladin

That's right.  Without information on whether or not WotC is making a profit or a loss, and whether said profit is within their deisred range, there's no way to calculate if 4E is doing well, doing poorly, breaking even, or anything else.


----------



## prosfilaes

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> None of that tells is what WotC considers a success in raw quantity.




The fact that 4E PHB is turning up remaindered tells us that they printed more than the market could hold.



			
				Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> It's still useful for seeing what's hot and what isn't, but it's not going to give us a very good picture of how 4E is doing over a two-year period in comparison to Pathfinder, or to the 3.5E launch.




The point was to respond to 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Everything before that point, if it ever comes, is vapid theoretical conjecture fueling partisan nerd rage.




No; we're not going to get spoon-fed all the numbers we want. But we aren't numberless or theoretically conjecturing. We can say definitively that Pathfinder and 3.5 PHB are selling better than 4.0 PHB, and we can watch them change over time. If you want to know how it's doing over a two-year period, we're going to have to sample over a two year period, which is surely not beyond our abilities.


----------



## AngryMojo

prosfilaes said:


> We can say definitively that Pathfinder and 3.5 PHB are selling better than 4.0 PHB



We can't even say that.  We can say that during the indicated time frame, Amazon sold more copies of Pathfinder than the 4e PhB.  We have no reference as to how many were sold in that month, how many were sold in the previous month, or how many were sold in other sales channels.

The fact that the 4e PhB is popping up remaindered also says nothing to the success of the product.  Last I checked, nearly every Stephen King book that is published winds up remaindered.  I don't think you'd call a bestselling novel a failure, regardless of how many copies pop up on a bargain book rack in a year.

This provides a single point of data, and not even a complete point.  It's like looking at a single FLGS that has sold a single copy of Pathfinder this week, but no copies of the 4e phb and claiming that Pathfinder is selling infinitely better than 4e.

Currently, the only people who have real, concrete evidence of sales all work at WotC.  I'm sure if Amazon did a full analysis for some bizarre reason, you'd be able to extrapolate some data, but it would have to be Amazon themselves doing it.  Quite simply put, there's not enough data out there available to us EN World users to draw any conclusion.


----------



## Chrono22

Release date probably plays a larger role. If someone has tracked standings by the day, for a year or more, then that would probably represent a trend. But just a snapshot isn't enough.


----------



## prosfilaes

AngryMojo said:


> The fact that the 4e PhB is popping up remaindered also says nothing to the success of the product.  Last I checked, nearly every Stephen King book that is published winds up remaindered.  I don't think you'd call a bestselling novel a failure, regardless of how many copies pop up on a bargain book rack in a year.




Books getting remaindered is expensive, and it does matter how many copies of the PHB pop up on a bargain book rack, because WotC has to keep it in print as long as they continue producing 4E products. A PHB doesn't have the rapid rise and fall of a bestselling novel.



> It's like looking at a single FLGS that has sold a single copy of Pathfinder this week, but no copies of the 4e phb and claiming that Pathfinder is selling infinitely better than 4e.




If that FLGS was the world's largest online retailer, and one of the largest retailers in the world, I think I might fairly be critical of 4E PHB's sales. 



> Currently, the only people who have real, concrete evidence of sales all work at WotC. [...]  Quite simply put, there's not enough data out there available to us EN World users to draw any conclusion.




Quite simply put, it's rare in life to have a plethora of exact information delivered to your fingertips. Nonetheless, there is almost invariably enough information to draw a tentative conclusion, if that's what you choose to do.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> it does matter how many copies of the PHB pop up on a bargain book rack, because WotC has to keep it in print as long as they continue producing 4E products. A PHB doesn't have the rapid rise and fall of a bestselling novel.




That was sort of my point in another thread in pointing out that DDI might be the "new PHB," the new Evergreen sales. Perhaps people are being driven to the DDI, making 4e material subject to rapid rise and fall: the first month is all the sales that they really care about. 

The point is less how true that might be, and more that it's one of many believable scenarios. Low PHB sales (or high PHB turnover) don't mean anything in isolation. They could be a datapoint, but we have so few datapoints, it's kind of like taking one strange bone from a dig in the Great Rift Valley and claiming that it shows that humans descended from dire mongoose. 

Needs Moar Data.



> If that FLGS was the world's largest online retailer, and one of the largest retailers in the world, I think I might fairly be critical of 4E PHB's sales.




Why? Online retailers are just a fraction of sales, especially given how hard WotC is pushing brick-and-mortar FLGS (which is overall a strategy to keep D&D groups forming -- few D&D Groups form over Amazon comments). 4EPHB sales also don't tell us how the edition is doing as a whole. 



> Quite simply put, it's rare in life to have a plethora of exact information delivered to your fingertips. Nonetheless, there is almost invariably enough information to draw a tentative conclusion, if that's what you choose to do.




Speculation upon speculation. Which is fine, and can be fun, but doesn't project anything concrete. And in this case, it tends to be people saying "My edition is selling great, your edition is selling poorly," which isn't, IMO, a very useful conversation, even if we DID have the evidence for it one way or the other.


----------



## Neonchameleon

prosfilaes said:


> There's a bunch of concrete information out there. Amazon is pretty generous with information, and compares with other companies.
> 
> For one little bit of information, on Amazon, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook is #2,133 in book sales and there is no used books being sold under what Amazon would charge. The 4E PHB is #7,504 in sales and gently used books are being sold at 25% off--many of them labeled as remainders. 2E and 3.0 can be had for $6 (including shipping), but 3.5 is $25, $30 (including shipping) if you want one in good condition, and is #5,432 in sales.




Honestly?  I'd be surprised if the 4e PHB was selling well around now.  Who would the market be?  New players are being directed into Essentials.  And old players either have it or are going for DDI.  So why by the PHB now?  After all it's still in print.


----------



## ObsidianCrane

Its a funny thing, but I remember being involved in gaming stores in the early 90's when people were saying CCGs and video games would kill tabletop RPGs. Hmm its 20 years later and DnD is still apparently dieing.

I think the more important things to look at in those sales figures are the Rules Compendium and Heroes of the Fallen Lands. They are the new entry point product, and the new base line for the 4E rules, not PHB1 & co. They are the 3.5PHB to the 4EPHB being 3.0. WotC might not be admitting that in public but that is their clear market position.


----------



## WizarDru

Cailte said:


> Its a funny thing, but I remember being involved in gaming stores in the early 90's when people were saying CCGs and video games would kill tabletop RPGs. Hmm its 20 years later and DnD is still apparently dieing.




It should be mentioned that CCGs DID help kill TSR (which _could_ have killed D&D)...but not by competition, but by the contribution of poor sales of Spellfire and anticipating a larger than existing demand.

The question many people are really asking, in essence, is this "_Did the edition I like WIN?_"  WotC has no vested interest in sharing their financials with anyone but Hasbro, who has no desire to share that information at all.

Discussions of 4E PHB sales, as has been mentioned upthread, is indicative of nothing within a vacuum.  We don't even know if WotC considers PHB sales important to their business strategy, let alone to the success of D&D as a brand.  Are DDI subscriptions their actual goal?  Minis sales?  PDFs?  Do they want to drive brand knowledge for Hasbro, rather than WotC's individual finances (and thus act as a driver to things like software products)?  We don't know.  And without knowing how WotC gauges success, it's pure speculation.

We know that Paizo wants to sell Pathfinder books and supplements.  With WotC, their strategy could be broader, especially if driven from Hasbro.  Comparisons cannot be direct, by necessity.


----------



## Herschel

This thread is still going?


----------



## El Mahdi

Herschel said:


> This thread is still going?




Not until you posted!

However, this post is by no means, meant to promote the continuation of this thread...


----------



## AllisterH

WizarDru said:


> <snip>
> 
> Discussions of 4E PHB sales, as has been mentioned upthread, is indicative of nothing within a vacuum.  We don't even know if WotC considers PHB sales important to their business strategy, let alone to the success of D&D as a brand.  Are DDI subscriptions their actual goal?  Minis sales?  PDFs?  Do they want to drive brand knowledge for Hasbro, rather than WotC's individual finances (and thus act as a driver to things like software products)?  We don't know.  And without knowing how WotC gauges success, it's pure speculation.
> 
> We know that Paizo wants to sell Pathfinder books and supplements.  With WotC, their strategy could be broader, especially if driven from Hasbro.  Comparisons cannot be direct, by necessity.




Wasn't here a survey done by Hasbro/WOTC to see how much public awaeness there was to the actual Dungeons & Dragons name? 

Just that WOTC/Hasbro actually commissioned one (good polls/surveys aren't cheap) does give us some indication as to how the company views the brand itself.


----------



## WizarDru

AllisterH said:


> Wasn't here a survey done by Hasbro/WOTC to see how much public awaeness there was to the actual Dungeons & Dragons name?
> 
> Just that WOTC/Hasbro actually commissioned one (good polls/surveys aren't cheap) does give us some indication as to how the company views the brand itself.




What does it tell us, though?  It tells us that Hasbro wants to see how much the D&D brand exists outside of it's core niche audience.  That doesn't tell us anything about their business goals or aspirations.  It doesn't tell us if they aggressively pursuing market expansion, deeper support for existing customers or abandoning the market entirely.  WotC has done a LOT of surveys: a survey of common players, a survey of what DDI customers are looking for and so on.  Sometimes we can glean meaning from them (like the DDI survey) and other times, we can't get more than the vaguest notion of their intentions.

We don't even know at what level such decisions are made.  We assume WotC controls their own destiny, but Hasbro may be more hands-on than in the past.  They may decide that the entire WotC line is a loss-leader, just to keep D&D in print or the name in the public-eye.  They may be focused on merchandising or future opportunities.

WotC's biggest survey, which Ryan Dancey himself made famous, was the 1999 Segmentation Study, which was the first serious baseline to D&D players ever done.  WotC followed that up more than once to track how the demographics shifted.  I'd wager they still do, however unobtrusively.  But that survey was so old, it only listed MMORPGs under CRPGs and found only 8% of gamers played them...a number I'm sure that is drastically different today.  WotC has always spent some money on market research...and I doubt Hasbro made them stop.  If anything, they may have tapped Hasbro's wider resources in performing them.

All of which is a long way to say that we really don't know anything about WotC's business model from surveys any more than we do from amazon ranks or returned PHBs.


----------



## Mirtek

WizarDru said:


> We don't even know if WotC considers PHB sales important to their business strategy, let alone to the success of D&D as a brand.



 Since they don't even bother to list it separately in their annual report we can make an educated guess. Especially if you know what the IFRS (e.g. IAS 14) say about what you're required to mention separately


Cailte said:


> Its a funny thing, but I remember being involved in gaming stores in the early 90's when people were saying CCGs and video games would kill tabletop RPGs. Hmm its 20 years later and DnD is still apparently dieing



 And compared to back then it unfortunately is. Sales have much declined since the golden days. The question would be whether we reached a stabilization in the saturation and decline stage or if it continues to go down


ggroy said:


> There's one simple explanation for this:  ego.
> 
> Some individuals are so resentful about the fact that they themselves are not calling the shots.  If they cannot have something (their way), then nobody else can have it.  They rather see something destroyed which is a product of somebody else calling the shots.



 Which you could equally apply to all the glee during the 3.5 to 4e transition phase with which some people greeted every slaying of a sacred cow that was dear to a lot of other peoples.


----------



## Cergorach

As we've seen and heard in the last ten years, WotC/Hasbro has a whole different set of expectations of a succesful product (line) then all the other RPG manufacturers. The move from 3.5E to 4E was less about a better system as it was more about selling more of the 'same' to the customers. While 3.5E was more of a tweaking of 3.0E, this whole Essentials thing seems like a whole different direction (although that might just be my perspective). Between 3.0 and 3.5 there were three years. Between 4 and 4Essentials there's two years, at this rate we'll see 5E in 2013. The time between cycles seems to be getting a lot shorter and that isn't driven by gamedesign, but purely by the salesdespartment (getting as much profit as quickly as possible).

As such I think that the change to the Essentials line was promted by Hasbro management that D&D wasn't hitting the expected sales quotas and needed profit margins, that usually results in "Change things to become more profitable or we'll close you down!". I don't think the Essentials line won't change things in the direction WotC was expecting (I think they'll loose more paying customers then they'll gain), so I think it's only a matter of time before Hasbro puts D&D in the freezer. WotC already dropped the RPG/miniature lines of SW, because they weren't profitable enough for Hasbro.

I expect we'll see (in 2011) either more freaky/desperate directions for the D&D brand, a significant reduction on D&D releases or seeing D&D put into a cryogenic freezer for revival in a decade or two. Maybe Hasbro will do licenses from time to time (as they did with GI JOE en Transformers).

The edition change over at White Wolf was also pretty much the beginning of the end for the nWoD property. Maybe the WoD MMO CCP is working on might revive the property, but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Mark Hope

Cergorach said:


> The edition change over at White Wolf was also pretty much the beginning of the end for the nWoD property. Maybe the WoD MMO CCP is working on might revive the property, but I seriously doubt it.



The WoD MMO is going to be based on Vampire: the Masquerade, an OWoD property.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out.  While the NWoD is continuing, I think it's a smart move on the part of CCP/WW to support the OWoD in this way (along with offering the OWoD line through POD.)  Good time to be a WW fan in some ways


----------



## Cergorach

Mark Hope said:


> The WoD MMO is going to be based on Vampire: the Masquerade, an OWoD property.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out.  While the NWoD is continuing, I think it's a smart move on the part of CCP/WW to support the OWoD in this way (along with offering the OWoD line through POD.)  Good time to be a WW fan in some ways



If the MMO is indeed based on oWoD, that would make me very happy, but I haven't seen an official statement from CCP. Also don't expect to much from WW pnp support. WW has been part of CCP for years and we still don't have an EVE pnp RPG even though it was rumored/promised when CCP 'bought' WW. Mayve the WoD MMO is different, but don't expect to much.

nWoD has dropped of the top 5, which is bad for a company that has long been the #2 RPG manufacturer, with Paizo being the new #2, WW isn't even the #3 anymore. WW has killed of their Vampire CCG (in September) and moving to 12 book releases a year in total divided for all their games (Vampire, Exalted, Changeling, Scion, nWoD). They do have some additional electronic releases, but I don't know if there are any new titles among them. IMHO that's every indication that WW is pretty much on the back burner of the RPG industry...

And to be honest I have this sneaking suspicion that WotC is next to go on the bench.

Edit:
Found WW announcement on EVE RPG almost three years ago:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=373477


----------



## WizarDru

Mirtek said:


> Since they don't even bother to list it separately in their annual report we can make an educated guess. Especially if you know what the IFRS (e.g. IAS 14) say about what you're required to mention separately.




IFRS?  IAS 14?  Sorry, have no idea what you're referring to, here.  Is this SEC legislation?


----------



## Sorrowdusk

Cergorach said:


> ....I don't think the Essentials line won't change things in the direction WotC was expecting (I think they'll loose more paying customers then they'll gain), so I think it's only a matter of time before Hasbro puts D&D in the freezer.
> 
> I expect we'll see (in 2011) either more freaky/desperate directions for the D&D brand, a significant reduction on D&D releases or seeing D&D put into a cryogenic freezer for revival in a decade or two. Maybe Hasbro will do licenses from time to time (as they did with GI JOE en Transformers).




A decade-or TWO?  I hope it doesnt come to that.
===============
I suppose thats one way to look at it, but me myself-I dont think most people took advantage of the OGL. I'll tell you one thing though, in 3.x WoTC basically gave their ruleset away for FREE. I think that was significant to a lot of people, now the SRD for 4e actually does what it was meant to do in the first place.



Dire Bare said:


> I'm no expert on the d20 boom, although I purchased my fair share of products, both WotC and 3rd Party. But, really, how many publishers took advantage of other companies OGC? I know some did, of course . . . but outside of compilations of other peoples work, I never saw much of it.
> 
> And as a consumer, how much of a product is/was OGC is meaningless. I don't need "open" content to use in my games, the legality and licensing of it doesn't matter. It only matters if I wish to make the leap to publisher, which the vast majority of us had no desire to do.






Dire Bare said:


> Huh? Not sure if we're talking about the same thing (we might be). I'm not saying that 3rd Party publishers didn't use the OGL license, but how many of them used significant OGC content from other companies works? Granted, I didn't scour the section 15's of all the books I own, but I really doubt it's significant . . . . or am I way off base here as you seem to imply?
> 
> I'm certainly too lazy to head out to the garage, unbox some of that stuff, and start looking . . . .






Raven Crowking said:


> You know, this came up for me first because I ended up allowing options into my home game. And then, to make things easier for my players, I began to consider how I could make those options available to them. Could I, for example, make a campaign web page with optional rules posted? Could I share them with others? Could I use an online database to allow players in other parts of the world to partake in my game?
> 
> If they were OGC, I could do that without having any shadow of a problem. If not, well, not.
> 
> I found myself in a quandry between using the best rules I could, OGC or not, and limiting the scope of how I used them, or using the best OGC rules I could, allowing me to throw the scope wide open.
> 
> And, suddenly, it became obvious to me just how inclusive the OGL could be, and publishers who provided plenty of OGC were. They were helping me make my game my own, and helping me share it with others. OGC says "This game is yours" while closed content says "But this is ours". I discovered that I value the former.
> 
> And now I am working on a free ruleset that I can share, which will be well over 90% OGC, which can be used by other GMs to tinker with other rulesets, or run as-is, or whatever they like.
> 
> Because I value that, and I want the scope, and I want to contribute.
> 
> 
> 
> RC
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and Dire Bare, the Section 15 will show you where OGC was taken from. Many publishers have built on, and modified, each other's work. That is a good thing, and has led to some great products!


----------



## Hammerhead

IFRS = International Financial Reporting Standards. IAS 14 = What you report line by line, how much data you disclose from your business segments. It's financial/accounting stuff.


----------



## Herschel

Cergorach said:


> As such I think that the change to the Essentials line was promted by Hasbro management that D&D wasn't hitting the expected sales quotas and needed profit margins, ......




And whnere do you get this? A group of us sat down and chatted about Essentials and the like over the years and came to a strong conclusion: 3E/Pathfinder and 4E in their "normal" forms are pretty bad for new players. Neither game is just "roll it up and play" for a newbie, especially without more experienced gamers around. Most first charcters blow. The Red Box/Essentials was a direct response to that and Paizo is designing their own starter set, so obviously there's something to it. 

The games/industry needs new blood, and they can't just count on parents/older siblings to spread teh word, brand new groups are also a great base to have.


----------



## Mark Hope

Cergorach said:


> If the MMO is indeed based on oWoD, that would make me very happy, but I haven't seen an official statement from CCP.



They made the announcement at the Grand Masquerade convention a couple of weeks ago.  There are the usual multipage threads over at rpg.net and the WW forums if you fancy wading through them for details.  I'd love to play but my PC is seriously bottom-of-the-line, lol.


----------



## Cergorach

Herschel said:


> And whnere do you get this? A group of us sat down and chatted about Essentials and the like over the years and came to a strong conclusion: 3E/Pathfinder and 4E in their "normal" forms are pretty bad for new players. Neither game is just "roll it up and play" for a newbie, especially without more experienced gamers around. Most first charcters blow. The Red Box/Essentials was a direct response to that and Paizo is designing their own starter set, so obviously there's something to it.
> 
> The games/industry needs new blood, and they can't just count on parents/older siblings to spread teh word, brand new groups are also a great base to have.



That particular situation was relevant when 4E was being developed as well. A bussiness doesn't change it's line of products in such a significant way unless it's forced to do. Why take new risks if your current formula is working well enough? If they thought that the essentials line would open new revenue streams they could run both lines beside each other, they're not doing that as far as I know. They are significantly changing the DnD line, imho you only do that when you have no other choice (as a profit orientated corporation). So either the current line is not doing as well as they thought or they have already produced so much for the current line that they can't resonably expect to sell much more product to the same customers, with a reboot they can. Both situations indicate to me that DnD is not doing well enough for a corporation such as Hasbro.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

I was unaware that adding new options to a game without significantly changing the original meant changing it's line of products in a significant way.

Oh god, Pathfinder released the APG, didn't they?  _The entire tabletop gaming industry is mutating before our very eyes!_


----------



## Herschel

Cergorach said:


> A bussiness doesn't change it's line of products in such a significant way unless it's forced to do. Why take new risks if your current formula is working well enough?




You obviously don't work in a progressive, successful business then. Good businesses are always changing, always developing, always working to expand. The "current formula" regardless of success is never good enough. The goal is always to grow and expand your market. 

4E does well on a lot of fronts, but is pretty daunting to a new player especially with all the material out now. Pathfinder was never good for new players because it was a rework of an already large, complex system. 

Only counting on current gamers to grow your market would be downright stupid. I remember hearing about it as a kid and asking my grandmother for the original red box as a Christmas gift. I made a game for my sister, cousin and I which lasted about a weekend, but I was trying. Because of this I sought out players when I got to college and got in to my first "real" game there (good old 1E). 1E and 2E were pretty new player friendly: simple stats, basic weapons/armor and token/tolkein baddies were great for hooking new players' imagination.

Stat/feat/power blocks are much more daunting. Essentials is great because it builds a viable character for you so you can just play much easier. Many potential new players don't want to read a dozen sourcebooks before starting to play. WotC and Paizo recognize this and are taking steps to grab that portion of the market.  

To do otherwise would be to fail.


----------



## Cergorach

ProfessorCirno said:


> I was unaware that adding new options to a game without significantly changing the original meant changing it's line of products in a significant way.
> 
> Oh god, Pathfinder released the APG, didn't they?  _The entire tabletop gaming industry is mutating before our very eyes!_



The move to boxed sets and small rulebooks isn't a significant change? The adventures seem to keep their size, but are thin booklets in the box (not bad imho). As far as I can tell there is possibly another hardcover somewhere in march 2011. This all makes it for me a significant change of direction for the D&D RPG line. I'm not saying it's a bad change, but it is a big change only two years into the 4E cycle. The first big change for 3E was 3.5E and that was three years in to the 3E cycle and wasn't that big a change, although we did get more hardcovers then before. I have a strong suspicion that when the current printing of the PHB/DMG/MM runs out we won't see a reprint...

Might be a good direction because it now looks more like a game (box) and might get some shelf space in toy stores. I was absolutely not happy with the Red Box, it went in a direction I do not like, but that is a personal matter (but an opinion that others share). On the other hand I just watched the unboxing of the Dungeon Master's Kit: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHlIAPtdirY]YouTube - Dungeon Master's Kit Unboxing[/ame] And that was actually inspiring (but not worth that much if I don't have a decent starting point for players.


----------



## Cergorach

Herschel said:


> You obviously don't work in a progressive, successful business then. Good businesses are always changing, always developing, always working to expand. The "current formula" regardless of success is never good enough. The goal is always to grow and expand your market.
> 
> 4E does well on a lot of fronts, but is pretty daunting to a new player especially with all the material out now. Pathfinder was never good for new players because it was a rework of an already large, complex system.
> 
> Only counting on current gamers to grow your market would be downright stupid. I remember hearing about it as a kid and asking my grandmother for the original red box as a Christmas gift. I made a game for my sister, cousin and I which lasted about a weekend, but I was trying. Because of this I sought out players when I got to college and got in to my first "real" game there (good old 1E). 1E and 2E were pretty new player friendly: simple stats, basic weapons/armor and token/tolkein baddies were great for hooking new players' imagination.
> 
> Stat/feat/power blocks are much more daunting. Essentials is great because it builds a viable character for you so you can just play much easier. Many potential new players don't want to read a dozen sourcebooks before starting to play. WotC and Paizo recognize this and are taking steps to grab that portion of the market.
> 
> To do otherwise would be to fail.



Well it was a bank and those are notoriously... slow... ;-)
Also, the only way a bank can grow is acquire customers from the competition, nor does a bank want every customer out there (when they lend money they only want those customers that can actually pay them back). Expanding outside of your home country is a very risky business, the easiest way to enter new banking markets is buying a local bank.

Developing is good, changing for it's own sake isn't good, it's a money pit. The current formula might not be perfect and it never will be, but there is a difference between tweaking and complete overhauls. Complete overhauls are edition changes, tweaks are errata or maybe a different balance in releases. The Essentials line is definitely a lot more then a tweak and pretty early in the 4E life cycle. What Essentials is I would have expected at the beginning of 4E alongside of the core rulebooks. Instead it seems to me that it is replacing the current line of books. A 4.5E wouldn't be so strange (but it is a tad early), but it is also a whole different way of presentation (boxed sets and small softcover rule books with a lot of single column text).

You might want to attract new customers but you also want to keep your old customers, I don't know if they'll keep a lot of old customers with this change. And if the IvC2 is any indication then something like PF is doing extremely well and if the trend of the last two years is any indication, PF will grow further and DnD will shrink further. Of course these DnD boxed sets are aimed at growing the customer pool, I am just curious that with WotC now grabbing for trout in the stream, the ones already in the bucket aren't escaping at a faster rate then they can catch.

Personally I'm missing extended support for settings, two books and an adventure is slim pickings. There's an aweful lot of crunch books out there. Miniatures support seems decent (and probably doing well due to folks from other D&D type games using them as well).

I agree that 4E PHB and the PF core book even more so are bloody bricks, my problem with the 4E PHB is that it's unappealing, I do not have that problem with the PF core book. But that's mostly due to presentation. But the issue stands that those are bricks that scare new players away due to the amount of perceived reading. While the Red Box uses a proven way of teaching someone something, it still is far to wordy for my tastes. I was hoping for something along the lines of the original Red Box. The current RB might be good for a completely new group (including DM), but if as a veteran DM I have issues with this approach and that is not something I would use for introducing new players (although I might revise that view when I get my hands on the rules compendium, dm kit, monster kit and heroes of the fallen lands).


----------



## Herschel

Cergorach said:


> Well it was a bank and those are notoriously... slow... ;-)
> Also, the only way a bank can grow is acquire customers from the competition, nor does a bank want every customer out there (when they lend money they only want those customers that can actually pay them back).




This is simply untrue. There are always new customers so long as people have babies grow up and get jobs. (And also getting them from the competition.) Depending on the nature of the financial institution, you also DO want every person out there for a customer. The key is to come up with viable products to bring them in and leverage their assets. Some times it's just a savings account or a checking account, other times it's loans, etc. I work in compliance/finance for one of the world's largest companies and there are always new programs hitting the market. Same for my local credit union. 



> The current RB might be good for a completely new group (including DM), but if as a veteran DM I have issues with this approach and that is not something I would use for introducing new players (although I might revise that view when I get my hands on the rules compendium, dm kit, monster kit and heroes of the fallen lands).




It's not for you though, it is targeted at those completely new groups (although many current gamers will buy it also). Not every product is produced for "your" game. If it were, the market would suck and die quickly.


----------



## Cergorach

At any one point in time there are no new customers, in the future there will be new customers. There are no untapped pools of customers such as wizards no has with dnd players. Loans is were the big money is to be made, and that is a very tricky business, a bank absolutely does not want to provide a loan to everyone, even at the legally maximum rates.

WotC might not be making every product for every gaming table, I will say again, the more I see of the Essentials line, the more it seems that it completely replaces the current line of core books. It's using an unfamiliar format, smaller books, boxed sets and raising the dnd startup fee drastically. The PHB is essential split up between two books, for a total of $40, the dmg is now also $40 but does come with adventure and screen, mm is the same price with another adventure. So besides the red box the bare minimum starting price for players has gone up by 33%, for dms 22%. Presentation did change and you get all te content more piecemeal, but your still hit in the head with all thirty levels at once. The core rules seem to have been made unusable due to the amount of errata in the last two years, so folks will be happy to buy an updated version. But I imagine that the new format will repulse many old 4e customers, not something that would seem like a good idea for a game that has been hemoraging customers. A fun fact is that in the secondary market there are far more 4e core books then 3.5e core books, especially the 3,5e phb has become very valuable. If 4e was doing well i would say there wouldn't be such a high demand for older dnd books...


----------



## amethal

WizarDru said:


> IFRS?  IAS 14?  Sorry, have no idea what you're referring to, here.  Is this SEC legislation?



Nope, but there is a long running IFRS / US GAAP convergence project, so they might be pretty similar these days.

Of course, IAS 14 has been replaced by IFRS 8 for recent accounting periods.


----------



## Herschel

Cergorach said:


> At any one point in time there are no new customers, in the future there will be new customers. There are no untapped pools of customers such as wizards no has with dnd players. Loans is were the big money is to be made, and that is a very tricky business, a bank absolutely does not want to provide a loan to everyone, even at the legally maximum rates.




Loans are not the only financial vehicle in a bank's repertoire. That's why they have so many more products available. Even commercial lenders hedge their bets. Sure, loans tend to make the biggest money, but they aren't the whole picture by any stretch. 

Same in gaming. The current market die-hards may be the most obvious spenders, but getting others to buy products is the key to success because you can't count on a single, unrenewable customer pool. If you do, you perish.


----------



## kythri

Raven Crowking said:


> (2) All of the reasons why Mr. Dancy's opinion should be doubted would apply rather equally, I think, to the TSR situation he had previously commented on. If motive is a big reason to say WotC is failing now, motive was just as strong when describing why TSR failed then -- *esp. as at least one TSR employee openly said it wasn't so.*




Can you elaborate on that part?


----------



## Raven Crowking

I could, but I would have to slog through hundreds or thousands of pages of EN World (?) posts to do so.  Suffice it to say that, back when we were told what the final days of TSR were like, there was at least one TSR employee from that period who disputed his claims at the time.

Back when this was the argument of the day, I would have been able to lay finger on the quotes relatively quickly, but I'm not sure what Google Search words would best locate them now.

If I have the time to try to locate the quotes, I will do so, but it won't happen immediately (or I'd have linked in the post you quoted from!).



RC


----------



## kythri

If you find it, I'd appreciate it - I hadn't realized there was any dispute to the concept that TSR was dying. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that it had been bled dry by Williams...

Thanks for the reply!


----------



## Raven Crowking

Not that it was dying, but rather of the working conditions.


----------



## WizarDru

I'd be curious, as well.  I've heard that Dancey got a few minor facts wrong, according to at least one TSR employee...but that he had the majority in right.  Having no direct experience, I couldn't say either way.  A quick googling shows that Monte Cook, in his interviews with lots of former TSR employees, doesn't really agree or contradict Dancey in any way.  None of them liked the end of TSR, but no one offers any data on it, other than 'we lost our jobs' and some went to Seattle.  

A couple DO say that the departments in TSR were very insulated and that they rarely knew what was going on in other departments in the company and that the suits and the creatives didn't get along very well.


----------



## acemdq

I would say you only need one of the "Heroes of the..." books to play 4EE. Which cuts entry cost into 4E to 20$ (13$ @ amazon). 

The Essentials Core Rulebook is more on the GM usage side, since the class books already have the very basic guidelines.


----------



## Matt James

So, I guess the death spiral never happened? I'm confused by the several articles, posts, blogs, etc., that Ryan has put up.


----------



## DMZ2112

Matt James said:


> So, I guess the death spiral never happened? I'm confused by the several articles, posts, blogs, etc., that Ryan has put up.




At the risk of participating in <echo>THREAD NECROMANCY</echo>, I would say the jury is still way out on this one. I think we're seeing a lot of what he describes in the recent changes to DDi and the complete overhaul of the 2011 product calendar.

I'm not saying D&D4 is going to fail, I'm just saying I don't think it's safe just because it's been two years since his blog post.


----------



## Matt James

Oops  Sorry for the necromancy. I had come across the thread via Google. Anyways, the discussion WotC had during DDXP definitely helped to sate the curiosity of many regarding their product line in 2011 (modular products that are bundled together).


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Or that they are desperately trying to regain lost ground. Take your pick....

I think 4e _might_ be in a death spiral, but D&D in general...? Maybe, as mentioned, but the jury is still out, and if WotC is reacting maybe it can be turned around in any event, though I have my doubts regarding their current methods....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Stoat

In April 2009, Dancey predicted one of three outcomes:

1: A total collapse, and the game ceases meaningful publication and distribution at least for one gamer generation and maybe forever.

2: Downsizing until overhead matches income; could involve some kind of out-license or spin off of the business - think BattleTech in its current incarnation.

3: Traumatic rebirth, meaning that someone, somewhere finds some way to cut out the cancers that are eating the tabletop game and restarts the mass market business for D&D.

Nearly two years later, none of these outcomes have happened. Everything ends sooner or later, but Dancey was predicting a sudden, destructive collapse.  It ain't happened.

So what's the statute of limitations on FUD?


----------



## ATimson

Stoat said:


> Nearly two years later, none of these outcomes have happened.



Umm... if the 2011 schedule isn't case #2, then what's your definition of "downsizing" that doesn't include cutting releases in half?


----------



## Matt James

Is the metric by which we are defining the health of the game, marked by not having random products released each month? I can't find a link at the moment, but this past week during DDXP, the WotC staff explained their shift in content development and the release schedule. In short, packaging simular products into bundles, rather than releasing books just for the sake of releasing them. Also, DDI accounts for a swath of content that previously would have been inked into a book. Stoat's comments stand and the decrying of a system, just for the sake of decrying it, has a demonstrable patter with Mr. Dancy.


----------



## carmachu

Stoat said:


> 2: Downsizing until overhead matches income; could involve some kind of out-license or spin off of the business - think BattleTech in its current incarnation.




You do know they canceled several products and the entire minitaure line right?


----------



## Matt James

I can only offer that you should listen to their answer from DDXP. I'm not going to repeat it all. As for the minis, the manufacturer from China raised the prices on plastics exponentially, thus making it inequitable to continue the line. Making minis just to make them, is a stupid business prospect. I understand it's easier to just hate what a company is doing, rather than seek the answers. But, there is so much more involved than many want to acknowledge. It's easier to attack _The Man_. People need a villain, I guess.


----------



## Umbran

ATimson said:


> Umm... if the 2011 schedule isn't case #2, then what's your definition of "downsizing" that doesn't include cutting releases in half?




For most folk, "downsizing" is not about products, but about personnel.  Downsizing is about making the company smaller, not the product list smaller.


----------



## Stoat

Umbran said:


> For most folk, "downsizing" is not about products, but about personnel.  Downsizing is about making the company smaller, not the product list smaller.




This is what I was thinking when I read "downsizing."  I also see Dancey suggesting "some kind of out-license or spin off of the business," which hasn't happened.

For whatever reason, the link to Dancey's original blog post is blocked on my work computer, so I'm going off the quote in the OP.  Dancey sounds like he was expecting the death spiral to take over immediately.  Did he provide any kind of timetable?  Did he suggest how long the death spiral would take to play out?

If WotC keeps publishing 4E until 2020 and then conks out, are folks going to say, "See, Dancey was right.  Death Spiral!"


----------



## renau1g

Stoat said:


> If WotC keeps publishing 4E until 2020 and then conks out, are folks going to say, "See, Dancey was right.  Death Spiral!"




I'm 100% certain that people will.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

renau1g said:


> I'm 100% certain that people will.




_*sets clock for 2020*_

Ehhhhh...nuttin' to see here!


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _*sets clock for 2020*_
> 
> Ehhhhh...nuttin' to see here!



Duuude, did you get the Mayansoft patch to prevent the Y2012 Bug? Man, it's gonna, it's gonna affect like all the calendars everywhere, man!

The Auld Grump, still in a silly mood.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheAuldGrump said:


> Duuude, did you get the Mayansoft patch to prevent the Y2012 Bug? Man, it's gonna, it's gonna affect like all the calendars everywhere, man!




Patches?  I don't need no _STEEENKEENG_ patches!  (Mac user- the Mayan bug won't affect us.)


----------



## Roland55

Matt James said:


> I can only offer that you should listen to their answer from DDXP. I'm not going to repeat it all. As for the minis, the manufacturer from China raised the prices on plastics exponentially, thus making it inequitable to continue the line. Making minis just to make them, is a stupid business prospect. I understand it's easier to just hate what a company is doing, rather than seek the answers. But, there is so much more involved than many want to acknowledge. It's easier to attack _The Man_. People need a villain, I guess.




Not I.

I've played (and loved) this old game since it first began.  I haven't been able to make the leap to 4E, though I tried several times ... quite hard.  But I'm still cheering for D&D, in whatever form and every form.

D&D.  Long may she reign.


----------



## DMZ2112

Stoat said:


> This is what I was thinking when I read "downsizing."  I also see Dancey  suggesting "some kind of out-license or spin off of the business,"  which hasn't happened.




Stoat, I know you can't read the original blog post, so you wouldn't know this, but in the context of Dancey's post he makes it pretty clear that he is talking about product cuts.  Maybe not exclusively, maybe in conjunction with personnel layoffs, but he's definitely talking about product cuts.

"The next things that will take hits are the  RPGA, ...then quality, ...then  consistency..."

Along those lines, while the 2011 product schedule is certainly wonky, I think the attempted switch to trade paperback as a format and the absence of retailer support for RPGA events are more telling.



> If WotC keeps publishing 4E until 2020 and then conks out, are folks going to say, "See, Dancey was right.  Death Spiral!"




Well, for my part, I promise that if D&D4 makes it five years without a new edition or vanishing from the market I won't say this.  But I do think that's an 'if,' and we're already 2.5 years in.  By comparison, I don't feel this way about Pathfinder, which came out around the same time -- Paizo has a much more modest, but still consistent release schedule.  Wizards has changed their design strategy three times in six months.

As for accepting Wizards' explanation of their unreliability at DDXP, I call that 'drinking the Kool-Aid.'  I'm sorry to cause offense, but what are they expected to say other than, "Everything's just fine and getting better?"


----------



## Ulrick

Sometimes I wonder if industry leaders/insiders (in whatever industry, not just RPGS) just say things to watch people go bonkers and argue...


----------



## Hussar

Wow, has it only been 2.5 years since 4e was released?  ((Goes and checks)).  Yeah.  It sure feels longer.  Maybe it's the endless grind of these kinds of threads that just makes it seem like 4e has been around for longer.


----------



## rgard

TheAuldGrump said:


> Duuude, did you get the Mayansoft patch to prevent the Y2012 Bug? Man, it's gonna, it's gonna affect like all the calendars everywhere, man!
> 
> The Auld Grump, still in a silly mood.




Silly is good.  

D&D 5.0 is scheduled for 20 December 2012.  That way we'll only have a day's worth of moaning by the fans of the current edition...before the end of the world.


----------



## Deuce Traveler

When it comes to business and finances, collapses normally happen over a period of time.  Look at US auto companies and the banking industry for instance.  Businesses have bad models, get hurt badly, find some way to get some breathing room for awhile, then find themselves hurting worse then before.  Eventually it does lead to a collapse.

I'm not sure how DnD is doing since I do not work for WoTC or Hasbro.  I can report on what I see, however.  For the first time I no longer see RPG books being sold at the military exchange.  Where RPG books normally were filling couple of bookcases at my local mall's book store, they are now designated to only a shelf.  Thank goodness for my local comic book/trading card/RPG store.  My personal observation is pointing towards a decay in the market.


----------



## Hussar

But, does "decay in the market" mean that D&D is doing poorly?  

After all, moving from one market venue to another does not necessarily mean that a product is doing well or badly, just that it's changing venues.  The DDI has, from an uninformed outsiders view, performed pretty well.  I've seen subscription estimates from about 30k to well over 100K.  That's a pretty healthy revenue stream for an RPG company.

While it sucks that we might see less and less D&D in some places, WOTC does seem to be pretty dedicated to supporting the FLGS - regular game days for three different systems now - Magic, D&D and Gamma World which has got to be helping FLGS' bottom lines.

I wonder if it's more that WOTC is trying to focus it's brick and mortar presence to specialty stores, while pushing a bit into the big name stores like Target with boxed sets aimed at totally new gamers all the while maintaining a baseline through it's online business model.

Totally, totally uninformed speculation on my part.  Just spit balling that one for cogitation.


----------



## DMZ2112

Hussar said:


> WOTC does seem to be pretty dedicated to supporting the FLGS - regular game days for three different systems now - Magic, D&D and Gamma World which has got to be helping FLGS' bottom lines.




My contact with retailers on this subject has been mixed.  From what I understand, Wizards expects retailers to write off product to use as prizes at their events, which is kind of obnoxious.  While these events definitely bring players into the store, D&D and Gamma World events don't seem to mean the same guaranteed additional sales numbers that a Magic event does.  Magic players won't leave without a few boosters, I guess, but D&D players don't seem to impulse buy sourcebooks they weren't going to buy anyway just because they're in the store.

Regardless, if you're of the school that all publicity is good, these events definitely increase retailer foot traffic.  I started an LFR game at my FLGS two years ago and we could barely fill a table.  Now they're running two and three tables and turning people away, and I hear Encounters is just as booked.  And both events are still not as well attended as the Magic events at the store.


----------



## Stormonu

Can anyone point me to the DDXP announcement(s)?  I may not buy them, but I'm always curious to find out what's coming out.


----------



## Jhaelen

Stoat said:


> If WotC keeps publishing 4E until 2020 and then conks out, are folks going to say, "See, Dancey was right.  Death Spiral!"



Definitely. There's a reason Nostradamus is still popular.

It also reminds me of people insisting they don't sleep well on full moon nights. As it turns out, they extend 'full moon nights' to the time period three days before and after the actual night when the moon is full and have similar problems at and around new moon...


----------



## shadzar

Stoat said:


> Ryan Dancey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2: *Downsizing* until overhead matches income; could involve some kind of out-license or *spin off* of the business - think BattleTech in its current incarnation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly two years later, none of these outcomes have happened. Everything ends sooner or later, but Dancey was predicting a sudden, destructive collapse.  It ain't happened.
> 
> So what's the statute of limitations on FUD?
Click to expand...



It has happened, recent products canceled and product list reduced.

Wasn't the D&D team split between RPG and other types of games? While internal, this could very easily be seen as a spin off of the business. The move from making just D&D as an RPG, but heavy focus on board games. Like 4 of them now?

Gamma World
Ravenloft
The A named one
Drizzt game

Sure seems like a spin off of the business to me if only internal. So much so that they had to turn the D&D team into two divisions.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Wow, has it only been 2.5 years since 4e was released?  ((Goes and checks)).  Yeah.  It sure feels longer.  Maybe it's the endless grind of these kinds of threads that just makes it seem like 4e has been around for longer.



Do you recall telling me that this would all be over by the end of summer 2008 because everyone would finish their existing campaigns and move on to 4E?



> The DDI has, from an uninformed outsiders view, performed pretty well. I've seen subscription estimates from about 30k to well over 100K. That's a pretty healthy revenue stream for an RPG company.



Pure finance, I agree that whatever number it is, DDI is doing well.  And I am all for market capitalism, so go WotC, do whatever makes the biggest cash bang.  

But I've never seen evidence of 100K.  I've seen 50K+ numbers, with distinct uncertainty if that is current total or running count of people who ever were subscribers.  And I know a lot of people have dropped.

But, whatever, I still agree it is making a nice solid cash flow.  So let's agree to that, and for purposes here assume 100K is the number of current subscribers.

So, as a gamer, HOLY CRAP, D&D has collapsed.  100K?  That's it?

Obviously I don't see that as a decent true reading of how the game is doing.  But, in terms of popularity, DDI has nothing to offer as evidence that 4E is particularly popular.  And as much as I support WotC's right to pursue maximum profit, as a gamer what I actually, personally, care about is popularity.  I want fan base.

And, going back to cash flow, it certainly forces one to wonder just what the subscriber base would be if DDI were hitched to a really popular game.


----------



## carmachu

Matt James said:


> I can only offer that you should listen to their answer from DDXP. I'm not going to repeat it all. As for the minis, the manufacturer from China raised the prices on plastics exponentially, thus making it inequitable to continue the line. Making minis just to make them, is a stupid business prospect. I understand it's easier to just hate what a company is doing, rather than seek the answers. But, there is so much more involved than many want to acknowledge. It's easier to attack _The Man_. People need a villain, I guess.




I can tell you that, after listeningto Games Workshop's logic and reasoning that that logic they threw out there is just an excuse, not the reason.

They have a game that bsically REQUIRES you to use minis- movemnet, powers in squares, etc....and now they dont have the miniatures.

I understand its easier to offer excuses for things and buy the company line then it is to actually look at underlying causes. Its easier to just accept what someone says then actually do some looking around.


----------



## Hussar

Umm, BryonD, if 100k subscribers is true (and I agree, it's probably about half that) you realize that's twice what Paizo had for subscriptions for Dungeon and Dragon combined?  And Paizo was considered to be a success.  

I think people wildly overestimate how many books and whatnot RPG companies sell.  Beyond the core 3, I'd be absolutely shocked if any single title sold more than about 50 k copies.  With the DDI, they're getting that equivalent every month.

50k subscribers is probably about as healthy of a cash stream any producer of D&D has had for many, many years.


----------



## Hussar

carmachu said:


> I can tell you that, after listeningto Games Workshop's logic and reasoning that that logic they threw out there is just an excuse, not the reason.
> 
> They have a game that bsically REQUIRES you to use minis- movemnet, powers in squares, etc....and now they dont have the miniatures.
> 
> I understand its easier to offer excuses for things and buy the company line then it is to actually look at underlying causes. Its easier to just accept what someone says then actually do some looking around.




Umm, excuse me if I'm wrong here, but, isn't WOTC still producing some miniatures?  And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but, just because they're not producing their minis themselves, doesn't really mean anything.  I mean, D&D has long used miniatures (although not to the extent 4e and 3e do) and, for the most part, it's been other companies that supply those miniatures.

Is there really a shortage of minis on the market?


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Umm, BryonD, if 100k subscribers is true (and I agree, it's probably about half that) you realize that's twice what Paizo had for subscriptions for Dungeon and Dragon combined?  And Paizo was considered to be a success.



OK.  I honestly DON'T know that, but I'm willing to accept it.

I don't think the subscription base to the old magazines has anything to do with the conversation.



> I think people wildly overestimate how many books and whatnot RPG companies sell.  Beyond the core 3, I'd be absolutely shocked if any single title sold more than about 50 k copies.  With the DDI, they're getting that equivalent every month.
> 
> 50k subscribers is probably about as healthy of a cash stream any producer of D&D has had for many, many years.



Maybe, maybe not, but you are missing the point about player base.

Not to mention the lack of equivalence between one month of subscription and one unit of one single book, but this significant distinction is still pretty trivial to the main point.

DDI makes a lot of money.
4E lost a lot of D&D fan base.
These statements are not remotely incompatible.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Hussar said:


> Umm, excuse me if I'm wrong here, but, isn't WOTC still producing some miniatures? And, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but, just because they're not producing their minis themselves, doesn't really mean anything. I mean, D&D has long used miniatures (although not to the extent 4e and 3e do) and, for the most part, it's been other companies that supply those miniatures.
> 
> Is there really a shortage of minis on the market?




I think you have a point here...that players are not going to be starved for minis.

However, I agree with Carmachu insofar as it is ironic how 4e talks about "squares" and basically does require (I KNOW, I KNOW some few groups have houserules so they don't need minis) miniatures, but WotC has stopped selling them.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> OK.  I honestly DON'T know that, but I'm willing to accept it.
> 
> I don't think the subscription base to the old magazines has anything to do with the conversation.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but you are missing the point about player base.
> 
> Not to mention the lack of equivalence between one month of subscription and one unit of one single book, but this significant distinction is still pretty trivial to the main point.
> 
> DDI makes a lot of money.
> 4E lost a lot of D&D fan base.
> These statements are not remotely incompatible.




Is there really a large lack of equivalence though?  I have no idea.  How much money does a game company see on one book vs how much they see on one subscription?  Again, I have no idea.  At a guess, I'd say they're not as far off as all that.  Book retails at about 40 bucks, which means half to the retailer.  Then half again to the distributor.  So, ten bucks to WOTC.  How much is a sub per month?  It's about ten bucks isn't it?  I doubt they're too far off actually.

As far as your two last statements, yes, you're right that they are not incompatible.  However, they are both entirely speculative.  Neither of us has any idea how much of the fan base was lost by 4e.  

So, basing the idea that 4e has lost lots of fan base because of subscription numbers is about as meaningful as consulting the magic 8 ball.  After all, if 3e had X number of fans and 50k subs for Dungeon and Dragon, and 4e has twice the number of subs for the DDI, does that mean it has twice the fans?

I highly, highly doubt it.  But, again, I have no idea how many players there actually are.  But, then again, I'm not trying to say that 4e is successful.  I have no idea.  All I'm saying is that no one can make any real pronouncements, either way, because it's all pure speculation.


----------



## Jan van Leyden

Aberzanzorax said:


> I think you have a point here...that players are not going to be starved for minis.
> 
> However, I agree with Carmachu insofar as it is ironic how 4e talks about "squares" and basically does require (I KNOW, I KNOW some few groups have houserules so they don't need minis) miniatures, but WotC has stopped selling them.




Ummh... You don't need minis, just identifiable markers of some kind. Like those supplied with the new Essentials line.

While I prefer minis, I wouldn't say that WotC has stopped producing a needed supplement.

Ironically, they do the same they had done for their VTT: moving from 3E to 2D.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> After all, if 3e had X number of fans and 50k subs for Dungeon and Dragon, and 4e has twice the number of subs for the DDI, does that mean it has twice the fans?




I don't think we can really compare subscription numbers for *Dungeon* and *Dragon* with DDI and imply anything about the size of 4e's fan base. I don't believe *Dungeon* or *Dragon* were every perceived as anything other than optional. People may have loved them, but I don't believe they had ever taken on the same air of indespensibility that DDI has taken on thanks to the character builder. With that in mind, I would expect a higher proportion of 4e players to be interested in taking out a subscription to the DDI than I would have expected to see taking out subscriptions for *Dragon* or *Dungeon* during previous editions.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Is there really a large lack of equivalence though?  I have no idea.  How much money does a game company see on one book vs how much they see on one subscription?  Again, I have no idea.  At a guess, I'd say they're not as far off as all that.  Book retails at about 40 bucks, which means half to the retailer.  Then half again to the distributor.  So, ten bucks to WOTC.  How much is a sub per month?  It's about ten bucks isn't it?  I doubt they're too far off actually.



But there are more factors than this.  The fact that they publish more than one book a month just being the most obvious.  But that gets into a deep tangent.  They are not the same thing.



> So, basing the idea that 4e has lost lots of fan base because of subscription numbers is about as meaningful as consulting the magic 8 ball.



Huh?  You are the one that was using DDI to claim that the fan base was still there.  It was your argument that "decay" in the book market didn't mean D&D was losing fans, but that they were just "moving from one market venue to another".  You are the one who brought up this "eight ball" as a source of wisdom.  Not me.




> After all, if 3e had X number of fans and 50k subs for Dungeon and Dragon, and 4e has twice the number of subs for the DDI, does that mean it has twice the fans?



Didn't we just cover this?
The magazines were a side market, a tiny fraction of the player base.

No one EVER claimed that buying those magazines took away from people buying the game itself.  This EXACT argument is now being made regarding DDI.  DDI replaces buying books.  The magazines were nothing remotely similar to that.  



> I highly, highly doubt it.  But, again, I have no idea how many players there actually are.  But, then again, I'm not trying to say that 4e is successful.  I have no idea.  All I'm saying is that no one can make any real pronouncements, either way, because it's all pure speculation.



"Pure speculation" is a very charitable spin.  Not knowing the answer to two decimals places does not mean that the ballpark is not pretty well understood.


----------



## Matt James

Ya know, with all of the business advice being tossed around here, it sounds like users in this thread, alone, could start a very lucrative and profitable gaming company. I mean, the answers are so simple. If only WotC would read this thread! 

As for the correlation to minis, WotC is producing tokens to help offset the loss of miniatures for the time being. So, in that, I don't accept the notion of something more devious on their part. If they could churn out miniatures and make a boat-load of cash, you really think they wouldn't?


----------



## Umbran

Matt James said:


> Ya know, with all of the business advice being tossed around here, it sounds like users in this thread, alone, could start a very lucrative and profitable gaming company. I mean, the answers are so simple. If only WotC would read this thread!




Yep.  Just like you'd imagine that the sports world could gain a lot from tapping the crop of genius football coaches found in American homes this time of year.

Armchair quarterbacking is not just a hobby, it's a calling.


----------



## BryonD

Matt James said:


> Ya know, with all of the business advice being tossed around here, it sounds like users in this thread, alone, could start a very lucrative and profitable gaming company. I mean, the answers are so simple. If only WotC would read this thread!



I promise you that the game designed to my personal specifications would be a total disaster on the market.  *I'd* be very happy.  But it would flop.

But, then again, simply pointing out clear mistakes is much easier to do than having a strong path forward.

If I need to admit that I couldn't do any better than WotC, I'll do that with no hesitation.  But, unlike WotC, my failure there really has no consequence.


----------



## BryonD

Umbran said:


> Armchair quarterbacking is not just a hobby, it's a calling.



Yep.

But "armchair quarterbacking" is about second guessing.  It happens to the team that lost.


----------



## ATimson

Hussar said:


> Umm, excuse me if I'm wrong here, but, isn't WOTC still producing some miniatures?



Producing, yes; selling, no (since they're being repurposed as board game pieces).


----------



## WizarDru

BryonD said:


> But, then again, simply pointing out clear mistakes is much easier to do than having a strong path forward.




I think the problem is identifying what qualifies as a '_clear mistake_'.

In 2000, WotC laid off 100 employees.  In 2002, they did it again.  In 2005 and 2008, they also had smaller layoffs.  If we were to use that information as an indicator, one could assume that 2000-2002 were TERRIBLE years.  But those were the 'boom years' of 3E.  WotC was selling PHBs like hotcakes and the market was strong.  Many laid-off employees went on to success as contractors or with their own companies (forming Green Ronin, Ptolus, Paizo and more).  WotC continued on their merry, successful way.  People were actually expecting lay-offs this year because they've laid off employees both years of the last two times they've released a new edition.

I'm not saying they haven't made or mistakes or aren't having problems now.  I don't know.  As is usual with these discussions, we have no data other than conjecture to know, effectively.  When the magazines were given to Paizo...it was assumed that they had made a mistake, that they would fail.  Instead, we got the best run of the magazines since the 80s.  When they cancelled the magazines in favor of DDI, it was assumed that they had made a mistake, that they would fail.  Instead we see DDI subscriptions more and more becoming the focus of WotC's efforts.

I just don't envision the kind of death-spiral that I think Ryan was suggesting actually happening.  I don't think the DDXP announcements qualify for anything other than a tacit admission that they need to change their publishing model.  I suspect "Wrath of Ashardalon" and "D&D: Gamma World" are test cases for one new strategy and the DDI changes are another.  Only time will tell if it proves fruitful.


----------



## BryonD

I certainly should qualify that I don't endorse the "death spiral".

I think things are better now than they were in the darkest of the 2E days.  I think that a new game could turn things around over night.  Not that I think now is the time for that, but a death spiral indicates that the time will never come.

And, no insensitivity to people's lives intended, I'm not looking at staff levels as the barometer, but just at the overall level of popularity.


Lastly, it probably would have been more fitting to say "clear results of mistakes" rather than indicate the individual mistakes are easy to point at.


----------



## Umbran

BryonD said:


> And, no insensitivity to people's lives intended, I'm not looking at staff levels as the barometer, but just at the overall level of popularity.




Maybe this is buried deep in the bowels of the thread...

But, if you are going to look at staffing levels, you cannot just look at layoffs.  That's only the outflow.  You need to look also at hires of full-time and contract employees.  

Anyone have that information?  If not, then the layoffs are a pretty weak measure.


----------



## Maggan

BryonD said:


> No one EVER claimed that buying those magazines took away from people buying the game itself.  This EXACT argument is now being made regarding DDI.  DDI replaces buying books.  The magazines were nothing remotely similar to that.




Is "the game" the same as "the books", though? Isn't that the rub of all this speculation.

What is "the game"? And are people buying "the game" in sufficient quantities to make for a large fan base?

To me, the "D&D4e game" consists of several different parts, of which I have bought books and DDI access (which I dropped due to having a break from running 4e). 

I am one of those for whom the access to DDI meant that I didn't buy as many books as I probably would have done had DDI not been available and loaded with all content, but I still feel that I have bought "the game" even though I haven't bought the books or the essentials line (yet).

I'm looking to picking up Castle Ravenloft, the board game and maybe Wrath of Ashardalon. I don't really know much about them, but have somehow made the connection "Castle Ravenloft the board game is part of the D&D4e game". I intend to play it, and use the pieces in my upcoming D&D4e games.

Basicallt, for me "the game" is bigger than "the books", and includes the books, the DDI and even  the board games. So this year D&D will be very interesting to follow.

Cheers!

/M


----------



## BryonD

Maggan said:


> Is "the game" the same as "the books", though? Isn't that the rub of all this speculation.
> 
> What is "the game"? And are people buying "the game" in sufficient quantities to make for a large fan base?
> 
> To me, the "D&D4e game" consists of several different parts, of which I have bought books and DDI access (which I dropped due to having a break from running 4e).



I'm not clear where we are disagreeing.  I specifically said in the part you quoted: "DDI replaces buying books."

For 4E, yes DDI and books are both valid parts.  I've never claimed differently.

But I don't at all agree that the same thing could be said for 3E and Dungeon/Dragon.  That is the difference.


----------



## BryonD

Maggan said:


> and even  the board games.



I do, very much, disagree with that part.

Big thumbs up on synergy into other markets and supporting the overall brand.  But I'm interested in the RPG.  Novels, comics, board games, etc..., as cool as they may be, are not part of "the (role playing) game".


----------



## Maggan

BryonD said:


> I'm not clear where we are disagreeing. I specifically said in the part you quoted: "DDI replaces buying books.




To me it seems as of the overall discussion is book centric, that it "the game" is often considered to be "the books", and as long as the books don't sell, the game doesn't sell.

I might have gotten too much caught up in the semantics though. Wouldn't be the first time.



BryonD said:


> I do, very much, disagree with that part.
> 
> Big thumbs up on synergy into other markets and supporting the overall brand.  But I'm interested in the RPG.  Novels, comics, board games, etc..., as cool as they may be, are not part of "the (role playing) game".




Yeah, I know I might be in a minority of one with that one. 

EDIT: come to think of it, Games Workshop says they are in the "Warhammer hobby" business as opposed to the gaming hobby. Maybe that's what WotC are aiming for with D&D, creating a "D&D hobby" that is not intrinsically a part of what we traditionally considers the rpg hobby?

Cheers!

/M


----------



## Nagol

Maggan said:


> <snip>
> 
> EDIT: come to think of it, Games Workshop says they are in the "Warhammer hobby" business as opposed to the gaming hobby. Maybe that's what WotC are aiming for with D&D, creating a "D&D hobby" that is not intrinsically a part of what we traditionally considers the rpg hobby?
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> /M




That's effectively the same realisation Marvel came to a few years ago -- the primary value of their assets wasn't found in their inventory of the comic books and the equipment to make the same, but rather in the developed intellectual property that could be expressed in all sorts of media.

Too bad WotC turned away from the creation and nurturing of distinctive intellectual property (adventure paths, worlds, campaign sets, and other areas of shared community expierience) to focus on crunch.  The fuff is much easier to repurpose across media.


----------



## BryonD

Maggan said:


> To me it seems as of the overall discussion is book centric, that it "the game" is often considered to be "the books", and as long as the books don't sell, the game doesn't sell.
> 
> I might have gotten too much caught up in the semantics though. Wouldn't be the first time.



Maybe the larger discussion is.  But the part you quoted me on was very much about DDI and Books being separate media for the same thing.

I agree that DDI can readily offset losses in book sales.  But, my position is that if we use DDI subscription numbers and claim that is the replacement, then the total number of people playing D&D has plummeted.




> Yeah, I know I might be in a minority of one with that one.
> 
> EDIT: come to think of it, Games Workshop says they are in the "Warhammer hobby" business as opposed to the gaming hobby. Maybe that's what WotC are aiming for with D&D, creating a "D&D hobby" that is not intrinsically a part of what we traditionally considers the rpg hobby?
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> /M



Fair enough.  But that is a new hobby that isn't what has been assumed to date.  And I'd argue there is no safe assumption it will be anytime soon.

But if it happens, good for them.  Just assume my comments specifically mean the RPG when I say D&D.


----------



## HRSegovia

Herschel said:


> You obviously don't work in a progressive, successful business then. Good businesses are always changing, always developing, always working to expand. The "current formula" regardless of success is never good enough. The goal is always to grow and expand your market.




Exactly true.  A flop or failure does not mean the business is at its end.

Remember New Coke and Coca-Cola Classic?  Everyone thought it was the end of Coca-Cola and it was a last ditch effort to steal Pepsi drinkers because it tasted like Pepsi.  They dropped the line and chugged along.  Even after this terrible recession in which we lost some MAJOR companies (Like Chrysler R.I.P.) Coca-Cola is still with us.  However there's always the conspiracy theorists, know-it-alls, doomsayers and naysayers that will insist big change means big trouble.

I can't tell you if 4e will follow the path new coke.  I like it.  But if it does, it won't be the end of D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Chrysler R.I.P.



Chrysler's still making cars, along with their subsidiaries Dodge & Jeep, etc.


----------



## HRSegovia

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Chrysler's still making cars, along with their subsidiaries Dodge & Jeep, etc.




How odd.  I was under the impression they shut their doors a year-and-a-half ago.


----------



## ATimson

HRSegovia said:


> How odd.  I was under the impression they shut their doors a year-and-a-half ago.



Technically, they did - the current company making Chrysler cars is a new company created in mid-2009. "Old" Chrysler sold all their assets to the new company, leaving the old company to rot in bankruptcy with all the debts and contracts they wanted to get rid of.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> Maybe the larger discussion is.  But the part you quoted me on was very much about DDI and Books being separate media for the same thing.
> 
> I agree that DDI can readily offset losses in book sales.  But, my position is that if we use DDI subscription numbers and claim that is the replacement, then the total number of people playing D&D has plummeted.
> /snip




My question is why?  If the DDI is offsetting book sales, then why does that mean that people playing D&D is plummeting?

I mean, if they were selling 50k books a month pre-DDI, and you have 50k subscribers post-DDI, doesn't that mean you have about the same number of players?  At least purchasing players anyway.  After all, not every group will have every member with a DDI sub, not every group will have a sub at all, just like not every group bought new books and not every group bought a copy of a book for each player.

Why does the number of DDI subscribers equal a drop in the number of players?

Or, to put it another way, if the number of subs can't be used to determine if 4e D&D is economically healthy, why can it be used to determine the popularity of the game?


----------



## RyanD

Nagol said:


> That's effectively the same realisation Marvel came to a few years ago -- the primary value of their assets wasn't found in their inventory of the comic books and the equipment to make the same, but rather in the developed intellectual property that could be expressed in all sorts of media.




That's not what GW means when they talk about the "Warhammer Hobby".  What they mean is that they believe that other than on a macroeconomic basis they aren't competing with other hobby gaming products.  In other words they think the competition for your dollars between Warhammer and D&D is the same as the competition between Warhammer and movie tickets.

GW thinks of itself as a vertically integrated company that has a sideline business using a network of independent retailers to help acquire new business.  The fact that those retailers also sell other products is of no concern to GW.  GW believes that you get hooked on the GW hobby, and once hooked, you direct your spends towards that hobby to the degree that you are able.  Eventually you'll find your way to a GW store (if there's one available).

They see their product ecosystem as being the deep and broad line of miniatures, White Dwarf, the GW Game Days, and the GW stores.  I'm sure the GW website fits in there somewhere now as well.

When Luke Peterschmidt was running Sabertooth for example they wouldn't put the Warhammer CCGs Sabertooth was making into the GW stores or let them advertise in White Dwarf.  I don't know but wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Fantasy Flight RPGs aren't allowed in those stores either.  On some basic DNA level, GW thinks of the Warhammer hobby as "miniatures, accessories for miniatures, and just enough rules to justify buying the miniatures".  Everything else is in some sense a distraction. (I just took a quick peek at their website and couldn't find any RPG content, nor anything about the 2 MMOs...)


----------



## xechnao

For the hobby GW has established you can only be cool if you use exclusively GW material. They have a championship, namely the golden demon award, regarding the best painting and conversions of their miniatures. Regarding the conversions part, you can not use distinct bits of any other products you can buy that are not made by GW.

They do have this brand or IP value applied to their business prospects and they manage to apply it on a totally material perspective of selling their miniatures. This is so important to them, that any other distraction is considered a strategically conflicting enterprise.

For example, in their stores, they do not sell Warhammer novels -or at least so it was last time I checked and that was admittedly some years ago- they only sell miniatures and rules for playing with them.


----------



## Maggan

RyanD said:


> I don't know but wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Fantasy Flight RPGs aren't allowed in those stores either.  On some basic DNA level, GW thinks of the Warhammer hobby as "miniatures, accessories for miniatures, and just enough rules to justify buying the miniatures".  Everything else is in some sense a distraction. (I just took a quick peek at their website and couldn't find any RPG content, nor anything about the 2 MMOs...)




I seem to remember that WFRP wasn't even available in the GW stores when GW was producing it themselves. At least after Flame Publications was formed, no WFRP were allowed in GW shops.

To the frustration of the fan base but hey, it's GW! 

/M


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

GW has never ceased to mystify me.

When they opened a store near me, they immediately started undercutting the prices of all the local game stores selling their stuff.  Result: massive clearance sales on GW merch and few re-orders.  If they wanted a local monopoly on their own stuff, they've almost achieved it.  Good for them, but for gamers in the D/FW Metroplex, that could mean some looooong drives.

And to my recollection, those GW stores I've been in are 95% minis, 4% RPG, 1% everything else.  If you're running a store to sell your merch, sell ALL your merch in the store!!!

_*facepalm*_


----------



## shadzar

RyanD said:


> That's not what GW means when they talk about the "Warhammer Hobby".  What they mean is that they believe that other than on a macroeconomic basis they aren't competing with other hobby gaming products.  In other words they think the competition for your dollars between Warhammer and D&D is the same as the competition between Warhammer and movie tickets.
> 
> GW thinks of itself as a vertically integrated company that has a sideline business using a network of independent retailers to help acquire new business.  The fact that those retailers also sell other products is of no concern to GW.  GW believes that you get hooked on the GW hobby, and once hooked, you direct your spends towards that hobby to the degree that you are able.  Eventually you'll find your way to a GW store (if there's one available).
> 
> They see their product ecosystem as being the deep and broad line of miniatures, White Dwarf, the GW Game Days, and the GW stores.  I'm sure the GW website fits in there somewhere now as well.
> 
> When Luke Peterschmidt was running Sabertooth for example they wouldn't put the Warhammer CCGs Sabertooth was making into the GW stores or let them advertise in White Dwarf.  I don't know but wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Fantasy Flight RPGs aren't allowed in those stores either.  On some basic DNA level, GW thinks of the Warhammer hobby as "miniatures, accessories for miniatures, and just enough rules to justify buying the miniatures".  Everything else is in some sense a distraction. (I just took a quick peek at their website and couldn't find any RPG content, nor anything about the 2 MMOs...)




You wont find them on the GW website, because they are not a GW product, but a licensed product unrelated to GW games, and as you say, not part of the GW hobby.

GW makes miniature wargames. Now thinking they are the only one might be flawed, but getting close to true as other companies dwindle, but HeroClick existed and GW should realize theya re in the Miniature Gaming Hobby.

I agree competing with D&D is like buying movie tickets as both are concerned with dollars spent on entertainment, and that all comes from the same pool. But they are not trying to game every dollar from entertainment industry, just trying to compete in their entertainment field which is: tabletop gaming/miniatures/wargames/some assembly required.

For those specific category allotments, they are really competing with themselves. The licensed products are just extra revenue and brand visibility. But they should realize that the finite category they are looking at could be the reason for recent loss of sales and they should back out to stop at "miniatures" and just dip into "wargames" as there are competitors there with Clix games and other CMGs as warhammer games ARE CMGs, but without the randomization factor. 

Likewise I doubt that Warhammer games or D&D is really on the radar of major motion pictures as a competitor for your entertainment dollars.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage

ATimson said:


> Technically, they did - the current company making Chrysler cars is a new company created in mid-2009. "Old" Chrysler sold all their assets to the new company, leaving the old company to rot in bankruptcy with all the debts and contracts they wanted to get rid of.




Ah, capitalism, ain't it great? (puffs happily on cigar)


----------



## Hussar

Shadzar said:
			
		

> Likewise I doubt that Warhammer games or D&D is really on the radar of major motion pictures as a competitor for your entertainment dollars.




I'm not so sure though.  For one, the Drizz't novels have been very popular for a long, long time.  And, they've hit the best seller lists more than a few times.  You'd think a 40k movie would be a smash hit in countries like Korea where Starcraft is practically a national sport (including prime-time TV coverage of pro matches, I kid you not).  

Didn't WOTC recently say something to the effect that D&D had a 80 or 90% brand recognition factor?  You'd think they could leverage that into a movie or TV deal.  I'm old enough to remember when comic books were for kids and adults who collected were viewed as "kinda weird".  Then comes Sam Raimi and now everyone loves these IP's.

I've never really understood why D&D has not managed to leverage that since the very early 80's.


----------



## shadzar

Hussar said:


> I'm not so sure though.  For one, the Drizz't novels have been very popular for a long, long time.  And, they've hit the best seller lists more than a few times.  You'd think a 40k movie would be a smash hit in countries like Korea where Starcraft is practically a national sport (including prime-time TV coverage of pro matches, I kid you not).
> 
> Didn't WOTC recently say something to the effect that D&D had a 80 or 90% brand recognition factor?  You'd think they could leverage that into a movie or TV deal.  I'm old enough to remember when comic books were for kids and adults who collected were viewed as "kinda weird".  Then comes Sam Raimi and now everyone loves these IP's.
> 
> I've never really understood why D&D has not managed to leverage that since the very early 80's.




Warner Brothers probably could care less about Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone hitting the shelves or even a best-seller list. While Goblet of Fire was hitting the shelves and the thought of a movie was being had, then they took notice, but not to compete with the book sales. They took notice to make sure they could get in the bidding or make the best offer, so someone else didn't make a motion picture on it that would be in competition of their own.

Had JKR not been interested in having the books turned into a movie, WB would have likely ignored it as a book isn't competing for entertainment dollars from movie goers.

With the first D&D movie, WB took notice to see if they though the name was big enough to cause competition, and then decide what of their properties to put up agaisnt it in the theaters. As an RPG, WB could care less about D&D as competition because the entertainment dollars spend on RPGs will not be spent on movies.

This is the GW attitude. Everyone has entertainment dollars, and rather than trying to capture them all like some rabid Pokemon, it is better to capture the entertainment dollars for your own field so you don't waste money competing for the wrong audience.

People that spend money on movies in theater and home viewing are the people that most interest WB Studios. They DO want every dollar people are willing to spend on movies that they can get, but not going to waste money trying to convert your entertainment focus on movies away form something else, because that has led to losses in EVERY industry.

GW is only interested in your miniature wargames dollars and competing for them. Just because D&D and Warhammer are both presented in forms of massive numbers of expensive rulebooks, and use miniatures, it doesn't mean that D&D serves as a competition for GW as it is not a miniature game, and the audience for a miniature game isn't the same audience of a TTRPG, even if some of those audiences overlap.

McDonald's doesn't compete with the local grocers, but with other fast food restaurants like Burger King and Wendys. Now they are branching out to compete with Starbucks and always have in a way competed with non fast food restaurants. This is because they are in the business of selling cooked food, not raw food, so those wanting to cook their own food aren't going to spending "food money" on fast food.

They may watch and take note of similar industry businesses, but don't view them as direct competitors. Price of beef goes up in grocers and butchers, McDonald's might run a sale on burgers to try to capture a few dollars, but they wont maintain those lower prices just to keep the gimmick going to capture those dollars, only long enough to try to catch a few more longer term fast food customers.


----------

