# 4 Hours w/ RSD: Who Am I?



## olshanski (Jan 18, 2011)

I played RPGs from 1975-1988, then quit because of college and work and life, but I cam back in 2000 with the release of 3.0 D&D.  I believe I owe 11 plus years of fun (and still going strong) to you.  This past year I have taught my 2 sons to play roleplaying games based on my personal houseruled version of D&D cribbed from the SRD.

Thank you, Ryan Dancey.


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm still very grateful for the OGL, it removed the legal mess that often followed fan publications (TSR was rather nasty with that at one time). I'm also impressed with the amount of cool things your associated with: L5R (RPG), Dune RPG, D&D, OGL, EVE, you sir lead a charmed live! ;-)

I'm also interested on more of your thoughts on Pathfinder, you indicate that you never thought it was possible that a (rebranded) fork would pass D&D sales or seriously affect D&D sales, did that conviction change during the 3.5E era? GPL projects (like Mambo vs. Joomla! for example in 2005) did a (rebranded) fork succesfully, so why not for D&D? Has the rise of Pathfinder more to do with the fall of D&D (4E) or a natural evolution of the D20 system and the OGL?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 18, 2011)

3rd Edition -- and the fascinating idea of the OGL -- brought me back to D&D after an eight-year absence I had thought would be permanent.  (I quit 2E in disgust in the early 90s.)  As it happens, GenCon 2000 was one of only two GenCons I've missed since 1984, but my buddy bought PHBs for both of us, and we've been exclusively playing OGL-derived games since.  (Currently PFRPG and M&M, both of which we love the way we loved 3E.  The exclusivity isn't purposeful ... it's just that these are the games we love.)

Thanks very much for your part in shaping my lifestyle hobby into what it is for me today.  I sincerely appreciate it.


----------



## Rydac (Jan 18, 2011)

Welcome back to ENworld Mr. Dancey. I'm looking forward to your monthly essays.


----------



## darjr (Jan 18, 2011)

I owe you a lot of thanks. It was the Black Company campaign setting that brought me back to the hobby and D&D since it was an D20 derivative. The life that the D20 scene and the OSR are a fantastic development of what you started. Thank you.


----------



## WizarDru (Jan 18, 2011)

Ryan, glad to have you here.  I look forward to your insights both on the game and the industry.  Folks tend to forget what D&D was like pre-3E; People like me who never went to 2E but flocked back when 3E arrived tend to have a better memory of it.  I do not exaggerate to say that you and WotC returned one of my hobbies to me.

So, Thank you to you and the 3E team and Welcome Back to ENWorld.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 18, 2011)

Congrats on the new column.  I look forward to reading more.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 18, 2011)

It is great to have you here, Ryan, and I will add my gratitude for the innovation that you helped midwife into the industry all those 11 years ago.

I will ask a question that, I would guess, many here are curious about, especially in light of your now (in)famous "Death Spiral" comments on RPGPundit's blog. And that is: what do you think about the recent goings-on with WotC and how they've been handling D&D? Specifically, the roll-out of the Red Box and Essentials line, the change of Character Builder to online only, the lack of new material and cancellations of planned books, etc. 

The general view is that WotC is focusing on D&D Insider, which would seemingly be the most lucrative aspect of D&D. My personal fear is that this will lead to the gradual whittling away of actual books, even the outright demise of D&D books altogether except for an "evergreen" line like Essentials, with the new, true core of D&D being DDI. If this is true, one wonders what will happen with the RPG industry as a whole - whether it can survive and thrive without WotC producing books, or whether we tabletop RPGers will soon be as outdated and anachronistic as model railroaders, stamp collectors, and fans of Big Band music. On the other hand, I also wonder if tabletop RPGs downsize a bit, the industry may return to a more "for the people, by the people" feeling, which may in turn improve its health and vitality and sense of community (Paizo's "mom and pop" moderate-sized company approach, as compared to WotC slick big businessy feel, comes to mind).

So what do you think? Is the sky truly and finally falling? If we can all agree that, at the least, the industry is undergoing a major transformation, what is the nature and likely outcome of that transformation? After Yeats, _what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Lake Geneva to be born?_ 

I look forward to your response.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 18, 2011)

great stuff. look forward to the next one.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 18, 2011)

I look forward to your essays. I also enjoy you adding a lot of perspetive to RPG Pundit's blog as well.


----------



## RyanD (Jan 18, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> So what do you think? Is the sky truly and finally falling?




Well you're asking several inter-related questions.  I'll try to answer as best I can.  Remember, I don't have access to unit volume or revenue figures anymore so I have to treat the TRPG business as a black box and do my analysis from the outside.

First, I honestly believe that there's no way we'll see anything close to the 3.x era of sales for D&D ever again.  The whole TRPG market is being affected by the rise of MMOs and that's an external factor that no company, not even Hasbro, can really resist. So the fact that 4e isn't outselling 3.x shouldn't surprise anyone, and that isn't a commentary on its quality or lack thereof.

Second, I have no clue what Wizards thinks it is doing with the "red box".  The Intro product for D&D has one, and only one purpose:  To introduce 12-14 year old kids to the roleplaying hobby and start them on the path to become purchasers of the core books.  That product must be designed to sell in mass market stores where it can get the widest possible distribution outside of the hobby core (where you can safely assume that gamers are teaching gamers without the need of a special product to do it).  It must be priced correctly vs. the other games it is shelved with, and it must be packaged and presented in a way that a mother would be comfortable buying as a gift for the son or daughter of a friend.

The "red box" looks like a nostalgia product designed to be sold to 40 year-olds who want to relive a moment of their childhoods.  I don't get the art or the font - neither will appeal to either kids or moms in CE2011.  It doesn't look like any other products in the 4E line so how will people know that it connects?  Doesn't even matter what's inside the box - this is one of those things that has to sell on its presentation on the shelf.

As to 4e as a product line, I'm equally confused.  If I want to start playing this game today, what do I buy?  How "Essential" is "Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms"?  Is there still a Player's Handbook?  Is it more or less "Essential" than the Rules Compendium?  Wait, there's three Player's Handbooks?  And 2 Dungeon Master Guides?  Do I need to buy 5 300+ page books to play this game?  And is the "Essentials" game the same game, or a dumbed down game?

Oh, there's an on-line product too?  Is that an MMO?  No?  What is it then?  Magazines?  Can I read them on my iPad?  No?  So it's digital tools.  OK, that sounds interesting.  Can I use those tools on my iPad?  No?  Requires *Silverlight*?  You gotta be kidding me!  Do I get PDF or eBook versions of the physical books?  No?  In fact, Wizards removed all the PDF support from D&D from the internet?  Srsly?  How about a way to organize my campaign, track my NPCs, record the actions of my player characters, manage their inventories and experience points, and make clear what parts of the game are and are not used in my game?  No?  But there's a "Virtual Table" in Beta?  The irony of a tabletop hobby making a digital playspace doesn't seem to have produced any cognitive dissonance...

(The above might sound sarcastic, but it's the closest I could come to my stream of consciousness thoughts as I read through Wizards' DDI pages just now...)

Three years ago I told people that it didn't matter if 4e was successful or not, because it was likely to be the last version of D&D that would be based on paper based tabletop gaming.  I've seen nothing so far that changes my opinion about that.  How it can become a digital product and still compete with MMOs is something I'd be happy to have Wizards pay me a lot of money to research but again, nothing I've seen yet shows me that they're on the right path so far.

RyanD


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2011)

Ryan Dancey as an ENWorld columnist? Hmm, this could be interesting!

Also, congrats!


----------



## delericho (Jan 18, 2011)

RyanD said:


> So the fact that 4e isn't outselling 3.x shouldn't surprise anyone, and that isn't a commentary on its quality or lack thereof.




How reliable are your sources that 4e isn't outselling 3e, and indeed that Pathfinder is outselling 4e? The former would seem to contradict direct statements we've had about the relative sizes of the print runs, while the latter is fairly seismic.

(I know you're almost certainly not going to share _who_ they are. But is there any reason we should consider them any more reliable than the random internet dweller?)


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 19, 2011)

Great first post, my fellow Ryan.



RyanD said:


> --RSD / Atlanta, Jan 2011




You're at CCP|White Wolf now? Man, I need to find a way to get invited to some of their parties. I'm always finding new cool people who work there. 

Also, I wish you were still had a say in WotC's production. I don't know why there aren't iPad or smart phone apps for D&D.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 19, 2011)

> I also wrote the Open Gaming License, the D20 System Trademark License, created the 3.0 System Reference Document and hosted the Open Gaming Foundation and its two email lists, ogf-l and ogf-d20-l to support the community of 3rd party developers created by the OGL and D20.




Best dang idea in RPG's...EVER


----------



## prosfilaes (Jan 19, 2011)

delericho said:


> indeed that Pathfinder is outselling 4e?




It's been discussed several places on the board; an industry magazine published that D&D 4 was tied with Pathfinder as the best selling RPG in game stories, and Erik Mona said that matched the data he had. I've been watching the Amazon data Amazon.com Bestsellers: The most popular items in Fantasy Gaming since this thread, and Pathfinder has been competitive with D&D whenever I've looked. Right now, after removing the miscategorized fantasy, PF Bestiary 2 ($27) and PF Corebook ($32) are #1 and #2, with the Red Box ($14) and Monster Vault ($20) being #3 and #4. I don't recall PF having #1 and #2 before, but it's never not had an expensive book in the top 5.

Whether or not anyone is adding in PF or DDI subscriptions is another matter, since those are Paizo and WotC internal numbers.


----------



## Mr Baron (Jan 19, 2011)

*Welcome Back!*

Looking forward to reading your monthly essays!


----------



## tenkar (Jan 19, 2011)

Damn insightful.  Even a shout out to the OSR movement


----------



## Goblinoid Games (Jan 19, 2011)

Ryan, I'm very much interested in your column and look forward to future articles. As an OSR publisher I'm infinitely grateful for your work on the OGL and SRD, which is why I mention you in the acknowledgments of my core books. Thanks again!


----------



## danbuter1 (Jan 19, 2011)

I'm not really surprised that PF would tie with 4e in sales. It had a built in audience. 

I think it's funny that some people actually think 4e is outselling 3e, though.

The future will be very interesting at WotC. I suspect 5e, if it is ever published, has been bumped up based on sales alone.


----------



## delericho (Jan 19, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> It's been discussed several places on the board; an industry magazine published that D&D 4 was tied with Pathfinder as the best selling RPG in game stories, and Erik Mona said that matched the data he had.




Indeed. I knew they were tied; what I found surprising was the assertion that Pathfinder was _outselling_ 4e.



> Whether or not anyone is adding in PF or DDI subscriptions is another matter, since those are Paizo and WotC internal numbers.




This is a very important factor. Both Pathfinder and 4e do a huge proportion of their business directly now. (4e probably does more, but will also have significantly higher costs.)

Interesting times.


----------



## cibet (Jan 19, 2011)

Mr Dancey,

I look forward to your column. Great to have you back in the RPG public space.

Did you ever think you would see this day and the state of the current version of D&D as compared to the previous versions and one 3.5 clone particularly? You probably did.

I hope your next professional position puts you back in the RPG publishing space.


----------



## Ry (Jan 19, 2011)

(psst. Ry to Ry, I can't wait to read more of your thoughts.)


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 19, 2011)

Thanks RyanD, that pretty much resonates with my perspective. In some sense it seems that WotC has become a kind of tragedy of errors - they just keep on making similar mistakes, errors of judgment, etc, as if they're really out of touch with reality. Make one mistake? OK, might as well compound it with another. 

As an anecdote, I got the Red Box for my 10-year old nephew for Christmas; he also received _Castle Ravenloft _from his father. He was very excited about the latter product but after flipping through the contents of the Red Box, his response was "Do I have to read all of this?" Obviously this is just one child and he isn't necessarily exemplary of all 10-year olds, but it does say _something_ and points to the kind of identity confusion that is exemplified by the Red Box. 

Now while I agree with you that D&D cannot compete with MMOs, I think it is a mistake to even try, that WotC should instead focus their energies on making and advertising a game as a kind of antidote or alternative to the simulative virtual experience of MMOs. Stuff like this: _Dungeons & Dragons: A Game of Story, Adventure, and Imagination. _That last word is key: D&D is primarily a game of _imagination _and it should be designed and marketed as such. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't _enhance _that game with technology, but that it should be just that: enhancement and thus secondary, not primary.

I honestly think that D&D could remain a strong product for years to come, but I unfortunately doubt that WotC has the right staff to really make it shine. Hopefully I'm wrong, but the last couple years isn't all that encouraging.

Anyhow, thanks for your response - I look forward to your columns.


----------



## Qwillion (Jan 19, 2011)

Thanks for taking the time to write this column. 

I hope to read more.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 19, 2011)

Ryan, thanks for leading us to the promised land. Before 3e, I hadn't played AD&D in years, now look at me playing and writing for Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft and digging M&M big-time.


----------



## xechnao (Jan 19, 2011)

Ryan, many people and many gamers are very glad for giving D&D to the OGL. 

Personally, I suspect that it harmed the hobby but nobody can really evaluate this matter in a clear and strict way, so I let it pass.

It is very interesting though that Pathfinder is outselling D&D and this fact creates thoughts about an environment of opportunities for expanding the hobby since all people's horizons may finally rise above the shadows of a 800lb gorilla.

But more importantly I can't but feel a great respect for Paizo, because if it were not for their efforts, I believe that the hobby would have lost many.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 19, 2011)

Welcome back Ryan Dancey, I look forward to reading more of your stuff. I mean you are the main reason I came back to DnD and stayed with D20. The OGL was perfect from my point of view. It gave us a core framework game to build off of and any niche products that might appeal to me but not big enough for big companies to sell. Let 3pp make, which let me plug and play with tons of options to create the type of game that fit me and my group perfectly. I personally think the OGL was the best thing to ever happen to the hobby.

Hope to see you more active in the forums too.


----------



## Steve W (Jan 20, 2011)

Ryan,

Glad to see you'll be posting some thoughts here.

Steve
www.DriveThruRPG.com


----------



## Croesus (Jan 20, 2011)

Interesting comments so far - thanks.

And on the off chance that you're accepting ideas for future essays... 

I've often felt my dream RPG system would be very simple at its core. Basic rules and play that a 10 year old can learn, but with enough flexibility that anyone can create good game sessions using just the base rules.  No massive 300+ page tomes need apply.

Then layer on options. More robust magic systems. More detailed skill system. Martial maneuvers for combat. Psionics. World-building. And so on. The idea is each gaming group can mix and match whichever options they want, all around the (relatively) simple core rules.

I'm not referring to a "red box" intro game, but a way of designing the RPG rules so that individual groups can select the level of complexity they want, while still playing essentially the same game as all the other groups.

From a game publisher's point of view - what are the pros and cons of such an approach? Could it be a viable business model for a TRPG? And if so, any idea why no one seems to have done this? (The closest I've seen are the 5E and 6E Hero Sidekick rules, but even those are just stripped-down from the much heavier "real" rules of the game.)


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 20, 2011)

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION], getting Ryan Dancey as a columnist is a major coup. Good work.


----------



## digitaldraco (Jan 21, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Now while I agree with you that D&D cannot compete with MMOs, I think it is a mistake to even try, that WotC should instead focus their energies on making and advertising a game as a kind of antidote or alternative to the simulative virtual experience of MMOs.




Something like this, maybe? 









(This was an actual Wizards of the Coast ad, published in magazines to promote 3e.)


----------



## JohnnFour (Jan 21, 2011)

First column was an interesting read.

Looking forward to the DM advice, Ryan!


----------



## ThickSkullAdv (Jan 21, 2011)

Ryan, as someone as involved with the OGL that you were, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts/insights on the 4E GSL.


----------



## RyanD (Jan 22, 2011)

ManosFate said:


> I'd be curious to hear your thoughts/insights on the 4E GSL.




It's essentially worthless.  So few entities are using it that Wizards would have been better off with a confidential set of 1-off licenses.

RyanD


----------



## Matt James (Jan 22, 2011)

Hey Ryan, welcome to ENworld! I look forward to reading your future columns. I was just curious what you were up to these days. What is your current role when it comes to the RPG industry?


----------



## ashockney (Jan 23, 2011)

Welcome back, old friend.  We said, "see you later".  Now we will renew our friendship as if you had never left.  We'll both be richer for our journeys during our times apart.  We'll let the longing that filled our hearts, renew our bonds.  I look forward to laughter, stories, and rekindling old memories.  Welcome back, indeed.


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 24, 2011)

Ryan:  

FYI, I enjoyed Ruins of Ravens Bluff.  I was sorry Organized Play had such a short and frustrating run.

Much more importantly, I can't thank you enough for creating the OGL.  You saved my game!

:AMN:


----------



## RyanD (Jan 24, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> FYI, I enjoyed Ruins of Ravens Bluff.  I was sorry Organized Play had such a short and frustrating run.:




I should have known better than to go up against Living Greyhawk.  It was such a better solution than Living City.  I learned a lot about large social campaigns but also spent way too much money trying to fight the tide.

Ruins wasn't a good idea but it was the only one I had.  I should probably have shut the campaign down rather than try a reboot.  Hindsight is 20/20, and the biggest lesson learned was that the constrained resource was quality scenario writers not event organizers.  When the design community switched to Living Greyhawk it sucked the oxygen out of Living City.  I was kidding myse.f to think I could keep writing enough content all by myself to keep the game alive.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 24, 2011)

Very glad to see you 



RyanD said:


> Second, I have no clue what Wizards thinks it is doing with the "red box". The Intro product for D&D has one, and only one purpose: To introduce 12-14 year old kids to the roleplaying hobby and start them on the path to become purchasers of the core books. That product must be designed to sell in mass market stores where it can get the widest possible distribution outside of the hobby core (where you can safely assume that gamers are teaching gamers without the need of a special product to do it). It must be priced correctly vs. the other games it is shelved with, and it must be packaged and presented in a way that a mother would be comfortable buying as a gift for the son or daughter of a friend.
> 
> The "red box" looks like a nostalgia product designed to be sold to 40 year-olds who want to relive a moment of their childhoods. I don't get the art or the font - neither will appeal to either kids or moms in CE2011. It doesn't look like any other products in the 4E line so how will people know that it connects? Doesn't even matter what's inside the box - this is one of those things that has to sell on its presentation on the shelf.




I think you've almost hit the nail on the thread.  Those 40 year olds are the parents of the kids the red box is meant for.  Which means that the nostalgia trip involved isn't primarily for the 40 year olds, but it's intended for the 40 year olds to give their twelve year old kids or nephews and nieces.  "I enjoyed this when I was young.  So my kids should too."  It's not appealing to the moms, but the dads who used to play


----------



## darjr (Jan 25, 2011)

RyanD said:


> I should have known better than to go up against Living Greyhawk.  It was such a better solution than Living City.  I learned a lot about large social campaigns but also spent way too much money trying to fight the tide.
> 
> Ruins wasn't a good idea but it was the only one I had.  I should probably have shut the campaign down rather than try a reboot.  Hindsight is 20/20, and the biggest lesson learned was that the constrained resource was quality scenario writers not event organizers.  When the design community switched to Living Greyhawk it sucked the oxygen out of Living City.  I was kidding myse.f to think I could keep writing enough content all by myself to keep the game alive.




I know your focus isn't on living campaigns, but I would be keenly interested in what you have to say about them and their current forms. Especially LFR vs PFS vs Encounters and this new thing by wizards.


----------



## RyanD (Jan 26, 2011)

Well Living City was one of the most humbling experiences I have had so I better have learned something from it.  

OrganizedPlay was never supposed to be in the content creation business.  I designed the company to be the "back office" for hobby gaming businesses (and hopefully later videogame businesses) that wanted Wizards of the Coast level on-line support for their games.

I licensed Living City from Wizards because I felt that I needed a test case for RPGs.  My relationship with AEG meant that I would have a test case for CCGs with Legend of the Five Rings, and I thought Living City would be a good platform to show what we could do for RPGs.

When I was extricating myself from Wizards Living Greyhawk had not really "hit".  Living City was still doing well in terms of drawing submissions of content and interest from event organizers.  In the 6 months or so between the time I started the licensing process, wrote the software, and took charge of the campaign, all hell had broken loose.  RyanD of 2011 would have known to pull the plug right there, but RyanD of 2000 was still too damn stubborn to admit he'd made a mistake.

What happened was that the supply of usable scenarios completely evaporated.  The ability of Living Greyhawk to induce vastly more content out of the community just overwhelmed Living City.  That in turn lead players to prefer Living Greyhawk, and eventually event organizers to cater to the market by running Living Greyhawk in place of Living City.

Here are some key lessons I learned:

1: It's all about the scenarios.  CCG organized play is all about the event organizers.  RPG organized play is all about the content.

1A:  Writing a good 4 hour scenario is really hard.  It's not something that most people get right on their first try.  Most people tend to make them too long, so that they can't be finished, and they tend to assume too much about the potential characters (they mostly vastly underestimate them).

1B:  Making a 4 hour scenario that will be generic enough to be interesting to a lot of people for a long time is hard too.  These things have to live in libraries of content for a significant time so they really can't be too locked in to a moment of continuity.

1C:  The default designer idea of making "X of Y" scenarios is a rat hole.  Far too many abandon the project in the middle leaving players who were playing them frustrated.  Players who have been burned before don't start them.  Soon nobody will use them so it's all wasted effort.

1D:  You have to assume the min-maxed character.  When building a scenario you have to assume that the Rogue will have the maximum possible skills vs. "thiefing" stuff.  And you have to really understand the game to understand how big that number will get.  Likewise you have to understand how high the save DCs have to be and how high the AC of the PCs will be.  All these numbers astound the average home gamer.

2:  People care less about who they play with than you might think, with one major exception.  You really don't have to worry too much about who sits at what table so long as there's a good mix of classes and the right levels.

2A:  The exception is parents who play with their kids.  There's a number of people who have convinced themselves that this is a family bonding opportunity and if they can't play with their kids (or less common their significant other) they won't play.  Even if they "only" have a 15th level character and the scenario is for 5th level PCs.

3:  Cheating is rampant.  We shut down several well organized cheating rings during my time running Living City and sadly, some of the most intense volunteer effort for the campaign went into stopping this.  Far too many people were willing to look the other way and not report cheaters, or served as "laundromats" to "wash" forged materials creating a chain of provenance to hide their compromised origins.

3A:  This is why we were working so hard on digital certs.  Today, with iOS this would be a snap but in 2000-2001 it was perceived as "impossible" technology by too many players & event organizers.

The #1 biggest lesson I learned is that you *MUST* monetize through sales, not through subscriptions or event fees.  If we had started with the idea of publishing the scenarios for profit and letting people play for free, we may have been able to make the campaign work because good content will be purchased by people who aren't playing the campaign just for their home games.

This is (in hindsight) particularly irksome to me because the contract I had with Wizards would have let me do this including using the Forgotten Realms and the Dungeons & Dragons brand trade dress.  My desire to *NOT* be a game publisher blinded me to the fact that I should have become one if I wanted to try and keep the campaign alive.  I started down this path but didn't have the resources or the will to continue.

(All to the better though.  I was really unwilling to invest money in a publishing company at that time and I really did want to be a service company instead so the correct decision was to exit the campaign, not transform the company.  I wish I'd done it before I spent a couple hundred thousand dollars though.    )

I can't comment on anything happening currently because I stopped paying attention when I exited Living City.  Just had too many other things on my plate.  I do like to cruise through the "Living" area of most cons I attend and get a sense for the crowd size and activity levels.  Seems like there's more of this than ever but a fairly diverse mix of what's being played.  The RPGA, to my mind, seems to have had its act very well together but that's a surface impression not a detailed analysis.

RyanD


----------



## amethal (Jan 26, 2011)

RyanD said:


> It's essentially worthless.  So few entities are using it that Wizards would have been better off with a confidential set of 1-off licenses.



Interesting to see your opinion on the GSL.

By one off licenses, do you mean give each company its own individual license, tailored to what they want to do? Or do you mean a license to do 1 product, and come back and see us if you want to do another one?

I got the impression at the time that a section of WotC (and/or Hasbro?) hated the very idea of licensing, and so each one off license would have taken months if not years of wrangling before it could be finalised.

And maybe with the GSL, WotC ultimately got the result they wanted without having to come out and admit that 4th edition was going to be a completely closed edition.


----------



## RyanD (Jan 27, 2011)

Yes, I mean a liscence just between the parties.

I think Wizards ended up with what they wanted and minimized the fallout on launch of 4e.


----------



## Matt James (Feb 3, 2011)

Not sure if my post got lost in here, I was just curious to see what you were up to these days in the industry. Last I heard it was CCP? Also, I wanted to see if you would comment on this post stating that D&D 4e was in a death spiral a couple years back. There are many similarities between that post and this current article, and I wanted your insight as to what has changed that would make your current prediction valid. As we know, D&D 4e did not death spiral after all.


----------



## see (Feb 6, 2011)

Matt James said:


> As we know, D&D 4e did not death spiral after all.



We know that?  Really?

D&D is no longer the indisputable #1 RPG, and a whole bunch of announced D&D product was canceled last month.  Sure looks like serious decline to me.  But maybe you have some actual hard evidence to the contrary?


----------



## RyanD (Feb 7, 2011)

Matt, I left CCP in November.  I can't talk about the major project I'm currently working on except to say that I am working on one.  In addition I'm doing some side projects like judging the 2011 edition of RPG Superstar for Paizo, writing this column, and doing some consulting work for MMO publishers.

Is D&D in a death spiral?  Well I have seen some things that would tend to say yes, and some that would tend to say no.  In the affirmative column is product cancellations and what appears to be a very confused product offering.  In the negative column is the continued commitment Wizards is showing to the DDI project and to RPGA activities.

Wizards just hired a new executive who is in charge of the marketing for all its brands.  I suspect that there's a period of introspection underway while strategies undergo a top-to-bottom reassessment.

I also know that D&D except for tabletop gaming (and DDI) has been put into some kind of intra-company working group to better manage it as a license.  D&D makes Hasbro an astonishing amount of money from licenses, most of which appears without much direct work on their part - companies come out of the woodwork with ideas for licensed D&D products and Hasbro pretty much has to just work to pick the best ideas and then impose some brand discipline on its licensors. Those matters are confused further by the fact that the D&D movie rights are in play (always), and the D&D videogame rights are (or were) a part of the Hasbro/Infogrames/Atari/Whateverthehell tie-up which seems to undergo periodic revisions.  Anyway, a little bit of focus in this area probably is a good thing in terms of making Hasbro happy with the return on its D&D investments, regardless of what the tabletop game does.

Lets revisit this topic in February of 2012.  I think the matter will be decided by then.  The current state is just too murky to make a determination.

RyanD


----------



## Feeroper (Feb 11, 2011)

see said:


> We know that? Really?
> 
> D&D is no longer the indisputable #1 RPG, and a whole bunch of announced D&D product was canceled last month. Sure looks like serious decline to me. But maybe you have some actual hard evidence to the contrary?




The products cancelled were partially done so to put their release schedule in line with the new philosophy of theme. They are releasing these products to conincide with themed encounters seasons for example. 

Another reason stated was that they didnt want to add any more bloat ala 3.X. Some of the materiel was repurposed into other products, and other stuff was removed as it isnt ready for release, or wasnt a worthy addition.

I was initially curious about it and what it all meant, but after hearing them discuss it in length at DDXP, I felt pretty satisfied with their answer. 

Also, just to add, we know 4e didnt death spiral back then because it still sells today. It was stated by Mr Dancey that he thought it was in a death spiral a couple years ago, yet still it occupies the largest shelf real estate in most book/gaming stores. It is true that D&D may not be the undisputed #1 anymore, as Paizo has done a fine job with PF and deserve their success, but just because you are no longer head and shoulders above, does not mean that you are now in a "death spiral". Its just not the only big kid on the block anymore.

Think of it like this - the Sony PlayStation 3 launched to really low sales compared to what was expected. They were the king of the hill the previous generation with PS2 and no one came close. When PS3 launched everyone said sony was in its own "death spiral". They really were the joke of the industry at that time. But wait, what happened? They rebranded the PS3 image with the 'slim' model, and regained some lost ground, building up their image again with new IPs as opposed to only relying on the previous winners. Sure PS3 isnt #1 anymore, infact, its arguable that they are still #3 in the console war, but does that mean the PS3 is basically dead? Clearly not.

I know its apples and oranges, but thats kinda the way I see it. WotC ruffled a few feathers with the radical shift in design for 4e, and as a result Paizo was able to capitalize on the market for those that prefered 3.5. However 4e did not just roll over and die, it grew and expanded greatly, and pulled alot of people into the hobby who hadnt played before, as well as bringing some old 1e or 2e players back into the fold. So despite not obliterating the competition, they ran with what they had, and grew it into a success. At least from what Im seeing it is a success. 

In the end though it doesnt matter - people like what they like. i happen to like both 4e and Pathfinder and play both regularily. 

Also to Ryan - I meant no offence to you in this post, I really appretiate what you did for this industry, and I certainly respect your opinion on the matter.


----------



## see (Feb 12, 2011)

Feeroper said:


> Also, just to add, we know 4e didnt death spiral back then because it still sells today.




Um, no.  We know 4e hasn't _crashed_.  But the whole point of a real death spiral (a spiral dive/graveyard spiral) is that it starts slowly and gradually, the plane doesn't look like it's in trouble even though altitude is declining, and the seemingly-reasonable effort to correct what seems like a minor problem actively worsens the situation.

D&D may well have entered a death spiral in 2009 and still be in it.  Certainly, we don't have conclusive evidence that the spiral exists, but we also have seen no conclusive contrary evidence, either.  Saying "Ryan Dancey was wrong in 2009" might be stating a fact.  But it might be the equivalent of a skydiver yelling, "See!  The parachute failure wasn't a big deal!  I've made it 19,000 feet without it or injury!" a mere thousand feet before he hits asphalt head-first.


----------



## Feeroper (Feb 12, 2011)

see said:


> Um, no. We know 4e hasn't _crashed_. But the whole point of a real death spiral (a spiral dive/graveyard spiral) is that it starts slowly and gradually, the plane doesn't look like it's in trouble even though altitude is declining, and the seemingly-reasonable effort to correct what seems like a minor problem actively worsens the situation.
> 
> D&D may well have entered a death spiral in 2009 and still be in it. Certainly, we don't have conclusive evidence that the spiral exists, but we also have seen no conclusive contrary evidence, either. Saying "Ryan Dancey was wrong in 2009" might be stating a fact. But it might be the equivalent of a skydiver yelling, "See! The parachute failure wasn't a big deal! I've made it 19,000 feet without it or injury!" a mere thousand feet before he hits asphalt head-first.





This is just a different climate for D&D. However I can understand though why some people jump to that conclusion based on the previous editions success. 

Although Im certainly willing to concede that maybe it is in a bad spot and that we just cant see it. However, the opposite could also be true, and based on what I can see, I dont believe it is in a death spiral. It sells today, and it sells wel enough to take up the shelf real estate it does. The Encounters program is a success. DDI is a success. Obviously we dont have any hard #'s and cannot truly say one thing or the other, but based on what my FLGS staff tell me, 4e sells really well. I know thats not proof of anything other than 4e sells well in my area, but still, its something. 

Now I know there will be quite a few 3.5/PF fans that loathe 4e on this columns board. Thats fine of course, but you cant make grand claims about a "death spiral" and then shoot others down for having an opposite opinion when neither one of you is armed with straight facts. 

As I said, I concede that I could be wrong, but that is merely how I see it. Obviously there are others who see it the other way, and thats fine. Either way, this is a great time for me as I actively play both 4e and PF, so I feel like the competition works in my favour. In the case of weather or not 4e is "death spiraling" or not, We will just have to agree to disagree. We are all gamers here after all


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 19, 2011)

RangerWickett said:


> Also, I wish you were still had a say in WotC's production. I don't know why there aren't iPad or smart phone apps for D&D.




Likely because nobody has either paid to develop them, or has spent the time to develop them.  I've asked some developers I know about costs to develop iPad apps, and it generally doesn't seem *too* expensive......but you'd still have to sell a fair number of them through the app store to turn a profit.  I'm not sure what Apple's take is.

Banshee


----------

