# WotC's Nathan Stewart: "Story, Story, Story"; and IS D&D a Tabletop Game?



## Halivar (Apr 15, 2015)

I like what I'm reading, with one caveat: There does need to be a psionics product, if only for the support of previous edition campaign conversions. But yeah, I agree that splat needs to have purpose. 75% of all the prestige classes in 3.x were gimmicky, silly, and contrived. There were a few gems, but these were highly thematic and probably best belonged in a campaign book or adventure path.


----------



## Chimpy (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm pretty pleased with the direction D&D is going at the moment. I would like to see some shorter adventures published though, preferably tying into the bigger story arcs.


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Apr 15, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I like what I'm reading, with one caveat: There does need to be a psionics product, if only for the support of previous edition campaign conversions.





Like he said, that would be released to support one of their per year stories (Squid-Head Terror, or what-have-you), but he did mention books maybe being released outside of the stories deal, if there was demand.


----------



## Osgood (Apr 15, 2015)

I really hope they alternate between big stories, smaller adventures, and campaign settings, but it doesn't look hopeful. It seems to me that's the best way to keep fans of multiple styles of D&D happy, rather than focusing solely on Realms-flavored monolithic-campaign-style D&D.


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Apr 15, 2015)

I am thrilled on the story story story idea with not just doing another phb, just cuz.
That will make some people unhappy.  If we get more UA's helping on how to create things that will work for me.  I am the few not happy on FR setting focus, as I want official eberrron. Oh well just gotta do it myself, which is fun too but time consuming.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 15, 2015)

Staying in the Forgotten Realms... 

Thank God!

My dream of regional books in one form or another is still alive.

ALIVE!


----------



## Zaran (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't understand why this is making everyone cheer.  They basically said that we aren't getting anything to use in MY stories.  Just stuff I have to steal from theirs.   I don't want their stories.  I want tools for making my own.

It's great that they want to give us video games but it doesn't do anything for my home game.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 15, 2015)

I am a little puzzled by the tabletop game remark. Not sure what he is saying there.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 15, 2015)

Sounds like the are considering one-shots in addition to APs, "I wouldn’t be surprised if we do some books here and there that pick up things that the fanbase wants in between stories, because of the feedback we’re hearing. But by and large everything we’re delivering is supporting that annual story"


----------



## AverageCitizen (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't mean to be a downer here, but are D&D stories really any good? I have only limited experience, but all the pre-made stories I've seen come out of WotC, including lost mine of Phandelver, are cheesy as hell.


----------



## ZeshinX (Apr 15, 2015)

Well, that's it for me and 5e/WotC then.  Pity, I found 5e as a system to be excellent (still do), but if this is their idea of supporting a new edition, then count me out.  4e shoved me into Pathfinder's arms, WotC direction with 5e has ensured I'll stay there.

At least WotC made it an easy decision for me.


----------



## Pauper (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm always left cold when I hear folks at WotC talking about 'the brand', because as a gamer, I'm not really interacting with 'the brand'. I'm playing the D&D game that is available to me. Right now, that is (despite the brand dude's assertion to the contrary) the tabletop game, which seems to be going great gangbusters locally as far as Organized Play stuff is concerned (I'm planning to hit yet another new store offering Adventurers League tonight), but a while back it was the weird D&D: Arena of War iPhone game, and before that it was the Lords of Waterdeep board game which I played to reassure myself the 'brand' wasn't dying as local groups running Living Forgotten Realms kept disappearing.

Listening to WotC brand guys is like listening to LucasFilm brand guys prior to the Disney buy-out; they realize they're sitting on a mountain of IP that other people are more than willing to pay rent to be able to make some trifling amount of money on, and they live in mortal fear that somebody is going to mess up badly enough to convince the really big IP tenants that this particular well has run dry.

Basically I get the feeling that the WotC brand guys want to be the Marvel brand guys when they grow up.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 15, 2015)

The good news is that the is a world sale on bitter almonds...


----------



## ehren37 (Apr 15, 2015)

ZeshinX said:


> Well, that's it for me and 5e/WotC then.  Pity, I found 5e as a system to be excellent (still do), but if this is their idea of supporting a new edition, then count me out.  4e shoved me into Pathfinder's arms, WotC direction with 5e has ensured I'll stay there.
> 
> At least WotC made it an easy decision for me.




Psst... just run Pathfinder modules in 5E. Even with the work of converting its simpler than dealing with the bloat and slog of the rules.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 15, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I like what I'm reading, with one caveat: There does need to be a psionics product, if only for the support of previous edition campaign conversions. But yeah, I agree that splat needs to have purpose.



 Yes. Psionics was a glaring omission.  So was the Warlord.

There'd be lots of purpose in adding psionics and expanding martial options (which are currently high-single target DPR).  Two splats that might be well received.



> 75% of all the prestige classes in 3.x were gimmicky, silly, and contrived. There were a few gems, but these were highly thematic and probably best belonged in a campaign book or adventure path.



 I don't know about the exact percentage, but some of 'em were essentially ways to kludge MCing or other rules issues.  "Well you can't do this concept because this rule..."  "Here's a PrC for it."  (Which is better than: "too bad, pick another concept.")


----------



## Greg K (Apr 15, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I don't understand why this is making everyone cheer.  They basically said that we aren't getting anything to use in MY stories.  Just stuff I have to steal from theirs.   I don't want their stories.  I want tools for making my own.




I agree. I started to post the same thing earlier and stopped.  I have only one friend that is running their adventures. Nobody else I know wants their stories. We want more tools for creating our own settings and stories and were holding off on purchasing 5e to see what WOTC releases before laying out the money. This is not promising ( and I was about to break and go to B&N tonight and tomorrow to purchase the PHB and DMG. Now, I considering going back to holding out).

  Don't get me wrong, I had a strong dislike for 95%+ of the PrC's in 3e books. I found them worthless tripe (I had a similar dislike for Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies in 4e).  However, their current plan will not appear to provide the support that I want in a timely manner


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Apr 15, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes. Psionics was a glaring omission.  So was the Warlord.





Well, obviously not, psionics are only in one PH, and as an optional appendix, no psionic races or classes, and warlord is a controversial class (Henisoo's pet) that has only been in one PHB.  

So, yeah, not even close to glaring or a real omission.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 15, 2015)

Of course this is my favorite part:



> I think if you would have told us –or anyone– that before launch, they would’ve said, “Really? You’re gonna do bigger than third edition or 3.5?” and the answer is, undoubtedly, yes.
> 
> Everything exceeded our forecast. ...we forecasted pretty high. And we re-printed everything, so when everything exceeded our forecast, in most cases we re-printed within weeks of the official launch, if not months.




And right now D&D on Amazon still has the top four products in fantasy gaming and the PHB is still in the top 200 overall nine months after launch, which is really unprecedented for an RPG book. 

Sorry, had to do that.

One funny bit is that he doesn't talk up new player acquisition. He talks up everything else (well, besides the digital fail) but not that. Clearly it has to be a major focus of his. Maybe that's why he wants the big video game?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Apr 15, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am a little puzzled by the tabletop game remark. Not sure what he is saying there.




I'm guessing he left out a word.  At least I'm hoping that's the case.  I'm guessing he meant to say, "Dungeons and Dragons stopped being *only* a tabletop game years or decades ago."

Because that I'd agree with.  But it very much is a tabletop RPG.  If you base your focus on digital only and don't care about the TT part of it?  You shouldn't be working on D&D, in my opinion.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 15, 2015)

Of course D&D is a tabletop game, but it hasn't been _just_ a tabletop game in a very long time. Which is as it should be - tabletop games have a limited reach, but every time a video game or a movie or a Saturday morning cartoon "clicks" with a fan, that's one more person the brand has resonated with and one more person ripe for recruiting into a Saturday night gaming session.

The most interesting line was already pounced on by Mistwell, though - the fact that they're considering inter-AP releases based on fan feedback. After the Chris Perkins settings thread, I don't think those'll be settings books. Actually I'd wager they're like to be smaller adventures rather than "character options" books, which I expect we'll rather see in the form of AP player's companions.

As for not wanting to play 5E without ongoing, non-AP support - I can understand the feeling, but I think the majority of players view support more like "Oh cool, characters can read people's minds now? Maybe I'll pick up the book that lets me do that", rather than "If Wizards of the Coast doesn't announce a Psionics Handbook within the first 12 months of 5E's release I will not have any fun playing it, so I am done with this edition."

Wizards certainly doesn't seem to be worried about the dearth of splatbooks.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2015)

It is not because the core books sold well at launch, and there are reasons* why they sold well, that the rest will sell well. See 4e for that. 

5e, as a RPG, looks like a stillbirth. A shame. D&D has a special place in my heart. Right new to beer and scotch.


*Two years without anything being published, a long playtest that made people curious, a promise to return to pre-4e paradigms...


----------



## Random Catchphrase (Apr 15, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm guessing he left out a word.  At least I'm hoping that's the case.  I'm guessing he meant to say, "Dungeons and Dragons stopped being *only* a tabletop game years or decades ago."
> 
> Because that I'd agree with.  But it very much is a tabletop RPG.  If you base your focus on digital only and don't care about the TT part of it?  You shouldn't be working on D&D, in my opinion.




Yep, he is saying that franchise is no longer table top only after Baldur's Gate release.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> 5e, as a RPG, looks like a stillbirth.



If the baby's still screamin' 6 months after popping out, it ain't a stillbirth.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> As for not wanting to play 5E without ongoing, non-AP support - I can understand the feeling, but I think the majority of players view support more like "Oh cool, characters can read people's minds now? Maybe I'll pick up the book that lets me do that", rather than *"If Wizards of the Coast doesn't announce a Psionics Handbook within the first 12 months of 5E's release I will not have any fun playing it, so I am done with this edition."*
> 
> Wizards certainly doesn't seem to be worried about the dearth of splatbooks.



To me people sound more like "WotC will not support the edition to a level that captures my interest, so I'll just move on to other games that are supported."


----------



## ZeshinX (Apr 15, 2015)

ehren37 said:


> Psst... just run Pathfinder modules in 5E. Even with the work of converting its simpler than dealing with the bloat and slog of the rules.




Easy enough, yep, but I don't run modules/APs, I always create my own adventures and stories.

I'll just stick to Pathfinder.  I enjoy the rules and can easily ignore or house rule the bloat away.  I might play in someone's homebrew 5e game, but at this point, I won't run one.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 15, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I don't understand why this is making everyone cheer.  They basically said that we aren't getting anything to use in MY stories.  Just stuff I have to steal from theirs.   I don't want their stories.  I want tools for making my own.
> 
> It's great that they want to give us video games but it doesn't do anything for my home game.




I am glad the splat factory is closed. And you have the core books. They have a lot for the home game.

He does say:



> If we need to deliver rules to the player audience there is a number of ways for us to do that...
> 
> I wouldn’t be surprised if we do some books here and there that pick up things that the fanbase wants in between stories, because of the feedback we’re hearing.




But ya, its a lot of story.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 15, 2015)

If he meant to add 'only' that makes way more sense. I was sitting there scratching my head thinking he must have some bigger point I was missing.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 15, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I don't understand why this is making everyone cheer.  They basically said that we aren't getting anything to use in MY stories.  Just stuff I have to steal from theirs.   I don't want their stories.  I want tools for making my own.
> 
> It's great that they want to give us video games but it doesn't do anything for my home game.



I fully agree. It's all about THEIR story, but they're not giving us the tools for OUR stories.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> To me people sound more like "WotC will not support the edition to a level that captures my interest, so I'll just move on to other games that are supported."




That is exactly what they're saying. What I'm saying is that most players, if they buy supplements at all, buy them because they exist and are interesting to them - but the lack of said supplements doesn't negatively impact their experience in the slightest.

It's unfortunate for those players for whom that is a dealbreaker, of course - but it's not going to kill the edition, and there are other games out there that do have higher levels of support.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2015)

Halivar said:


> If the baby's still screamin' 6 months after popping out, it ain't a stillbirth.



It sounds more like it is loosing momentum and goodwill. 

Look at PotA. It is behind the core rule books in rank and it just got out. http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Fantasy-Gaming/zgbs/books/16211/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_2_25 According to novelrank, it is #468 on amazon and sold 226 books. http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0786965789 Considering it just launched and it is their only product released in the last 4 months and probably their last until GenCon, I do not see this as encouraging.  

The PHB is ranked #189 and sold 600 copies. http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0786965606

Compared to january were 4,000 PHB were sold, 5,000 the first month it launched, it doesn't look like the train is gathering momentum. 

Maybe those numbers are irrelevant if you do not plan to support the RPG and just want to sell video games. A shame when you just like RPGs.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 15, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> I fully agree. It's all about THEIR story, but they're not giving us the tools for OUR stories.



With the exception of the Manual of the Planes and Campaign Setting guides, I'm hard pressed to see how previous edition crunch books beyond the core supplied tools for any stories. I see a lot of player-oriented power creep, but not a lot of story.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Apr 15, 2015)

Random Catchphrase said:


> Yep, he is saying that franchise is no longer table top only after Baldur's Gate release.




I think you meant to say "after Intellivision's D&D game" 

Or at the very least the Gold Box series


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 15, 2015)

Halivar said:


> With the exception of the Manual of the Planes and Campaign Setting guides, I'm hard pressed to see how previous edition crunch books beyond the core supplied tools for any stories. I see a lot of player-oriented power creep, but not a lot of story.




Who are you to deny the repetitive internet negativity with such a reasonable post?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 15, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am a little puzzled by the tabletop game remark. Not sure what he is saying there.




Read it through the filter of the High Church of Marketing (he is, after all, the Brand Manager), and the meaning is clearer: _D&D_ isn't a tabletop game, it's a brand. The tabletop game is one expression of that brand - it's "spiritual core," in the interview. But the tabletop game isn't all of D&D - that would imply that people who play the D&D videogames or who enjoy a D&D movie or a D&D TV show aren't "part of D&D," and they would be, when you look at the world through Brand-colored glasses, because they're spending money on D&D things.

I do like that he mentioned that he wants digital tools to help enhance the tabletop experience, that was an interesting statement. And from the biz perspective, "the best launch we've ever had" speaks pretty highly of 5e's success. 

But Nathan Stewart is a brand dude, so he'll see the thing through those glasses. Those are the glasses he is paid to wear.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 15, 2015)

> Well, obviously not, psionics are only in one PH, and as an optional appendix, no psionic races or classes, and warlord has only been in one PHB.



The Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Shadow & Elemental Monks, Chaos Sorcerers, and Valor Bard were never in a PH.  The Warlock, Sorcerer, and even Barbarian were each in a PH1 for only one edition, they're full classes.  Every class that was a full class in a PH1 in at least 1 edition is in the 5e PH - except the Warlord.  That's a glaring omission.

And, Psionics have been in every edition.  Even if it has always been in an appendix or supplement, they deserve to be an option in 5e for those who want them, even though there are others who feel they don't fit the fantasy genre.  Maybe it's not exactly 'glaring,' because it's so often been in a later supplement, but it'll start to glare eventually... ;P


----------



## Agamon (Apr 15, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am a little puzzled by the tabletop game remark. Not sure what he is saying there.




Looks like he meant to say that it's not "just" a tabletop game anymore.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 15, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> And, Psionics have been in every edition.



Yep. But always on a delay.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't have any problem with this attitude is so long as it doesn't cause them to lose focus.  I feel like we're being told that they are both interested in staying focused (by staying in a single setting with a connected narrative moving through it) but at the same time not focused on the genre.  Video games are great, but as Paizo and GoblinWorks is finding out, _incredibly_ expensive and people's standards now are incredibly high.  5E needs to be a standing success for a while before they can reasonably start investing in video games.

I would like to see some more tertiary support for the game though, T-shirts, mugs, gaming dice, even if not directly from Wizards, but licensed through someone.  Wouldn't mind some animated entertainment either, the market is certainly going to be more friendly towards swords and sorcerery cartoons while shows like Game of Thrones are popular.  I would be concerned that it might be too "childish" though and equally that it would be too dark and not get aired at good times.

Still, I agree that there is more to D&D than what you're doing at the table and any good product knows this too.  What really needs to happen is Wizards needs to get that 3PP license out.  

Oh, it's nice to see they're not completely ignorant to the state of their digital...state.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 15, 2015)

Halivar said:


> and Campaign Setting guides



 And that's what I crave. The last FRCS is a decade ingame time out of date. That itself wouldn't be that much of an issue if the world didn't just go through a cataclysm supposed to give it a total overhaul. Nobody has a real picture about the state of things. I want to know how the slate looks right now.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 15, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> I fully agree. It's all about THEIR story, but they're not giving us the tools for OUR stories.




Has any edition of D&D ever provided ALL of the tools necessary for that? 

Let's say YOUR story is about a world where psionics play a major role. 2E, 3.0 and 3.5 didn't have psionics at release either, and 4E didn't introduce psionic classes until PHB 3. 5E 

And psionics is a relatively "big" subsystem - let's say you want to tell stories about a party where the characters are all dragons? If you're not playing 2E or willing to convert Council of Worms to your edition of choice, they're not giving you the tools you need for your story. A story where people use Incarnum to save the world? If you're not playing 3.5 or willing to convert Magic of Incarnum to your edition of choice, they're not giving you the tools you need for your story. A fairy tale story where the playable races are gingerbread men, nutcrackers, tooth fairies and ? No edition of D&D has ever given you all the tools you need for your story.

Anyone with an imagination to speak of can come up with a story that's not covered by the rules of D&D. So where should the cut-off be? Do we say psionics and playable dragons make the cut, because more people bought those books in past editions, but for incarnum and playable gingerbread men, you're on your own?

5E's like any other edition. You start with the core, which is pretty recognizable the "core" of D&D, and then new things get tacked on to it. Maybe those new things are the things you're interested in, maybe they're not. Psionics is a good bet, though depending on how long you're willing to wait for those rules before jumping ship for another RPG, perhaps not in a timeframe while you're still playing the game.

The design team isn't cackling with glee every time someone asks for a splatbook and they joyously refuse. It's just that they've _just_ put out a pretty complete core ruleset, and aren't going to bend over backwards to fill in every single niche expansion product just because _someone_ would buy it. This is the slow and steady wins the race edition, which was built on fan input - when the general consensus is the game needs a psionics expansion (or playable dragons, or Incarnum, or a FRCS, or whatever) to move forward, I expect we'll see it soon after.


----------



## sandvirm (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm entirely happy without Psionics.  I've never been attracted to the flavor.  However I think they should be included in the core PHB for one reason:  it would increase the chance they are balanced with the core classes, unlike every previous edition.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 15, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> Has any edition of D&D ever provided ALL of the tools necessary for that?



 Any other edition has provided a lot of books that were not focused on a specific storyline.


Trickster Spirit said:


> when the general consensus is the game needs a psionics expansion (or  playable dragons, or Incarnum, or a FRCS, or whatever) to move forward, I  expect we'll see it soon after.]



There was a general consensus this game needs a PotA?


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It is not because the core books sold well at launch, and there are reasons* why they sold well, that the rest will sell well. See 4e for that.
> 
> 5e, as a RPG, looks like a stillbirth. A shame. D&D has a special place in my heart. Right new to beer and scotch.
> 
> ...




You're cute.


----------



## Zaran (Apr 15, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> Any other edition has provided a lot of books that were not focused on a specific storyline.
> There was a general consensus this game needs a PotA?




I'll expand on that question a little more.  There was a general consensus that the game needs storylines?


----------



## Mercule (Apr 15, 2015)

Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and give benefit of doubt for the "only" in that key sentence. He spent a good chunk of time bragging up how well the core books sold, so that fits. I'm curious, though, whether the better word to insert would be "primarily", rather than "only". I hope not.

At its core, D&D is a game that exists (IMO) to enable me to interactively tell stories with friends. In that regard, I agree with Nathan ("Stories, stories, stories"). My disagreement comes in that I think the key differentiating factor for D&D is that it's there to tell stories that occur on my world, not a published setting. Published settings are a great plus, but not core. Ditto for published adventures. 

I say that as someone who is using a published adventure (PoA) on a published setting (Eberron) due to having next to no time to prep. I lament my inability to play D&D to its "fullest", though. Functionally, I'm just peachy with them publishing "campaign in a box/book" type products, due to time constraints. However, I really, really don't like them being tied to the Realms. Hopefully, they keep coupling fairly low (PoA/Phandelver). I also hope they hear fans asking for a bit more support for other settings. 

D&D should never, ever become synonymous with Forgotten Realms. There should be a concerted effort to ensure FR is seen as only one implementation of D&D and not as the primary vehicle.

Once you go beyond settings, I really can't see much that's missing. Psionics is the only glaring hole.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It is not because the core books sold well at launch, and there are reasons* why they sold well, that the rest will sell well. See 4e for that.
> 
> 5e, as a RPG, looks like a stillbirth. A shame. D&D has a special place in my heart. Right new to beer and scotch.
> 
> ...




If D&D 5E is a stillbirth, what are all of the other RPGs?


----------



## Random Catchphrase (Apr 15, 2015)

goldomark said:


> It sounds more like it is loosing momentum and goodwill.
> 
> Look at PotA. It is behind the core rule books in rank and it just got out. http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Fantasy-Gaming/zgbs/books/16211/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_2_25 According to novelrank, it is #468 on amazon and sold 226 books. http://www.novelrank.com/asin/0786965789 Considering it just launched and it is their only product released in the last 4 months and probably their last until GenCon, I do not see this as encouraging.
> 
> ...




You should include recent pathfinder releases here, so we can understand what those numbers mean.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 15, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I'll expand on that question a little more.  There was a general consensus that the game needs storylines?



I believe immediately that there was a consensus that a storyline would be good. I can't believe that there was a consensus that only storylines would be good

This also seems to fly in the face of an statement in an earlier interview that they don't want to produce books which are bought to collect dust on the shelf. Yet an AP is of much more limited utility than a FRCS. The AP will be taken from the shelf for the AP only, a FRCS for any FR game.


----------



## darjr (Apr 15, 2015)

Love this. I'm only getting more and more players and GMs. In part because the treadmill is over.  Great googly moogly just look at the growth of this very forum this long after release.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 15, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> If D&D 5E is a stillbirth, what are all of the other RPGs?




Sperms in a condom?


----------



## Random Catchphrase (Apr 15, 2015)

Mercule said:


> D&D should never, ever become synonymous with Forgotten Realms. There should be a concerted effort to ensure FR is seen as only one implementation of D&D and not as the primary vehicle.




If you read through whole interview, they are planning to do settings in massive chunks one at a time, so i think it is FR only for couple of years going forward, then it would be replaced with another setting for couple of years and so on.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 15, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I don't understand why this is making everyone cheer.  They basically said that we aren't getting anything to use in MY stories.  Just stuff I have to steal from theirs.   I don't want their stories.  I want tools for making my own.
> 
> It's great that they want to give us video games but it doesn't do anything for my home game.




How do you make a sustainable business model off of that? How do you know what stuff to make for people? They could make campaign settings, but if you already make your own that's useless. Not to mention they already have all of the campaign settings online in PDF format. Then what about a whole book about Magic Items and Traps, a DMG2? Well there are already tools to make your own traps and such, and where do you draw the line with making books like that? They're essentially infinite. I just don't see how such a model would work, especially with a player attitude of "I create all my own stuff anyway."


----------



## innerdude (Apr 15, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Video games are great, but as Paizo and GoblinWorks is finding out, _incredibly_ expensive and people's standards now are incredibly high.  5E needs to be a standing success for a while before they can reasonably start investing in video games.




The budget for a single AAA-list video game title today is equal to the entire yearly revenue of the D&D pen-and-paper RPG line circa 2006 (going by Ryan Dancey's $30 million annual revenue estimate for the line).

It's still surprising to me just how small the overall RPG revenue stream is. If $30 million was an "average" year for the D&D RPG product line in 2006, that's.....well, even adjusted for a decade of inflation, it's tiny. 

My last job was working for a start up software company that had existed for seven or eight years. These guys were small fry, barely even players in their space.......and that company _by itself_, a single, small, startup software company in Provo, Utah earned more revenue in 2014 than the entire global D&D RPG line did in 2006. 

I think I once guesstimated that the entire global, annual revenue stream for RPGs was probably around $100 million. And that's for EVERYONE...... WotC, Paizo, Fantasy Flight, Steve Jackson Games, Green Ronin, Pinnacle Games......that would also include the European markets with Cubicle 7, the "boutique" systems from Germany (Harnmaster, etc.). Everybody. And now I'm starting to think that number might be overly optimistic. 

Sure, all of these game companies have properties and revenue streams other than RPGs. It wouldn't surprise in me in the least to hear that Paizo's Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is on target to be a larger share of company revenue than the RPG. Same with Munchkin, for example, for Steve Jackson games (I'd bet a year's salary---with a high level of confidence---that Munchkin nets Steve Jackson games more annual revenue than GURPS).

This is the #1 question the RPG industry needs to figure out----how do we get more people to play our games?


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 15, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> And that's what I crave. The last FRCS is a decade ingame time out of date. That itself wouldn't be that much of an issue if the world didn't just go through a cataclysm supposed to give it a total overhaul. Nobody has a real picture about the state of things. I want to know how the slate looks right now.




The cynic in me says that's why the APs are set in the Forgotten Reams - if they're not going to put out a campaign setting book any time soon, then that'll drive the fans to buy the APs, as that's going to be the only source of new Realmslore in the immediate future. 

That's of course assuming they've even fleshed out what the Realms even looks like now. Sure, they planned out the Sundering with Salvatore and the other novelists, but who's to say it wasn't as simple as "Ok, all the popular dead gods are back, all of the unpopular 4E changes are rolled back, and future novels can do whatever sells well?" It might make more sense in their eyes to only work out the details when they're setting something like an AP in a certain area, there's no guarantee Wizards even _has_ a solid idea of what regions outside of Phandelver / Neverwinter / Red Larch.



Mirtek said:


> Any other edition has provided a lot of books that were not focused on a specific storyline.




Eh, I wasn't around for the 1E days but it seemed to do just fine having only put out ~9 rules expansions in 12 years.

Of course 1E did have a lot of smaller adventures as well - if we look at the APs as equivalent to the big compendiums like Against the Giants / Scourge of the Slavelords, there's a definite niche for one-shots alongside them. Personally, my preferred solution would to bring back Dragon and Dungeon as e-zines. That would provide pretty much all the content 5E ever needs.



Mirtek said:


> There was a general consensus this game needs a PotA?




No, but there perhaps is one for more D&D stories. Wizards is trying to put out adventure paths that'll make the same lists as "Temple of Elemental Evil" and "Queen of the Spiders" in a few decades. Tyranny of Dragons... probably isn't going to make any of those lists, but Princes of the Apocalypse or an as-yet-untitled "King Lear with Giants" later this year might.


----------



## Zaukrie (Apr 15, 2015)

Then they need much better stories, not the same stories over and over. Give us some great stories, and some in short story form please.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Apr 15, 2015)

Zaukrie said:


> Then they need much better stories, not the same stories over and over. Give us some great stories, and some in short story form please.




Well the last story was not a redone story so maybe you are complaining about nothing there.


----------



## AverageCitizen (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't think RPGs need "support" beyond the core books to be successful. Many good RPGs have published their first run, then closed up shop. I don't think that is a failure. Second, I don't think APs count as support. I don't really like them. But if they do player companions I might get those, and if the digital tools collate all the AP content then of course I'll use it. I don't mind if the player content comes out in tandem with APs, but I really feel like we could use another DMG or an Unearthed Arcana book at some point. The hacking tools in the DMG seem pressed for space and a little timid.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 15, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Well the last story was not a redone story so maybe you are complaining about nothing there.



 I can only agree partly. While she had a new plot, it was Tiamat all over again. Why did they had to chose the very same villian they already used in the first AP in 4e?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> That is exactly what they're saying. What I'm saying is that *most players*, if they buy supplements at all, buy them because they exist and are interesting to them - but the lack of said supplements doesn't negatively impact their experience in the slightest.
> 
> It's unfortunate for those players for whom that is a dealbreaker, of course - but it's not going to kill the edition, and there are other games out there that do have higher levels of support.



I disagree with that part.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 15, 2015)

I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy 5E much better in CRPG form than TT RPG form because for tabletop I love options.  Not enough yet for my taste with the RPG (and apparently not for a long, long time).  That said, I think the new ruleset will rock with a CRPG interface.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> If D&D 5E is a stillbirth, what are all of the other RPGs?




Judging by the support Pathfinder gets, I would stay striving. 

Monte Cook games seem to be doing the same.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2015)

Random Catchphrase said:


> You should include recent pathfinder releases here, so we can understand what those numbers mean.




Paizo has it own online store, something WotC doesn't have. So, Amazon's numbers should only be used to compare D&D to D&D. 

ICv2 numbers can be used to compare brick and mortar sells between RPGs.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 15, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> You're cute.



Truth is cuteness, cuteness is truth.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I like what I'm reading, with one caveat: There does need to be a psionics product, if only for the support of previous edition campaign conversions. But yeah, I agree that splat needs to have purpose. 75% of all the prestige classes in 3.x were gimmicky, silly, and contrived. There were a few gems, but these were highly thematic and probably best belonged in a campaign book or adventure path.




WotC can give us psionics in several ways that mesh with Stewart's answers in this interview, and what we've heard before from Mearls and others from the team.

The most recent AP is centered around elemental themes and we got the genasi. A future AP could be centered around psionic themes and we'll get the psion.

We might get an Unearthed Arcana article giving us psions and other psionic crunchy stuff.

Or, they might release a "inter-AP" product with all of that psionic goodness inside.

I'd love to have any of those tomorrow, but I won't cry in my beer if it takes a few years. It has in every edition so far, why should 5E be any different? In the meantime, I'll run non-psionic adventures, or use 3rd-party psionics (you know we'll get them), or just make it up myself! 5E is the first edition where I am feeling fairly comfortable making up my own classes, races, and other crunchy bits to add to my game.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 15, 2015)

I don't use published adventures at all, so this news is a mixed blessing. It's a bummer, since it sounds like they won't be publishing much that I would buy. On the other hand, I was always annoyed by rules bloat in previous editions, and he's explicitly saying they won't have that. It's looking like my 5E purchases are basically done. Weird.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 15, 2015)

innerdude said:


> The budget for a single AAA-list video game title today is equal to the entire yearly revenue of the D&D pen-and-paper RPG line circa 2006 (going by Ryan Dancey's $30 million annual revenue estimate for the line).
> 
> It's still surprising to me just how small the overall RPG revenue stream is. If $30 million was an "average" year for the D&D RPG product line in 2006, that's.....well, even adjusted for a decade of inflation, it's tiny.
> 
> ...




That's an extremely important question to answer, and I'm actually pretty hopeful about the strategy Wizard's come up in response to it. Mike Mearls has talked about it before when the topic of D&D's competition came up - the competition isn't Paizo, or FFG, or Evil Hat, it's instant gratification. Anyone who's actually sat down and played a tabletop RPG and had fun knows what it brings to the table the video games and the like don't - but with a video game you pretty much press play and go, whereas pen and paper games have a much higher barrier to entry (familiarizing yourself with the rules, creating and balancing encounters, having everyone create characters). Even if they might have more fun playing D&D with friends, some folks might just opt to play Dragon Age instead, just because it's so much easier to pick up and play.

Wizards' response has been to come up with a fast-playing edition with streamlined character creation and combat, where you can run through an entire adventure in an hour. I believe the intent was for it to have electronic tools to make things even easier for new players to make their characters, but the whole Morningstar thing collapsed - I wouldn't be surprised if someone's working on them now, and just nothing will be announced until they're ready to release.

That's also what the adventure paths are for. A new player just bought the core books and talked to a group of friends about playing together - what do they do now? Sure, they could create their first adventure from scratch, but it's a lot of work and they might not want to go through with it once they realize what they've gotten themselves into. Or worse, their beginner's inexperience results in a lousy first session and turns everyone off of the game for good.

Instead, Wizards' has a catalog of pre-written campaigns available for them from day one. After they've run through their first couple of APs, they're feeling a bit more confident in their abilities and can see the payoffs of putting a little more effort into creating their own custom adventures.

For people who are complaining that the APs aren't what they're interested in, it's because _you're not who those products are aimed at!_ They're aimed at exactly who they should be - new players who don't know the first thing about creating their own adventures and settings, and are looking for product that's done the heavy lifting for them.

Combine that with a big AAA video game or summer blockbuster with the D&D name on it and you've got a recipe for introducing a _lot_ of new players to the hobby.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2015)

AverageCitizen said:


> I don't mean to be a downer here, but are D&D stories really any good? I have only limited experience, but all the pre-made stories I've seen come out of WotC, including lost mine of Phandelver, are cheesy as hell.




In your opinion, perhaps. I not only liked Lost Mines, but was impressed with it. I'm really enjoying my read through of Princes right now. Tyranny of Dragons gets trashed a lot on these forums, but I've seen plenty of glowing reviews and heard some direct (anecdotal) reports from friends that they liked the adventure.

WotC (and TSR before them) has published a LOT of adventures over the years. Some of them were okay, some of them sucked, some of them were incredibly awesome. Which is which is up for debate, as we all have different tastes. But negative folks on teh interwebs sure do like to trash WotC often and loudly, so take all that "WotC makes crappy adventures" talk with a huge grain of salt. Loud does not equal "that's how most fans feel", not by a long shot.

And I feel fairly comfortable that WotC knows that and doesn't give much attention to the whiners. There's nothing they could do to please those folks anyway.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 15, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> I fully agree. It's all about THEIR story, but they're not giving us the tools for OUR stories.



I'm unsure what else they need to give us for *our* stories. 

More class options don't help me tell a story. More monsters don't. The DMG already has more tools for me as a DM than all of 3.0 and 4e (and almost as much as 3.5e). 
More campaign settings would if everyone who is a fan of a setting didn't already own the books. 


I told years of adventures back in 2e with almost no sourcebooks. Well, I had the _Complete Ninja's Handbook_ and the _Complete Book of Humanoids_. But my players never used those, so they were pretty much just casual reading.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I told years of adventures back in 2e with almost no sourcebooks. Well, I had the _Complete Ninja's Handbook_ and the _Complete Book of Humanoids_. But my players never used those, so they were pretty much just casual reading.



Well, it's also pretty hard to use the _Complete Ninja's Handbook_ when it keeps disappearing.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2015)

Pauper said:


> I'm always left cold when I hear folks at WotC talking about 'the brand', because as a gamer, I'm not really interacting with 'the brand'.




If you love the D&D game, would you like D&D t-shirts? Action figures? Posters? Movies? (Awesome) video games? Sure, not everybody cares about all of that. But I want it.

Part of my enjoyment of Star Wars is the many ways I can enjoy the universe. I didn't stop with the original film, I've got Star Wars geekery all over the place. Same with DC Comics and other brands I love. D&D is lagging behind the curve here, and I'm excited they are trying to catch up.

And, as stated tons of places, in this thread and elsewhere, the game itself doesn't bring in that much revenue. It's the core of the brand, without which the rest doesn't work, but it isn't a money maker. Without the "brand", there would be no game. Of course, without the game, there would be no "brand".



> Basically I get the feeling that the WotC brand guys want to be the Marvel brand guys when they grow up.




Who doesn't? Marvel has been so successful recently that the entire Hollywood machine is trying to replicate their mad level of success.

The D&D team is right to want and shoot for that level of success as a brand, and I want them to do it! A D&D movie made with triple-A level budget, writers, directors and actors? Yes please!


----------



## Jester David (Apr 15, 2015)

AverageCitizen said:


> I don't mean to be a downer here, but are D&D stories really any good? I have only limited experience, but all the pre-made stories I've seen come out of WotC, including lost mine of Phandelver, are cheesy as hell.



Most are pretty "blah". But WotC spent fifteen years poo-pooing adventures and only releasing them because they felt they had to but not really making an effort. There were only a couple really noteworthy adventures released during all of 3e and 4e (which was when they opted to actually make some effort).

Now they're struggling to shift their focus back onto story and adventures, after slowly culling themselves of the talent that can write good adventure books. There's a learning curve. They'll only get better...


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 15, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> The most recent AP is centered around elemental themes and we got the genasi. A future AP could be centered around psionic themes and we'll get the psion.



 AL-legal in a free pdf?  That'd be hard to complain about.


----------



## Guyanthalas (Apr 15, 2015)

I'm probably late to this party, but I think the point is relevant. I'm not going to quote or name names, people can read and make their own judgments.

Regarding our own stories, vs. the WotC stories. I have a home brew campaign going on right now that I started in 4e. I'm transitioning it to 5e. Its not FR, its not Dark sun, Grayhawk, or any other settings. Its mine. I decided demons don't exist (they are the major villain coming back in higher levels). Its mine.

My girlfriend just DM'ed her first game a few days ago. It went well. She made her own plot line, and even used the DMG to create a random dungeon and populate it with monsters. (Planar gate, she used elementals). I think she's read the dark elf trilogy, and maybe the icewind dale trilogy, but that's as close as she has ever been to Forgotten Realms. She's more likely to create a Mercedes Lackey world than any of the normal D&D settings.

At no point did WotC invade the game and make us switch to an approved campaign setting. Her new plan for a setting is entirely home brew. She loves the DMG, and loves how it helps her make her dungeons. Sure, that isn't a campaign setting, but isn't there a lot on that subject already? Isn't it mostly what we dream up anyway? 

To be fair to the campaign points, its entirely possible that I did not understand the request of additional home-brew tools. At first blush it feels like you're upset they haven't solved a problem that you are having trouble articulating, but that could very well be ignorance on my part. I'd love some more insight into what you feel a good solution is, and any correction if I missed the mark entirely.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 15, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> And that's what I crave. The last FRCS is a decade ingame time out of date. That itself wouldn't be that much of an issue if the world didn't just go through a cataclysm supposed to give it a total overhaul. Nobody has a real picture about the state of things. I want to know how the slate looks right now.




Meh. I used to think I wanted a new, massive, FR campaign book. The updated version of the beautiful 3E version. But the more we have these discussions, the more I realize I don't really.

I would LOVE an article on the website that details the changes of the Sundering. I too am driving myself a little crazy with it all being so fuzzy. But the need for a new campaign book? Nah.

At best, I'd go for a "Sword Coast Gazetteer" that details the, well, Sword Coast and brings in some classic FR crunchy bits, gives us that Sundering update, and maybe includes a new adventure. Tie it in with the new game, like the Neverwinter guide did for the Neverwinter video game.

And I think there are more of me than there are of you. WotC has done their marketing, and I think they are delivering exactly what *most* of their fans want. Certainly not what *all* of their fans want, that's not even possible. No evidence, just my hunch.


----------



## Mirtek (Apr 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> More campaign settings would if everyone who is a fan of a setting didn't already own the books.



If those settings would not be out of date ingame. And an AP taking place in a subregion of a setting is actually targeting an even small niche of the customer base.


Dire Bare said:


> At best, I'd go for a "Sword Coast Gazetteer" that details the, well, Sword Coast



 And then you'd need a Dale Lands Gazetter, a Cormyr Gazetter, a  Amn Gazetter,  and in the end you haven a FRCS split into 20 smaller softcover


----------



## daddystabz (Apr 15, 2015)

I am not terribly happy overall with all this.  The main issue I have is settings.  I want other settings besides freaking Forgotten Realms!!! I want out of the Realms.  I want to play in Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Birthright, Greyhawk, etc!


----------



## Halivar (Apr 15, 2015)

daddystabz said:


> I want to play in Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Birthright, Greyhawk, etc!



Why aren't you? With the exception of Dark Sun, you have all the crunch you need to run those settings in 5E.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 15, 2015)

daddystabz said:


> I am not terribly happy overall with all this.  The main issue I have is settings.  I want other settings besides freaking Forgotten Realms!!! I want out of the Realms.  I want to play in Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Birthright, Greyhawk, etc!




I'm the opposite.  I don't want the same material retrod over and over again - repetition bores me. I want new settings, not endless reruns of old ones.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 15, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> If those settings would not be out of date ingame. And an AP taking place in a subregion of a setting is actually targeting an even small niche of the customer base.




Is it though? Or is it targeting a far larger portion of the customer base? A campaign setting only appeals to those interested in running that campaign setting, or those who are creating their own setting and want to mine it for ideas. An adventure path on the other hand, appeals to those who are looking to run that adventure, or those who are creating their own adventures and want to mine it for ideas.

The thing is, a new DM can easily run a D&D campaign completely ignoring "setting" altogether - you just go with the default assumptions of a vaguely medieval world with magic and all the races in the PHB, and make up place-names on the spot. New DMs won't really have a grasp of how to wing their adventures, though - that's a skill that even a lot of experienced DMs haven't really honed.

So while you and I might not have any really interest in an AP, I'm thinking there are a lot more groups looking to have a campaign outline handed to them than there are ones interested in the Forgotten Realms (or Eberron, or Dark Sun, or Planescape, etc.).


----------



## werecorpse (Apr 15, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'm unsure what else they need to give us for *our* stories.
> 
> More class options don't help me tell a story. More monsters don't. The DMG already has more tools for me as a DM than all of 3.0 and 4e (and almost as much as 3.5e).
> More campaign settings would if everyone who is a fan of a setting didn't already own the books.
> ...




I would like a few more class options for most classes. Specifically clerical domains that fit with 3e domains, a bunch more sorcerers, maybe 1 or 2 options for each other class. I would like another 2 monster manuals. I would like a bunch more traps and treasure. These would all help me tell more stories.


----------



## Rygar (Apr 15, 2015)

That's a bizarre interview.  Fargo reached out to them for the rights to make Planescape Torment 2,  a virtually guaranteed blockbuster title and they passed.  How can they want great CRPG's when they refused to license it?

I'd also argue they're in trouble.  They refused InXile,  Obsidian is aligned with Pathfinder,  they're out of quality RPG studios.  All they have left is EA and Bethesda.  EA makes console games,  Baldur's Gate 3 isn't their "Style" (And they've been...upsetting...customers for years now) and Bethesda doesn't make games with story,  doesn't make games that aren't Player Skill dependent,  and doesn't make anything that isn't the Elder Scrolls formula they've been using over and over for 15 years or so.  Where are they going to get a AAA CRPG from?  



daddystabz said:


> I am not terribly happy overall with all this.  The main issue I have is settings.  I want other settings besides freaking Forgotten Realms!!! I want out of the Realms.  I want to play in Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Birthright, Greyhawk, etc!




I agree.  I hate Forgotten Realms.  If that's their only setting I'll continue to give Paizo hundreds a year and WOTC $0.


----------



## GSHamster (Apr 16, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> whereas pen and paper games have a much higher barrier to entry (familiarizing yourself with the rules, creating and balancing encounters, having everyone create characters).




That's not even the _real_ barrier to entry. The true barrier is getting a group of people together on a regular basis. Even before we get to the game, we get to an often-insurmountable hurdle.


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> How do you make a sustainable business model off of that? How do you know what stuff to make for people? They could make campaign settings, but if you already make your own that's useless. Not to mention they already have all of the campaign settings online in PDF format. Then what about a whole book about Magic Items and Traps, a DMG2? Well there are already tools to make your own traps and such, and where do you draw the line with making books like that? They're essentially infinite. I just don't see how such a model would work, especially with a player attitude of "I create all my own stuff anyway."




Well, as a DM I can certainly homebrew to my heart's content, but I will never get what I need as a player no matter how good my homebrews are. And frankly I feel better homebrewing for a system i already have mastery for (2e or 3.x).If I have to do everything myself I'd rather stick with what I know. And not all DM's are good or comfortable tinkering with rules, the lack of support for them set the bar too high for DM's wanting to create their own world, creating new rules and worlds require quite different skill sets. 



Jester Canuck said:


> I'm unsure what else they need to give us for *our* stories.
> 
> More class options don't help me tell a story. More monsters don't. The DMG already has more tools for me as a DM than all of 3.0 and 4e (and almost as much as 3.5e).
> More campaign settings would if everyone who is a fan of a setting didn't already own the books.
> ...




Ready made dungeons, encounters, and new magic items for example. Or more rules modules for Bronze Age, modern age, more races and class options?


----------



## HobbitFan (Apr 16, 2015)

One of the major problems with having stuff connected to 1-2 stories or even themes is that if you aren't interested in using/running those, WOTC isn't offering you anything.  

And another concern.  Why were both APs so far both set in the Sword Coast?  Was it only so they could tie in to Neverwinter and the upcoming Sword Coast Legends?
Why use the Realms as the backdrop if you aren't going to utilize the breadth and depth of the setting?  

And if its really about story, why were the first two adventure path hardbacks done with rehashed stories?  Where's the creativity and innovation in their story-telling? 

And if story is so important why not have short fiction on the website or publish new novels.  Teh only 5E novels we know abotu so far are continuation of series already started.  

Just saying story, story, story doesn't explain it.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Judging by the support Pathfinder gets, I would stay striving.
> 
> Monte Cook games seem to be doing the same.




I'm curious, where are you getting your sales information from? I highly doubt Monte Cook games is doing anywhere in the realm of how well 5E is doing.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> I'm curious, where are you getting your sales information from? I highly doubt Monte Cook games is doing anywhere in the realm of how well 5E is doing.




You have to realise that for some people, they judge how well a system is doing based on the number of books published for that system.  It appears to be impossible for a game to be doing "well" unless it has a tail of several hundred books behind it and the corollary to that is any system without that tail must, by definition, be doing poorly.  

Time will tell who's right.


----------



## Blue (Apr 16, 2015)

Kind of meh about his answers.  Nothing really offends me, but I don't find myself in agreement with it.

For my particular wants in D&D, I am looking for the GAME I am playing.  I don't consume the novels and other tie-ins frequently, and if I do it's not because it's D&D but because it stands on it's own merit.

This means:
a)  I don't want mechanics only coming out based on YOUR story, I want it coming out based on COMMUNITY NEEDS.  If we want warforged, thri-kreen and psionics, sell us warforged, thri-kreen and psionics.
b)  Forgotten Realms is one of my least liked WotC setting because of how overdeveloped it is.  Yes, it is familiar, but that level of detail makes me LESS likely to run or play in it because I haven't mastered all of the detail.  Trying to run a setting for people more familiar with it than I am is a nightmare.
c)  D&D, in the way I am consuming it, is not only a game FIRST, it's ONLY the game.  When you compromise that to change priorities to focus on other medias, I am not being served as a customer.

Those sound rather rant-y, but really it's more apathetic.  5e is a really good version of D&D and I'm happy to play it, and while I am a bit saddened that Wizard's priorities for D&D don't perfectly align with mine, that doesn't make 5e any less.  It just means that if I want rapid evolution in the directions I want, WotC isn't likely the source so I'll widen my scope of 3rd party developers.  I still hope they come out with things I want, with 5e they have rebuilt a level of trust in quality that has gone through cycles with them.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 16, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> And frankly I feel better homebrewing for a system i already have mastery for (2e or 3.x).



I understand that feeling, it's why I stuck with AD&D for so long.  But, 5e is a lot more amenable to homebrewing than 3.x - it's not just that it openly encourages it while 3.x has the whole RAW thing going, it's that the design of 5e is just 'lose,' and there's less to it.  You change a bit, and every other bit doesn't explode in a hail of broken combos.  I can't say that's a reason to learn 5e over 2e, if you're that comfortable with 2e, it shouldn't be that much harder to whip into whatever shape you want.  But compared to hacking 3.x, learning 5e and then hacking it sounds easier.  
JMHO.


----------



## Xantherion (Apr 16, 2015)

Hmm this interests me.

I love the mechanics of 5e and look forward for expansions in the future. However, the 1 to 2 adventures a year does nothing for me.  When they released Pota they gave the crunch away for free.  This is good for me. I will not buy any of the adventure books, so they will not get any money from me on that end.  I will just stick with my 3 core books, and print out the free material.

it is interesting. 5e got me away happily from Pathfinder. Now with WOTC marketing strategy and Pathfinder Unchained, I am starting to head back to Pathfinder.


----------



## Lidgar (Apr 16, 2015)

In regards to stories...

I read his response more broadly than STORIES = MEGA ADVENTURES. 

Reading through PotA now, and it is much more than that. It is part adventure (including several mini adventures), part campaign setting (Red Larch is great, and portable), part new player content, part new DMG content, part MM content, all tied to central theme (Elements). So STORIES = THEMATIC ELEMENTS.

I am fine with these hybrid releases, but completely understand others that don't want to shell out $50 for the book, when all they really want is the non-adventure elements.

In any case, market demand will (or should) drive them in the end.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 16, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> If those settings would not be out of date ingame. And an AP taking place in a subregion of a setting is actually targeting an even small niche of the customer base.



95% of a good campaign setting is fluff. Nations, Kings and queens, factions, NPCs, plots, trade, maps, etc. None of that was invalidated between 1e and now. Paying $60 for a dozen pages of crunch and 250-pages of fluff I already have needless.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 16, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I would like a few more class options for most classes. Specifically clerical domains that fit with 3e domains, a bunch more sorcerers, maybe 1 or 2 options for each other class. I would like another 2 monster manuals. I would like a bunch more traps and treasure. These would all help me tell more stories.



More monsters are always good, and we do sorely need more traps (I should prioritize a traps blog for my website). 
And I did find the absence of alternate magic item treasure tables to be an oversight of the DMG.

But more class features? While it's nice to have sorcerer x and sorcerer y to have different class features to differentiate them, you could have two or three dragon sorcerer's with very different stories. Roderic Faklstaff of the Dummocton Fallstaffs third in line for the Fallstaff fortune is going to potentially have a very different story that Clump the spellslinger of Dungy Marsh. Even if the two have identical spells and feats.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 16, 2015)

Sadly, I find this interview more discouraging than encouraging; he didn't say things that speak to my interest.

But then, he's the brand manager, and I'm not sure I'm his customer.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 16, 2015)

I would like to wish all of you who are still unhappy with WotCs output the best in your future endeavors.  Be sure to return to the 5E boards in two weeks time so that you can discover that nothing has changed and you still aren't getting what you want.  I look forward to reading your exact same post about your unhappiness the exact same way.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 16, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> I fully agree. It's all about THEIR story, but they're not giving us the tools for OUR stories.




I really don't care what they want to publish or not publish.  I am fine with just the core books from them . Its the blocking of others who are interested in producing tools by not releasing any type of open license information that is such a pain in the ass. 

If they don't have the desire to do the stuff people want, let someone else do it. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem WOTC.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 16, 2015)

Hussar said:


> You have to realise that for some people, they judge how well a system is doing based on the number of books published for that system.  It appears to be impossible for a game to be doing "well" unless it has a tail of several hundred books behind it and the corollary to that is any system without that tail must, by definition, be doing poorly.
> 
> Time will tell who's right.



By the number-of-books metric, the most successful game system is RIFTS...


----------



## HobbitFan (Apr 16, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would like to wish all of you who are still unhappy with WotCs output the best in your future endeavors.  Be sure to return to the 5E boards in two weeks time so that you can discover that nothing has changed and you still aren't getting what you want.  I look forward to reading your exact same post about your unhappiness the exact same way.




You know....There's no call for that.  That's just bad form.

DefCon please don't belittle other people's opinions like that.  Makes you look like a troll.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 16, 2015)

innerdude said:


> This is the #1 question the RPG industry needs to figure out----how do we get more people to play our games?




Better product placement.

Can I buy the D&D books in a WalMart?  No.
Can I buy D&D minis are Toys'R'Us?  No.
Can I buy D&D video games at Best Buy?  No.

Where _can_ I buy D&D products?  At your FLGS!  Well this relies on two assumptions:  One: that you _like_ your FLGS, I've been to plenty, some are very bad places to game.  Two: that your LGS supports board games, many do not.  It is not uncommon to see the books for D&D, Pathfinder, Shadowrun and everything else sit on the shelves unless the store has a very specific crowd for it.  My local store didn't even stock D&D until 5th and thanks to efforts on my part and others, now can barely keep them _in_ stock.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 16, 2015)

HobbitFan said:


> One of the major problems with having stuff connected to 1-2 stories or even themes is that if you aren't interested in using/running those, WOTC isn't offering you anything.



That could be said about any product.



HobbitFan said:


> And another concern.  Why were both APs so far both set in the Sword Coast?  Was it only so they could tie in to Neverwinter and the upcoming Sword Coast Legends?
> Why use the Realms as the backdrop if you aren't going to utilize the breadth and depth of the setting?



Just speculation, but I imagine they're focusing on the one area so they can leave the rest of the Realms open for home games and groups to make their own.
That, and it makes it easier to segue from the Starter Set adventure into a storyline book if they're nearby. 



HobbitFan said:


> And if story is so important why not have short fiction on the website or publish new novels.  Teh only 5E novels we know abotu so far are continuation of series already started.



The absence of new authors is kind of a slight. I think we got some new characters/ storylines during the Sundering though. But I imagine there's just less of an audience for the fiction, especially when so many of the old books are still available.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Apr 16, 2015)

I;m glad 5e is doing well. I'm glad there's no PHB 2 on the horizon. 

I WANT THAT PIRATE ADVENTURE!!! Bring it out devs!!!


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 16, 2015)

Parsing the juicer bits...

"We are story, story, story. The story drives everything. The need for new rules, the new races, new classes is just based on what’s going to really make this adventure, this story, this kind kind of theme happen." 

It seems everything going forward is going to be colored by the storylines. I figured this was the case. I'll discuss it more below, but this first part really doesn't say anything I wasn't expecting. 

In honesty, this is very akin to Paizo's APs. The current AP colors a lot of material, including the supplemental material released around it (Such as the Tech Guide and Iron Gods). Even Paizo's minis, dice, battle mats, and card games revolve around the power of their IP, so its little surprise.

"I wouldn’t be surprised if we do some books here and there that pick up things that the fanbase wants in between stories, because of the feedback we’re hearing. But by and large everything we’re delivering is supporting that annual story –and there’s zero plans for a Player’s Handbook 2 any time on the horizon."

Translation: There will be books unrelated to APs, but don't expect many and almost none will be "Player Builder" material. 

Which is good, depending on what those "books here and there" are. I'm 100% convinced Psionics is the poster child for this expansion; its more complex than a power booster for players and too much for the back of an AP. I'm sure there might be other areas that such books are useful (color me surprised if we don't see another monster book). 

That said, there really isn't a lot needed. Character options (races, feats, spells, classes) are Player Companion fodder (yay free PDFs), Environmental/Genre books (Stormwrack, Heroes of Shadow) work with an appropriate AP. (Isle of Dread, Ravenloft). Not sure if it will work, but its a good start.

"we’re going to stay in the Forgotten Realms for the foreseeable future."

Yeah, I figured. Neverwinter, SCL, the Adventurer's League all pointed to that. Realms is now WotC's Golarion. 

I suspect some settings might see support via a good AP: Al-Qadim and Kara Tur seem like easy pickings for expansion via an AP, and I'm sure a planar excursion AP can fill in a lot of Sigil/Planescape. And Ravenloft likewise has an "easy in" from the Realms to make perhaps an appearance. What ISN'T getting support is the strange prime worlds: Athas, Krynn, Eberron, anything that needs mechanics to make it work or doesn't have a connection to Toril. Those settings are probably going to see some form of UA support and perhaps an article, that's alll. 

"Dungeons and Dragons stopped [just] being a tabletop game years or decades ago." 

Inserting the missing word. Sure, D&D has had cartoons, movies, CDs, board games, T-shirts, and a variety of other material to coincide with the game. Nothing new here. 

"This is no secret for anyone here, but the big thing I want to see is just a triple-A RPG video game. I want to see Baldur’s Gate 3, I want to see a huge open-world RPG. I would love movies about Dungeons and Dragons, or better yet, serialized entertainment where we’re doing seasons of D&D stories and things like Forgotten Realms action figures… of course I’d love that, I’m the biggest geek there is. But at the end of the day, the game’s what we’re missing in the portfolio."

If they can find good partners, I hope so too. D&D is ripe for use if Hasbro can see it, but despite its "geek cred" its not a strongly nostalgic commodity like Transformers is. A good solid product (AAA game, movie, TV show) could change that, but I'm not holding my breath. 

All in all, it re-iterates what we already knew. I wish it went into more details as to what kinds of books or APs we'll be expecting, but WotC isn't a big fan of "announcing" things until they're ready to ship these days.


----------



## werecorpse (Apr 16, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> More monsters are always good, and we do sorely need more traps (I should prioritize a traps blog for my website).
> And I did find the absence of alternate magic item treasure tables to be an oversight of the DMG.
> 
> But more class features? While it's nice to have sorcerer x and sorcerer y to have different class features to differentiate them, you could have two or three dragon sorcerer's with very different stories. Roderic Faklstaff of the Dummocton Fallstaffs third in line for the Fallstaff fortune is going to potentially have a very different story that Clump the spellslinger of Dungy Marsh. Even if the two have identical spells and feats.




All true, but if I want to tell a story about a sorcerer who is linked to something other than dragons or wild magic ( like say the elements, a storm giant ancestor or the shadow realm) the character paths aren't there. I liked the sorcerer variations of bloodlines from Pathfinder for example.

I would be happy with a few more character paths for each class than currently exist in the PHB. Not a heap more, just a few.


----------



## Zaran (Apr 16, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm the opposite.  I don't want the same material retrod over and over again - repetition bores me. I want new settings, not endless reruns of old ones.




To tell you the truth, I want both.   I would even buy a new forgotten realms setting.  I use that stuff for inspiration in my own games.  I don't even mind the adventure paths but don't want them to be the only thing available.  

The more I think about it, I wonder if they are waiting for a digital tools partner.  Then they could release stuff in Dungeon and Dragon style articles with a pay per article model much like how Enworld is using Patreon.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 16, 2015)

AverageCitizen said:


> I don't mean to be a downer here, but are D&D stories really any good? I have only limited experience, but all the pre-made stories I've seen come out of WotC, including lost mine of Phandelver, are cheesy as hell.



Are any D&D stories good? Sure, lots of them. Just retreading hallowed ground gives you Against the Giants, Slavers, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Keep of the Borderlands, Isle of Dread, Ravenloft, Dead Gods, A Paladin in Hell, the Asharadon saga, Red Hand of Doom, and the Temple of Elemental Evil. 

Can WotC capitalize on these stories? That remains to be seen. RHoD and ToEE have already been tapped, we'll see what else does.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 16, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> If those settings would not be out of date ingame. And an AP taking place in a subregion of a setting is actually targeting an even small niche of the customer base.
> And then you'd need a Dale Lands Gazetter, a Cormyr Gazetter, a  Amn Gazetter,  and in the end you haven a FRCS split into 20 smaller softcover




Nope. I see no need for a Dales gazetteer, an Amn gazetteer, or a Cormyr gazetteer. I could see an adventure set in the Dales that includes updated information on that area, same for Amn or Cormyr. But otherwise, no, I don't need a sourcebook for any of those areas.

If I were king of D&D, I'd release a Sword Coast Gazetteer partnered with something, the video game or another adventure path or "story arc". Later, I would release a Zakhara Gazetteer, again partnered with another release. Maybe a Maztica sourcebook down the road, also with an AP. Other areas of the Realms aren't distinct or important enough to warrant a sourcebook, or the need for a whole-campaign sourcebook.

All IMO, of course.

Heck, I'm not sure I'd release any of these really, except for the Sword Coast Gazetteer. I like that idea for some reason.


----------



## Henry (Apr 16, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> In your opinion, perhaps. I not only liked Lost Mines, but was impressed with it. I'm really enjoying my read through of Princes right now. Tyranny of Dragons gets trashed a lot on these forums, but I've seen plenty of glowing reviews and heard some direct (anecdotal) reports from friends that they liked the adventure.
> 
> WotC (and TSR before them) has published a LOT of adventures over the years. Some of them were okay, some of them sucked, some of them were incredibly awesome. Which is which is up for debate, as we all have different tastes. But negative folks on teh interwebs sure do like to trash WotC often and loudly, so take all that "WotC makes crappy adventures" talk with a huge grain of salt. Loud does not equal "that's how most fans feel", not by a long shot.
> 
> And I feel fairly comfortable that WotC knows that and doesn't give much attention to the whiners. There's nothing they could do to please those folks anyway.




As much as I want to celebrate 5e's success, I really havent been very impressed with tyranny or the Princes stories. In the past year, Paizo's Iron Gods and Giant slayer stories have blown the doors off of WotC's storylines, for quality of NPC development, interesting locations, plot twists, and maturity of subject matter. I swear I had to slog through the first few pages of the Princes of the Apocalypse intro to get intot he story, because that "Elemental Evil is this, Elemental Evil is that" plot monologue was written so awkwardly that it just felt like the first draft of some 13-year old's campaign notes. 

The rest of the AP was decent, and the cultists actually had good characterization notes, but by comparison, Giantslayer invokes the feel I got from Steading of the Giant Chief and it isn't even a third done yet! iron Gods is about stopping a nascent GOD from apotheosis! I would rather WotC should add more depth of character to their stories, and a slightly darker maturity level, because if I want to convince people to play more 5e, I'm thinking I'm better off using Paizo APs or classic AD& D modules, rather than the tools offered. I want more 5e APs more to give me better alternatives than because they arent fast enough.


----------



## Grimstaff (Apr 16, 2015)

I for one am still happy with the no-bloat business model, but for those that aren't, I'd remind them the traditional level of job security at WotC. Those calling the shots today are, for better or worse, highly unlikely to be calling the shots 3 or 5 years from now.

Articles like these serve well to remind me that what drives book sales and what drives internet discussion are two very different things. While we may like to dissect the rules in forums, we seem to be a very small percentage of who is actually playing the game. Anecdotally, out of the 7 people i regularly game with, I'm the only one who goes on EnWorld, and there's one other guy who frequents the Paizo boards.

Also anecdotally, the game shelf at my local B&N has been emptied of 5e and restocked several times in the last few months.


----------



## God (Apr 16, 2015)

Love the 5E mechanics, mostly ok with the rate of expansion (though I would like to see some psionic rules and more class archetypes/domains sooner than later). But I've reached a point that I just hate, hate, hate Forgotten Realms. Would happily fork over my money for products placed anywhere else (or nowhere) but I'm not going to give them any monetary encouragement for products set in the FR.


----------



## HobbitFan (Apr 16, 2015)

Grimstaff said:


> I for one am still happy with the no-bloat business model, but for those that aren't, I'd remind them the traditional level of job security at WotC. Those calling the shots today are, for better or worse, highly unlikely to be calling the shots 3 or 5 years from now.
> 
> Articles like these serve well to remind me that what drives book sales and what drives internet discussion are two very different things. While we may like to dissect the rules in forums, we seem to be a very small percentage of who is actually playing the game. Anecdotally, out of the 7 people i regularly game with, I'm the only one who goes on EnWorld, and there's one other guy who frequents the Paizo boards.
> 
> Also anecdotally, the game shelf at my local B&N has been emptied of 5e and restocked several times in the last few months.




That's a good point Grimstaff.  
It's anecdotal but in my local area (Nashville), forum involvement, etc. is very common amongst Dungeon Masters and pretty common amongst regular players, just not so much amongst the casual crowd.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Apr 16, 2015)

> Dungeons and Dragons stopped being a tabletop game years or decades ago.





This man has had a psychotic break.
​


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> I understand that feeling, it's why I stuck with AD&D for so long.  But, 5e is a lot more amenable to homebrewing than 3.x - it's not just that it openly encourages it while 3.x has the whole RAW thing going, it's that the design of 5e is just 'lose,' and there's less to it.  You change a bit, and every other bit doesn't explode in a hail of broken combos.  I can't say that's a reason to learn 5e over 2e, if you're that comfortable with 2e, it shouldn't be that much harder to whip into whatever shape you want.  But compared to hacking 3.x, learning 5e and then hacking it sounds easier.
> JMHO.




Well, it depends. Actually 5e looks like it could break fairly easily, it lacks the familiarity of 3.x and the 4e transparency and I'm not sure of many of the design choices. Are they merely the designers limited view of the classes or are they balance related? And one thing, There's a ton of content for 2e and 3.x so much I don't need to homebrew that much. The only thing is it is harder to teach, and that I would need to homebrew.


----------



## ronaldsf (Apr 16, 2015)

This is an interview with Forbes magazine. Isn't his audience here potential investors and potential "partners"? Keep in mind that 80% of this is spin and that you can't take it all at face value. He's speaking to the suits, not to gamers.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 16, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Well, it depends. Actually 5e looks like it could break fairly easily, it lacks the familiarity of 3.x and the 4e transparency and I'm not sure of many of the design choices. Are they merely the designers limited view of the classes or are they balance related?



 When it comes to breaking editions, think of 3.x as a jar of nitroglycerin (it's a powerful system), 4e as a pane of glass ('transparency' yes), and 5e as a pile of sand (hard to say why it was piled up there).  Play around with any of the three, and you'll have only fragments of silica left when you're done - but you won't get cut up or blown to bits by the pile of sand.  Wet it down, mold it into some new shapes, stomp on it.  It'll still be a perfectly good pile of sand.



> And one thing, There's a ton of content for 2e and 3.x so much I don't need to homebrew that much. The only thing is it is harder to teach, and that I would need to homebrew.



 Yes, if there's a 2e or 3.x  - 4e or 1e or Spawn of Fshawn - resource that's already exactly what you want, just use it, no need to homebrew.  But, if you're going to homebrew, 5e's a pretty good choice.  It shouldn't really even be that un-familiar if you've been around the block with both 2e and 3.5 enough times.



> Are they merely the designers limited view of the classes or are they balance related?



 Proceed on the assumption it's the former - I doubt you'll notice balance getting any worse.  Balance in 5e, like in 1e, is primarily provided situationally, by the DM.  If you notice one PC miserably 'behind' the others in some sense, you highlight his specialty or even just up and give him a nice magic item to make him 'just better.'


----------



## JEB (Apr 16, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Better product placement.
> 
> Can I buy the D&D books in a WalMart?  No.
> Can I buy D&D minis are Toys'R'Us?  No.




Indeed. I'm particularly baffled at the lack of D&D Starter Sets in circulation outside toy/game specialists. Great introduction, perfect price point, packaged perfectly for board game shelves... and STILL missing from most big-box retail shelves.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Apr 16, 2015)

"Stay in the Forgotten Realms". This is the best news EVER!! The rest is sugar on top.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> I'm curious, where are you getting your sales information from? I highly doubt Monte Cook games is doing anywhere in the realm of how well 5E is doing.




ICv2 rankings. And I'm not talking about sells, but support. By stillbirth I ment the support the edition gets, not sells, althought they are tied. D&D came back from the dead with the launch of the 5e core books. The launch wasn't perfect, but it had lots of goodwill and momentum. Gamers were looking forward to it, there wasn't any notable division. Then came the cancellation of the Adventurer's Handbook and a bunch of interviews from designers. 

People are realizing that D&D, the RPG, won't get much support. This lack of support is not a sign of an edition that is alive and kicking, that maintains the initial enthusiasm. Seems more like a legacy product. If gamers aren't enthusiastic with an edition, they won't play/buy much of it. Those who do seem happy with the current release schedule are those who say they are tired of books being published. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I doubt they would have bought much products in the first place. So, WotC is cattering to gamers who wouldn't of bought its books in the first place. Weird.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Apr 16, 2015)

ZeshinX said:


> Well, that's it for me and 5e/WotC then.  Pity, I found 5e as a system to be excellent (still do), but if this is their idea of supporting a new edition, then count me out.  4e shoved me into Pathfinder's arms, WotC direction with 5e has ensured I'll stay there.
> 
> At least WotC made it an easy decision for me.



Then good news for you: they just released 2 new PF books about things you can do with their already published core book ;-P


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

ronaldsf said:


> This is an interview with Forbes magazine. Isn't his audience here potential investors and potential "partners"? Keep in mind that 80% of this is spin and that you can't take it all at face value. He's speaking to the suits, not to gamers.




So true. 4e was supposed to have out performed 3e when it came to sells. But this has been said: 







> I think if you would have told us –or anyone– that before launch, they would’ve said, “Really? You’re gonna do bigger than third edition or 3.5?” and the answer is, undoubtedly, yes.



 Sounds like 4e never broke 3e's record. They also said that they re-printed the core books after 4e's release.

I'm not calling the guy a liar. It is just that metrics can be spinned and interprated in various ways to create a desired perception.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 16, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> If he meant to add 'only' that makes way more sense. I was sitting there scratching my head thinking he must have some bigger point I was missing.




He may not have omitted a word, but omitted an entire phrase/sentence.  I could easily see someone saying "D&D isn't a tabletop game and hasn't been for years or decades" if it were followed with "it's a franchise" or "it's a brand."


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 16, 2015)

For me, Nathan's words just emphasize the need for a good licensing agreement that will allow people like me (I don't care about FR in the slightest, and I would love to see a new setting) to get 5e content from other publishers.

If WotC wants to focus on FR, that's fine (maybe it's even a good idea if they can license their other settings to other publishers for a small fee).  None of the FR products will attract my limited recreational budget, but as long as I have someone else I can turn to who can and will provide the 5e material I would like then I'll be happy to give them my cash instead of WotC.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> I can only agree partly. While she had a new plot, it was Tiamat all over again. Why did they had to chose the very same villian they already used in the first AP in 4e?




Because most of us ditched out on 4e by the time 4e's Tiamat adventure came out?


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 16, 2015)

"Brand" is starting to turn into a trigger word for me.

For some reason the entire interview left me cold.....so FR only, D&D is not a tabletop game anymore--I mean, I do understand what he's saying: it's a Brand now (twitch twitch), not just what it started as...sigh. But its hard not to be unhappy with the notion that the man behind my hobby is much more interested in that Baldur's Gate III Triple-A title which assuming its not in development will be a sort of "good luck on that" before 2018 if they plan on competing with the big boys there. 

But the good news is: this is a great edition, and they got the three books out I needed to sustain years of gameplay. 3rd party support fro Frog God Games and Goodman is filling some gaps and is apparently possible even without an OGL, and if they only release 1-2 books a year, even if those are FR tomes I have to adapt to my own use I have to say that that's a lot of free money I have to spend on other games and books.....and some of those will be Pathfinder books I then convert to 5E because frankly that's pretty damned easy to do.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 16, 2015)

Halivar said:


> With the exception of the Manual of the Planes and Campaign Setting guides, I'm hard pressed to see how previous edition crunch books beyond the core supplied tools for any stories. I see a lot of player-oriented power creep, but not a lot of story.




Underdark, Shining South, Unapproachable East, Cormyr,  Serpent Kingdoms,  Lost Empires of Faerun, various Bix sets and adventures such as Myth Drannor, Zhentil Keep, etc....

I could go on and on but my browser keeps crashing so I don't want to push it.

I'm guessing you are new to the game and didn't pay much attention to previous editions because they are full of story elements.

*Mod Note:*  "Harry Dresden" here is an alt of a serial jerk, trying to get around a ban.  Please pay no mind to this user.  ~Umbran


----------



## Echohawk (Apr 16, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Can I buy the D&D books in a WalMart?



WalMart does seem to sell Dungeons & Dragons books online at least.



> Can I buy D&D minis are Toys'R'Us?



Sort of 



> Can I buy D&D video games at Best Buy?  No.



It doesn't look like it, but they do apparently sell video games, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Sword Coast Legends showing up once it gets released.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 16, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Underdark, Shining South, Unapproachable East, Cormyr,  Serpent Kingdoms,  Lost Empires of Faerun, various Bix sets and adventures such as Myth Drannor, Zhentil Keep, etc....




Sounds like a lot of Campaign Settings to me...


----------



## Jhaelen (Apr 16, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Underdark, Shining South, Unapproachable East, Cormyr,  Serpent Kingdoms,  Lost Empires of Faerun, various Bix sets and adventures such as Myth Drannor, Zhentil Keep, etc....
> 
> I could go on and on but my browser keeps crashing so I don't want to push it.



Well, excepting Underdark (which was originally a part of the World of Greyhawk) all of this is FR stuff, isn't it?
D&D isn't (or apparently _wasn't_) FR. 

Imho, FR sucks. FR is everything that I ever disliked about (generic) fantasy settings. It's the worst setting every published for an RPG. Yeah, I guess I'm in the minority about this, but at least your browser seems to agree with me


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 16, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Can I buy the D&D books in a WalMart?  No.
> Can I buy D&D minis are Toys'R'Us?  No.
> Can I buy D&D video games at Best Buy?  No.



You can go to Barnes & Noble to get the books.
Toys'R'Us did sell D&D toys, till the lines kinda died.
You can buy the video games on Steam and GOG (which is having a 80% off sale right now).


----------



## Lee Singleton (Apr 16, 2015)

werecorpse said:


> I would like a few more class options for most classes. Specifically clerical domains that fit with 3e domains, a bunch more sorcerers, maybe 1 or 2 options for each other class. I would like another 2 monster manuals. I would like a bunch more traps and treasure. These would all help me tell more stories.




Well to be fair, you have had more options with just this new AP print release (PoA)

43 new Spells (also given away for FREE in the players handbook)
40 new monsters
14 new magic items
1 new playable race

Which in addition also includes a bunch of fluff on a small region of the FR campaign world and ways to port the adventure to several other WotC worlds (roughly 2 pages to each world) and a small section on slotting it into your own world. 

In addition the Free players handbook also gave you for FREE

4 new playable races (1 reprinted in PoA)
43 new spells (All reprinted in PoA, for those of us that don't use electronic devices at the table)

Plus the adventurers league has just given us a whole bunch of bonds and backgrounds for players playing in the Elemental Evil path (http://dndadventurersleague.org/elemental-evil-bonds-and-backgrounds-for-mulmaster/). Which I agree are very specific and tied to the Moonsea area primarily also gives some good ideas which can easily be changed by changing place names etc. In addition the AL are producing 16 small adventures all tied into the overall theme of the Elemental Evil storyline but again they can be easily ported across to your own worlds. 

Not bad for the new release just 3 months after the last release of a D&D 5th Ed product.


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 16, 2015)

Henry said:


> The rest of the AP was decent, and the cultists actually had good characterization notes, but by comparison, Giantslayer invokes the feel I got from Steading of the Giant Chief and it isn't even a third done yet! iron Gods is about stopping a nascent GOD from apotheosis! I would rather WotC should add more depth of character to their stories, and a slightly darker maturity level, because if I want to convince people to play more 5e, I'm thinking I'm better off using Paizo APs or classic AD& D modules, rather than the tools offered. I want more 5e APs more to give me better alternatives than because they arent fast enough.



What I find interesting about your comments is that they represent exactly one of the things that caused Paizo to spin off on their own in the first place: that 4E couldn't tell the kind of stories they wanted to tell. WotC's method makes for a particular flavour of D&D and varies in its success, and I don't think there's much chance the company is going to change its approach: they stuck to the formula through 4E and it looks like they're sticking to it now.

I'm inclined to pick up one of Paizo's more recent AP's so as to get a feel for where their experience has taken them. Like it or not, their audience is, I think, different than Wizards' in many ways. They can afford to take a few more risks.


----------



## werecorpse (Apr 16, 2015)

There are monsters and spells and bits and pieces scatter throughout the adventure releases - as happened in the TSR modules of the early 80's. Still I think the 1e Fiend Folio and Monster Manual 2 were very welcome tools. I have seen what is available but I still want a couple of monster books, a DM's book with treasure and traps a players options book with domains, path options etc. the 3-4 books will give me almost all that I want. If WOTC make them I will buy them, I can get by without them but I want them

It's interesting that in the 3e era WOTC wasn't that interested in producing adventures as they considered they only sell one of them per 5 players ( to the GM) so instead produced splat books with player options. Now they seem to be all about adventures and no player options


----------



## Raith5 (Apr 16, 2015)

It seems that much like magic items in 5e, if you want setting or niche support you need to gather up a party of adventurers and brave chilly depth of a second hand bookshops, goodwill stores or drivethru RPG to find the setting support and niche support created by the glorious empires and kingdoms of yesterday. Equal parts cool and sad.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 16, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Underdark, Shining South, Unapproachable East, Cormyr,  Serpent Kingdoms,  Lost Empires of Faerun, various Bix sets and adventures such as Myth Drannor, Zhentil Keep, etc....
> ...
> I'm guessing you are new to the game and didn't pay much attention to previous editions because they are full of story elements.



I'm guessing you didn't pay attention to my post where I said, "with the exception of campaign settings." But please, continue listing the things I said did have story.

EDIT: Also, I said "crunch" books, and you list a bunch of fluff books. Next time you want to casually insult someone, at least be right.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Apr 16, 2015)

How many 5e players actually run the published adventures? I'm curious. Has Wizards taken a survey, or just done a comparison of sales?

I'd rather have products that help me make my own adventures (NOT stories ... pre-plotting is bad). Not splat books, but rather game elements for adventures. Think Book of Lairs, Ready Ref Sheets, Monster and Treasure Assortment.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 16, 2015)

Throw that Branding Iron  around some more WOTC. 

For me,  This interview is not surprising in the least.Much of this business model was talked about during the playtest. D&D is now a geek lifestyle brand. Yawn. 

This just confirms for me to  stop hoping for previous levels of support from old business models, and to continue to spend my money elsewhere with gamers making the kinds of product I want to buy. 

Thank You Ryan Dancey for the OGL.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> For me, Nathan's words just emphasize the need for a good licensing agreement that will allow people like me (I don't care about FR in the slightest, and I would love to see a new setting) to get 5e content from other publishers.
> 
> If WotC wants to focus on FR, that's fine (maybe it's even a good idea if they can license their other settings to other publishers for a small fee).  None of the FR products will attract my limited recreational budget, but as long as I have someone else I can turn to who can and will provide the 5e material I would like then I'll be happy to give them my cash instead of WotC.




OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL

Maybe if I say it backwards while looking in a mirror.

LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO


----------



## delericho (Apr 16, 2015)

Lord Rasputin said:


> How many 5e players actually run the published adventures? I'm curious. Has Wizards taken a survey, or just done a comparison of sales?




I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is "very few", but I suspect sales aren't the point.

One of D&D's problems is that, despite having 40 years of history behind it, it has actually generated very few recognisable characters that can be licensed, and many of the ones it does have are problematic: Dragonlance is tainted by that crappy animated film, Strahd is a knock-off of the public-domain Dracula, and Drizzt's skin tone makes a film awkward.

The other problem they have is that you can't plan for something to gain traction with the audience - some things work, many fail. Marvel has hundreds of characters, but how many people could name more than a dozen?

So part of the reason for the emphasis on story is to generate IP and characters that _might_ gain traction, and that could then be licensed out. It seems ToD hasn't done that, and it doesn't look like PotA will either, but maybe that "Alice in Wonderland" story? Or the pirate-themed one? Or something. But in a few years, they may find we're all talking about something they've put out, and then _that's_ the one they'll look to build on. (And as with venture capital, or indeed the Marvel universe, one big success pays for an awful lot of relative failures.)


----------



## tyrlaan (Apr 16, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL OGL
> 
> Maybe if I say it backwards while looking in a mirror.
> 
> LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO LGO




This, 100 times this. If they release a good OGL, I'm completely fine with WotC doing whatever else they want. If they don't, well, it almost seems like they're just thumbing their nose at us.

I don't need story from them. I don't even really need crunch from them. I just need someone to be able to provide the crunch and be able to legally publish it. I'm never shy about drafting up my own rules, but I think it will be irritating to the gaming community as a whole if there are 345,023 different iterations of psions out there, for example. 

I'm all behind minimizing splatbooks and bloat, but currently the PHB feels kind of like the 4e Essentials books did to me... "oh you want to play a cleric? Here's material for only 2 of the domains. Mage? We'll cover 3 of the spell schools."


----------



## Mercule (Apr 16, 2015)

Rygar said:


> I agree.  I hate Forgotten Realms.  If that's their only setting I'll continue to give Paizo hundreds a year and WOTC $0.



To be 100% honest, I'm not sure I'd be as annoyed if it wasn't the Realms getting the attention. Talk about a dead horse. It's the most thoroughly developed setting for D&D, probably any game system. I'm not sure Tolkien did as much work on Middle Earth as we have available for the Realms. The fact that I've always found the setting... less than interesting probably doesn't help my position.

If the goal is to avoid retreading, it would be more honest to do a "one and done" AP for each existing setting. Better yet, come up with APs that call for worlds built around them. Don't do a full-on campaign setting book, but make the AP slightly thicker and have it stand on its own entirely. For bonus points, when you have something like Eberron that offers special classes/races/feats (thinking Dragonmarks), include that in the book, too. Or... that might be a player's guide that would sell itself.

Really, PoA almost has enough information to be stand-alone, rather than Realms-based. It's not the whole world, but doesn't have to be. If the next adventure path was pirate-themed, you have a coastal region. Those may or may not exist in the same "implied setting". Something like the "Age of Worms" AP adds even more info.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Apr 16, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, excepting Underdark (which was originally a part of the World of Greyhawk) all of this is FR stuff, isn't it?
> D&D isn't (or apparently _wasn't_) FR.
> 
> Imho, FR sucks. FR is everything that I ever disliked about (generic) fantasy settings. It's the worst setting every published for an RPG. Yeah, I guess I'm in the minority about this, but at least your browser seems to agree with me



Thats an opinion, but for those like you there are thousands of grognards like me who love the FR, (check out Candlekeep forum). FR is why Ive stayed with D&D and its almost become synonymous with the brand. Like the article mentions, it lets the design team do just about anything in terms of creating stories.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 16, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Thats an opinion, but for those like you there are thousands of grognards like me who love the FR, (check out Candlekeep forum). FR is why Ive stayed with D&D and its almost become synonymous with the brand. Like the article mentions, it lets the design team do just about anything in terms of creating stories.



And this, despite my personal distaste for the Realms, is why I accept that it will remain a major factor. So long as D&D (and D&D supplements) don't become Realms, Realms, Realms, I'm comfortable with using that setting to pay the bills.

My frustration at this interview -- and pretty much all the speak that's come out of Wizards -- is that the Realms is taking over everything.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 16, 2015)

Leatherhead said:


> You can go to Barnes & Noble to get the books.




There is no Barnes&Noble for over 180 miles from where I live.  I live in the 2nd largest city in my state.  The town I lived in prior, after Borders shut down there wasn't a major book retailer for over 400 miles.  Barnes and Nobile simply does not have the same sort of presence that WalMart or even Target has.  Both of those retailers could carry D&D books with little trouble.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2015)

Halivar said:


> Next time you want to casually insult someone, at least be right.





Folks, so you are aware, "Harry Dresden" is an alt of a serial jerk, trying to get around his (or her) permaban.  Please pay this user no mind.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 16, 2015)

DELETE.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> ICv2 rankings. And I'm not talking about sells, but support. By stillbirth I ment the support the edition gets, not sells, althought they are tied. D&D came back from the dead with the launch of the 5e core books. The launch wasn't perfect, but it had lots of goodwill and momentum. Gamers were looking forward to it, there wasn't any notable division. Then came the cancellation of the Adventurer's Handbook and a bunch of interviews from designers.




They have released 7 products in 10 months. Frog God games has released an additional 4 books for it. That's over a book a month, and these aren't counting the small guides like the Spell Cards, the DM's Screen, the free Players supplements, the free basic rules supplements, etc. We haven't even gone through an entire year of having this product out yet, and you're already calling it stillborn because they released the Adventurer's Handbook for free. 



> People are realizing that D&D, the RPG, won't get much support. This lack of support is not a sign of an edition that is alive and kicking, that maintains the initial enthusiasm. Seems more like a legacy product. If gamers aren't enthusiastic with an edition, they won't play/buy much of it. Those who do seem happy with the current release schedule are those who say they are tired of books being published. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I doubt they would have bought much products in the first place. So, WotC is cattering to gamers who wouldn't of bought its books in the first place. Weird.




By "People" I'm assuming you refer to yourself alone? Because there's nothing that supports that notion that it won't get any more releases. Why are RPGs, the one game dependent on players being able to use a single product for years, held up to a higher standard than any other medium for product releases? A video game in a single series releases once a year or once ever several years, but an RPG must have more support than a book a month or its dead in the water? I see more enthusiasm for this edition than any other, and that's with the current release schedule. I just don't see any evidence for what you're saying.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

Lord Rasputin said:


> How many 5e players actually run the published adventures? I'm curious. Has Wizards taken a survey, or just done a comparison of sales?
> 
> I'd rather have products that help me make my own adventures (NOT stories ... pre-plotting is bad). Not splat books, but rather game elements for adventures. Think Book of Lairs, Ready Ref Sheets, Monster and Treasure Assortment.




To be honest, I'm fairly certain the amount of people that buy adventures far exceeds that of those that buy stuff like assortment sheets and books of single use dungeons.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

Mercule said:


> To be 100% honest, I'm not sure I'd be as annoyed if it wasn't the Realms getting the attention. Talk about a dead horse. It's the most thoroughly developed setting for D&D, probably any game system. I'm not sure Tolkien did as much work on Middle Earth as we have available for the Realms. The fact that I've always found the setting... less than interesting probably doesn't help my position.
> 
> If the goal is to avoid retreading, it would be more honest to do a "one and done" AP for each existing setting. Better yet, come up with APs that call for worlds built around them. Don't do a full-on campaign setting book, but make the AP slightly thicker and have it stand on its own entirely. For bonus points, when you have something like Eberron that offers special classes/races/feats (thinking Dragonmarks), include that in the book, too. Or... that might be a player's guide that would sell itself.
> 
> Really, PoA almost has enough information to be stand-alone, rather than Realms-based. It's not the whole world, but doesn't have to be. If the next adventure path was pirate-themed, you have a coastal region. Those may or may not exist in the same "implied setting". Something like the "Age of Worms" AP adds even more info.




Isn't this what they're already doing? PotA comes with twenty pages of references of where to put the adventure in other campaign settings. Yes, Tyranny of Dragons was pretty much Faerun exclusive, but they've said that the game itself is setting agnostic. 

I compare a lot of this stuff to video games, but that's only because its a good analogy. Forgotten Realms is the only well known setting that Wizards owns. It has famous video games based off of it, famous characters, best selling books, comics, forums, etc. People may have heard of Dragonlance, but they have almost certainly never heard of Eberron or Dark Sun. And I'm guessing that as of now, Wizards doesn't really care about us people that have played the game for years. They already won most of us over with the ruleset, and I would be just fine and dandy playing with the three core books for years. They want new players, teenagers, kids, young adults who only play Call of Duty or Destiny all day long. It's the same problem that companies like Nintendo have in the gaming industry, where people complain and complain that they're retreading old ground with Mario and Zelda. But Nintendo doesn't care, because they know that their primary customers are those that have never played a Mario game or a Zelda game, but have heard of them through their parents and older siblings. Forgotten Realms, as hated as it seems to be on these boards, is the only thing they can rely on for people to have heard about. Why would they even think about trying to sell a new game based on an unknown setting?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 16, 2015)

Zaran said:


> I don't understand why this is making everyone cheer.  They basically said that we aren't getting anything to use in MY stories.  Just stuff I have to steal from theirs.   I don't want their stories.  I want tools for making my own.
> 
> It's great that they want to give us video games but it doesn't do anything for my home game.



Video games = money.

Hasbro probably want to bring dnd over to a more profitable market than tabletop rpgs.

(which pretty much is all other markets)


----------



## halfling rogue (Apr 16, 2015)

Personally, I could care less about the setting they fix themselves to for the long haul. For me and any group I've played with, we've never delved too deep into the intricacies of a setting as a whole. Our stories center around our characters rather than where our characters play. I do see why some folks cringe though.

What I'd like to see more than anything is some shorter (and cheaper) adventures. Some one-shots or maybe just a small little sandbox centered around a town/wilderness/dungeon. I imagine they could come up with a few nifty 'side' adventures that could be released alongside (or before/after) one of their big AP storylines. I think it would be great if they decided a couple big adventures per year as tentpoles, but maybe alongside those release, say, 4-6 shorter adventures per year (heck, call em modules), that perhaps could tie in thematically, and sell them in a softcover format, like the cardboard of days of yore, or the magazine format like Lost Mine. To be honest, unless some story just kicks the door down and explodes with awesomeness, I'm not buying it for $50. Some of us don't have the ability to sustain a long campaign, but I think many (if not all) gamers could benefit from a zany one-shot or a short module. I would buy the heck out of them. It would at least give another option for folks and far from compromising your overall goal of major arching storylines, it actually supports it. If story story story is the motivation then more stories seems like a good thing.

Also in this way you can free yourself up (as the publisher) to have a bit of fun and variety. You can take one short module and give it a pulpy vibe, take another and do a detective type mystery, another could be horror, another could be high cinematic adventure, etc. And all of that can be plugged in with your story theme de jour. I really don't see a drawback to a handful of cheaply produced adventures per year, especially ones that thematically connect to the overarching story. Can you see any drawback to it?

EDIT: upon a quick reflection, it does seem like they are doing 'mini' stories via Adventure League. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about books on store shelves and for purchase.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm not calling the guy a liar. It is just that metrics can be spinned and interprated in various ways to create a desired perception.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Apr 16, 2015)

I forgive Nathan the corporate hyperbole in saying D&D has stopped being a tabletop game because of this:



			
				Nathan Stewart said:
			
		

> we’re gonna have long cycles, and so when we go all in on Greyhawk or Dragonlance or Spelljammers, that’s going to be awhile.




That'll do, Nate.  That'll do.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (Apr 16, 2015)

From the interview:

"Now, with that being said, we recognize that a lot of fans love other settings, so we will be doing things to give those guys tools to support that in their own way. But we’re gonna have long cycles, and so when we go all in on Greyhawk or Dragonlance or Spelljammers, that’s going to be awhile. We’ll support that stuff, we’ll give players the tools to do things that they want to do, but the main focus will be on the Forgotten Realms for a long time."

I wish they would come right out and tell us what in the world their plan is!! I'm sorry, but not everything has to revolve around the Forgotten Realms. Everyone is like .... well it's the most fleshed-out campaign, and more importantly, the one that makes them the most money. TRUE. You know why? Because since the grey box was first released in 1987 .... it's the only campaign that had any real support. They changed everything else constantly. After Gygax was booted out of TSR, D&D has tried to distance itself from him ever since, (until those last 3-4 years of his life.) They have said time and time again in the core books for this edition that the default setting for D&D is THE D&D Multi-verse. But thanks to video games, every story takes place in the Realms. Fine .... whatever, at least come out with an update to The Realms. This is BS that we have to buy your story books to get updates to The Realms. I know most of you are going to be like .... update it yourself then!!

NO!!!!!

If that is the setting they are going to be "staying in" for "a long time" ..... they need to update the whole thing so we have a better understanding of what is going on in the Realms. Myself, like many others, didn't play 4th Edition, so I, (again .... like many others,) do not know what has changed in the Realms since 3rd. I shouldn't have to look up fan sites to find out what is going on. Like many others have stated ..... I feel psionics need to be updated for this new edition as well.

It's very frustrating as a fan of the D&D multi-verse to know that we are not going to get the complete support we crave because the setting we love has a name other than The Forgotten Realms. Sure we are going to get support .... some day .... maybe, but we won't get big, huge, beautiful maps, detailed descriptions of The Free City of Greyhawk, or Palanthas, or know how to operate a Spelljamming vessal, or a much needed update to The Lady of Pain. They have said time and again that PotA was NOT part 3 of The Temple of Elemental Evil. Yet in the introduction to that book by Mike Mearls, he clearly states that PotA is the successor to The Temple of Elemental Evil. I wonder what is next? Moving Castle Ravenloft to Amn (completely taking it out of Barovia?) Why is it so wrong then to let 3PP who love these settings, (and probably know more about them than WoTC/Hasbro .... just see Sovereign Press' 3.5 Dragonlance books. Thank-you for those Margaret Weis,) update these settings?

And the thing that rips my heart out the most is ..... I actually love 5th Edition. Unfortunately, right now I'm only a player, and like one other person said here, I too will not be DM'ing in this new edition anytime soon. I'll save that for Pathfinder.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 16, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I'm guessing you didn't pay attention to my post where I said, "with the exception of campaign settings." But please, continue listing the things I said did have story.
> 
> EDIT: Also, I said "crunch" books, and you list a bunch of fluff books. Next time you want to casually insult someone, at least be right.



I wasn't being a jerk, I was just making a statement. Those books also contain a fair bit of crunch as well. They have prestige classes, spells, feats, magic items, etc......


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (Apr 16, 2015)

I look at the way that this new edition has borrowed much from Pathfinder. Examples being, D&D Next playtest available for download like Pathfinder was before it's release. D&D minis now being based on story lines like Pathfinder Battles minis are. D&D core books costing $50 like the PF Core Book, (even though that book is a PHB and DMG in one book.) The Wizard now rolls 1D6 for HP's like in PF.

Why can't WoTC do map packs also then? In the back of PoA, they give examples on how to convert that story to other settings in the D&D multi-verse. Cool. So I ask a 14 year-old first time DM ..... where is the Cairn Hills in Greyhawk. Have you ever heard of Hommlet? At least give us map packs ...... please? At least we'd know where these places are.

A Forgotten Realms map pack with 4 HUGE quadrants, that when put together give us this ginormous overview of Faerun wouldn't be so bad. (or even a nice map pack of Waterdeep would be awesome too!!)


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> They have released 7 products in 10 months. Frog God games has released an additional 4 books for it.



As far as I know, Frog God isn't WotC. Its products do not have WotC's seal on it, so it isn't WotC supporting its edition. Out of the 7 products WotC released you have a starter kit that is for noobs. So we are left with the core books, which is the birth of an edition. The very basis. Cool. What else? Psionics? Planes? Campaign settings (old or new), MM2? No. 

What else as came out? Well not much. Two lackluster APs (one of which is divided in two books). Not very enticing to buy and nothing but those are coming out. 1 or 2 a year. Want something else? Too bad for you. WotC doesn't want your patronage. 

Maybe if WotC actually published ground braking APs that reinvented the product like Paizo did, and still does, the strategy of putting all their eggs in one basket wouldn't be so bad. Right now it is an edition with core rules books and not much else to give it attractiveness.



> That's over a book a month, and these aren't counting the small guides like the Spell Cards, the DM's Screen,



Not content. Just redundant stuff to drain your money. Like Fantasy Ground's platform is not content, just a platform for the little content we have.



> the free Players supplements, the free basic rules supplements, etc.



Wow. 4 races. Unearthed stuff is nice, but limited in scope and length. Not playtested either. It is scraps. Not meat.



> We haven't even gone through an entire year of having this product out yet, and you're already calling it stillborn because they released the Adventurer's Handbook for free.



A year of stuff out? Read the interview. If another AP comes out this year, we're lucky. D&D with 1 or 2 APs coming out a year is not a lively edition. It is on life support. 



> By "People" I'm assuming you refer to yourself alone?



Lets see what Merriam-Webster has to say about the wrd people: 







> humans making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest



. Um. So, no. 



> Because there's nothing that supports that notion that it won't get any more releases.



Aside from the brand manager saying in the interview found in the OP?



> Why are RPGs, the one game dependent on players being able to use a single product for years, held up to a higher standard than any other medium for product releases?



Video game gamers consumme a lot more than one a year. The problem is platform for RPGs. AKA the rules. Only WotC can make D&D stuff, unless it releases a OGL. The platform for video games is either a PC or a console. Once you have a PC, you can buy many games. Consoles work with third parties to have content for their platform. WotC isn't doing that. Maybe they will you say? Well, so far all that has been said points to no. Ok, the APs. But those are subpar and niche. 



> A video game in a single series releases once a year or once ever several years, but an RPG must have more support than a book a month or its dead in the water?



The platform isn't supported. That is why it lost its liveliness. Its momemtum. 

Want psionics, planar details, campaign settings, new classes, more magic items, other monster manuals? Too bad for you. You have all that you'll get.   



> I see more enthusiasm for this edition than any other,



I saw more enthusiasm with 3e and Pathfinder. Well, not at first. When the core books were caming out, there was lots of positive feedback. Once the DMG was out people started looking at what was coming next. The Adventurer's Handbook was cancelled and no product are annouced after PotA. Enthusiasm led way to 
disappointement. Maybe frustration. Sure some are happy, but those are people who probably wouldn't have bought other products (based on their comments about dislike of bloat). 



> I just don't see any evidence for what you're saying.



Check out this thread and the people voicing disappointement. Or the thread started by the Jon Brazer guy, saying D&D isn't maintaining his interest, to paraphrase.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 16, 2015)

chibi graz'zt said:


> Thats an opinion, but for those like you there are thousands of grognards like me who love the FR, (check out Candlekeep forum). FR is why Ive stayed with D&D and its almost become synonymous with the brand. Like the article mentions, it lets the design team do just about anything in terms of creating stories.




It's the best known setting, but since 2008 I'm not sure if the FR fan base is nearly as healthy or enthusiastic as it was prior to then, with the tone and reception on Candle keep as an indicator (plus the severe slowdown on novels and no obvious plans for a FR campaign setting).


----------



## Mercule (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> Isn't this what they're already doing? PotA comes with twenty pages of references of where to put the adventure in other campaign settings. Yes, Tyranny of Dragons was pretty much Faerun exclusive, but they've said that the game itself is setting agnostic.



Yup. PotA == good way to straddle the line. ToD == useless if you don't like Faerun. As much as I'd like to have seen PotA be set in Greyhawk or a non-setting, the way it was done is within my "suck it up" bounds. If this is the model, going forward, I'll grouse a bit but be fine. If ToD is more representative of the norm, I'll be buying less product.

Ideal: At least half the releases should be non-Realms. This means either a different published setting (Eberron, Ravenloft, etc.) or settingless. 
Result: I buy stuff just because it's interesting, even if I don't plan to use it.

Acceptable: The vast majority of releases use the Realms as the "implied setting", but are loosely coupled and have some conversion notes (i.e. use PotA as the model). 
Result: I look at most things and buy what looks useful and/or easy to scrub off the Realms-stink. Complain a little bit, but generally glad to have stuff to play.

Unacceptable: Releases are largely tied to the Realms in ways that are hard to detach (ToD model) and things that update the Realms "story" are seen as primary.
Result: I grow increasingly frustrated with the game products and eventually stop following releases and bothering to even see when something new is released. I leave ENWorld, like I did during 4E and you don't have to listen to my dissatisfaction.

I've reconciled myself to a less than ideal situation, which doesn't bother me because few things in life are ideal. Right now, I'm trying to figure out whether the model falls into the "acceptable" or "unacceptable" box; so far it seems like a coin flip. There are actually more products (LMoP and PotA) that are "acceptable" than are "unacceptable" (ToD). All the words I hear come from Wizards, though, sound less than encouraging. It could just be a communication thing (either side of the equation), though -- like I said, I'm trying to figure that out. If I'm really lucky, things will be "acceptable" with a couple of bones towards "ideal".

Note: I'm explicitly excluding PHB, DMG, and MM from "releases". I know they qualify as such, but they're not really indicative of what Wizards has said the future holds.



> Forgotten Realms is the only well known setting that Wizards owns. ... Forgotten Realms, as hated as it seems to be on these boards, is the only thing they can rely on for people to have heard about. Why would they even think about trying to sell a new game based on an unknown setting?



I can't disagree with what you say, here. That's why I say I don't have a problem using FR to pay the bills. It's also why I'm paranoid about D&D becoming "All Realms, all the time!" It makes some sense, but it's not what I, personally, want out of the game.

To put a fairly fine point on things: I don't really give one whit about a product line's solvency if said product line doesn't benefit me, personally. 

That's not a statement of "I hope they go out of business for messing with my stuff." It's a factual statement of disinterest. I have no interest in the Forgotten Realms continuing to exist in any medium (RPG, video game, movie, book, etc.). Full stop. If it thrives, good on it. If it disappeared tomorrow, I'd shrug and move on -- if it even got that much of a reaction. The only value the Realms serves to me is in whether it directly or indirectly helps finance non-Realms D&D products.

When the party line is "we're doing nothing but Realms for the foreseeable future", I want to know whether the products I actually care about are dead or whether it's some combination of "we need to pay some bills to be able to support other stuff" and "we're using the Realms as a default/implied setting, but no more so than Greyhawk was for 1E." Even if Wizards doesn't plan to ever publish anything of value to me, again (which I doubt, it's more a matter of portion), my rules books don't become useless. It just means that I can tune out to future products, and I'll be waiting for 6E to launch with "Forgotten Realms PHB".


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Apr 16, 2015)

A lot of marketing talk and I'm not really interested in their stories, but I'm pretty set with the 3 awesome books we have so far. Its a complete game. If they put something else out down the line I'll check it out, but its got no real effect on my game on Wed nights. 

Would have been nice to hear "Oh btw Dungeon is coming back", but if not I've got a ton of easy to adapt adventures from already.


----------



## ehren37 (Apr 16, 2015)

Mistwell said:


>




That's why my irony meter goes to 11.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Apr 16, 2015)

> It's very frustrating as a fan of the D&D multi-verse to know that we are not going to get the complete support we crave because the setting we love has a name other than The Forgotten Realms. Sure we are going to get support .... some day .... maybe, but we won't get big, huge, beautiful maps, detailed descriptions of The Free City of Greyhawk, or Palanthas, or know how to operate a Spelljamming vessal, or a much needed update to The Lady of Pain. They have said time and again that PotA was NOT part 3 of The Temple of Elemental Evil. Yet in the introduction to that book by Mike Mearls, he clearly states that PotA is the successor to The Temple of Elemental Evil. I wonder what is next? Moving Castle Ravenloft to Amn (completely taking it out of Barovia?) Why is it so wrong then to let 3PP who love these settings, (and probably know more about them than WoTC/Hasbro .... just see Sovereign Press' 3.5 Dragonlance books. Thank-you for those Margaret Weis,) update these settings?
> 
> And the thing that rips my heart out the most is ..... I actually love 5th Edition. Unfortunately, right now I'm only a player, and like one other person said here, I too will not be DM'ing in this new edition anytime soon. I'll save that for Pathfinder.




There is something odd in your position. First you lament a lack of old dnd campaign setting Support, then you announce you move to pathfinder. I believe that would be far more rational if you use 5th edition rules with old campaign material...


----------



## Jaron Mortimer (Apr 16, 2015)

A lot of the fan's issues (such as mine) would be solved if they just had a damn OGL for this edition. People keep talking about psionics, and how much they want that, but even Pathfinder didn't do that in house (Thank you, DSP). 

Give the third parties a chance to make the stuff you don't want to make while you're making your big, set piece adventures. The third party bloat is NOT what killed 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0...it was the WOTC published bloat that killed them.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> As far as I know, Frog God isn't WotC. Its products do not have WotC's seal on it, so it isn't WotC supporting its edition. Out of the 7 products WotC released you have a starter kit that is for noobs. So we are left with the core books, which is the birth of an edition. The very basis. Cool. What else? Psionics? Planes? Campaign settings (old or new), MM2? No.
> 
> What else as came out? Well not much. Two lackluster APs (one of which is divided in two books). Not very enticing to buy and nothing but those are coming out. 1 or 2 a year. Want something else? Too bad for you. WotC doesn't want your patronage.
> 
> ...




What I'm hearing is, content that is not what I want isn't content, just redundant stuff to drain your money. I can't argue with this, because it's an opinion that is twisting the word "content" into something contextualized purely for yourself.



> A year of stuff out? Read the interview. If another AP comes out this year, we're lucky. D&D with 1 or 2 APs coming out a year is not a lively edition. It is on life support.
> 
> Aside from the brand manager saying in the interview found in the OP?




Please provide the quote saying that they will not release any more products for D&D. There were a lot about the brand manager, i.e. someone who doesn't actually write the content for WotC, talking about the brand. I don't see anything about book releases except that they won't release a Player's Handbook 2 any time soon.



> Video game gamers consumme a lot more than one a year. The problem is platform for RPGs. AKA the rules. Only WotC can make D&D stuff, unless it releases a OGL. The platform for video games is either a PC or a console. Once you have a PC, you can buy many games. Consoles work with third parties to have content for their platform. WotC isn't doing that. Maybe they will you say? Well, so far all that has been said points to no. Ok, the APs. But those are subpar and niche.




Please provide evidence where the APs are both subpar and niche. 



> The platform isn't supported. That is why it lost its liveliness. Its momemtum.
> 
> Want psionics, planar details, campaign settings, new classes, more magic items, other monster manuals? Too bad for you. You have all that you'll get.




This game has been out for 10 months. Not even Pathfinder had any of that stuff 10 months after release, and they straight up ripped everything from the 3.5 books. Calm down, you're being absurdly fatalistic.



> I saw more enthusiasm with 3e and Pathfinder. Well, not at first. When the core books were caming out, there was lots of positive feedback. Once the DMG was out people started looking at what was coming next. The Adventurer's Handbook was cancelled and no product are annouced after PotA. Enthusiasm led way to
> disappointement. Maybe frustration. Sure some are happy, but those are people who probably wouldn't have bought other products (based on their comments about dislike of bloat).
> 
> Check out this thread and the people voicing disappointement. Or the thread started by the Jon Brazer guy, saying D&D isn't maintaining his interest, to paraphrase.




Fortunately, this single message board does not constitute the entire gaming community (not to mention if you actually do read that Jon Brazer thread, there's an outpouring of support for 5E). Purely by myself, I've seen much more enthusiasm with actual play, with people going into gaming stores to buy the books, with Adventurer's League, with new players first starting than I ever did with Pathfinder or 4E. Maybe I wasn't quite into the scene then as I am now, but I don't remember Pathfinder getting the news articles that 5E is on CNN and Forbes. 

The bottom line is this: The game hasn't been out that long. Wizards is hesitant to build up people's expectations, and have been keeping things very close to their chest. PotA was announced, what, a month and half before release? There's plenty of time for more content to be released. Besides, I'm having a hard time believing that you have already exhausted the contents of the three core books already.


----------



## Zaran (Apr 16, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Video games = money.
> 
> Hasbro probably want to bring dnd over to a more profitable market than tabletop rpgs.
> 
> (which pretty much is all other markets)




Good for them.  Bad for me.  And in my opinion bad for the hobby.

Perhaps they should hire a few more people and do both.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 16, 2015)

Amen SilverfireSage, amen!


----------



## Mercule (Apr 16, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> update it yourself then!!



Having lived/played through the 1E => 2E change, that didn't break much existing stuff. Even if an NPC was statted for 1E, you could use him in a 2E game. I hated the 2E Ranger, so we used the 1E Ranger all the way through. No issues at all. The 1E NPC classes in Dragon worked in a 2E game. You could apply many 2E kits to their 1E class.

3E and 4E broke huge amounts of stuff. That isn't the same thing as saying the rules were bad. They were just substantive shifts and really demanded an update to things. In many cases, there wasn't so much a conversion path as there was a rebuild path.

5E is a weird middle ground of compatibility. It actually seems to mostly work for at least 1E through 3.5E (I don't have any 4E stuff to compare, anymore). It still takes some effort, but it isn't always a complete rebuild.

We're going to have a 6E, whether next year or in 2030. If it comes in the next few years and is a 2E => 3E jump, then I get not publishing any new core setting books. What we've got works well enough to make the opportunity cost inappropriate.

On the other hand, if 5E is really the "evergreen" edition, including the idea that 5E => 6E will look more like the 1E => 2E upgrade, then I'd really like to just have an "evergreen" setting book.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 16, 2015)

wedgeski said:


> What I find interesting about your comments is that they represent exactly one of the things that caused Paizo to spin off on their own in the first place: that 4E couldn't tell the kind of stories they wanted to tell.




Pretty sure that was not the reason Paizo developed the Pathfinder game. It had nothing to do with "stories" and everything to do with the lack of an OGL at the time and Paizo's need to have a product line that was not reliant on WotC.



> WotC's method makes for a particular flavour of D&D and varies in its success, and I don't think there's much chance the company is going to change its approach: they stuck to the formula through 4E and it looks like they're sticking to it now.




I may be missing what you are saying, but WotC has a very different approach to 5E than they did for 4E.



> I'm inclined to pick up one of Paizo's more recent AP's so as to get a feel for where their experience has taken them. Like it or not, their audience is, I think, different than Wizards' in many ways. They can afford to take a few more risks.




Paizo does tell interesting and awesome stories, and they do push the envelope on the D&D genre of fantasy. WotC does play it more "safe" (which is maybe what you meant above) and does not push far past the boundaries of "standard" D&D. But considering their position in the industry and the resources they have to develop the game and the brand, I'm fine with that. WotC and D&D are the core of the RPG industry, but there is certainly more out there worth checking out. I'm fine with that relationship!


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 16, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Pretty sure that was not the reason Paizo developed the Pathfinder game. It had nothing to do with "stories" and everything to do with the lack of an OGL at the time and Paizo's need to have a product line that was not reliant on WotC.



It was most definitely stated as one of the reasons the GSL was inappropriate for them.



> Paizo does tell interesting and awesome stories, and they do push the envelope on the D&D genre of fantasy. WotC does play it more "safe" (which is maybe what you meant above) and does not push far past the boundaries of "standard" D&D.



Yes that's pretty much what I meant. It's one of those nebulous things: you can tell a WotC story when you see it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2015)

tyrlaan said:


> This, 100 times this. If they release a good OGL, I'm completely fine with WotC doing whatever else they want. If they don't, well, it almost seems like they're just thumbing their nose at us.




I mean, I don't entirely agree, but lets say this: if the "safe harbor" to publish 5e content were available, the people who wanted more product can go throw money at those folks with the time and inclination to put together a decent-looking PDF or even a published product, and the complaints of those who continued to grouse about a "lack of support" because it "wasn't from WotC" would seem...at the very least, *very specific.*


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 16, 2015)

Zaran said:


> Good for them.  Bad for me.  And in my opinion bad for the hobby.
> 
> Perhaps they should hire a few more people and do both.




No, your opinion is bad for the INDUSTRY. Hobby wise its right where it needs to be. 

Hiring more people to work on LESS profitable stuff wouldn't be properly min-maxing brand profits. 

I just wish the those in charge of the rpg actually cared about it. I'm sure the people who work on it do, I'm talking about the suits that decide what resources they get. 

Things would be better for the GAME if it were in a smaller company's hands.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> I just wish the those in charge of the rpg actually cared about it. I'm sure the people who work on it do, I'm talking about the suits that decide what resources they get.
> 
> Things would be better for the GAME if it were in a smaller company's hands.




I am not really sure how.  At the moment, they have small-company resources working on the game itself.  In a small company, they'd have small-company resources.  How would that be better?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Yup. PotA == good way to straddle the line. ToD == useless if you don't like Faerun. As much as I'd like to have seen PotA be set in Greyhawk or a non-setting, the way it was done is within my "suck it up" bounds. If this is the model, going forward, I'll grouse a bit but be fine. If ToD is more representative of the norm, I'll be buying less product.




It's a hard row to hoe. 

The thing is, there's costs associated with WotC in general going either way. PotA isn't Faerun specific and that's both great for the haters, and lame for the fans. As a fan of settings, PotA doesn't give me a good reason to play in FR over any other setting, and ToD actually gave me a good reason to play Dragonlance.  If what you want is FR goodness, the crop of adventures doesn't feature much. 

But then, if they gave folks that FR-specific goodness, the haters would be repulsed like some sort of nerdy Dracula. 

If all they have is the FR hammer, then every adventure will have to look something like a nail, so going "generic" is probably a nice way to not annoy the haters too much. But from where I'm sitting, it's milquetoast. I'm not already a fan of FR, and I haven't drunk the haterade, but these adventures are showing me doodly-squat about what I can do with FR, about why I *should* love FR, about why (aside from fond nostalgia) people continue to love it. 

I do think that's easier to pull off when you've got other products for people to choose from, though.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 16, 2015)

halfling rogue said:


> Personally, I could care less about the setting they fix themselves to for the long haul. For me and any group I've played with, we've never delved too deep into the intricacies of a setting as a whole. Our stories center around our characters rather than where our characters play. I do see why some folks cringe though.
> 
> What I'd like to see more than anything is some shorter (and cheaper) adventures. Some one-shots or maybe just a small little sandbox centered around a town/wilderness/dungeon. I imagine they could come up with a few nifty 'side' adventures that could be released alongside (or before/after) one of their big AP storylines. I think it would be great if they decided a couple big adventures per year as tentpoles, but maybe alongside those release, say, 4-6 shorter adventures per year (heck, call em modules), that perhaps could tie in thematically, and sell them in a softcover format, like the cardboard of days of yore, or the magazine format like Lost Mine. To be honest, unless some story just kicks the door down and explodes with awesomeness, I'm not buying it for $50. Some of us don't have the ability to sustain a long campaign, but I think many (if not all) gamers could benefit from a zany one-shot or a short module. I would buy the heck out of them. It would at least give another option for folks and far from compromising your overall goal of major arching storylines, it actually supports it. If story story story is the motivation then more stories seems like a good thing.
> 
> ...




I agree wholeheartedly, though I think they might prefer digital as it means spending less on products that probably won't bring in as much as the bigger APs. I can see them bringing back Dragon and Dungeon as electronic magazines before I see softcover modules on store shelves, though of course I'd be fine with either offering.



HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> From the interview:
> 
> "Now, with that being said, we recognize that a lot of fans love other settings, so we will be doing things to give those guys tools to support that in their own way. But we’re gonna have long cycles, and so when we go all in on Greyhawk or Dragonlance or Spelljammers, that’s going to be awhile. We’ll support that stuff, we’ll give players the tools to do things that they want to do, but the main focus will be on the Forgotten Realms for a long time."
> 
> ...




I'm actually wondering if they're just slowing down the supplement treadmill to a longer timescale. In 4E, they dedicated each year to a new campaign setting. For 5E, we could be looking at 2-3 years of Forgotten Realms APs, followed by 2-3 years of Greyhawk, 2-3 years of Dark Sun, Eberron, Planescape, etc. Or maybe only the Realms is big enough to have a full 2-3 block, and once they start releasing official materials for the other settings they'll start cycling between them with each new AP.

And _now_ I'm wondering if they're just going to hold off on putting out a FR book until they've done ~6 FR APs they can strip all of the setting content out of and turn it into a Sword Coast Gazetteer. New prediction - in an AP or two from now we'll see one focusing primarily on the city of Waterdeep itself, so that they have a solid Waterdeep chapter for the eventual FR compendium collating all of the Realmslore appearing in the APs.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 16, 2015)

tyrlaan said:


> This, 100 times this. If they release a good OGL, I'm completely fine with WotC doing whatever else they want. If they don't, well, it almost seems like they're just thumbing their nose at us.




We are a bunch with a great sense of entitlement.  I am not sure if perhaps this sense of entitlement is worse for the hobby than whatever lacking license scheme or production schedule they might have.

How?  Well, we spend so much effort complaining and bad-mouthing WotC over how they don't give us whatever the speaker feels we are entitled to - imagine how that looks to folks who are new to the game!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> Besides, I'm having a hard time believing that you have already exhausted the contents of the three core books already.




I find this part very disingenuous. If we go by this thinking then we should still be playing basic D&D because let's face it, the imagination is limitless. 

Also, what of I don't like all the options in the core books?  What if I don't like all the Sorcerer subclasses, or I want different magic items, or more class and racial options? 

The core books aren't AP'S where you try and release the next one when most groups are wrapping up the first one. The core books are the rules that contain options that people can use in their games, but not use them just for the sake of using them. Whether or not I exhausted everything is completely irrelevant. 

You have to understand, D&D has always had a rather "meaty" product release and when you go from one extreme to the next then you make a lot of people angry. This doesn't solve rules bloat, this is almost throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Most gamers are used to having loads of options and books to buy.


----------



## fjw70 (Apr 16, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I am not really sure how.  At the moment, they have small-company resources working on the game itself.  In a small company, they'd have small-company resources.  How would that be better?




When a company expands its operations it has to look at what that return on the investment will be. A small company could have a smaller threshold for that return (as I suspect Paizo does).

I can't really be too critical of WotC since I love the game they produced (I think they hit home run --for me personally -- with 4e and 5e). I do wish there were more smaller adventure products or that they would make the AL stuff available for the general market, but I have 3PPs and older edition stuff to use with minimal conversion necessary.

My big need/want from them right now are ebook versions of their stuff.  Hopefully that happens soon.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 16, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I am not really sure how.  At the moment, they have small-company resources working on the game itself.  In a small company, they'd have small-company resources.  How would that be better?




Paizo is a much smaller company with small company resources.  The difference is that the people in charge of those resources, in addition to making money, care about the tabletop game that their customers enjoy. IMHO what good are mega company resources if they aren't being used to support the things the fans want? 

Driving revenue via "the brand" is corporate talk for we don't really what the product is so long as it makes X profit.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 16, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The thing is, there's costs associated with WotC in general going either way. PotA isn't Faerun specific and that's both great for the haters, and lame for the fans. As a fan of settings, PotA doesn't give me a good reason to play in FR over any other setting, and ToD actually gave me a good reason to play Dragonlance.  If what you want is FR goodness, the crop of adventures doesn't feature much.
> 
> But then, if they gave folks that FR-specific goodness, the haters would be repulsed like some sort of nerdy Dracula.
> 
> ...



Agree, fully.

If ToD had been in Dragonlance, then I'd have run the module and used Dragonlance. Even though I'm generally indifferent to Krynn, there's enough nostalgia there that it would have called to me. I've been so vigorously bludgeoned by the Realms, though, that I just don't want any of it.

My group was discussing this, last week. There are a couple of us that really, really liked the concept of Dark Sun, but never wanted to use it, long term. A 256 page AP would be an easy sell. Spend a six to twelve months playing on Athas, feel like we've really experienced it, then move on. Ditto for most of the other settings. We all agreed that it'd keep us entertained for years to just have one "campaign in a box" set in each of the existing worlds. Honestly, I'd probably even be up for an honest to goodness, deep and tightly coupled "year of Forgotten Realms" if I knew there was other stuff in the pipe.

To the point of having other products, I wouldn't complain (much) if they did two solid APs a year: one to build the FR "brand" and make the fans happy, and one that was either generic or had PotA-style conversion notes.

Actually, I could see where ToD could be the perfect "unhappy medium" of being too Realms-specific for people like me, but not satisfying for true Realms fans. It incorporated enough Realms locations that it was hard to decouple, but it didn't actually seem to dig into anything uniquely Realmsian. Instead, it was a generic foe set against very specific scenery.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 16, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Paizo is a much smaller company with small company resources.  The difference is that the people in charge of those resources, in addition to making money, care about the tabletop game that their customers enjoy. IMHO what good are mega company resources if they aren't being used to support the things the fans want?
> 
> Driving revenue via "the brand" is corporate talk for we don't really what the product is so long as it makes X profit.



I don't see it that way. It's true, Hasbro has more resources, and it's true, even WotC as a division has more resources than Paizo. But game for game, Paizo has fifty people and D&D has 15, and I don't for a second think those 15 people don't care deeply about the desktop game. I think they do. They aren't corporate robots; they are gamers just like us. One of them is tasked, however, with driving the brand and he's doing the best he can, I think.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (Apr 16, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> I'm actually wondering if they're just slowing down the supplement treadmill to a longer timescale. In 4E, they dedicated each year to a new campaign setting. For 5E, we could be looking at 2-3 years of Forgotten Realms APs, followed by 2-3 years of Greyhawk, 2-3 years of Dark Sun, Eberron, Planescape, etc. Or maybe only the Realms is big enough to have a full 2-3 block, and once they start releasing official materials for the other settings they'll start cycling between them with each new AP.
> 
> And _now_ I'm wondering if they're just going to hold off on putting out a FR book until they've done ~6 FR APs they can strip all of the setting content out of and turn it into a Sword Coast Gazetteer. New prediction - in an AP or two from now we'll see one focusing primarily on the city of Waterdeep itself, so that they have a solid Waterdeep chapter for the eventual FR compendium collating all of the Realmslore appearing in the APs.




You know what Trickster .... I think this is an awesome idea!! I could be patient for this. It just bothers me that they just refuse to let us know what in the world is going on. I have to say this. My honest opinion ...... it's not MY fault that sales started dropping off at the tail-end of 3.5 (some of those books felt like they weren't even playtested.) It's not my fault that 4th Edition didn't make Hasbro the kind of money Hasbro was hoping to see. It's not my fault that Pathfinder was such a success. Some of the things that WoTC is doing, it feels like I'm the one being punished for not supporting 4th like I did the previous editions to it.

I pray someone from WoTC/Hasbro sees your post!! Having to wait for something like this would suck, but it would be worth it in the end!! I would so back something like that 100%. Just knowing we'd be getting the multi-verse update, would cool my jets big time!


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 16, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> The difference is that the people in charge of those resources, in addition to making money, care about the tabletop game that their customers enjoy.




Pure speculation! 

You have no idea if WotC care more or less for their product, fans or brand than Paizo. Paizo publish books to make money, and do it while enjoying it as well. They aren't a social service catering to every whim of their fan base. WotC is beginning to sound more like a made up Evil Empire by the vocalists on the internet, whom by no means, are those that represent the fan base.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> What I'm hearing is, content that is not what I want isn't content, just redundant stuff to drain your money.



How are spell cards, DM screens or a virtual table top content? Or new content to be more precise. They are platforms for content. Nothing wrong with that, it just isn't a new class, a new monster, details on the sundering or a new setting. Those are content. 



> Please provide the quote saying that they will not release any more products for D&D. There were a lot about the brand manager, i.e. someone who doesn't actually write the content for WotC, talking about the brand. I don't see anything about book releases except that they won't release a Player's Handbook 2 any time soon.



Wow. Ok. Now I understand. 

First, you do not have to write the stuff to know what is coming out. That is especially true when you manage the whole brand. As for the quote here it is. Basically he is saying that splat and campaign books outside of the stories (APs) are going to be a rarety (if we see any) 







> I wouldn’t be surprised if we do some books here and there that pick up things that the fanbase wants in between stories, because of the feedback we’re hearing. But by and large everything we’re delivering is supporting that annual story –and there’s zero plans for a Player’s Handbook 2 any time on the horizon.



. The PHB 2 is used as an example of splat. Complete Divine could have been used instead. Saying that he won't surprised if stand alone books are made, seems to indicate nothing is in the works or planned so far. I do not know if you read a lot of interviews done by WotC folks, but a lot of what they say is subtext. This interview is the clearest so far and just confirms what a lot of people have understood from previous interviews. Like that the FR are for a long period of time the default setting of D&D.

WotC is going to make 1 or 2 APs a year (do you agree disagree so far?) and it will support that AP with its partners who will make minis, video games that share story elements, comics books, DM screens, etc (do you agree disagree?). That is it. Did yo uunderstand a FR campaign setting or gazetteris in the works? A splatbook? A Manual of the Planes, psionics or a MM2? Please share if you read that. All I saw was stories stories, stories. No more books just for books. 

Heck, from his comment about just releasing 1 AP a year because people are starting to make their hoem game, we might not see another book until next year. 







> Now that we’re seeing more, homebrew campaigns get started, maybe that number goes down to one big story a year.



 Nothing else has been announced for this year aside from Sword Coast Legends. And that is not PnP RPG content.



> Please provide evidence where the APs are both subpar and niche.



Evidence? Like the negatives reviews of Hoard of the Dragon Queen got on ENworld's review section? Like the people saying they do not buy APs and want splat or campaign settings? This thread is evidence. But this sounds like setting up a barre that cannot be met. 



> This game has been out for 10 months. Not even Pathfinder had any of that stuff 10 months after release, and they straight up ripped everything from the 3.5 books. Calm down, you're being absurdly fatalistic.



Except Paizo released more stuff after 10 months. PF was being supported. I'm not being fatalistic, I'm being realistic. We get the brand manager saying we'll see one or two stories set in the FR a year and not much else in terms of RPG content. It is pretty clear.



> Fortunately, this single message board does not constitute the entire gaming community (not to mention if you actually do read that Jon Brazer thread, there's an outpouring of support for 5E). Purely by myself, I've seen much more enthusiasm with actual play, with people going into gaming stores to buy the books, with Adventurer's League, with new players first starting than I ever did with Pathfinder or 4E. Maybe I wasn't quite into the scene then as I am now, but I don't remember Pathfinder getting the news articles that 5E is on CNN and Forbes.



News articles aren't content for D&D. Liking 5e now doesn't mean you won't get tired of it after a year or two because it became repetitive because of lack of new content. A lot of people have said they bought and played 4e until it just was repetitive. Then they moved on. This time it is a different paradigm at play. It is less about the mechanics and more about the support of the game. 



> The bottom line is this: The game hasn't been out that long. Wizards is hesitant to build up people's expectations, and have been keeping things very close to their chest. PotA was announced, what, a month and half before release? There's plenty of time for more content to be released. Besides, I'm having a hard time believing that you have already exhausted the contents of the three core books already.



If you refuse to see that in the interview the guy that manages the brand is saying that they won't release content for the RPG aside than APs and some web articles, I can really help you. If I were the only one reading this, you might have a point, but the concensus is pretty clear when you read the other posts. Could we be wrong? Sure, but when you add the other interviews, the picture is pretty clear. 

Whether just one or two AP a year is a good thing, that might be up to debate, but that is not what you arguing, sadly. To switch editions there needs to be an incentive bigger than newness. Something new becomes old fast these days. Support keeps it fresh.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 16, 2015)

Mercule said:


> My group was discussing this, last week. There are a couple of us that really, really liked the concept of Dark Sun, but never wanted to use it, long term. A 256 page AP would be an easy sell. Spend a six to twelve months playing on Athas, feel like we've really experienced it, then move on. Ditto for most of the other settings. We all agreed that it'd keep us entertained for years to just have one "campaign in a box" set in each of the existing worlds. Honestly, I'd probably even be up for an honest to goodness, deep and tightly coupled "year of Forgotten Realms" if I knew there was other stuff in the pipe.




That would kind of meet my ideal criteria. It's a little similar to what they did with 4e Dark Sun, which was a pretty big hit with one of my groups. I'm not a big buyer of AP's, but most of that is because I'm a tough sell on stories. 

The adventures would have to highlight what is special about the settings, though. 4e DS was fun, but I was a little underwhelmed by how it was 4e with a coat of paint much of the time (it didn't feel different enough). I don't want a "generic" FR, I want an FR adventure that could only and ever be an FR adventure, that highlights what makes FR distinctive.  



> Actually, I could see where ToD could be the perfect "unhappy medium" of being too Realms-specific for people like me, but not satisfying for true Realms fans. It incorporated enough Realms locations that it was hard to decouple, but it didn't actually seem to dig into anything uniquely Realmsian. Instead, it was a generic foe set against very specific scenery.




Yeah, ToD was the first run at an adventure for 5e, so of course it wasn't exactly all that it could be. I hope one of the lessons from ToD is "If we're going to use FR, _lets use the heck out of FR_, and not just have a generic adventure and a tour of brand identity."


----------



## Agamon (Apr 16, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Paizo is a much smaller company with small company resources.  The difference is that the people in charge of those resources, in addition to making money, care about the tabletop game that their customers enjoy. IMHO what good are mega company resources if they aren't being used to support the things the fans want?




Well, nuts. Here I thought I was a fan, but I like video and board games, as well as RPGs.  Sucks that they support gamers instead of "fans".



> Driving revenue via "the brand" is corporate talk for we don't really what the product is so long as it makes X profit.




You have to understand that this was the PR guy speaking in a Forbes article, not a forum post in reply to ExploderWizard.  Of course it's all corporate talk.  But even Mearls and Crawford have been saying since playtest that the idea to keep the game healthy is derive income from the brand instead splat-o-the-month.  Profit keeps the lights on, so yeah, it's important.


----------



## S_Dalsgaard (Apr 16, 2015)

Maybe a bit unrelated, but why does WotC get such a hard time from some people for concentrating on one setting, while it doesn't seem to bother the same people, that Paizo only publish one setting?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 16, 2015)

wedgeski said:


> What I find interesting about your comments is that they represent exactly one of the things that caused Paizo to spin off on their own in the first place: that 4E couldn't tell the kind of stories they wanted to tell.



 Probably had a lot more to do with losing Dragon/Dungeon, no OGL at launch, and the toxic first version of the GSL.  When presented with the choice of either continuing to use the OGL, or never being able to use it again and give WotC the right to torpedo your products at their whim, Paizo made the obvious choice. 



> WotC's method makes for a particular flavour of D&D and varies in its success, and I don't think there's much chance the company is going to change its approach: they stuck to the formula through 4E and it looks like they're sticking to it now.



4e and 5e are extremely different games, almost diametrically opposed in some ways.  But, in spite of that, both are quite capable of being useful in telling a very wide variety of stories.  4e because it's a robust enough system to handle a wide variety of character concepts, parties, challenges, campaign pacing, tones & styles - 5e because it empowers the DM to change the game all he needs to when he wants to deviate from it's default party composition, pacing, tone & style.  Contrast that with 3.5, with it's RAW and balance issues constraining what the DM can do with his campaign (not that Paizo hasn't tuned Pathfinder to their style of stories, of course - the OGL gave them the freedom to do that).



> Like it or not, their audience is, I think, different than Wizards' in many ways. They can afford to take a few more risks.



 No doubt about it.  Paizo has banked a lot of good will with their fans.



goldomark said:


> ICv2 rankings. And I'm not talking about sells, but support. By stillbirth I ment the support the edition gets, not sells,



 The AL Encounters, Expeditions & Epics organized play programs seem like support.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 16, 2015)

S_Dalsgaard said:


> Maybe a bit unrelated, but why does WotC get such a hard time from some people for concentrating on one setting, while it doesn't seem to bother the same people, that Paizo only publish one setting?




Well Paizo only created the one setting while Wizards has several that are already established. 

There are fans of the other settings and they would like to see them supported.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 16, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I don't see it that way. It's true, Hasbro has more resources, and it's true, even WotC as a division has more resources than Paizo. But game for game, Paizo has fifty people and D&D has 15, and I don't for a second think those 15 people don't care deeply about the desktop game. I think they do. They aren't corporate robots; they are gamers just like us. One of them is tasked, however, with driving the brand and he's doing the best he can, I think.




I think you missed my earlier clarification. I think the D&D team does care about the game, they are just not the ones making the decisions.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 16, 2015)

S_Dalsgaard said:


> Maybe a bit unrelated, but why does WotC get such a hard time from some people for concentrating on one setting, while it doesn't seem to bother the same people, that Paizo only publish one setting?




Because Paizo only has the one setting.  If they had a half-dozen in their pocket but only published for one, I'm sure there would be complaints.  But because WotC has 40 years worth of material in their archives, there's always that one person who thinks that one thing they like should be supported, even if it makes no financial or creative sense to do so.  And because WotC doesn't... the only reasonable explanation is that "they don't care about their fans" and "they don't want my money".  Thus they are a horrible company.  But for some reason still important enough that people keep hanging around week after week to chastize them for it, rather than getting on with their gaming lives being happy with the game they do play.


----------



## tyrlaan (Apr 16, 2015)

Umbran said:


> We are a bunch with a great sense of entitlement.  I am not sure if perhaps this sense of entitlement is worse for the hobby than whatever lacking license scheme or production schedule they might have.
> 
> How?  Well, we spend so much effort complaining and bad-mouthing WotC over how they don't give us whatever the speaker feels we are entitled to - imagine how that looks to folks who are new to the game!




I see what you're saying, entitlement abounds, but there I feel there is a fine line here.

D&D is a product. As a consumer, I think it's very reasonable to expect a certain level of service or content from a product. They have set certain precedents over the years regarding the quality, content, and delivery of their product. Specific to 5e and OGL, they've alluded to an impending license, so it's not unrealistic to expect one. Specific to 5e and options, the game has a strong precedent for providing many, so it's not unrealistic to expect more options to be provided. 

My point here is that there's a certain amount of expectation that's completely reasonable. Note, I call it expectation. They don't have to do it and I don't have to like it if they don't.  

I'd also argue that someone new to the game isn't coming to forums such as these until some time after adopting the hobby. What's discussed here is often well past entry-level topics. I find it analogous to when I go to the Diablo3 forums and can barely read the posts because of the amount of acronyms and nicknames for terms the community has come up with...and I'm actively playing that game! 

I guess what I'm getting at is that our kvetching on this forum is probably unlikely to influence new players.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 16, 2015)

tyrlaan said:


> D&D is a product. As a consumer, I think it's very reasonable to expect a certain level of service or content from a product. They have set certain precedents over the years regarding the quality, content, and delivery of their product. Specific to 5e and OGL, they've alluded to an impending license, so it's not unrealistic to expect one. Specific to 5e and options, the game has a strong precedent for providing many, so it's not unrealistic to expect more options to be provided..




True.  But WotC has made it rather plain what their current paradigm is.  It definitely has changed from what they've done in the past, and thus they've been exceedingly up front about it.  The issue is that people are unwilling to believe them as to their reason for doing so, or because that reason goes against what they personally want, they levy insults about the character, intelligence, or business acumen about the company.  Basically, many people are being real dicks about it.  They aren't getting what they want, so they make sure everyone within earshot knows about it.

If all this was people stating preferences with no moral outrage or making value judgments about WotC or the people in the D&D department, we wouldn't be having these conversations.


----------



## Beleriphon (Apr 16, 2015)

I have no issue with a brand focus on D&D. I don't have enough time to buy, play and use every conceivable D&D book. I do have the time to play video games, watch TV and see movies though. I'll ask a question: how many people have bought an Iron Man comic book in the last decade on a regular basis? Did you see Iron Man (and its sequels), The Avengers or plan on seeing Age of Ultron?

The difference between the The Brand and the The Game is the difference between Iron Man as a brand and Iron Man as a comic book. The Brand includes underoos, movies, video games, and more. That doesn't mean that Marvel stops making Iron Man comic books, but it does mean that they have somebody to look after those other things. And saying that Iron Man isn't a comic book anymore isn't wrong either, because if you've never interacted with an Iron Man comic book then the only thing you know about Iron Man is the movie so to you Iron Man is a movie.

Or how about Star Wars? Sure the movies are what people think of, but Star Wars isn't movies and hasn't been in decades. Star Wars is also video games, toys, comics, books, hell anything you stick Darth Vader's face on!

Wanting to apply D&D to more than just a niche game in a niche market isn't a bad thing. It does mean that some guy is going to talk about things other than the TTRPG, because that isn't all D&D is anymore. Don't get me wrong, I'd love more D&D stuff, but the people that run the game aren't stupid. They need to expansion into more than just the game, I mean don't you want to buy t-shirts, or mugs, or kiddies birthday party plates with D&D stuff on them?


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> How are spell cards, DM screens or a virtual table top content? Or new content to be more precise. They are platforms for content. Nothing wrong with that, it just isn't a new class, a new monster, details on the sundering or a new setting. Those are content.




I was talking about the APs to be honest. There's tons of new monsters in those, PotA is basically a new setting, and they've given a bunch of expansion stuff for players out for free already.



> First, you do not have to write the stuff to know what is coming out.




No, but you do need permission to talk about that stuff. Do you honestly think that everyone at WotC is just sitting on their hands doing nothing? 



> WotC is going to make 1 or 2 APs a year (do you agree disagree so far?)




They've said as much, so I agree. 



> and it will support that AP with its partners who will make minis, video games that share story elements, comics books, DM screens, etc (do you agree disagree?). That is it. Did yo uunderstand a FR campaign setting or gazetteris in the works? A splatbook? A Manual of the Planes, psionics or a MM2? Please share if you read that. All I saw was stories stories, stories. No more books just for books.




I agree with this as well, but I fail to understand how this is a bad thing. People have already proven that they don't want to buy splat books. The failure of 4E over time and the steady decline of Pathfinder has proven that. When people look back at the original D&D, or even 3.5, do they talk about how cool MM3 was, or how awesome that one random pamphlet about the Planes was? No, they talk about the Red Hand of Doom, Castle Ravenloft, Tomb of Horrors. Stories are how D&D thrives. 



> Heck, from his comment about just releasing 1 AP a year because people are starting to make their hoem game, we might not see another book until next year.  Nothing else has been announced for this year aside from Sword Coast Legends. And that is not PnP RPG content.




Like I said, PotA wasn't announced until a month beforehand. Do you really think they're all just sitting on their hands?



> Evidence? Like the negatives reviews of Hoard of the Dragon Queen got on ENworld's review section? Like the people saying they do not buy APs and want splat or campaign settings? This thread is evidence. But this sounds like setting up a barre that cannot be met.




Yes, Hoard got bad reviews. Rise of Tiamat got pretty good reviews though, and PotA has gotten great reviews. This one thread does not evidence make, especially since this thread is split about 50/50 towards both sides.



> Except Paizo released more stuff after 10 months. PF was being supported. I'm not being fatalistic, I'm being realistic. We get the brand manager saying we'll see one or two stories set in the FR a year and not much else in terms of RPG content. It is pretty clear.




Pathfinder Core Rulebook was released in August 2009. The bestiary was released in November. The next book (that wasn't part of an Adventure Path, since we're apparently disregarding those) was the Game Mastery Guide, released in July of 2010, nearly a full year later (Although to be honest, this shouldn't count because it's really just the DM's guide released much later than it should have been). Also did you actually read the full interview?

"So it’s two stories a year right now. That might go down or up, depending on what the fan base wants." He then says that it might go down since they're seeing more homebrew stories.

"A class would be another example. Mike Mearls and I always like to talk about if we do a pirate adventure, and add a sea-faring class and Swashbuckler this and that."
"I wouldn’t be surprised if we do some books here and there that pick up things that the fanbase wants in between stories, because of the feedback we’re hearing."

He's not talking about not releasing any books at all. He's talking about making sure all of the books and classes and such are tied to the stories that they're telling. 



> News articles aren't content for D&D. Liking 5e now doesn't mean you won't get tired of it after a year or two because it became repetitive because of lack of new content. A lot of people have said they bought and played 4e until it just was repetitive. Then they moved on. This time it is a different paradigm at play. It is less about the mechanics and more about the support of the game.




Yeah, and 4E had metric craptons of material for it. Obviously that model doesn't work.



> If you refuse to see that in the interview the guy that manages the brand is saying that they won't release content for the RPG aside than APs and some web articles




Again, I would love to see some direct quotes from them saying it. Because reading between the lines or looking for the "subtext" is not how discussion works.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2015)

DongMaster said:


> Pure speculation!
> 
> You have no idea if WotC care more or less for their product, fans or brand than Paizo. Paizo publish books to make money, and do it while enjoying it as well. They aren't a social service catering to every whim of their fan base. WotC is beginning to sound more like a made up Evil Empire by the vocalists on the internet, whom by no means, are those that represent the fan base.




I think it's less a question of beating up on WotC than it is beating up on Hasbro. After all, it was WotC that saved D&D from bankruptcy limbo with  its revenues from Magic. It was WotC that lightened up TSR's online policies and offered some good content for free on the web. It's the people at WotC who pushed the OGL that fostered a lot of 3rd party entries into the industry. But as time has marched on and Hasbro has impressed its culture upon WotC, the company seems to be pretty different. I think they've lost a lot of their agility and vision - would WotC be able to stick its neck out for TSR now? I doubt it. Under Hasbro's control, rather than balancing serving the hobby with running a business, they're serving the shareholders who care little for hobby table-top gaming. That's what megacorps do in contrast to entrepreneurs who are passionate for an interest and think they can make a living serving it.


----------



## Staffan (Apr 16, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I am not really sure how.  At the moment, they have small-company resources working on the game itself.  In a small company, they'd have small-company resources.  How would that be better?



Because currently, they have small-company resources shackled by large-company requirements on ROI, decision-making, TPS reports, and so on. It's like something having the strength of a pixie and the dexterity of an ancient dragon.

In a smaller, more focused, company, the boss can say "Sure, my team of 10 people cost a million dollars per year in salary and benefits, but I make 1.1 million off them, so we're good." In a larger, more diversified company there's probably a boss higher up saying "Why should I pay those people a million per year to bring in 1.1 million, when I can put two more people each on My Little Pony and Transformers, which will make me the same 1.1 million extra, and lay the rest off?"


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

Also, I have to encourage everyone to actually read the entire article. The quotes from Morrus are taken somewhat out of context, and the full article gives a much better feel for what he's talking about.


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 16, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Because currently, they have small-company resources shackled by large-company requirements on ROI, decision-making, TPS reports, and so on. It's like something having the strength of a pixie and the dexterity of an ancient dragon.
> 
> In a smaller, more focused, company, the boss can say "Sure, my team of 10 people cost a million dollars per year in salary and benefits, but I make 1.1 million off them, so we're good." In a larger, more diversified company there's probably a boss higher up saying "Why should I pay those people a million per year to bring in 1.1 million, when I can put two more people each on My Little Pony and Transformers, which will make me the same 1.1 million extra, and lay the rest off?"




This is exactly right. D&D is a blip to Hasbro, almost not even worth mentioning, so the fact that they're getting as much attention as they are from the press is rather astounding. One Transformers movie has likely made all that D&D has ever made in history.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

S_Dalsgaard said:


> Maybe a bit unrelated, but why does WotC get such a hard time from some people for concentrating on one setting, while it doesn't seem to bother the same people, that Paizo only publish one setting?




Golarion is new-ish. Plus each AP is generally as its own flavor. Iron God was technology meets fantasy. Jade Regeant was the oriental adventure. Reign of Winter was planet/plane hopping (plus visite Earth!). Carrion Crown was the horror AP. Etc, etc. 

So far with the FR APs they've revisited adventures already done and in a generic way.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> The AL Encounters, Expeditions & Epics organized play programs seem like support.



If you have a special store near you. I couldn't find one in Montréal.


----------



## tyrlaan (Apr 16, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> True.  But WotC has made it rather plain what their current paradigm is.  It definitely has changed from what they've done in the past, and thus they've been exceedingly up front about it.  The issue is that people are unwilling to believe them as to their reason for doing so, or because that reason goes against what they personally want, they levy insults about the character, intelligence, or business acumen about the company.  Basically, many people are being real dicks about it.  They aren't getting what they want, so they make sure everyone within earshot knows about it.
> 
> If all this was people stating preferences with no moral outrage or making value judgments about WotC or the people in the D&D department, we wouldn't be having these conversations.




Agree with you completely. If my comments came across stronger than intended, my bad.


----------



## Mercule (Apr 16, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> True.  But WotC has made it rather plain what their current paradigm is.



Actually, they haven't. Maybe I just missed it, though. If so, please help:

- Are they going to do anything besides adventures, for the foreseeable future? (I think they've answered this one.)

- Are the Realms currently exclusive, or just primary, in terms of resource/effort?

- For Realms-based adventures, will they be easily portable to other settings? Will they continue to have conversion guides?

- Are there deliberate plans to support another setting, or are they waiting to let the Realms run its course (which probably means some version of sales dropping)?

- If there are deliberate plans to support another setting, do they know which one? (I expect they don't know which, and am conditionally okay with that.)

- If there are plans to support another setting, is there a rough time frame -- there is a huge difference between "either early or late 2016" and "either 2018 or 2019"?

- How does the D&D "brand" differ from the Forgotten Realms "brand", outside the TTRPG?

- When are rules for psionics going to show up?


----------



## DMZ2112 (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you refuse to see that in the interview the guy that manages the brand is saying that they won't release content for the RPG aside than APs and some web articles, I can really help you. If I were the only one reading this, you might have a point, but the concensus is pretty clear when you read the other posts. Could we be wrong? Sure, but when you add the other interviews, the picture is pretty clear.




Well, first of all, I totally agree that's what Nathan is saying, because that's what everyone at Wizards has been saying.  Once again, APs and web articles and nothing else = not news.  Sorry, FRCS fans, for the eighty hojillionth time, /you're boned/.

But I would caution anyone from using this article to support any /theories/ about where tabletop D&D is "going."  At the risk of throwing shade on Mr. Stewart (who I'm sure is a nice guy and good at his job, previous employment in EA management notwithstanding), _this is a Forbes interview with a branding executive_.  You are not the audience of this article.  This article is primarily designed to make other executives sit up and say, "Hey, I want to partner with that.  That sounds like a well-oiled gravy train."

He says it himself -- D&D is not a tabletop game.  Of course D&D is a tabletop game, and of course he knows that.  According to his Twitter feed, he was just /dungeon mastering/ it for a bunch of industry folks a few weeks ago.  But the other branding execs don't care about that.  They want to know that the brand is not permanently and irretrievably bound to books.  Books are 20th century.  Kindle is where the money is, "everybody" knows that.  As soon as he starts talking about books, they want to know if he's got a Kindle solution.  And he doesn't.  So he paraphrases.  'D&D is not a tabletop game.'  Maybe his audience is smart enough to recognize the hyperbole; maybe they're not (I know what my money's on).  Fundamentally, they don't care, and that's how you should read this article.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 16, 2015)

Beleriphon said:


> I have no issue with a brand focus on D&D. I don't have enough time to buy, play and use every conceivable D&D book. I do have the time to play video games, watch TV and see movies though. I'll ask a question: how many people have bought an Iron Man comic book in the last decade on a regular basis? Did you see Iron Man (and its sequels), The Avengers or plan on seeing Age of Ultron?
> 
> The difference between the The Brand and the The Game is the difference between Iron Man as a brand and Iron Man as a comic book. The Brand includes underoos, movies, video games, and more. That doesn't mean that Marvel stops making Iron Man comic books, but it does mean that they have somebody to look after those other things. And saying that Iron Man isn't a comic book anymore isn't wrong either, because if you've never interacted with an Iron Man comic book then the only thing you know about Iron Man is the movie so to you Iron Man is a movie.
> 
> ...




Look at it this way.

Name me some iconic D&D characters that are on the same level as Darts Bader,  or the Avengers? 

D&D is just not as iconic in the way those are. People who read Iron Man continue to buy them to this day. The thing is, Iron Man comic books hasn't slowed down one bit. They have sense enough to keep the lines separate.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 16, 2015)

I thought the point of D&D was to make money.

How are they making money on 2 AP'S a year and telling us to go and use all our old stuff?


----------



## DMZ2112 (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you have a special store near you. I couldn't find one in Montréal.




https://goo.gl/maps/By9Ze

That store looks pretty special to me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> I was talking about the APs to be honest. There's tons of new monsters in those, PotA is basically a new setting, and they've given a bunch of expansion stuff for players out for free already.



The free stuff was already in the AP, exept for 4 races. It is minimal support. Funny how you see a setting. I've read other people say it is too much set at the same location. 



> No, but you do need permission to talk about that stuff. Do you honestly think that everyone at WotC is just sitting on their hands doing nothing?



Of course not! They are busy with meetings and answering 200 emails a day (see Chris Perkin's interview on youtube)! Seriously, read Jeremy Crawford's interview. He said a lot of people are working on other stuff (not the RPG) and some on RPG books. Which books? "Stories, stories, stories". 



> I agree with this as well, but I fail to understand how this is a bad thing. People have already proven that they don't want to buy splat books.



Paizo's success says otherwise.  







> The failure of 4E over time and the steady decline of Pathfinder has proven that.



4e failed cause it was bad. As for Pathfinder, read Erik Mona's interview that says player base and sells are still growing post 5e release. 



> When people look back at the original D&D, or even 3.5, do they talk about how cool MM3 was, or how awesome that one random pamphlet about the Planes was? No, they talk about the Red Hand of Doom, Castle Ravenloft, Tomb of Horrors. Stories are how D&D thrives.



They also talked how the warlock was cool (a splat class that has now been in two PHB), how tome of battle was cool, how eberron was cool, how Unapproachable East and Silver March were cool...

Without trying out new splat class will we ever see new classes in the PHB?



> Like I said, PotA wasn't announced until a month beforehand. Do you really think they're all just sitting on their hands?



Like I said, no, but that doesn't mean that what we'll see will be RPG content. Boardgames, comics, novels, videogames, are all stuff they can be working on too. And we know they are working on those. We've been told!



> Yes, Hoard got bad reviews. Rise of Tiamat got pretty good reviews though, and PotA has gotten great reviews. This one thread does not evidence make, especially since this thread is split about 50/50 towards both sides.



Ah, but you asked for some evidence. I provided it. But like I said, no matter what I provided I couldn't meet your expectations mainly because you feel I'm attacking D&D and must defend it. What I'm doing is critiquing the support WotC is giving the RPG because I care about D&D. We are on the same side. I just think it will take a bit longer for you to see what I see and agree with me. 

One of us. One of us. One of us.



> Pathfinder Core Rulebook was released in August 2009. The bestiary was released in November. The next book (that wasn't part of an Adventure Path, since we're apparently disregarding those) was the Game Mastery Guide, released in July of 2010, nearly a full year later (Although to be honest, this shouldn't count because it's really just the DM's guide released much later than it should have been). Also did you actually read the full interview?



They produced player compagnions and 64 pages campaign setting gazetters too. Support is more than hardcover books. That support started in 2007 when they released their first AP. 



> "So it’s two stories a year right now. That might go down or up, depending on what the fan base wants." He then says that it might go down since they're seeing more homebrew stories.



Yeah, I quoted him saying that. 



> "A class would be another example. Mike Mearls and I always like to talk about if we do a pirate adventure, and add a sea-faring class and Swashbuckler this and that."
> "I wouldn’t be surprised if we do some books here and there that pick up things that the fanbase wants in between stories, because of the feedback we’re hearing."
> 
> He's not talking about not releasing any books at all. He's talking about making sure all of the books and classes and such are tied to the stories that they're telling.



Yup, and one or two class, one race, fits well into a 256 pages book. It is support for the AP, but not for the RPG in general. Sure, you can use it in a homebrew campaign, but who would buy a 50$ book for one class or one race?



> Yeah, and 4E had metric craptons of material for it. Obviously that model doesn't work.



So did 3.x and Paizo, and they both worked. 4e didn't work because it was bad. The quantity of material might not have helped, but going the other extreme is not a better solution.



> Again, I would love to see some direct quotes from them saying it. Because reading between the lines or looking for the "subtext" is not how discussion works.



Discusion can work like that and in this thread I see lots of people doing it.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you have a special store near you. I couldn't find one in Montréal.




http://locator.wizards.com/#p=H1A 0A1&a=search&brand=dnd&c=45.6524306,-73.5012086&et=&pf=

_Le Chevalier_ and _Boutique Generation Geek_ seem to be current.

_Abyss_ looks to be starting in June.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 16, 2015)

billd91 said:


> That's what megacorps do in contrast to entrepreneurs who are passionate for an interest and think they can make a living serving it.




This megacorp has (READ THIS CAREFULLY = IMO!) created six books and a starter Set, all top notch, which got our gaming society intrested in rpgs again.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> https://goo.gl/maps/By9Ze
> 
> That store looks pretty special to me.




They have AL there? How did you find it?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 16, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> http://locator.wizards.com/#p=H1A 0A1&a=search&brand=dnd&c=45.6524306,-73.5012086&et=&pf=
> 
> _Le Chevalier_ and _Boutique Generation Geek_ seem to be current.
> 
> _Abyss_ looks to be starting in June.



Outside of Montréal.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> They have AL there? How did you find it?





https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&ie=UTF-8#q=montreal+adventurers+league&pws=0
http://www.meetup.com/DnDMontreal/
http://www.meetup.com/DnDMontreal/events/220719280/
https://goo.gl/maps/pU37Q
https://goo.gl/maps/By9Ze

TL;DR: The Internet.


----------



## Beleriphon (Apr 16, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> Look at it this way.
> 
> Name me some iconic D&D characters that are on the same level as Darts Bader,  or the Avengers?
> 
> D&D is just not as iconic in the way those are. People who read Iron Man continue to buy them to this day. The thing is, Iron Man comic books hasn't slowed down one bit. They have sense enough to keep the lines separate.




None, because there has never been a signifcant level of effort to get those characters into main stream conciousness. Just like prior to the first movie Iron Man wasn't exactly a well known Marvel character. If you ask people to name some superheroes you're probably going to end up with Superman, Batman and Spider-Man for the most part. Prior to the geek renessiance that the Marvel movies to large degree have bank rolled (directly or indirectly) most people didn't know one lick about Iron Man or Captain America, or any of a characters in Marvel's stable of characters. Lets look at Doctor Strange, my wife knows who he is because I know who he is, but I haven't read a Doctor Strange comic in 15 years at best, if you ask the average person on the street they probably don't know the character all. That is going to change once the movie comes out. 

That's branding right there, by moving the concept into a new medium to sell the brand and the idea of the brand in a new way. As another example, Coca-Cola sells soft drinks, but the Coke brand is so much more than a can of brown carbonated sugar water. I can buy damn near anything with a Coke logo on it if I want to, some people have massive collections of Coke related items. There's nothing wrong with trying to get to that level of cultural traction, I don't think D&D can actually do that for a few reasons but there's nothing wrong with wanting to do so.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Apr 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Outside of Montréal.




Well at least I hope the link works for someone else who is looking to find an AL game.

Back to the thread topic, where did all the people who said Wizards was lying when they said they were going to reduce splat go?

Mike Mearls (summer 2014):  We're going to slow down the release schedule.
The Internet (2014):  Yeah right, expect a flood splat books in 2015.  The only support model Wizards knows is the all splat, all the time model.
The Internet (2015):  Where's all our splats?????


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2015)

DongMaster said:


> This megacorp has (READ THIS CAREFULLY = IMO!) created six books and a starter Set, all top notch, which got our gaming society intrested in rpgs again.




Oh, I'm enjoying 5e as well, but this megacorp has also made some major missteps in licensing in the wake of the OGL, seems to have cut the D&D team to the point it can't keep certain projects moving forward because of a jury duty call, lays off experienced talent with disturbing regularity, turned a closely allied company into a significant competitor, and, though the D&D brand was derived from the game, now seems to have the tail wag the dog.

And that's without thinking about the diverse catalog of games Avalon Hill used to have compared to the Baskin-Robbins of Axis and Allies catalog it currently sports.

Did 5e turn out as good as it is *because of* Hasbro, or *in spite of* Hasbro? Will it thrive (or fail) because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro? I'd like to think Hasbro did the hobby a good turn by allowing the D&D R&D team the time to develop a game with broad appeal that could revitalize its market. But there are hints our there that they're not fully in the game's corner - such as the (delayed again) license - compared to the brand's potential in non-TTRPG options.

If the brand expansion works well, fine. Will it benefit the game? Hard to say. If it were hobby enthusiasts running the show, I might predict they'd use the success of the brand in movies and computer games to expand the support of the RPG because, as enthusiasts, they want games out there they enjoy playing themselves. But with Hasbro in charge, I might expect them to plow the benefits of the brand into the most profitable end for a better ROI for their shareholders and just let the RPG muddle through in relative stasis - mostly because allowing it to simply die might be too damaging to the brand.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 16, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Did 5e turn out as good as it is *because of* Hasbro, or *in spite of* Hasbro? Will it thrive (or fail) because of Hasbro, or in spite of Hasbro?




Irrelevant to me when the end product is so fantastic.

No animals or children (though reading through this forum that may not be the case) were hurt making it.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 16, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> I thought the point of D&D was to make money.
> 
> How are they making money on 2 AP'S a year and telling us to go and use all our old stuff?




I have a theory about how they're planning to approach D&D this edition cycle. I can't claim it's 100% correct, but it tracks with everything they've been saying, and more importantly, with what they've been _doing_ up to this point.

The most profitable part of selling D&D is always the initial core book sales, correct? Any other products will only ever sell a fraction as well. So even though they have to spend the same amount of money on writers, artists, editors and printing and distribution costs as they would for a core book print run, they'll only make a fraction of the profits on anything that's not a core book.

The last two editions bear this out. Both saw revisions halfway through their lifetime in an attempt to kickstarts sales again. Even though both games could have conceivably been supported for years to come, both were aborted in favor of launching a new edition entirely. This time around, I think they've decided there's a better way. 

This time, I think they're in the business of selling the core books, and just the core books.

Think about it. They've already paid to have the core books made up and earned more than that back in profits, so any future profits they make off of them is basically free money. Now in the 3E and 4E days, they made their money off of ongoing core book sales _and_ supplement sales, but probably not as much as they'd like, since the margin they'd make off of supplements was so much smaller than the core books'. So they're making less money without the supplements, but they're also spending less money producing the supplements. I expect they'll more than make up the difference in licensing agreements off of things like Sword Coast Legends or a D&D movie. Even if a D&D movie flops, they'll likely make more from Universal paying them once for the rights to make it than they would off of several years' worth of supplement sales.

I suspect the reason they're focusing so heavy on APs isn't because they think the APs are what the majority of existing gamers will buy, but because they're focusing on bringing in _new_ gamers. Every D&D tie-in that connects with an audience exposes more people to the tabletop game, but most brand new groups won't know the first thing to do with their brand new set of core books. Buy "Princes of the Apocalypse" along with your DMG though and  The APs serve to provide a canned, pre-written campaign to new DMs - they're only interested in AP sales inasmuch as the APs provide brand-new players with an on-ramp to the hobby.

If you're interested in a particular AP, Wizards will happily take your money, but we're not their target demographic, new players are. If you've already purchased the core books, the transaction is completed in their view. Milton Bradley doesn't make money off of Connect4 by selling perpetual rules expansions for the game to previous customers - they do it by selling an evergreen product and making modest but ongoing sales to new customers.

Things like the Player's Companion as a free PDF is really them just throwing their existing customers a bone. The focus is on acquiring new players, since everyone they can get to play the game and walk away having had a positive experience is far likelier to buy a ticket to the next D&D movie or video game. Which is where they'll _really_ make their money.


----------



## halfling rogue (Apr 16, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Oh, I'm enjoying 5e as well, but this megacorp has also made some major missteps in licensing in the wake of the OGL, seems to have cut the D&D team to the point it can't keep certain projects moving forward because of a jury duty call, lays off experienced talent with disturbing regularity, turned a closely allied company into a significant competitor, and, though the D&D brand was derived from the game, now seems to have the tail wag the dog.
> 
> And that's without thinking about the diverse catalog of games Avalon Hill used to have compared to the Baskin-Robbins of Axis and Allies catalog it currently sports.
> 
> ...




I think you make a good point. Just because a megacorp invests in/has a hand in something awesome doesn't mean they can't or won't have the ability to screw it up. FOX had the foresight to greenlight "Firefly" and managed to thoroughly drop kick it off a mountain. Hasbro may have let WotC create the best version of D&D ever, but it may wind up tying their hands after the fact. I think the Brand push is obviously a money making strategy, but time will tell if this will benefit D&D the tabletop game, or wind up becoming its demise (as a continuing 'thing'). FOX screwed up Firefly and now we don't get anymore Firefly. But I still have the DVDs and can watch them anytime I want and enjoy them to the fullest potential that I can. The best thing about a potential screw up with Hasbro is that D&D 5e is already in the wild. If WotC goes belly up or if Hasbro kills it, I can still play D&D and enjoy it to the fullest potential that I can.

That said, since D&D is really a game, and because the D&D 'brand' grew out of the game, I would love to see D&D desire to grow the GAME more than the brand. In my mind, movies, video games and everything else should serve the game in some way or another. And if the game grows, the brand grows. Right now, I hop on the website and the GAME is tucked away. I think they missed something here, which hopefully won't come back to bite them.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 16, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> You know what Trickster .... I think this is an awesome idea!! I could be patient for this. It just bothers me that they just refuse to let us know what in the world is going on. I have to say this. My honest opinion ...... it's not MY fault that sales started dropping off at the tail-end of 3.5 (some of those books felt like they weren't even playtested.) It's not my fault that 4th Edition didn't make Hasbro the kind of money Hasbro was hoping to see. It's not my fault that Pathfinder was such a success. Some of the things that WoTC is doing, it feels like I'm the one being punished for not supporting 4th like I did the previous editions to it.
> 
> I pray someone from WoTC/Hasbro sees your post!! Having to wait for something like this would suck, but it would be worth it in the end!! I would so back something like that 100%. Just knowing we'd be getting the multi-verse update, would cool my jets big time!




You know, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but I *really* don't think they're doing things this way to "punish" people for not supporting 4E, or for making Pathfinder so successful.

Despite Pathfinder's success, I think there are bigger threats to D&D these days. Honestly, I think Wizards just sees which way the wind is moving, and is trying to chart a new course. If you haven't checked it out already, I'd highly recommend reading through this link which I shared earlier in this thread - it's Morrus' news article about a PAX East panel about the state of the tabletop game industry, and Mike Mearls addresses in details what they see as D&D's chief competition.

It's clear that 5E was designed in response to the points he brings up in that panel. I think their new business model takes it into consideration as well. They're focusing heavily on pre-canned campaigns with the APs, and providing an easy entry point for gamers without stable groups through Adventurer's League organized play.

In a lot of ways I think 5E has done a better job of assimilating lessons from modern video games than 4E did. Video games aren't more successful than tabletop RPGs because of game mechanics or balance concerns - they're more successful because they're _faster_. There's a business term that applies here, "friction". Video games have low friction - you need to purchase the disk, put it in your device and maybe install it first, then you're playing the game. Maybe you need to go through a character selection screen first, if it's an RPG, it doesn't really matter though. You're past that screen in sixty seconds or less. For a tabletop game, you have to buy the book, read it, internalize the rules, create a campaign and put together your encounter notes, recruit a group of friends to play, have them all create characters, then meet up at a unanimously agreed upon time and place before you can play. _Loads_ more friction there. 

Tabletop games won't be able to beat video games at all of those points and remain recognizable. That's why they'll never eclipse video games as an industry or as a part of popular culture. But if you can minimize the drawbacks as best you can, there are also _strengths_ that tabletop games have over video games, and those strengths can draw in new players. The 5E ruleset, and the canned APs / Adventurer League seasons all try to mitigate that as best they can.

Paizo also has APs and organized play, but they're definitely catering more to the existing player base. They've put out most of the non-AP products that they _can_ put out, and the full Pathfinder ruleset is definitely a lot more intimidating to new players than 5E is. The Beginner Box is one of the best - no, I'll say it, it _is_ the best onboarding product in the industry right now - but I'm not sure Paizo is moving to position themselves to appeal to new and casual gamers, which I am convinced is the overwhelming majority of the player base. Wizards seems to be targeting those demographics very squarely with their new direction for 5E.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 16, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Actually, they haven't. Maybe I just missed it, though. If so, please help:




- Are they going to do anything besides adventures, for the foreseeable future? (I think they've answered this one.)

Yup.  More or less.


- Are the Realms currently exclusive, or just primary, in terms of resource/effort?

They've said that for the foreseeable future, product will be set in the FR.  The article in Forbes even says it.


- For Realms-based adventures, will they be easily portable to other settings? Will they continue to have conversion guides?

They have not said one way or another whether it's "easy to port" adventures to other settings, because why would they?  Porting adventures is the same exact process it's been for 40 years.


- Are there deliberate plans to support another setting, or are they waiting to let the Realms run its course (which probably means some version of sales dropping)?

Again, they've said (and it was reiterated in Forbes) that their books for the foreseeable future are for the Realms.  Any other "support" for other settings will come here and there, but nothing big.


- If there are deliberate plans to support another setting, do they know which one? (I expect they don't know which, and am conditionally okay with that.)

They have not made any announcement about this.  They've said Realms for the foreseeable future.


- If there are plans to support another setting, is there a rough time frame -- there is a huge difference between "either early or late 2016" and "either 2018 or 2019"?

They have not made any announcement about this.  They've said Realms for the foreseeable future.


- How does the D&D "brand" differ from the Forgotten Realms "brand", outside the TTRPG?

They have not made any comments about the branding as you seem to be inquiring.


- When are rules for psionics going to show up?

They have made no announcements about a timetable for psionics.


Like I've said, they've been rather clear.  They've said a few things about the future that they know about, or that they would like to eventually see depending on how things currently go.  But that's it.  They've said nothing else, and have told us that they will say nothing else until such time as they have something to say.

Nothing has changed from last summer when they told us all this to begin with.  They will announce things when they have something to announce.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 16, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I'd like to think Hasbro did the hobby a good turn by allowing the D&D R&D team the time to develop a game with broad appeal that could revitalize its market.



 That's not what they did.  They cut investment in D&D to virtually nothing, so it took the remaining skeleton crew 2 years to pull together a 'new' edition of the game, primarily from elements of the older editions.  It's not designed for broad appeal, it's designed to be familiar to long-time and returning fans.  That's a relatively narrow appeal.  It's so far been very successful at appealing to existing and returning fans, though.  Can't fault Mearls & his team (nor Hasbro) for that.



> If the brand expansion works well, fine. Will it benefit the game? Hard to say. If it were hobby enthusiasts running the show, I might predict they'd use the success of the brand in movies and computer games to expand the support of the RPG because, as enthusiasts, they want games out there they enjoy playing themselves.



 More mainstream exposure via a movie or the like would benefit the game if it were accessible and appealing enough to retain enough of the new players who tried it because they liked said movie.  Unfortunately, what's familiar to longtime & returning fans who loved AD&D or BECMI or even 3e, is not necessarily that accessible or appealing to players trying the game for the first time.  So you have to figure the point of expanding the D&D IP to other media/markets is the other media/markets, not growing D&D as a TTRPG.



> But with Hasbro in charge, I might expect them to plow the benefits of the brand into the most profitable end for a better ROI for their shareholders and just let the RPG muddle through in relative stasis - mostly because allowing it to simply die might be too damaging to the brand.



 That would be rational, yes.  RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, have failed to break out into larger markets for the last 40 years, even as seemingly related hobbies, games, and franchises - LOTR, Harry Potter, Vampire fiction, Marvel Comics, MMOs, CRPGs, CCGs, Board Games and 'nerd culture' in general - have done so.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2015)

DongMaster said:


> Irrelevant to me when the end product is so fantastic.




Not irrelevant to me. When I get a good RPG, I want more good materials and play experiences for that RPG and that means decent management of the line and the community buying into it. If they do well with other media, like movies, but end up totally effing up the game, that will be a big disappointment since the game is what brought me (and *still* brings me) to the brand.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 16, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Not irrelevant to me. When I get a good RPG, I want more good materials and play experiences for that RPG and that means decent management of the line and the community buying into it. If they do well with other media, like movies, but end up totally effing up the game, that will be a big disappointment since the game is what brought me (and *still* brings me) to the brand.




Again, the end product is what is important to me.

Not who makes it, writes it, publish it, or what people on the internet argue about (90% seems to be about rules anyway).


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 16, 2015)

shidaku said:


> There is no Barnes&Noble for over 180 miles from where I live.  I live in the 2nd largest city in my state.  The town I lived in prior, after Borders shut down there wasn't a major book retailer for over 400 miles.  Barnes and Nobile simply does not have the same sort of presence that WalMart or even Target has.  Both of those retailers could carry D&D books with little trouble.




I doubt they would. Wal-Mart is the lowest common denominator (nicest way I can frame it) for shopping with a perk of being able to go get stuff 24 hours a day. Target has only a slightly higher price point than them, but follows similar philosophies.

Heck, you are lucky if you can walk into one of those stores and find a decent current computer game, let alone something like D&D.


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Apr 16, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Unfortunately, what's familiar to longtime & returning fans who loved AD&D or BECMI or even 3e, is not necessarily that accessible or appealing to players trying the game for the first time.





Wow, yet more non-4th Ed bashing, I'll give you one thing, well, two, you're consistent and relentless with your agenda.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you have a special store near you. I couldn't find one in Montréal.




Google is your friend.  I found the Adventurers League Facebook page in about 1.5 seconds of typing "Adventurers League Montreal" into Google.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/adventurersleaguemtl/

There ya go.


----------



## redrick (Apr 17, 2015)

Personally, I'm not too interested in the "stories" over at WotC. On the other hand, I've got nothing wrong with the stories over at WotC. And certainly nothing wrong with the brand management person from WotC talking about how the brand is being developed and marketed.

What I will say about those stories, though, is that they do seem to be working for bringing people into the game. I was at my local game store last night for the first night of the encounters season with Princes of the Apocalypse. There were something like 30 players there. The store had to round up an extra GM at the beginning of the night, and was at total capacity. Some of the players were almost totally new to TTRPGs, some had played D&D as a kid but only just recently picked it up again, and some had been playing consistently for many years and just moved over to 5e from Pathfinder, 3.5 or 4e. Some had been there for ToD (and seemed to have a blast), and others, like me, were trying organized play for the first time with PoA. Afterwards, I went out for a drink with several players and we started making plans to get a home campaign going.

And that's the single most important thing that Wizards can be doing for me, as a D&D player — bringing new people to the hobby and making it easier to find people to run a game with. Would some 5e-specific setting material be nice? Sure. Short modules that I could plug into a homebrew campaign? Absolutely. But, you know what, I'll take that army of new, eager players over good adventure modules or campaign setting guides any day. Because I can do the work to update old material, but I can only press-gang so many of my skeptical friends into pretending to be an elf on Thursday nights.

If Wizards doesn't want to focus on pulling more money out of me after the core 3, but rather bring in new players, I say amen.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 17, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> DELETE.





Thanks for all the personal insults in the pre-deleted version.

You are more than welcome to put me on your ignore list if I offend you so greatly with my opinion.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 17, 2015)

Leatherhead said:


> I doubt they would. Wal-Mart is the lowest common denominator (nicest way I can frame it) for shopping with a perk of being able to go get stuff 24 hours a day. Target has only a slightly higher price point than them, but follows similar philosophies.
> 
> Heck, you are lucky if you can walk into one of those stores and find a decent current computer game, let alone something like D&D.




Target has carried D&D starter sets for 3E, 4E . . . . and I think 5E. Not a huge leap to them carrying the PHB and maybe the other big two. Hasbro licenses a big awesome movie? It'll definitely happen.

Walmart carries collectible tabletop games like Magic, Yugi-oh, and sometimes others. So, also a possibility, although less so than Target.

_EDIT (due to NEWS): Looks like both Target and Walmart are carrying the 5E starter set in store. Neat!_


----------



## darjr (Apr 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you have a special store near you. I couldn't find one in Montréal.




Not true. If you organize public play you can get access to them. No store required


----------



## wedgeski (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Probably had a lot more to do with losing Dragon/Dungeon, no OGL at launch, and the toxic first version of the GSL.  When presented with the choice of either continuing to use the OGL, or never being able to use it again and give WotC the right to torpedo your products at their whim, Paizo made the obvious choice.



One of. I said ONE OF. Jeez, people.


----------



## thom_likes_gaming (Apr 17, 2015)

I kinda get the feeling WotC are trying to become "more Paizo". All this "release Stories regularly (read: AP) and make sure all the crunch matches the stories (read: Sourcebooks, audiobooks, hardcovers, miniatures and what-not following the current AP)".....


----------



## pming (Apr 17, 2015)

Hiya.

 I think WotC is giving a fish to someone, as opposed to teaching them how to fish for themselves. That is, the "story, story, story!" thing may work to bring in a new player or three, but it isn't going to keep them here. That is the fatal flaw I see, and I'm betting it's going to bite them in the azz in the long run. 

  Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, from the sound of where this "brand marketing guy" is trying to take D&D...looks like WotC is going to loose out on at least 5 new sources of income with regards to 5th edition; nobody at my table is interested in non-RPG D&D stuff. We don't care and aren't interested in "story, story, story!" stuff they put out...we create our own stories, even if they are based on someone else's core-idea (re: older, 1e style adventure modules). We've tried to play AP's... to date we've never finished one. After one or two books, everyone sees all the railroady nature of stuff and it becomes painful to play. The players can see exactly what's going on when "suddenly, NPC #14 shows up and exclaims that they need somebody to come quickly as the dock is being attacked by fish-monsters!". It's not an interesting random encounter, it's not something that happens every month or so in this location...no...it's a plot hook. And the players know it. They _know_ that if they _don't_ go down to the docks and fight they fish-guys, then they are going to derail the plot or the DM will have to retro-cram something else so that the "story" can continue. The players all feel obligated to go fight the fish-guys...not because they _want_ to, but because they _have_ to. Ergo...our AP endevours have been somewhat less than stellar. If WotC thinks the AP thing is a good move, with the pretty much exclusion to anything else, I think they are sorely mistaken.

  Oh well, at least the core rules are rock solid and easy to use with other, previous editions. It's just sad that one of the things I was looking forward to ...spending money on a currently supported edition of D&D... isn't going to happen. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 17, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Better product placement.
> 
> Can I buy the D&D books in a WalMart?  No.
> Can I buy D&D minis are Toys'R'Us?  No.
> Can I buy D&D video games at Best Buy?  No.




You can order the D&D books at WalMart.com, and have them shipped free to your local WalMart for you to pick up. That's been true since before 4E, even. You can also get the minis that way. And the board games. Even most of 4E, still. And some late 3E stuff. And DDO points cards via email.

So, you can get just about everything but the free-to-play freemium videogames on Walmart.com and have it delivered. Thus, even the couch surfer can do it.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 17, 2015)

There seems to be this inferiority complex strain going on with D&D fans in regards to the potential that WOTC sees in this as a brand.

Recall that some of the biggest, successful movies of the past few years were about a quest for a dragon...ina dungeon..


----------



## Halivar (Apr 17, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Recall that some of the biggest, successful movies of the past few years were about a quest for a dragon...ina dungeon..



Yeah, but if you suggest we cast Orlando Bloom as Driz'zt we're gonna have to roll for initiative.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 17, 2015)

JeffB said:


> Thanks for all the personal insults in the pre-deleted version.
> 
> You are more than welcome to put me on your ignore list if I offend you so greatly with my opinion.




You're welcome!  Happy to help!  

And nope, I don't put anyone on the Ignore list, because I always want to see exactly who I believe is being unreasonable and thus be able to call them out on it as need be.  I chose to delete the last one because I did see I was being more harsh than was necessary to make my point.  But needless to say... the repetitive refrain I see in your posts does draw it out of me.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 17, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> You can order the D&D books at WalMart.com, and have them shipped free to your local WalMart for you to pick up. That's been true since before 4E, even. You can also get the minis that way. And the board games. Even most of 4E, still. And some late 3E stuff. And DDO points cards via email.
> 
> So, you can get just about everything but the free-to-play freemium videogames on Walmart.com and have it delivered. Thus, even the couch surfer can do it.




Sure, but that misses one of the biggest requirements of D&D: playing with other people.  If I'm going to sit at my desk and wait for the game to come to me, I can get that with most major MMOs.  Why then would I order a game that I will naturally have to go _somewhere else_ if even only out to my living room?

That aside it's also not advertizing for the player and you're missing out on a lot of "spontaneous purchases".  EX: I was in Wal-Mart a few days ago and happened across the new Megatron toy.  I've been wanting one for a while but what with it being there, in my hands, the last one on the shelf I just _had_ to buy it.  The toy has been out for a couple months now, but I wasn't interested enough to buy one online.

A lot of people buy products because of that tactile interaction with them.  For a game that is based on playing with real people in real life it's important for people to be able to get that and without the books being _physically_ available at major retailers WOTC is going to miss out on a lot of that.

tl'dr: ordering online is for people who already know they want a thing and are ready to pay for it.  Buying it in the stores is for people who are not yet sold on it, which is a HUGE market (see threads in this forum on that very subject).


----------



## SilverfireSage (Apr 17, 2015)

pming said:


> Hiya.
> 
> I think WotC is giving a fish to someone, as opposed to teaching them how to fish for themselves. That is, the "story, story, story!" thing may work to bring in a new player or three, but it isn't going to keep them here. That is the fatal flaw I see, and I'm betting it's going to bite them in the azz in the long run.




Unfortunately, if you teach a man to fish, they're going to stop buying your fish... and WotC needs people to buy their fish or their dead in the water.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Apr 17, 2015)

SilverfireSage said:


> Unfortunately, if you teach a man to fish, they're going to stop buying your fish... and WotC needs people to buy their fish or their dead in the water.




Just about the only statement that surprised me in this interview is when Nathan says that the feedback they are getting /now/ suggests that people are more interested in homebrewing than adventure paths, so they might even drop to one AP a year.

I mean, that's not news, as I understand it.  We've always been a homebrewing community by a massive margin.

In context I guess it's a claim that divorces the brand even more completely from the (unsexy, 20th-Century) books, so he might just be pandering to his corporate executive customer base, but giving him the benefit of the doubt that he isn't just making it up out of whole cloth -- it seems really blind.

It does illustrate, however, the very important point that *Hasbro* does not care if you buy their fish; they care about how many millions of people buy tickets to see their fishing documentary.

EDIT: Wizards absolutely cares if you buy their fish.  They put a lot of work into them and they care about them and they are delicious.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 17, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> There seems to be this inferiority complex strain going on with D&D fans in regards to the potential that WOTC sees in this as a brand.
> 
> Recall that some of the biggest, successful movies of the past few years were about a quest for a dragon...ina dungeon..




The problem is that for some reason... D&D has not been able to shake the stigma that's been attached to it... even though numerous other geek related things have successfully done so.  I honestly am not sure why but that's where I think the first steps in utilizing the brand should begin... some kind of mainstream PR campaign... IMO, of course.


----------



## HonorBoundSamurai632 (Apr 17, 2015)

Stefano Rinaldelli said:


> There is something odd in your position. First you lament a lack of old dnd campaign setting Support, then you announce you move to pathfinder. I believe that would be far more rational if you use 5th edition rules with old campaign material...




I apologize Stefano ..... what I mean is, I will continue to meet every other Saturday with the group I'm in that plays using 5th Edition. I will continue to run my PC with that group. When it comes time for me personally to get behind the screen though, I will be doing it with Pathfinder and Golarion. I actually am one of the few who prefer the whole "kitchen sink" approach to the Inner Sea region. That was one of the things that I miss about the D&D Multi-verse. I loved DM-ing in Greyhawk and having my players stumble upon a Spelljamming vessel, or accidentally walk into the Mists of Ravenloft, or travel the outer planes by first visiting Sigil.

I will still support 5th Edition as a player. But unfortunately, only as a player. When I DM, I'll be doing that with Pathfinder. This is what I meant.


----------



## Agamon (Apr 17, 2015)

pming said:


> I think WotC is giving a fish to someone, as opposed to teaching them how to fish for themselves. That is, the "story, story, story!" thing may work to bring in a new player or three, but it isn't going to keep them here. That is the fatal flaw I see, and I'm betting it's going to bite them in the azz in the long run.




Fatal flaw?  Which version of D&D started off with a This-Is-How-You-Make-Your-Own-Homebrew book instead of adventures?  There might be some special snowflakes that built themselves their own living, breathing world for their very first game of D&D, but most of us cut our teeth on published stuff before getting the creative juices flowing.  And then there are those that don't make up their own stuff even after years of playing.  A lot of groups play this way and there's nothing wrong, let alone fatalistic, with that.




> Oh well, at least the core rules are rock solid and easy to use with other, previous editions. It's just sad that one of the things I was looking forward to ...spending money on a currently supported edition of D&D... isn't going to happen.




Sad you have to play a game without having to continually spend money?  Okay....


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2015)

Imaro said:


> The problem is that for some reason... D&D has not been able to shake the stigma that's been attached to it... even though numerous other geek related things have successfully done so.  I honestly am not sure why but that's where I think the first steps in utilizing the brand should begin... some kind of mainstream PR campaign... IMO, of course.




I don't know that I'd agree with this. From where I'm sitting near Hipstertown USA (on the East Coast anyway), nerd culture is pretty hip right now, and that includes D&D. It's a little quaint, a little retro, a little ridiculous, and too much of a time sink for a lot of people (one evening a week is a LOT of time to give up!), but fondly regarded. Grown-ups with actual jobs are having Game of Thrones viewing parties followed by games of D&D. Yuppie parents are bestowing it on their children. It's a thing that folks know about and chuckle about, but are curious about - a world they don't know much about. 

Where D&D languishes a bit is that there's not a good adult-oriented media property for it. Peter Jackson's movies are sophisticated and high-quality entertainment. _Game of Thrones_ is an HBO show involving violence and drama and death and dongs and dragons. D&D has a kid's show from the '80's, a few good video games from the '90's, that awful movie, and some nostalgia for FR books. 

The culture's ready. The issue with D&D-branded material is that so much of it is _not good_, and then what is good tends to be _old_ or _only really good if you're 12_.  The game has come out of the basement, but for those people without 4 hrs/week to spend on the BEST expression of D&D, there's not a lot out there for 'em. 

For them, I don't know that a big-time high-quality video game like Nate's on about is going to do a lot (the competition there is fierce and I don't know that there's a lot of audience to gain there), but shop your high-quality, high-tension action-adventure series to Netflix and you might just have the national pop zeitgeist for a few weeks. A game is kind of a no-brainer, though, and likely something that's easier to do from where they're sitting.

It just can't be a _mediocre game_.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 17, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> That was one of the things that I miss about the D&D Multi-verse. I loved DM-ing in Greyhawk and having my players stumble upon a Spelljamming vessel, or accidentally walk into the Mists of Ravenloft, or travel the outer planes by first visiting Sigil.




You can still do all of that with 5E, if you still have your old classic D&D books (or purchase the digital editions on dndclassics.com).

I understand to a point, it would be nice if WotC could provide the level of output we enjoyed during the 2E era (and to a lesser extent, the 3E and 4E era). But it simply isn't viable for WotC to support D&D in this way. If it was, that's what they would be doing. And as nostalgic as I am for the "good old days", I couldn't afford the time and money to keep up with that level of support anyway. I am part of the demographic WotC is targeting now, those with splat-fatigue. We are legion.

But, if you have the time and the inclination, using classic D&D material with the new rules is EASY.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't know that I'd agree with this. From where I'm sitting near Hipstertown USA (on the East Coast anyway), nerd culture is pretty hip right now, and that includes D&D. It's a little quaint, a little retro, a little ridiculous, and too much of a time sink for a lot of people (one evening a week is a LOT of time to give up!), but fondly regarded. Grown-ups with actual jobs are having Game of Thrones viewing parties followed by games of D&D. Yuppie parents are bestowing it on their children. It's a thing that folks know about and chuckle about, but are curious about - a world they don't know much about.
> 
> Where D&D languishes a bit is that there's not a good adult-oriented media property for it. Peter Jackson's movies are sophisticated and high-quality entertainment. _Game of Thrones_ is an HBO show involving violence and drama and death and dongs and dragons. D&D has a kid's show from the '80's, a few good video games from the '90's, that awful movie, and some nostalgia for FR books.
> 
> ...




I honestly wonder if this is about geography... I'm in the midwest... and it feels like D&D still has this stigma about it... I work at an IT consulting company and we discuss the latest episode of GoT or the new Daredevil show on Netflix at work... geek out about the new Star Wars trailer even have the a casual conversation about video games and no one bats an eye... but there is still the rare offhand joke about D&D that gets thrown about every so often... or the sense that it's something most played early in life but have left behind... perhaps it is the fact that it's looked at as "for kids" but so were videogames at one time.  Personally I'm not sure why it's singled out in this way, but I've noticed it.


----------



## redrick (Apr 17, 2015)

delericho said:


> I'm pretty sure the answer to your first question is "very few", but I suspect sales aren't the point.
> 
> One of D&D's problems is that, despite having 40 years of history behind it, it has actually generated very few recognisable characters that can be licensed, and many of the ones it does have are problematic: Dragonlance is tainted by that crappy animated film, Strahd is a knock-off of the public-domain Dracula, and Drizzt's skin tone makes a film awkward.
> 
> ...






pming said:


> Hiya.
> 
> I think WotC is giving a fish to someone, as opposed to teaching them how to fish for themselves. That is, the "story, story, story!" thing may work to bring in a new player or three, but it isn't going to keep them here. That is the fatal flaw I see, and I'm betting it's going to bite them in the azz in the long run.
> 
> ...




But isn't the DMG teaching people how to fish? There's a little bit in that book about running published adventures, but most of the DMG is about homebrewing your own content, at least to some degree.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't know that I'd agree with this. From where I'm sitting near Hipstertown USA (on the East Coast anyway), nerd culture is pretty hip right now, and that includes D&D. It's a little quaint, a little retro, a little ridiculous, and too much of a time sink for a lot of people (one evening a week is a LOT of time to give up!), but fondly regarded. Grown-ups with actual jobs are having Game of Thrones viewing parties followed by games of D&D. Yuppie parents are bestowing it on their children. It's a thing that folks know about and chuckle about, but are curious about - a world they don't know much about.
> 
> Where D&D languishes a bit is that there's not a good adult-oriented media property for it. Peter Jackson's movies are sophisticated and high-quality entertainment. _Game of Thrones_ is an HBO show involving violence and drama and death and dongs and dragons. D&D has a kid's show from the '80's, a few good video games from the '90's, that awful movie, and some nostalgia for FR books.
> 
> ...



The problem is D&D itself is too broad. 

Also, what can D&D give the audience that Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Twilight, Star Wars, and all the numerous other fantasy movies, hasn'thasn't already given?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I honestly wonder if this is about geography... I'm in the midwest... and it feels like D&D still has this stigma about it... I work at an IT consulting company and we discuss the latest episode of GoT or the new Daredevil show on Netflix at work... geek out about the new Star Wars trailer even have the a casual conversation about video games and no one bats an eye... but there is still the rare offhand joke about D&D that gets thrown about every so often... or the sense that it's something most played early in life but have left behind... perhaps it is the fact that it's looked at as "for kids" but so were videogames at one time.  Personally I'm not sure why it's singled out in this way, but I've noticed it.




Yeah, adults in the communities I run with in Brooklyn aren't concerned with something being "for kids" by and large - if it's _fun_, they want in on it, too.  Though large articles have been written about the extended adolescence as a result... 



			
				Harry Dresden said:
			
		

> The problem is D&D itself is too broad.
> 
> Also, what can D&D give the audience that Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Twilight, Star Wars, and all the numerous other fantasy movies, hasn'thasn't already given?




I dunno that I'd agree with that, either. I mean, D&D is a _very big tent_, don't get me wrong, but that just means that there's literally an INFINITY of things you can do with it. It adapts itself quite well to whatever the folks want to do with it. That means it's not a straightforward process of "turn this narrative into a movie," but it does mean that a huge diversity of elements can live under the D&D umbrella and not be outside of it. 

And given that there's still super hero movies, and war movies, and crime movies, I don't think _uniqueness_ plays a tremendous role in product consumption. It will need to be distinct, but that's an issue of individual writers and producers and directors, not of the brand itself. 

Y'know what might be fun in a D&D movie? A home-loving halfling, a boy wizard, a sexy vampire, and a robe-clad religious figure go slay a dark wizard who is leading an army of evil vampires to take over the world. 

I mean, the best D&D *games* are often just fantasy genre stuff mashed together and molded into a shape, why not for movies?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 17, 2015)

The key word I take out of this is BRAND.  Sounds like they are going to push other avenues of media, be it books, movie, TV show, electronic gaming, etc. and then support the story that there is interest in.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

wedgeski said:


> One of. I said ONE OF. Jeez, people.



OK, let I'll be a bit more explicit.

Paizo probably stuck with the OGL and launched Pathfinder because WotC ended their liscence for Dragon/Dungeon, presented no for the new ed OGL at launch, and first version of the GSL to appear was extremely unfavorable to 3pps like Paizo. When presented with the choice of either continuing to use the OGL, or never being able to use it again and give WotC the right to torpedo your products at their whim, Paizo made the obvious choice.

There may well be other possible reasons but, they do not include:



wedgeski said:


> one of the things that caused Paizo to spin off on their own in the first place: that 4E couldn't tell the kind of stories they wanted to tell.



 Because Paizo could, indeed, have used 4e to tell adventure-path style of stories.  Really, when it comes to D&D as a narrative or story-telling game, 4e is not as bad the other editions - though it's no indie game, of course.




pming said:


> Hiya.
> 
> I think WotC is giving a fish to someone, as opposed to teaching them how to fish for themselves. That is, the "story, story, story!" thing may work to bring in a new player or three, but it isn't going to keep them here. That is the fatal flaw I see, and I'm betting it's going to bite them in the azz in the long run.



 OK, I can see where you get that.

OTOH, the DMG is all about 'how to fish' - how to create a campaign, how to re-design the game to work for that campaign, etc.  In that sense, people are asking for some more fish (more splat books), when they already know how to fish.


----------



## tyrlaan (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yeah, adults in the communities I run with in Brooklyn aren't concerned with something being "for kids" by and large - if it's _fun_, they want in on it, too.  Though large articles have been written about the extended adolescence as a result...




I've come to the conclusion that the entire concept of "adult" is a BS construct, probably put in place by people who for one reason or another can't find ways to enjoy their lives and wanted a way to spread their woe. The whole "misery loves company" shtick. 

But that's probably a bit off topic at this point...


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 17, 2015)

You have to look at what makes D&D, well D&D. 

Let's look at what makes Lord of the Rings what it is.

Wizards with pointy hats and long beards.

Magical rings.

Elves, orcs, dwarves, halflings, dragons and other creatures.

Magic. 

Regal elves who carry beautiful weapons, wear beautiful and shiny armor, and who are outstanding with a bow.

Hmmmmmm. I wonder what this sounds like as well.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> You have to look at what makes D&D, well D&D.
> 
> Let's look at what makes Lord of the Rings what it is.
> 
> ...




The reason D&D looks like that is because D&D loots liberally from other fantasy works and mashes them together to make its own gumbo.

So with that logic in place, you wanted the most _essential_ D&D experience, we'd throw Frodo, Merlin, Conan, Harry Potter, and probably Chewbacca together and send them off on some excuse plot for action an adventure.


----------



## tyrlaan (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The reason D&D looks like that is because D&D loots liberally from other fantasy works and mashes them together to make its own gumbo.
> 
> So with that logic in place, you wanted the most _essential_ D&D experience, we'd throw Frodo, Merlin, Conan, Harry Potter, and probably Chewbacca together and send them off on some excuse plot for action an adventure.




That's a new lineup for a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen story if I've ever seen one!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The reason D&D looks like that is because D&D loots liberally from other fantasy works and mashes them together to make its own gumbo.
> 
> So with that logic in place, you wanted the most _essential_ D&D experience, we'd throw Frodo, Merlin, Conan, Harry Potter, and probably Chewbacca together and send them off on some excuse plot for action an adventure.




Bingo! 

So where does D&D take itit's unique place all this in order to sell it mainstream?

That is a he'll of an adventuring party. 

So would Chewy be the bard?


----------



## Beleriphon (Apr 17, 2015)

Harry Dresden said:


> So would Chewy be the bard?




Obviously, he's the only one that can sing.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 17, 2015)

wedgeski said:


> One of. I said ONE OF. Jeez, people.




It was also a highly publicized reason, as their March 2008 press statements all referenced it...



			
				Lisa Stevens said:
			
		

> Today, we have announced our decision to create the Pathfinder RPG, the flagship game system for all of our Pathfinder products. This roleplaying game will be based on the Open Game License (OGL) and the 3.5 SRD released by Wizards of the Coast. We came to this decision by listening to you, our customers, and also listening to our own hearts. Our Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting was designed around the tropes and values of classic fantasy roleplaying, and the Pathfinder Adventure Path books were designed to provide the best gaming experience using the 3.5 system. After careful evaluation of our options, we believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder.






			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> We know that many of our readers are looking forward to 4th Edition. We still plan to release an entire line of 4th Edition products through our partnership with Necromancer Games, including a brand new Tome of Horrors hardcover monster anthology, adventures, and other exciting products. (Much of this support will depend, of course, upon the terms of the still-in-development Game System License from Wizards of the Coast, but we remain hopeful that Paizo will be a major player in the 4th Edition arena as well.) _But we believe that the 3.5 rules provide the best core system for our Pathfinder products, best allowing us to tell the kinds of stories you've come to expect from us._




Its also worth noting that plans at that time were to still support 4e via a partnership with Necromancer but the GSL killed those plans pretty dead.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Apr 17, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Sure, but that misses one of the biggest requirements of D&D: playing with other people.  If I'm going to sit at my desk and wait for the game to come to me, I can get that with most major MMOs.  Why then would I order a game that I will naturally have to go _somewhere else_ if even only out to my living room?
> 
> That aside it's also not advertizing for the player and you're missing out on a lot of "spontaneous purchases".  EX: I was in Wal-Mart a few days ago and happened across the new Megatron toy.  I've been wanting one for a while but what with it being there, in my hands, the last one on the shelf I just _had_ to buy it.  The toy has been out for a couple months now, but I wasn't interested enough to buy one online.
> 
> ...




I actually agree with everything you're saying here. We know from the front page that the Starter Sets _can_ be found at some Wal-Marts, but it's probably hardly on their radar - just another box from Hasbro for them to put on the shelves. 

A successful triple AAA video game or smash hit at the box office, however, would likely merit a big push to increase the visibility of D&D related products. Which could lead to Player's Handbooks being prominently displayed next to the Magic decks or in the book sections at Wal-Mart, Target and the like.


----------



## bogmad (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The reason D&D looks like that is because D&D loots liberally from other fantasy works and mashes them together to make its own gumbo.
> 
> So with that logic in place, you wanted the most _essential_ D&D experience, we'd throw Frodo, Merlin, Conan, Harry Potter, and probably Chewbacca together and send them off on some excuse plot for action an adventure.




Humor aside...

Well, as far as what stories to tell that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter didn't...

How about a story where the protagonists go out looking _for_ adventure instead of having it thrust upon them.  Even in Game of Thrones most of the characters are born into some fate they don't really control.  

I think the way to differentiate a D&D media property would be to just tell a story about murderhobos who then stumble upon the big epic story instead of being a story about some "Chosen One" fated to be at the forefront of history.  

[Conan is kind of the odd man out exception that proves the rule]


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 17, 2015)

Trickster Spirit said:


> I actually agree with everything you're saying here. We know from the front page that the Starter Sets _can_ be found at some Wal-Marts, but it's probably hardly on their radar - just another box from Hasbro for them to put on the shelves.
> 
> A successful triple AAA video game or smash hit at the box office, however, would likely merit a big push to increase the visibility of D&D related products. Which could lead to Player's Handbooks being prominently displayed next to the Magic decks or in the book sections at Wal-Mart, Target and the like.



I wouldn't really hold my breath. 

Look at the success of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. Where is all the merchandise, all the toys, and all the video games? Sure there is a little bit of that stuff, but there isn't a mad demand for it. 

Somethings do extremely well in one area but not necessarily in others and I think D&D falls into that category.


----------



## redrick (Apr 17, 2015)

bogmad said:


> Humor aside...
> 
> Well, as far as what stories to tell that Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter didn't...
> 
> ...




Wandering a little off-topic now, but if I were to point at the most bankable part of D&D IP, it would all be in the Monster Manual. Somebody could spin a group of PCs (Protagonist Characters) that feel a little less derivative, and Faerun has definitely developed its own identity through the books and video games, but the D&D monsters have really taken on a life of their own.

Perfect fodder for a monster-of-the-week episodic series.


----------



## Beleriphon (Apr 17, 2015)

redrick said:


> Perfect fodder for a monster-of-the-week episodic series.




I gotta say that's the strength of D&D, the monsters more than anything. There are a few decidely D&D monsters as well. The Behold, Mind Flayers, and the Gith races are the ones that stick out for me more than anything. How amazing would a really, really well done behold look in a movie? Turn the volume on the MM cover up to 11 and I think it would make a pretty amazing movie monster.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 17, 2015)

Beleriphon said:


> Obviously, he's the only one that can sing.




Not true.  Potter has a Broadway-quality voice.  Dude can cut a rug, too...

[video]https://youtu.be/69WpCBLrdSQ[/video]


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

Nathan Stewart said:
			
		

> We are story, story, story. The story drives everything. The need for new rules, the new races, new classes is just based on what’s going to really make this adventure, this story, this kind kind of theme happen." He goes on to say that "We’re not interested in putting out more books for books’ sake... there’s zero plans for a Player’s Handbook 2 any time on the horizon.... we’re going to stay in the Forgotten Realms for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Dungeons and Dragons stopped being a tabletop game years or decades ago... This is no secret for anyone here, but the big thing I want to see is just a triple-A RPG video game. I want to see Baldur’s Gate 3, I want to see a huge open-world RPG. I would love movies about Dungeons and Dragons, or better yet, serialized entertainment where we’re doing seasons of D&D stories and things like Forgotten Realms action figures… of course I’d love that, I’m the biggest geek there is. But at the end of the day, the game’s what we’re missing in the portfolio.






			
				Erik Mona said:
			
		

> We know that many of our readers are looking forward to 4th Edition. We still plan to release an entire line of 4th Edition products through our partnership with Necromancer Games, including a brand new Tome of Horrors hardcover monster anthology, adventures, and other exciting products. (Much of this support will depend, of course, upon the terms of the still-in-development Game System License from Wizards of the Coast, but we remain hopeful that Paizo will be a major player in the 4th Edition arena as well.) But we believe that the 3.5 rules provide the best core system for our Pathfinder products, best allowing us to tell the kinds of stories you've come to expect from us.



It's a testimony to how much better Paizo has done at managing their relationship with their fanbase, that,  a quote of some WotC rep reciting some fairly meaningless marketing/PR talking points, spawns hundreds of comments that at least imply that WotC is being deceptive, if not outright scream that they're lying. 

But a quote of some Paizo rep reciting some relatively meaningless marketing/PR talking points, isn't just received appreciatively at the time, but seven years later, can be brought up as 'proof' of their noble motives and sincerity, even though it transparently left their options open, and they ultimately only exercised one of those options.  


It's a remarkable PR accomplishment.  If it weren't in such an obscure industry, business majors would probably be reading case studies of it for the next 20 years.



Personally - and maybe I'm just cynical - I look at both cases and see empty marketing speak.  Nothing to crow over.  Nothing to get upset over.  No evidence of 'real' motivations - beyond CYA & ROI - and no confirmations, affirmations, validations or denials of the many things we obsess over.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's a testimony to how much better Paizo has done at managing their relationship with their fanbase, that,  a quote of some WotC rep reciting some fairly meaningless marketing/PR talking points, spawns hundreds of comments that at least imply that WotC is being deceptive, if not outright scream that they're lying.
> 
> But a quote of some Paizo rep reciting some relatively meaningless marketing/PR talking points, isn't just received appreciatively at the time, but seven years later, can be brought up as 'proof' of their noble motives and sincerity, even though it transparently left their options open, and they ultimately only exercised one of those options.
> 
> ...




I'd say the opposite. If your every utterance, no matter how trivial, sends people into long debates about what you mean, your PR is top notch. Companies would kill to have their every utterance seized upon in this way. It confirms that the fans are passionate and that they care.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'd say the opposite. If your every utterance, no matter how trivial, sends people into long debates about what you mean, your PR is top notch. Companies would kill to have their every utterance seized upon in this way. It confirms that the fans are passionate and that they care.



 "No such thing as bad publicity?"  Interesting point.  Maybe the whole 'failure' and 'revival' of D&D were just ploys to generate buzz, so the Brand could take another shot at expanding beyond the TTRPG space?


----------



## Staffan (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> "No such thing as bad publicity?"  Interesting point.  Maybe the whole 'failure' and 'revival' of D&D were just ploys to generate buzz, so the Brand could take another shot at expanding beyond the TTRPG space?




4e as New Coke?


----------



## raphaelus (Apr 17, 2015)

Adding those "adapt your setting" chapters like in 'Princes of the Apocalypse' while staying in Forgotten Realms is an EXCELLENT idea.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

Staffan said:


> 4e as New Coke?



And 5e as coke-classic?   It's not a perfect analogy.  

Coke wanted to change from sugar to corn syrup, because the latter is cheaper (in the USA), so they launched 'New Coke' with lots of corn syrup, then after most people hadn't tasted old coke in a while (and raged against the New Coke), they brought back 'Coke Classic' - with corn syrup, just less of it.  The taste difference between sugar-sweetened coke and corn-syrup coke classic is subtle, but with New Coke to hate on, coke classic was good enough.  In the process, they also won extra shelf space, which may or may not have been part of the the plan, but led to a proliferation of soft drink products for a while.

Corn syrup and sugar are both pretty bad for you, there's a perception, maybe a little evidence, that corn syrup is worse.  So Coke sneaking it into their premier product for the cost savings is maybe a tad unpleasant.

But, the 'corn syrup' in this analogy is game balance.  4e was much better-balanced than other eds of D&D, and 3.5 had arguably become the worst-balanced ever (it's hard to say, since earlier eds were hard to evaluate).  5e, riding in after a 2-year hiatus, with 4e for contrast, looks like it's back to being really imbalanced, maybe even to the level of AD&D (though, again, AD&D was so often and heavily modded, it's hard to say what it was 'really' like - and 5e is meant to be that way, too), but 5e doesn't suffer from 3.5's bloat and power inflation, and isn't likely to right away, with it's slower pace of publication.

The analogy falls short because imbalance is bad for you game, and balance good, while sugar is bad for your body, and corn syrup possibly even worse - and balance is more expensive, not less.   And, more to the point,  because WotC didn't set out to insert balance, but to sell DDI and make MMO-like piles of money.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> "No such thing as bad publicity?"  Interesting point.  Maybe the whole 'failure' and 'revival' of D&D were just ploys to generate buzz, so the Brand could take another shot at expanding beyond the TTRPG space?




No. That sort of conspiracy is way too risky for any business. Paizo becoming a major player illustrate the sort of risks taking a dive can conjure up. 

And sure, publicity is good, good publicity is better. I'm sure a lot of business would want the level of exposure D&D gets, but I'm sure WotC would like to be less divisive. The print on demand booklet seems to be an improvised response to comments about disappointement in the release schedule.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The print on demand booklet seems to be an improvised response to comments about disappointement in the release schedule.



 It's not the first time Mearls has scheduled a release, cancelled it, then released it digitally for free.  The Class Compendium for Essentials was an even more dramatic example.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's not the first time Mearls has scheduled a release, cancelled it, then released it digitally for free.  The Class Compendium for Essentials was an even more dramatic example.




Heh, who knows, maybe we'll see more content sooner than we think. Or different campaign settings. I do not understand why the two APs need to be set in the FR. One in the FR and one more experimental would be cool. Do a Dark Sun AP with a psionic handbook that is released at the same time. Do Planescape with a manual of the planes. Do Eberron with with a campaign guide...


----------



## Umbran (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Coke wanted to change from sugar to corn syrup, because the latter is cheaper (in the USA), so they launched 'New Coke' with lots of corn syrup, then after most people hadn't tasted old coke in a while (and raged against the New Coke), they brought back 'Coke Classic' - with corn syrup, just less of it.  The taste difference between sugar-sweetened coke and corn-syrup coke classic is subtle, but with New Coke to hate on, coke classic was good enough.  In the process, they also won extra shelf space, which may or may not have been part of the the plan, but led to a proliferation of soft drink products for a while.




That's commonly stated, but false. 



			
				snopes.com said:
			
		

> The change in sweetener wasn't anything that diabolical. Corn syrup was cheaper than cane sugar; that's what it came down to. In 1980, five years before the introduction of New Coke, Coca-Cola had begun to allow bottlers to replace half the cane sugar in Coca-Cola with HFCS. By six months prior to New Coke's knocking the original Coca-Cola off the shelves, American Coca-Cola bottlers were allowed to use 100% HFCS. Whether they knew it or not, many consumers were already drinking Coke that was 100% sweetened by HFCS.
> 
> Read more at http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp#Gugr7GSRHZ2zRz31.99




What that means for the analogy is left as an exercise for the reader.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Coke wanted to change from sugar to corn syrup, because the latter is cheaper (in the USA), so they launched 'New Coke' with lots of corn syrup, then after most people hadn't tasted old coke in a while (and raged against the New Coke), they brought back 'Coke Classic' - with corn syrup, just less of it.  The taste difference between sugar-sweetened coke and corn-syrup coke classic is subtle, but with New Coke to hate on, coke classic was good enough.  In the process, they also won extra shelf space, which may or may not have been part of the the plan, but led to a proliferation of soft drink products for a while.




That's not quite how the historians tell the tale: some bottlers had switched to HFCS before the new coke thing, and some switched after, but the narrative has been about _focus groups._ That is, people said they actually preferred the taste of new coke to that of "coke classic." 

That's important in this analogy. It's important to understanding brand. Because it's not fundamentally about whether you actually like the taste of the thing - or in D&Ds case, whether the "game balance" is actually any good. I'm pretty positive that when 4e was released, WotC had a lot of market studies showing that this is what people wanted - better balance, more options, tighter gameplay, bigger combats...the market told them what it wanted, and WotC delivered it...

...and the fizz hit the fan, so to speak. In part, because of - and here's the kicker when you compare it with D&D4e - _an experience of loss_.

People who LIKED the old version and felt it was just fine suddenly had to get this "new" version, which was not the same, at all. So they felt like something they cared about, something they identified with, something that they felt was _part of them and who they were_ (because brand identity is a signifier for personality traits in heavily consumerist societies) was taken from them. 

In D&D, the sense of brand identity is pretty strong - if you are a D&D player, it is often part of your personality, your experience, who you are, who you claim to be. It says something about you as a person. 

Which is why you can sell a D&D movie to someone who played for like a month in college, or to someone who read the _Icewind Dale_ trilogy as a teenager - they still identify as a "D&D Person" (in part, because this experience WAS in college or high school - when we are defining who we are mentally), and why you can get them to play a game with their kids. 

It's part of why D&D is not the tabletop RPG - it's the *brand*.

(this is a bit of a Thing for me since some of my most memorable undergrad work as a student of religion and culture fell to comparing things like how fundamentalist religion and  brand identity both produce a similar manichean use of language - but now I am WILDLY off-topic.  )


----------



## Wicht (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Coke wanted to change from sugar to corn syrup, because the latter is cheaper (in the USA), so they launched 'New Coke' with lots of corn syrup, then after most people hadn't tasted old coke in a while (and raged against the New Coke), they brought back 'Coke Classic' - with corn syrup, just less of it.  The taste difference between sugar-sweetened coke and corn-syrup coke classic is subtle, but with New Coke to hate on, coke classic was good enough.  In the process, they also won extra shelf space, which may or may not have been part of the the plan, but led to a proliferation of soft drink products for a while.




You do know that's just an urban legend, don't you? It didn't actually happen that way. The switch to full corn syrup actually happened some months for many bottlers before New Coke came on the market.

Edit: Heh - ninja'd not once but twice...


----------



## Wicht (Apr 17, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Not true.  Potter has a Broadway-quality voice.  Dude can cut a rug, too...
> 
> [video]https://youtu.be/69WpCBLrdSQ[/video]




I had never realized how short Mr. Radcliffe was until watching that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I had never realized how short Mr. Radcliffe was until watching that.




....wouldn't trust him near the party horse, though....

(.....kind of want to play a ranger inspired by Alan Strang now....but "Have you seen Equus?" has gotta be the worst response to "So, tell me about your D&D character" I've ever heard...)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

Wicht said:


> You do know that's just an urban legend, don't you? It didn't actually happen that way. The switch to full corn syrup actually happened some months for many bottlers before New Coke came on the market.



 That would make it an even worse analogy.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 17, 2015)

Story is a goal of a Storytelling Game but a byproduct of a Roleplaying Game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That's important in this analogy. It's important to understanding brand. Because it's not fundamentally about whether you actually like the taste of the thing - or in D&Ds case, whether the "game balance" is actually any good. I'm pretty positive that when 4e was released, WotC had a lot of market studies showing that this is what people wanted - better balance, more options, tighter gameplay, bigger combats...the market told them what it wanted, and WotC delivered it...



 Nod.  



> People who LIKED the old version and felt it was just fine suddenly had to get this "new" version, which was not the same, at all. So they felt like something they cared about, something they identified with, something that they felt was _part of them and who they were_ (because brand identity is a signifier for personality traits in heavily consumerist societies) was taken from them.



 Sure.  Except the old version didn't go anywhere, and was still heavily supported by the OGL.

Just another way the analogy fails.



> Which is why you can sell a D&D movie to someone who played for like a month in college, or to someone who read the _Icewind Dale_ trilogy as a teenager - they still identify as a "D&D Person" (in part, because this experience WAS in college or high school - when we are defining who we are mentally), and why you can get them to play a game with their kids.
> 
> It's part of why D&D is not the tabletop RPG - it's the *brand*.



I'm skeptical.  For one thing, we've been there - there were two D&D movies, they were  awful. 

 For another, franchises that launch successful movies have characters.  Marvel is almost nothing but a stable of characters.  Star Trek re-launched with Kirk & Spock and the whole gang.  LotR has the fellowship.  Harry Potter is the franchise.  

D&D doesn't really have that.  They've got Elminster - a generic wizard - and Drizzt (and there's no way you want to wave an inherently-evil, black-skinned, matriarchal race in front of the mainstream).  Dragonlance would be a Dragonlance movie, not a D&D movie. 



> (this is a bit of a Thing for me since some of my most memorable undergrad work as a student of religion and culture fell to comparing things like how fundamentalist religion and  brand identity both produce a similar Manichean use of language - but now I am WILDLY off-topic.  )



 If you mean us/them constructs, yeah, there was a lot of that.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2015)

I keep seeing the quote that they are not going to be producing books for the sake of producing books, but I just wonder if they do not have any editors on staff any more, are they going to be producing books at all?


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I keep seeing the quote that they are not going to be producing books for the sake of producing books, but I just wonder if they do not have any editors on staff any more, are they going to be producing books at all?




It might mean a greater reliance on the magazines (probably in digital form) to distribute content than on physical books.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure.  Except the old version didn't go anywhere, and was still heavily supported by the OGL.
> 
> Just another way the analogy fails.



Totally. Old coke wasn't something anyone could go make. Pepsi was still Pepsi - if you didn't like it before, you might try it, but you weren't necessarily gonna like it now. 



> I'm skeptical.  For one thing, we've been there - there were two D&D movies, they were  awful.




Just 'cuz you CAN sell to that brand-person doesn't mean you WILL. Quality plays a significant role. Brand affiliation gets people to look when they otherwise wouldn't. 



> For another, franchises that launch successful movies have characters.  Marvel is almost nothing but a stable of characters.  Star Trek re-launched with Kirk & Spock and the whole gang.  LotR has the fellowship.  Harry Potter is the franchise.
> 
> D&D doesn't really have that.  They've got Elminster - a generic wizard - and Drizzt (and there's no way you want to wave an inherently-evil, black-skinned, matriarchal race in front of the mainstream).  Dragonlance would be a Dragonlance movie, not a D&D movie.




It's true that D&D doesn't have strong characters, but it's not true that D&D media properties couldn't _develop_ strong characters. Just going from the old 90's RPGs (which were one of the high-water marks of quality in D&D branded stuff) you have memorable characters like Minsc and The Nameless One, in well-made products that maintain high levels of respect long after their heyday. There's nothing stopping these from being developed, and there's also nothing stopping them from doing an _Icewind Dale_ movie. People would eat that noise up, if it wasn't garbage. 



> If you mean us/them constructs, yeah, there was a lot of that.




Yeah, it's because brands get incorporated to identity - it becomes part of who _you_ are, so you look for people _like you_ - who share a brand affiliation - and then you form a group of people who all thing _like you_....and then this other group of people who compete directly with that brand come along and they are not like you and a risk to your group and who you are because they are in competition and...

Basically, brands can be very very very important to people.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> . Just going from the old 90's RPGs (which were one of the high-water marks of quality in D&D branded stuff)



 Depends on the qualities you're evaluating, I guess. 



> you have memorable characters like Minsc and The Nameless One, in well-made products that maintain high levels of respect long after their heyday. There's nothing stopping these from being developed,



 I can't say I remember either of them, but the novels and settings didn't much capture my interest.  Especially in the 90s.





> Yeah, it's because brands get incorporated to identity - it becomes part of who _you_ are, so you look for people _like you_ - who share a brand affiliation - and then you form a group of people who all thing _like you_....and then this other group of people who compete directly with that brand come along and they are not like you and a risk to your group and who you are because they are in competition and...



 That is mildly horrifying.  :|

But it rings true.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> It might mean a greater reliance on the magazines (probably in digital form) to distribute content than on physical books.




If they are not producing books, I think the chances of producing a magazine is very slim.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> If they are not producing books, I think the chances of producing a magazine is very slim.




I think the magazines are more likely in the absence of the books, especially if they are remaining digital to lower the associated costs.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 17, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's true that D&D doesn't have strong characters,...




Actually what DnD does have, and this would be an interesting way to develop a franchise, is strong villains: Orcus, Tiamat, Iuz, Zuggtmoy, Strahd, Lolth, etc.  

It would be kinda cool, I think, to pick one of those and then write up some material where the different "episodes" are centered, not around the character of the heroes, but the machinations and character of the villain... Almost a horror movie model of a franchise, but with the tropes of Dungeons and Dragons. And it would fit the game genre too, as everyone always chooses different characters to play, but what ties us all together as gamers are the shared obstacles.


----------



## Beleriphon (Apr 17, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Actually what DnD does have, and this would be an interesting way to develop a franchise, is strong villains: Orcus, Tiamat, Iuz, Zuggtmoy, Strahd, Lolth, etc.




That's actually pretty true, since most adventures as published material are often remembered for have a really fun antagonist to overcome. I suppose the same could be true of a movie, or TV show or whatever. I mean there's a reason Darth Vader is more awesome than Luke Skywalker.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> D&D doesn't really have that.  They've got Elminster - a generic wizard - and Drizzt (and there's no way you want to wave an inherently-evil, black-skinned, matriarchal race in front of the mainstream).  Dragonlance would be a Dragonlance movie, not a D&D movie.




I do not see any inherent problems with presenting the Drow to the "mainstream"

Salvatores Drizzt novels have been top selling books for years without any noticeable blow back.

Even at the height of the Demon worshiping craze no one complained about the Drow.


----------



## MechaPilot (Apr 17, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I do not see any inherent problems with presenting the Drow to the "mainstream"
> 
> Salvatores Drizzt novels have been top selling books for years without any noticeable blow back.
> 
> Even at the height of the Demon worshiping craze no one complained about the Drow.




It largely depends on how you are presenting it and what you mean by "mainstream."  Mainstream gamers would likely not have much of an issue with the FR portrayal of the Drow in a film (though the lesbian stripper ninja attire might preclude a rating that could maximize box office potential, because boobs are so much more harmful to people than graphic violence is).


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 17, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> It largely depends on how you are presenting it and what you mean by "mainstream."  Mainstream gamers would likely not have much of an issue with the FR portrayal of the Drow in a film (though the lesbian stripper ninja attire might preclude a rating that could maximize box office potential, because boobs are so much more harmful to people than graphic violence is).




That is true.  Boobs are inherently anti main stream.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I do not see any inherent problems with presenting the Drow to the "mainstream"



 I guess it might not be obvious to a global audience, and I should have added the caveat of in the US, or even, certain parts thereof.  

It's easy to forget that most of the world is saner than I'm accustomed to.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Story is a goal of a Storytelling Game but a byproduct of a Roleplaying Game.




Only if your definition of story is *real* tight. Byproduct just doesn't seem the right word. It may be secondary to the fun experience of playing, but implying it's incidental just doesn't seem to be the right connotation. It's just what the history of the game looks like from a pulled-back perspective.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 18, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Only if your definition of story is *real* tight. Byproduct just doesn't seem the right word. It may be secondary to the fun experience of playing, but implying it's incidental just doesn't seem to be the right connotation. It's just what the history of the game looks like from a pulled-back perspective.





I think it depends more on how loose your definition of story might be.  Everything is a story if it is conveyed as such, and one only has to encounter anyone who wants to tell you about their character to understand that.  But it is a matter of goals and with RPGs story is not so much a goal as a serendipitous happenstance.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 18, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Totally. Old coke wasn't something anyone could go make. Pepsi was still Pepsi - if you didn't like it before, you might try it, but you weren't necessarily gonna like it now.




There's a reason it's an analogy and not the same case study. An analogy is rarely a 100% fit. The pertinent comparison, I think, is the power of brand identification and messing with that identity.

And, probably, misreading the market.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I think it depends more on how loose your definition of story might be.  Everything is a story if it is conveyed as such, and one only has to encounter anyone who wants to tell you about their character to understand that.  But it is a matter of goals and with RPGs story is not so much a goal as a serendipitous happenstance.




BUZZ, sorry, that's mistaken.  Thanks for playing.

Unless your campaign is nothing but a string of completely random encounters with no connection to each other, you have a story before you even start playing.

Always.

Tell me about your next adventure Mark CMG, without making it a framework for a story?  Do you have NPC's with motivations (plot)?  Do you have a location for this adventure (setting)?  Are players going to play characters in this adventure (character)?  

Guess what?  You have a story.  It's not serendipitous, it's unavoidable.  You cannot play an RPG without a story.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> BUZZ, sorry, that's mistaken.  Thanks for playing.
> 
> Unless your campaign is nothing but a string of completely random encounters with no connection to each other, you have a story before you even start playing.
> 
> ...





I have a setting and the players explore it while in character as part of the Roleplaying Game I run.  What comes of it as a story happens in retrospect based on the decisions they make as players of characters.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 18, 2015)

billd91 said:


> There's a reason it's an analogy and not the same case study. An analogy is rarely a 100% fit. The pertinent comparison, I think, is the power of brand identification and messing with that identity.
> 
> 
> 
> And, probably, misreading the market.





Closer comparisons might be New World of Darkness or Traveller: The New Era, where gamers reacted badly to radical changes that they were not fond of, even if the new thing was not bad.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 18, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Closer comparisons might be New World of Darkness or Traveller: The New Era, where gamers reacted badly to radical changes that they were not fond of, even if the new thing was not bad.




No doubt. TNE's changes even cost GDW their closest 3rd party publisher. I don't know if licensing was a factor as the 4e license contributed to WotC losing Paizo, but it is an interesting parallel.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> BUZZ, sorry, that's mistaken.  Thanks for playing.
> .




Can we have this discussion without the snark?


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I have a setting and the players explore it while in character as part of the Roleplaying Game I run.  What comes of it as a story happens in retrospect based on the decisions they make as players of characters.




I get the feeling that you and Hussar are using story in two completely different manners, because the way I'm seeing it, you both have a story.

Hussar is right that you can't have an RPG without a story, you can't have _life_ without a story.  Real life is full of stories.  So any "living world" is full of stories as well.  The party might get involved in them, or create their own, or get involved in many of them.  I think this is indirectly a railroad v. sandbox discussion.  Sandboxes have stories and players have the choice to participate in them or not.  Railroads have stories, but players do not have a choice in participating them.

Lets frame it this way: it's a question of what comes first, the story or the adventure?  You say the adventure creates the story.  Hussar says the story creates the adventure.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I have a setting and the players explore it while in character as part of the Roleplaying Game I run.  What comes of it as a story happens in retrospect based on the decisions they make as players of characters.




I get what you mean here. Personally I think the issue is the word 'story' has become loaded and can also mean a few different things. I have no problem with using the word to describe 'stuff that happens in the game world', same with plot or whatever. Where it becomes an issue is when it goes  from 'stuff that happens' to 'stuff that you must do'. Where the idea of story takes over. I also get why there is resistance to the term story, because there are folks who go from "stories must happen in RPGs" to "RPGs should be played/run toward telling a good story" and that leads to all kinds of problems if you are more interested in letting things unfold without any particular concern for the shape of the story, for themes, etc (i.e. if your primary interest is just playing a character or running as setting). I tend to fall in the camp that favors emphasizing the game and setting aspect of play, not the story. However I don't think WOTC means story in anything but the loosest sense of the word. 

One problem I ran into initially when we started Bedrock Games was I was unaware of the different connotations this word has online. In my regular day to day gaming world, people might throw that term out casually but not really mean much beyond the setting events and the things their characters did. So we just talked about 'story' in our first rulebook like we do in our own game group. This really confused people because we had missed the online discussion about story, narrative mechanics, immersion, railroads, etc and I think a lot of folks thought we were in a particular camp when they read our sections on GMing.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I get the feeling that you and Hussar are using story in two completely different manners, because the way I'm seeing it, you both have a story.
> 
> Hussar is right that you can't have an RPG without a story, you can have _life_ without a story.  Real life is full of stories.  So any "living world" is full of stories as well.  The party might get involved in them, or create their own, or get involved in many of them.  I think this is indirectly a railroad v. sandbox discussion.  Sandboxes have stories and players have the choice to participate in them or not.  Railroads have stories, but players do not have a choice in participating them.
> 
> Lets frame it this way: it's a question of what comes first, the story or the adventure?  You say the adventure creates the story.  Hussar says the story creates the adventure.




I think this hits on one of the issues you run into with the word story in online discussions. Story can mean "a sequence of events" but it can also mean "a tale or literary narrative, a novel". Really I think when most people invoke the word 'story' for RPGs they are just using it as an analogy for understanding what it is. That is fine. But what sometimes happens is people equivocate between several meanings of the word and that can lead to confusion or even to dishonest discussion (i.e. trying to tell people they are playing wrong because their game or style of play fails to address story in a meaningful way for example).


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 18, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I get what you mean here. Personally I think the issue is the word 'story' has become loaded and can also mean a few different things.





I think you're close.  I think the term Roleplaying Game gets misused (or misapplied) even more often than "story."


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 18, 2015)

shidaku said:


> I get the feeling that you and Hussar are using story in two completely different manners, because the way I'm seeing it, you both have a story.





It may be he is describing his experience imprecisely.  It may be what he calls story is actually story elements, which include setting, NPCs, etc., and that he is describing that as a story when it might be more precisely described as a potential-story-in-the-making.  If what he actually is meaning is that he has a plotted story through which he guides player (and their character) scene by scene, then what he is describing is a very restrictive type of roleplaying game wherein the players have very little agency.  Even so, despite how much of the story in such games is predetermined, if the game includes random aspects like dice, then the story can still only be told after the game has been played.  If the players have control beyond their character over the non-PC story elements, then he is describing either a Storytelling Game or, at the least, an RPG with storytelling game elements.  I'll leave it to him to clarify his own position.

It may be that when WotC says "Story, story, story" what they actually mean is also potential-story-in-the-making-because-we-supply-the-story-elements or it may mean they provide an almost fully-formed story through which they want GMs to guide their players.  In the best case scenario, as far as those who want a Roleplaying Game are concerned, they are using a shorthand that imprecisely describes what they are actually packaging.  I suspect they find they have a larger pool of GMs the more restrictive they present material because while more experienced GMs can ignore the guidance and pluck the story elements out to use as they wish, it is more difficult for less experienced GMs to take loose elements and ensure satisfying stories-in-retrospect without the tighter control within the material presented.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> Can we have this discussion without the snark?




Possibly.  I just get a bit shirty when I'm told I'm not really playing a role playing game, or I'm playing a role playing game wrong because I recognize that it is impossible to play and RPG without a story.  

I mean, good grief, I HAVE CMG Mountain modules on my hard drive right now.  Guess what?  They've got tons of story built right into them.  Very cool stories.  Excellent modules.  But, watching Mark CMG try to rewrite history and exclude me from the hobby tends to strike a nerve.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> It may be he is describing his experience imprecisely.  It may be what he calls story is actually story elements, which include setting, NPCs, etc., and that he is describing that as a story when it might be more precisely described as a potential-story-in-the-making.  If what he actually is meaning is that he has a plotted story through which he guides player (and their character) scene by scene, then what he is describing is a very restrictive type of roleplaying game wherein the players have very little agency.  Even so, despite how much of the story in such games is predetermined, if the game includes random aspects like dice, then the story can still only be told after the game has been played.  If the players have control beyond their character over the non-PC story elements, then he is describing either a Storytelling Game or, at the least, an RPG with storytelling game elements.  I'll leave it to him to clarify his own position.
> 
> It may be that when WotC says "Story, story, story" what they actually mean is also potential-story-in-the-making-because-we-supply-the-story-elements or it may mean they provide an almost fully-formed story through which they want GMs to guide their players.  In the best case scenario, as far as those who want a Roleplaying Game are concerned, they are using a shorthand that imprecisely describes what they are actually packaging.  I suspect they find they have a larger pool of GMs the more restrictive they present material because while more experienced GMs can ignore the guidance and pluck the story elements out to use as they wish, it is more difficult for less experienced GMs to take loose elements and ensure satisfying stories-in-retrospect without the tighter control within the material presented.




Wow.  That's about as pedantic as you can get.  You're actually going to differentiate here?  Really?  Look, when anyone says, "RPG's are made out of stories" they realise that the story is not 100% pre-scripted.  Of course it isn't.  For some reason, you seem not to be able to wrap your head around the idea that story means anything other than locked down, already scripted novel.

That's NOT what anyone means when they say RPG's are made of stories.  But, if it makes you feel better, then we'll use the mouthful, but, more precise true, "potential-story-in-the-making". 

Happy?


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> (. . .) more precise true, "potential-story-in-the-making".





Thanks for clarifying what you meant.  However, it does leave what WotC means a bit up in the air but that becomes more clear based on what they publish, how restrictive it is to free form roleplaying, and whether or not it is more setting-oriented or scene-by-scene designed stories through which they expect GMs to guide players and their characters.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2015)

shidaku said:


> Lets frame it this way: it's a question of what comes first, the story or the adventure?  You say the adventure creates the story.  Hussar says the story creates the adventure.



Does the adventure lay the story, or hatch from it?  

Are storytelling games all RPGs, but not all RPGs storytelling games?


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 18, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I honestly wonder if this is about geography... I'm in the midwest... and it feels like D&D still has this stigma about it... I work at an IT consulting company and we discuss the latest episode of GoT or the new Daredevil show on Netflix at work... geek out about the new Star Wars trailer even have the a casual conversation about video games and no one bats an eye... but there is still the rare offhand joke about D&D that gets thrown about every so often... or the sense that it's something most played early in life but have left behind... perhaps it is the fact that it's looked at as "for kids" but so were videogames at one time.  Personally I'm not sure why it's singled out in this way, but I've noticed it.




Alaska also still has a stigma... especially amongst the Fundamentalist Protestant Christians. There was a book burning targeting RPGs in the last 10 years. John W., owner of Boscos Comics and Games, notes that he'll happily sell and reorder any books they want to burn...


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Thanks for clarifying what you meant.  However, it does leave what WotC means a bit up in the air but that becomes more clear based on what they publish, how restrictive it is to free form roleplaying, and whether or not it is more setting-oriented or scene-by-scene designed stories through which they expect GMs to guide players and their characters.




Well, we've got two pretty linear AP's and one sandbox AP.  I'm not sure how many conclusions I'd want to draw from that.

Like I said, I think you're picking at some pretty tiny nits in order to present this issue.  Good grief, most modules, certainly the majority, have been linear in nature.  The number of linear modules out there far out number the number of open modules.  So, I'm rather hard pressed to point fingers at WOTC for doing the exact same thing as everyone else has done for the past forty years or so.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 18, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Well, we've got two pretty linear AP's and one sandbox AP.  I'm not sure how many conclusions I'd want to draw from that.





I'm only lining up what they are saying with what they are doing.  Can you delineate what you are calling a "linear AP" and what you are calling a "sandbox?"  Not just by name but in the details you feel are active in each example?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2015)

Y'know what?  No, I can't.  This is pointless.  Pedantic hair splitting is far too tiresome.  By this time, after this many conversations, if you're still hung up on words like "linear", then there really isn't much point to this.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 18, 2015)

Steven Lynch got enough material from this thread to make a new album...


----------



## carmachu (Apr 18, 2015)

> He repeats WoTC's emphasis on storylines, confirming the 1-2 stories per year philosphy. "We are story, story, story. The story drives everything. The need for new rules, the new races, new classes is just based on what’s going to really make this adventure, this story, this kind kind of theme happen." He goes on to say that "We’re not interested in putting out more books for books’ sake... there’s zero plans for a Player’s Handbook 2 any time on the horizon."
> 
> As for settings, he confirms that "we’re going to stay in the Forgotten Realms for the foreseeable future." That'll disappoint some folks, I'm sure, but it is their biggest setting, commercially.




Unfortunately, as much as I like 5th edition, this method is starting to get to be a problem. As someone once said, its great you want to tell your story on your (forgotten realms) world, but so far its not giving me much to tell MY stories on MY world. Not saying to go back to the splat treadmill(pathfinder we're looking at you currently) but as much as I like some of the 5th edition stuff is not giving me what I want.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 18, 2015)

Apropos of not much, but as my eyes are somewhat afflicted with spring crud today (and I stayed up too late last night), when I read the title of this thread this morning, my brain supplies the info "Martha Stewart: Story, Story, Setting a D&D Tabletop game."


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> It may be he is describing his experience imprecisely.  It may be what he calls story is actually story elements, which include setting, NPCs, etc., and that he is describing that as a story when it might be more precisely described as a potential-story-in-the-making.  If what he actually is meaning is that he has a plotted story through which he guides player (and their character) scene by scene, then what he is describing is a very restrictive type of roleplaying game wherein the players have very little agency.  Even so, despite how much of the story in such games is predetermined, if the game includes random aspects like dice, then the story can still only be told after the game has been played.  If the players have control beyond their character over the non-PC story elements, then he is describing either a Storytelling Game or, at the least, an RPG with storytelling game elements.  I'll leave it to him to clarify his own position.




Is there enough of a difference however to differentiate between POTENTIAL story (hooks, background, motivation, and setting history) and ACTUAL story (the actions the PCs take) when more often than not, the two work in harmony with one another?


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Is there enough of a difference however to differentiate between POTENTIAL story (hooks, background, motivation, and setting history) and ACTUAL story (the actions the PCs take) when more often than not, the two work in harmony with one another?





You've added other things in beside "Setting" and muddied the waters but, yes, there is still always a difference between something that happens based on the players' decisions and something that is going to happen based on what the GM plans.  The first is a Roleplaying Game where the players' actions create a story only in retrospect while the other (to varying degrees) is a story the GM is presenting for the players and allowing them to act out some of the parts that will lead to the ending the GM has planned in advance.  Some of the latter story is still up in the air until after the game is over but a great deal of it can be telegraphed and no longer merely "potential" story, more of a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Is there enough of a difference however to differentiate between POTENTIAL story (hooks, background, motivation, and setting history) and ACTUAL story (the actions the PCs take) when more often than not, the two work in harmony with one another?




If the GM is planning them then it can be huge.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 18, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> You've added other things in beside "Setting" and muddied the waters but, yes, there is still always a difference between something that happens based on the players' decisions and something that is going to happen based on what the GM plans.  The first is a Roleplaying Game where the players' actions create a story only in retrospect while the other (to varying degrees) is a story the GM is presenting for the players and allowing them to act out some of the parts that will lead to the ending the GM has planned in advance.  Some of the latter story is still up in the air until after the game is over but a great deal of it can be telegraphed and no longer merely "potential" story, more of a foregone conclusion.






Bedrockgames said:


> If the GM is planning them then it can be huge.




I think what Mark is describing the classic Railroad/Sandbox scenario; who's the ultimate director of the narrative? In RRs, the story is built and the PCs interact with it. In SB, there is no set story and the narrative is only ever what the PCs do. I don't think either isn't role-playing, either isn't a game, and that one is inherently superior to one another (worst case scenarios for RR is the lack of meaningful choice, for SB its the lack of a focus which leads to choice paralysis). In fact, I tend to think both styles tend to mix far more than theorycrafters give them credit for. 

My point was to say that when the rubber meets the road; both styles tend to meet in the middle, which blurs the artificial line between the two. I can post my campaign journal which records the events of every session, choices the PCs make, and reads like a story, hence it is Mark's definition of the Story. I could also post my DM notes, which shows the complex web of actions and reactions, planned encounters, "big bads", and seeds for future events, which if I organized, formatted, and laid out systematically would look an awful lot like an AP. 

Really, without creating a truly artificial world where everything (from dungeon layout to encounters to treasure) is randomly generated, I can't imagine you separate the two. Hence potential (DM info that the PCs have yet to learn/experience) and actual (what they experienced) being little more than emphasis and verb tense.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 18, 2015)

Basically, my question when it comes to story is, to what degree do I, as DM, know what will happen in a particular session, and indeed in future sessions?

The more I know and can accurately predict, the more that session of play is intertwined with a story as a through-line.  

The less I know and can predict, the more that story is a by-product of that session of play.

In terms of 5W1H, in the first case I typically know Who the characters will interact with, Where they will interact with them, and have a good idea of When and Why.  The game, then, is made up of filling out What the characters do, Why they do it, and How they do it.

In the second case, Who, What, What, Why, and How are very much up in the air.  I may have an idea of Who and Where if I have a dungeon ready to go, but even that might go someplace unexpected.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 19, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Where D&D languishes a bit is that there's not a good adult-oriented media property for it. Peter Jackson's movies are sophisticated and high-quality entertainment. _Game of Thrones_ is an HBO show involving violence and drama and death and dongs and dragons. D&D has a kid's show from the '80's, a few good video games from the '90's, that awful movie, and some nostalgia for FR books.
> 
> The culture's ready. The issue with D&D-branded material is that so much of it is _not good_, and then what is good tends to be _old_ or _only really good if you're 12_.  The game has come out of the basement, but for those people without 4 hrs/week to spend on the BEST expression of D&D, there's not a lot out there for 'em.




If you think that Peter Jacksons Hobbit is sophisticated and high-quality entertainment then no one does Tolkien rip-off material like DnD.. You have 40 years of material that is equally as sophisticated and high-quality as a Burning eye  BBEG whose main power is the ability not to notice a hobbit sneaking into its backyard or an Orc with one-hand cut off.


----------



## Jeff Albertson (Apr 19, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> You have 40 years of material that is equally as sophisticated and high-quality as a Burning eye  BBEG whose main power is the ability not to notice a hobbit sneaking into its backyard or an Orc with one-hand cut off.





The one-handed orc deal (Pale Orc?), was just for the movie, right?


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 20, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I think what Mark is describing the classic Railroad/Sandbox scenario; who's the ultimate director of the narrative? In RRs, the story is built and the PCs interact with it. In SB, there is no set story and the narrative is only ever what the PCs do. I don't think either isn't role-playing, either isn't a game, and that one is inherently superior to one another (worst case scenarios for RR is the lack of meaningful choice, for SB its the lack of a focus which leads to choice paralysis). In fact, I tend to think both styles tend to mix far more than theorycrafters give them credit for.
> 
> My point was to say that when the rubber meets the road; both styles tend to meet in the middle, which blurs the artificial line between the two. I can post my campaign journal which records the events of every session, choices the PCs make, and reads like a story, hence it is Mark's definition of the Story. I could also post my DM notes, which shows the complex web of actions and reactions, planned encounters, "big bads", and seeds for future events, which if I organized, formatted, and laid out systematically would look an awful lot like an AP.
> 
> Really, without creating a truly artificial world where everything (from dungeon layout to encounters to treasure) is randomly generated, I can't imagine you separate the two. Hence potential (DM info that the PCs have yet to learn/experience) and actual (what they experienced) being little more than emphasis and verb tense.





This brings up another problem that crops up when discussing Roleplaying Games.  SB and RR aren't really styles of play but rather types of games.  They both have a Roleplaying Game core or ancestor (depending on how far they have moved from that core).  This is similar to how Storytelling Game have Roelplaying Games at their root but Sandbox (here's a world, you got guys, go look around) and later Railroad (here's a trail, this is where it goes, here are your options at each juncture along the way) are earlier than SG.  It would seem that some of the more restrictive parts of RRs are what they were trying to loosen up as they developed SGs, though I have no firsthand knowledge of this (just my general impression).

Styles of play in a Roleplaying Game are the ways in which one presents their character, as in through dialog and first person, or in describing what that character is like or does in the third person, etc.  I've hesitated to bring this up here in this thread because inevitably someone will get very excited and point to this as evidence of story-first theories because the names of the types of roleplaying echo the names of narrative forms.  However, these are more akin to dramatic presentation forms than literary narrative forms (but still separate from the former as well).

So, what you're describing really are different types of games with a Roleplaying Game core, and all are perfectly legitimate ways to enjoy gaming, no one necessarily better than another except in how well those playing enjoy them.  I also agree that these types of games are often mixed and can mix quite well in the right hands.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 20, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Basically, my question when it comes to story is, to what degree do I, as DM, know what will happen in a particular session, and indeed in future sessions?
> 
> The more I know and can accurately predict, the more that session of play is intertwined with a story as a through-line.
> 
> The less I know and can predict, the more that story is a by-product of that session of play.



 That sounds reasonable.

But, a DM can always /make/ things turn out the way he 'predicts.'  If he really wants the recurring villain to get away, no matter what the PCs do to try to stop him, the recurring villain can get away.  So there's also the question of to what extent the DM feels comfortable forcing issues, vs letting players' decisions matter, vs following the dice...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 20, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> That sounds reasonable.
> 
> But, a DM can always /make/ things turn out the way he 'predicts.'  If he really wants the recurring villain to get away, no matter what the PCs do to try to stop him, the recurring villain can get away.  So there's also the question of to what extent the DM feels comfortable forcing issues, vs letting players' decisions matter, vs following the dice...




This is why for me, personally, rather than thinking in terms of "what is the story" I like to think in terms of setting elements like NPCs, power groups, etc. So rather than create a scenario or concept I want to unfold, I begin with an NPC who wants something to unfold. It is a seemingly minor but important difference. If I am acting on NPC motives, power group motives and interests, I find I can better react to what the players do and adapt how things develop in a way that just feels more plausible (because I am dealing with character and group motives rather than an overarching concept----it is easier for me to get a handle no how those involved react when PCs do something unexpected or make them an offer).


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 20, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is why for me, personally, rather than thinking in terms of "what is the story" I like to think in terms of setting elements like NPCs, power groups, etc. So rather than create a scenario or concept I want to unfold, I begin with an NPC who wants something to unfold. It is a seemingly minor but important difference. If I am acting on NPC motives, power group motives and interests, I find I can better react to what the players do and adapt how things develop in a way that just feels more plausible (because I am dealing with character and group motives rather than an overarching concept----it is easier for me to get a handle no how those involved react when PCs do something unexpected or make them an offer).





It's similar to how the best actors will tell you great performances arise, by them staying in the moment, listening to their scene partners, and reacting honestly according to their characters.  The story that naturally develops from such game play by the players and the GM (in the part of the various NPCs) can be much more satisfying than one scripted by a GM and played out despite what the players do or what they'd expect from NPCs based on the motivations they exhibited.  It requires a level of trust that not all gaming groups have with one another but can be built.  There's an old improv saying that applies, "Let's go somewhere, anywhere, together."


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 20, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> This brings up another problem that crops up when discussing Roleplaying Games.  SB and RR aren't really styles of play but rather types of games.  They both have a Roleplaying Game core or ancestor (depending on how far they have moved from that core).  This is similar to how Storytelling Game have Roelplaying Games at their root but Sandbox (here's a world, you got guys, go look around) and later Railroad (here's a trail, this is where it goes, here are your options at each juncture along the way) are earlier than SG.  It would seem that some of the more restrictive parts of RRs are what they were trying to loosen up as they developed SGs, though I have no firsthand knowledge of this (just my general impression).




No, they're the same game, played differently. I can buy Princes of the Apocalypse and run an pre-determined AP, or I can buy the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and let the group wander around Neverwinter, but I'm still using the D&D 5e rules. 

Also, I fail to see a difference between Storytelling and Roleplaying Games. In both you have a character that reacts to events around them. You assume a role. In one, the events are predetermined to an extent, while the other is open ended. Its like saying that improv is acting, but following a script is merely reading lines. Complicating conversation with Forge-like jargon only further muddies the point. 



Mark CMG said:


> Styles of play in a Roleplaying Game are the ways in which one presents their character, as in through dialog and first person, or in describing what that character is like or does in the third person, etc.  I've hesitated to bring this up here in this thread because inevitably someone will get very excited and point to this as evidence of story-first theories because the names of the types of roleplaying echo the names of narrative forms.  However, these are more akin to dramatic presentation forms than literary narrative forms (but still separate from the former as well).




All dialog, in essence, is storytelling. Ever have a conversation with someone who feels obligated to tell you every menial detail of how their day went? Its painful to listen to. We want them to get to the point! Humans crave story narrative. We want beginnings, middles, and ends. We like logical flow. We logically structure everything into stories (and make up stories when needed) because they are a convenient way of making order of chaos. Naturally, Role-playing (which is nothing more the collaborative campfire storytelling) would use the language of story to do so.  



Mark CMG said:


> So, what you're describing really are different types of games with a Roleplaying Game core, and all are perfectly legitimate ways to enjoy gaming, no one necessarily better than another except in how well those playing enjoy them.  I also agree that these types of games are often mixed and can mix quite well in the right hands.




No, I'm describing a role-playing game, which is what D&D calls itself right on the cover. It can be played a dozen different ways; deep narratives, random dungeons, or anything in between. It can be played with PC "toons" or with complex characters. It can be linear or expansive. It can follow a predefined narrative or have no overarching plot. But its all still role-playing. Trying to shove them into boxes like "storyteller" game creates unneeded artificial divide. Its lingo for lingo's sake, since the functional difference between them is nil. 

Different playstyles =/= different games.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 20, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I'm describing a role-playing game, which is what D&D calls itself right on the cover.





Therein lies part of the problem with these discussion.  While many games (including various versions of D&D) might have a roleplaying game at their core (or some games might have roleplaying games facets), and print it right on the cover/box, they can be and often are very different games.  This is sometimes true at the point of publication and more regularly true when the rubber meets the road, as previously said above.  Someone can use the base rules for a game and run an entirely different game.  I recently began working on the idea of using the Legends of the Old West minis skirmish rules from Mongoose publishing for the base rules in an Old West RPG.  But it doesn't have to happen as purposefully as this.  I've seen/participated in games where people used the WFRPG with no roleplaying whatsoever, perhaps because their background was with Warhammer minis and they got into WFRPG and wound up using it essentially as a more detailed skirmish minis combat system.  I don't take what is printed on the cover of a game at face value.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 20, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Therein lies part of the problem with these discussion.  While many games (including various versions of D&D) might have a roleplaying game at their core (or some games might have roleplaying games facets), and print it right on the cover/box, they can be and often are very different games.  This is sometimes true at the point of publication and more regularly true when the rubber meets the road, as previously said above.  Someone can use the base rules for a game and run an entirely different game.  I recently began working on the idea of using the Legends of the Old West minis skirmish rules from Mongoose publishing for the base rules in an Old West RPG.  But it doesn't have to happen as purposefully as this.  I've seen/participated in games where people used the WFRPG with no roleplaying whatsoever, perhaps because their background was with Warhammer minis and they got into WFRPG and wound up using it essentially as a more detailed skirmish minis combat system.  I don't take what is printed on the cover of a game at face value.




Its still all Forgespeak to me; which is why I'm so perplexed as to why you want to deny certain games (or certain styles of games) the term "role-playing game" unless its to co-opt the term for an exacting form of gaming you believe in inherently superior (and thus exclude the unwashed masses from). Onetruewayism never serves any purpose. 

But hey, follow your arrow man. If it helps you sleep at night to know you play a role-playing game and I play a storyteller game and Bob plays a skirmish game even though we're all playing 5e, then shine on.


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 20, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Its still all Forgespeak to me; which is why I'm so perplexed as to why you want to deny certain games (or certain styles of games) the term "role-playing game" unless its to co-opt the term for an exacting form of gaming you believe in inherently superior (and thus exclude the unwashed masses from). Onetruewayism never serves any purpose.





Naw, I'm no Forge-ist, nor someone who wants to do more than discuss RPGs and their offshoots more precisely to avoid many of the misconceptions and miscommunications that crop up from folks using the same exact words to describe a broad range of games and experiences.  In point of fact, I have been saying precisely the opposite of Onetruewayism.




Remathilis said:


> But hey, follow your arrow man. If it helps you sleep at night to know you play a role-playing game and I play a storyteller game and Bob plays a skirmish game even though we're all playing 5e, then shine on.





But I don't just play one game.  I was a wargamer before RPGs were even published and my gaming group added D&D to the mix when it came out.  I've played hundreds of RPGs and their offshoots, wargames, board games, card games, and dice games over the years and don't judge one type of gaming as better in and of itself.

There's no need to shoot the messenger here.  I have no problem with whatever type of game you choose to play or how you play it.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> Why can't WoTC do map packs also then? In the back of PoA, they give examples on how to convert that story to other settings in the D&D multi-verse. Cool. So I ask a 14 year-old first time DM ..... where is the Cairn Hills in Greyhawk. Have you ever heard of Hommlet? At least give us map packs ...... please? At least we'd know where these places are.



This came up in another of these complaint threads.

If you go to D&D classics, you can buy at least 3 versions of GH: original boxed set, From the Ashes boxed set or late-2nd ed "The Adventure Begins". Any of these will have the maps you are looking for.

A 14-year-old 1st time GM who (for whatever reason) has heard of GH and wants to set PotA in it will probably be able to work this out. (And conversely, if s/he's never heard of GH and doesn't know about D&D Classics, why would s/he want to set PotA in the Cairn Hills?)



HonorBoundSamurai632 said:


> it's not MY fault that sales started dropping off at the tail-end of 3.5 (some of those books felt like they weren't even playtested.) It's not my fault that 4th Edition didn't make Hasbro the kind of money Hasbro was hoping to see. It's not my fault that Pathfinder was such a success. Some of the things that WoTC is doing, it feels like I'm the one being punished for not supporting 4th like I did the previous editions to it.



This makes no real sense to  me - it would be like 4e fans complainging that we are being "punished" although it was the sales of 4e books and DDI subscriptions than financed the development of 5e.

WotC is a commercial publisher and manager of intellectual property. They're not a charity. They don't owe duties to anyone to publish particular books about particular things. If they think a book is a good commercial prospect, they will publish it. Otherwise they won't. It has nothing to do with "fault" or "punishment".



billd91 said:


> as time has marched on and Hasbro has impressed its culture upon WotC, the company seems to be pretty different. I think they've lost a lot of their agility and vision - would WotC be able to stick its neck out for TSR now? I doubt it. Under Hasbro's control, rather than balancing serving the hobby with running a business, they're serving the shareholders who care little for hobby table-top gaming.



I really don't get this.

Between 2008 and 2011, I bought over A$1000 worth of 4e publications from WotC. I'm a RPG hobbyist, and that served me. Over the past fortnight I have accessed the _free_ Rules Compendium index for 4e material on WotC's website, and have downloaded a _free_ 5e PDF with material from PotA. This is service to me.

Maybe WotC is not offering for sale stuff that you want to buy. That doesn't mean it's not serving the hobby! That just means that there's stuff you want to buy that it's not offering. Buy it from someone else, then  - or, if _no one_ is offering it for sale, maybe that says something about it's commercial viability.



tyrlaan said:


> D&D is a product. As a consumer, I think it's very reasonable to expect a certain level of service or content from a product.



Unless you are a DDI subscriber, there is no element of "service" involved in the sale of D&D. It is a series of books - you got what you paid for when you took it home from the shop! As to the "certain level of content", unless there was a printing error in your copy, _the words on the pages are the content that you paid for_.

WotC has no duty to anyone to publish further material. It's not a charity. No one has contracted with it to do so. It has not engaged in conduct giving rise to an estoppel.

If you like the stuff they write, then of course you _want_ them to keep writing new stuff for you to buy. If they choose not to, that might be a disappointment. But they are not _wronging_ you. Entertainment product lines - books, comics, TV shows, movies, etc - change direction, suffer cancellation, change their release schedules, etc, all the time. That's the nature of commercial enterprise.



goldomark said:


> Paizo released more stuff after 10 months. PF was being supported.



As [MENTION=16169]DongMaster[/MENTION] posted, Paizo is not a charity either. They published books that they believed would make them a profit - they didn't "support" their game out of a sense of duty!

If WotC take a different view about what is the best commercial strategy for D&D, that's their prerogative.

Even if the focus is on the _hobby_ rather than commerce, I don't know of any evidence that Paizo's rate of publication makes PF the better game, or the more popular game, or the more played game, than D&D 5e.



goldomark said:


> Liking 5e now doesn't mean you won't get tired of it after a year or two because it became repetitive because of lack of new content.



WotC has already released new content (UA, PotA PDF). Maybe over the next year or two they will release _even more_ new content. Do we have any evidence that purchase and/or play of 5e is slowing because of the pace of release of new content?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> I think what Mark is describing the classic Railroad/Sandbox scenario; who's the ultimate director of the narrative?



Not quite.



Mark CMG said:


> It may be what he calls story is actually story elements, which include setting, NPCs, etc., and that he is describing that as a story when it might be more precisely described as a potential-story-in-the-making.  If what he actually is meaning is that he has a plotted story through which he guides player (and their character) scene by scene, then what he is describing is a very restrictive type of roleplaying game wherein the players have very little agency.  Even so, despite how much of the story in such games is predetermined, if the game includes random aspects like dice, then the story can still only be told after the game has been played.  If the players have control beyond their character over the non-PC story elements, then he is describing either a Storytelling Game or, at the least, an RPG with storytelling game elements.



What Mark CMG is doing is arguing that RPGs in which the GM exercises his/her power of introducing fictional content in response to player signals/cues, are not actually RPGs.

Although there is equivocation on the word "control", because Mark CMG does not seem to distinguish between a player making a request to a GM (expressly or by implication) to include something, and the player making a move within the game that generates content in a manner that does not model causal powers enjoyed, in the gameworld, by the player's PC.

Suppose, in a classic D&D game, a player says to the GM "I'd like to hire a fighter henchman", and then declares that his/her PC is off to the local tavern. In response to this statement of desire + action declaration, the GM responds "At the tavern, you see what looks like a mercenary who hasn't seen a payday for awhile." The player has his/her PC strike up a conversation, and it turns out that this NPC is a fighter just waiting to be hired as a henchman. (Does the PC in question end up hiring the NPC? That is a further question, which turns on how the table in question handles reaction rolls and social action resolution more broadly. From the little episode of play that I've described we can't tell what the outcome was or might be.)

That is how most of the games that Mark CMG labels "storygames" actually work, only the technique is generalised across the whole of play, and particularly to the introduction of antagonistic as well as sympathetic NPCs. And - as the example shows - this sort of stuff has had the _potential_ to be part of D&D since day one, and I believe actually _has_ been part of D&D (and other RPG play) since at least day two: GMs have followed their players' cues in deciding what story elements to introduce into the game. GMs have written up heist scenarios for all-thief parties; written in necromancers to be antagonists of PC paladins; written in targets for PC assassins to spy upon or assassinate; etc.

Not every RPG is run in this style, but that doesn't make running a game in this style not an RPG.



Iosue said:


> Basically, my question when it comes to story is, to what degree do I, as DM, know what ill happen in a particular session, and indeed in future sessions?
> 
> The more I know and can accurately predict, the more that session of play is intertwined with a story as a through-line.
> 
> The less I know and can predict, the more that story is a by-product of that session of play.



Most of the RPGs that Mark CMG labels "storygames" fit into your second rather than first category. They were designed as _reactions_ to the sort of railroading (as those designers and RPGers would see it) that is implicit in your first scenario.

What distinguishes a so-called "storygame" from (say) Keep on the Borderlands run Gygax-style is that the mechanics of (1) PC build and (2) action declaration and resolution are designed to ensure that the story which is a by-product will be (a) a more-or-less _guaranteed_ by-product, ajnd (b) will exhibit the traits of a story in the literary sense (ie rising action, crisis, satisfaction or thwarting of dramatic need, etc).

A very simple example on the PC build side would be to say "Every player, when building his/her PC, must state one loyalty for that PC (be it a person, a place, a thing, etc)". This is what I did at the start of my 4e game. I then introduced story elements into the game which put those loyalties under pressure.

A simple example on the action resolution side is - once an action declaration has been permissibly made - to only call for checks when an action declaration is a response to that sort of pressure - otherwise you just say "yes", the PC (and player) gets what s/he wants, and the game moves on fairly quickly until a moment of pressure is reached.

The first version of D&D that I'm aware of that incorporated this sort of PC-build element was Oriental Adventures. I'm sure that the designer of OA wasn't the first RPG player or designer to think of it, though! It probably goes back at least to Runequest and the Gloranthan cults.

I think the development of the relevant techniques on the action resolution side of things came later in RPG design (Over the Edge, for instance, has the PC-side stuff but not really the action resolution side stuff). Before these sorts of techniques were developed, GM fudging and backstory manipulation tended to be the order of the day, but that tends to undermine the goal of your second approach and push it back to your first approach - which, from the play approach I'm describing here is a collapse back into railroading.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> T
> This makes no real sense to  me - it would be like 4e fans complainging that we are being "punished" although it was the sales of 4e books and DDI subscriptions than financed the development of 5e.




Any actual data, comments or proof whatsoever to back up this assertion?


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 21, 2015)

> What Mark CMG is doing is arguing that RPGs in which the GM exercises his/her power of introducing fictional content in response to player signals/cues, are not actually RPGs.





Nope.  GMs in a Roleplaying Game respond to players actions all the time by telling them the consequences of their actions and describing to them more information based on what the characters can access.  GMs often have to run their games on the fly and introduce story elements (setting details, NPCs, etc.) based on their own idea of their setting bible consistent with what they have previously determined and/or created.  No GM can be expected to have every speck of dust detailed in advance but they do tend to have some idea of what details would be consistent with their setting concept overall.  The rest of your post (here and in previous times you've quoted me) is based on a faulty assumption and misreading of what I have said in this thread and previously.  You probably should just point to what I have posted rather than paraphrase your misinterpretations of my posts.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 21, 2015)

I don't think any of us can really know what the cash flow situation is at WoTC. It certainly is likely the revenue from 4e books and DDI went toward 5E but honestly who knows. That money might have also dried up by the time they had to invest in 5E (and could have come from other sources). Really I haven't got a clue here and I doubt WotC will release that information any time soon. At the very least though Pemerton is on solid ground in that 5E was at the very least going to indirectly benefit from 4S sales.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Any actual data, comments or proof whatsoever to back up this assertion?



My reasoning relies on two premises:

(1) I don't think the D&D group was kept on as a charity case;

(2) Because that's what they were selling in those two years (plus the re-releases of the AD&D and 3E rulebooks).

I guess it's possible they made the bulk of their income from those re-releases rather than DDI income, but that seems unlikely to me.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think any of us can really know what the cash flow situation is at WoTC.



I don't know, in the sense that I haven't seen their accounts.

But would WotC allow a unit to spend two years developing a product if their previous project was such a failure that it doesn't provide enough revenue to support the development? Particularly when a big part of that previous project was supposed to be a subscription revenue stream (ie DDI)?

I mean, stranger things have happened, so it's _possible_, but it doesn't strike me as very probable.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 21, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think any of us can really know what the cash flow situation is at WoTC. It certainly is likely the revenue from 4e books and DDI went toward 5E but honestly who knows. That money might have also dried up by the time they had to invest in 5E (and could have come from other sources). Really I haven't got a clue here and I doubt WotC will release that information any time soon. At the very least though Pemerton is on solid ground in that 5E was at the very least going to indirectly benefit from 4S sales.




Well this was the second or third time I'd heard that assertion (or a similar one) from a fan of 4e so I was curious to see if there was any actual evidence to back it up.  I would also say that benefiting from the sales of 4e is quite the different claim from 4e having financed it's development. 

 I mean I know we tend to focus on the rolelplaying component of WoTC/D&D... but they also produce D&D boardgames, have 2 D&D MMORPG's (one of which was just released to Xbox One as well as having been on computers for years), a slew of non-mmorpg videogames, novels, comic books and so on that together are probably a greater source of revenue than DDI or 4e (during it's run).  IMO it's much more likely that these initiatives financed the majority of a new edition of D&D... especially since these seem to be more aligned with the direction the company is now moving in than either 4e the rpg or DDI...


----------



## Imaro (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't know, in the sense that I haven't seen their accounts.
> 
> But would WotC allow a unit to spend two years developing a product if their previous project was such a failure that it doesn't provide enough revenue to support the development? Particularly when a big part of that previous project was supposed to be a subscription revenue stream (ie DDI)?
> 
> I mean, stranger things have happened, so it's _possible_, but it doesn't strike me as very probable.




The previous Tabletop rpg's performance may be exactly why this time around WotC has chosen to focus on the numerous other incarnations of "D&D" (boardgames, videogames, novels, movies, etc.).  

On another note I find it extremely interesting that DDI... ofttimes characterized by 4e fans as turning an enormous profit, even to the point of being compared to "free money" for WotC... is being ended (no new material, no updates, etc.) as opposed to being built upon and capitalized upon for 5e... but then all we have is speculation


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't know, in the sense that I haven't seen their accounts.
> 
> But would WotC allow a unit to spend two years developing a product if their previous project was such a failure that it doesn't provide enough revenue to support the development? Particularly when a big part of that previous project was supposed to be a subscription revenue stream (ie DDI)?
> 
> I mean, stranger things have happened, so it's _possible_, but it doesn't strike me as very probable.




I think if 3E was a big enough success, but 4E wasn't, they might, because it still might be worth the investment if you feel there is potential revenue there. But I don't know how they make these kinds of decisions at WotC or what information they had when they made it.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

Imaro said:


> The previous Tabletop rpg's performance may be exactly why this time around WotC has chosen to focus on the numerous other incarnations of "D&D" (boardgames, videogames, novels, movies, etc.).
> 
> On another note I find it extremely interesting that DDI... ofttimes characterized by 4e fans as turning an enormous profit, even to the point of being compared to "free money" for WotC... is being ended (no new material, no updates, etc.) as opposed to being built upon and capitalized upon for 5e... but then all we have is speculation



It's possible that those boardgame sales financed it, yes - my intuition, though, is that you wouldn't let a _RPG group_ spend two years designing a _new RPG_ if their last RPG had been a commercial failure. You'd turn them into a boardgame (or novels, or whatever) group.

On DDI - it is still there, hence I assume there are still subscribers. It is almost free money (there are the costs of handling subscriptions and technical maintenance). If DDI was losing money, they wouldn't keep it on. Creating new updates and so on would cost money, so I don't see why you think someone who wants free money would spend time doing that.

As to why it is not being used for 5e - because WotC seems to have decided that licensing this stuff out is more effective. Given the general criticisms of DDI from the technical point of view, that might be a wise judgment.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> It's possible that those boardgame sales financed it, yes - my intuition, though, is that you wouldn't let a _RPG group_ spend two years designing a _new RPG_ if their last RPG had been a commercial failure. You'd turn them into a boardgame (or novels, or whatever) group.




By this logic Disney/Marvel should stop making actual comic books and only make movies... why haven't they?



pemerton said:


> On DDI - it is still there, hence I assume there are still subscribers. It is almost free money (there are the costs of handling subscriptions and technical maintenance). If DDI was losing money, they wouldn't keep it on. Creating new updates and so on would cost money, so I don't see why you think someone who wants free money would spend time doing that.




I never said it was losing money... of course it did tend to cannibalize sales from many of the actual 4e books so it still may have contributed to 4e being less profitable overall than expected or desired... who knows.



pemerton said:


> As to why it is not being used for 5e - because WotC seems to have decided that licensing this stuff out is more effective. Given the general criticisms of DDI from the technical point of view, that might be a wise judgment.




Possibly... that didn't really work out for them this time... or the time they tried it in 3e (wasn't it Code Monkey back then?).  In fact it seems like the only times we've gotten electronic tools is when the actual makers of D&D created them... Core Rules for AD&D 2e (I could be wrong here but I don't think this was licensed out) and DDI for 4e... but yeah I guess they could have thought this time it would be different.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2015)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think any of us can really know what the cash flow situation is at WoTC. It certainly is likely the revenue from 4e books and DDI went toward 5E but honestly who knows.



 That's not usually how it goes for a small unit of a large company.  Usually revenue gets rolled up, and you get a budget, whether you're doing well or poorly ATM.  Of course, each quarter you get reviewed and that budget could change disastrously.  It's not like a small, closely-held company where cash flow in right now can be instantly translated to investment in what you're working on, right now.  Of course, Hasbro could be different, or could be treating WotC as a black box, and it's WotC making the budget, not Hasbro.  :shrug:


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

Imaro said:


> By this logic Disney/Marvel should stop making actual comic books and only make movies... why haven't they?



What logic? Are Marvel Comics a financial failure?

I'm not able to follow your argument here.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> As [MENTION=16169]DongMaster[/MENTION] posted, Paizo is not a charity either. They published books that they believed would make them a profit - they didn't "support" their game out of a sense of duty!



Good thing I never said they did. That is called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. 



> If WotC take a different view about what is the best commercial strategy for D&D, that's their prerogative.



As a potential costumer, I still can voice my thoughts on the matter. One of them being that this is a bad business move, like 4e was. 

Is you whole argument about saying I can't voice my opinion?



> Even if the focus is on the _hobby_ rather than commerce, I don't know of any evidence that Paizo's rate of publication makes PF the better game,



Heh, another strawman.



> or the more popular game, or the more played game, than D&D 5e.



ICv2 is a metric we can use for popularity. Roll20 is another. Organize play is another. I'm sure there are plenty I can't think of. Amazon ranking ain't one cause WotC doesn't have a online store while Paizo does. Right now 5e is fresh out of the box after two years of no publication and an edition that bad and divisive. I a year or two, it will be interesting to check those metrics once 5e has lost freshness and the lack of support as kicked in.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't know, in the sense that I haven't seen their accounts.
> 
> But would WotC allow a unit to spend two years developing a product if their previous project was such a failure that it doesn't provide enough revenue to support the development?



Yes. A lot of compagnies take risk with investment in research and developement. A lot of money can get sinked in projects that do not see the light of day. Read the Jeremy Crawford interview. I clearly says that executives at WotC had to be convinced of taking risks and gambles, they had to do a lot of reports on their work without knowing it would be worth it.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Yes. A lot of compagnies take risk with investment in research and developement. A lot of money can get sinked in projects that do not see the light of day. Read the Jeremy Crawford interview. I clearly says that executives at WotC had to be convinced of taking risks and gambles, they had to do a lot of reports on their work without knowing it would be worth it.



Of course businesses take risks. But they often don't let development groups which have failed have another go!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> As a potential costumer, I still can voice my thoughts on the matter.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Is you whole argument about saying I can't voice my opinion?



You're free to voice whatever you're like (within board rules). Just as I'm free to reply.

Obviously you think you know better than WotC how to make money with the D&D IP. I haven't seen any evidence of that, though. All you keep saying is that they should be more like Paizo. Yet as far as I can tell (eg Amazon rankings, testimony from game store owners, etc) 5e is selling better than PF. Just as 4e sold better than PF for a good part of its publication period (at least the first half, I think).



goldomark said:


> ICv2 is a metric we can use for popularity.



And D&D is on top. But in fact ICv2 measures sales. It doesn't measure popularity, because people can - and do - play RPGs without buying product.

AD&D, for instance, has remained popular for 30+ years, with barely any sales at all for the past 15 of those.

That's part of the commercial challenge of being a RPG publisher - that you have to persuade the people who play your game to buy stuff that they don't need to play your game! WotC seems to have decided that it's going to be easier and more commercially effective to persuade people to buy non-RPG stuff that they don't need to play the game.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> What logic? Are Marvel Comics a financial failure?
> 
> I'm not able to follow your argument here.




You made the statement about 4e being a financial failure... not me.

 I on the other hand have commented about whether 4e financed 5e... which was what you originally stated... and the fact that the board games, novels, etc. make more revenue than the 4e rpg and DDI... thus it was more likely 5e was financed by these endeavors than being wholly financed by 4e and DDI.  Now if we stick to my actual assertion then yes the movies (just like the boadgames, novels, etc.)  make much more money than the actual comic books... so by your logic why haven't they stopped publishing comic books and become just a movie studio for their IP?  In other words logically your assertion that if the boardgames of WotC make more money than the rpg... they would only produce board games doesn't make sense.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> My reasoning relies on two premises:
> 
> (1) I don't think the D&D group was kept on as a charity case;
> 
> ...




Ok, I don't think everyone from the D&D group that created 4e was kept on for 5e.  And again... number 2 totally ignores everything else, outside of 4e that they sold during that period...


----------



## pemerton (Apr 21, 2015)

Imaro said:


> You made the statement about 4e being a financial failure... not me.



Huh? I suggested that it was most likely successful, and funded the development of  5e - which you then queried.



Imaro said:


> I on the other hand have commented about whether 4e financed 5e... which was what you originally stated... and the fact that the board games, novels, etc. make more revenue than the 4e rpg and DDI... thus it was more likely 5e was financed by these endeavors than being wholly financed by 4e and DDI.



I don't think I used the word "wholly". I have no idea how much money the boardgames made/make - do you? 



Imaro said:


> the movies (just like the boadgames, novels, etc.)  make much more money than the actual comic books... so by your logic why haven't they stopped publishing comic books and become just a movie studio for their IP?  In other words logically your assertion that if the boardgames of WotC make more money than the rpg... they would only produce board games doesn't make sense.



It's about rate of return, and also development of IP. Presumably there are a finite number of films that can be financed at once; and an optimal rate of release. Comics are cheaper, presumably make some worthwhile returns, and serve as a vehicle to develop characters, plots etc.

The analogue for D&D would be novels and perhaps adventure modules.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Huh? I suggested that it was most likely successful, and funded the development of  5e - which you then queried.




Yes I queried the statement that 4e financed 5e...  

This is the statement where 4e as a financial failure is specifically brought up...



pemerton said:


> But would WotC allow a unit to spend two years developing a product if their previous project was such a failure that it doesn't provide enough revenue to support the development? Particularly when a big part of that previous project was supposed to be a subscription revenue stream (ie DDI)?.




You made the above statement...



pemerton said:


> I don't think I used the word "wholly". I have no idea how much money the boardgames made/make - do you?




You didn't use the word partially either... do I really need to quote where you stated... that 4e/DDI  financed 5e without a qualifier?  If not I'll take it that you meant to include said qualifier and move on...  



pemerton said:


> It's about rate of return, and also development of IP. Presumably there are a finite number of films that can be financed at once; and an optimal rate of release. Comics are cheaper, presumably make some worthwhile returns, and serve as a vehicle to develop characters, plots etc.




So even if a previous edition did poorly... there are reasons a company might produce another one...though probably in doing so they would try to minimize risk... sounds familiar.



pemerton said:


> The analogue for D&D would be novels and perhaps adventure modules.




I don't agree... without the original game you don't have the IP... without the original comics you don't have the IP


----------



## Wicht (Apr 21, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> You probably should just point to what I have posted rather than paraphrase your misinterpretations of my posts.




Where's the fun in that?


----------



## Wicht (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Of course businesses take risks. But they often don't let development groups which have failed have another go!




Except in Hollywood.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Of course businesses take risks. But they often don't let development groups which have failed have another go!




The names on the inside of the 4E PHB and the 5E PHB look like a very different development team to me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Of course businesses take risks. But they often don't let development groups which have failed have another go!




I don't think this is necessarily the case with game designers though. If the failure was due to the designers being bad at their job, then sure, you wouldn't want to in vest in them again. But if it was due to the design goals not matching what the market wanted, you don't necessarily need to blame the designers involved. In the case of 4E, I think the designers all did their jobs well. They made a game that met their design goals and was a solid system. I just think the problem was it wasn't the kind of game people were looking for in D&D.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Apr 21, 2015)

I hope in 40 years when I'm playing D&D (whatever version we can agree on) in the retirement home that we're still beating the "4e failed" horse.  

Because really that discussion is never going to get old.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 21, 2015)

jodyjohnson said:


> I hope in 40 years when I'm playing D&D (whatever version we can agree on) in the retirement home that we're still beating the "4e failed" horse.
> 
> Because really that discussion is never going to get old.



And the old codger in the bed next to you, yelling over his applesauce, "By gum, next quarter that new-fangled 5E will fail, you'll see!"


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Of course businesses take risks. But they often don't let development groups which have failed have another go!




Not every team has a sweet talking Mike Mearls.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Not every team has a sweet talking Mike Mearls.



And we wonder why no one from WotC comes around to talk anymore. :/


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 21, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Obviously you think you know better than WotC how to make money with the D&D IP. I haven't seen any evidence of that, though.



Like many others I called 4e a bad move. That is evidence. Does it mean I'm alway right? No. But it is some evidence. 



> All you keep saying is that they should be more like Paizo. Yet as far as I can tell (eg Amazon rankings, testimony from game store owners, etc) 5e is selling better than PF. Just as 4e sold better than PF for a good part of its publication period (at least the first half, I think).



5e is new. A big start is not a surprise. The question is whether it can sustain that. Right now it doesn't look so good. How do you stay the #1 seller of something if you propose very limited books to sell? How many PHB do you expect people to buy?



> And D&D is on top. But in fact ICv2 measures sales. It doesn't measure popularity, because people can - and do - play RPGs without buying product.
> 
> AD&D, for instance, has remained popular for 30+ years, with barely any sales at all for the past 15 of those.
> 
> That's part of the commercial challenge of being a RPG publisher - that you have to persuade the people who play your game to buy stuff that they don't need to play your game! WotC seems to have decided that it's going to be easier and more commercially effective to persuade people to buy non-RPG stuff that they don't need to play the game.



I'm not the one who mentioned popularity. You did. 

As for the ICv2 ranking, D&D is on top. For now. The edition is new. It has been two years since WotC published any D&D books and there was a build up with the public playtest. The ranking is not a surprise. The lasting power is the question. 

Right now is looks like a boom and bust model. With a CEO seeing core books selling so many books, why not have another edition soonish?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 21, 2015)

Halivar said:


> And we wonder why no one from WotC comes around to talk anymore. :/




Saying Mearls is good with words and is convicing is an insult now?

Also, this is factually untrue. Mearls was here commenting recently and so was the author the future tech article. 

Maybe they do not comment here because they are tired of people white knighting them when they can handle posters by themselves.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 21, 2015)

Forgive the tangent, but this paragraph caught my eye:



Mercule said:


> At its core, D&D is a game that exists (IMO) to enable me to interactively tell stories with friends. In that regard, I agree with Nathan ("Stories, stories, stories"). My disagreement comes in that I think the key differentiating factor for D&D is that it's there to tell stories that occur on my world, not a published setting. Published settings are a great plus, but not core. Ditto for published adventures.




And yet, there's still shared lore. If you tell someone that your homebrew campaign is about trying to survive on Falx, the planet of the Tarrasques, they understand you. If your PCs meet a weird, stringy chimpanzee-faced gaunt warrior with yellow skin and a greatsword, and one of them says, "It's a githyanki! Run!", all of your players (not PCs) are benefitting from the shared setting. Squid-faced illithids, eye tyrants, mimics, ropers, spelljamming, the planes... all of these setting concepts can support a homebrew campaign just as easily as a published campaign.

What's my point? I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. But I think it might be that D&D stories are best supported with tropes (if "beholders and illithids" can be considered a trope) and not with campaign settings or novels per se; although novels and campaign books are one potential way to introduce and popularize a D&D trope.

So anyway, we'll see what they do with "story, story, story."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2015)

goldomark said:


> 5e is new. A big start is not a surprise. The question is whether it can sustain that. Right now it doesn't look so good. How do you stay the #1 seller of something if you propose very limited books to sell? How many PHB do you expect people to buy?



 They could be expecting new players to buy PHs.  We're up to 3 new-to-gaming players at our local Encounters venue.  That may not sound like much, but it's pretty good retention compared to 3e or post-fad classic D&D, and there's also returning 2e players represented, as well as the regulars who blithely made the transition to 5e after starting with 4e.  It's not just current players who buy core books (once).   New players buy core books.   Returning players buy core books.



> As for the ICv2 ranking, D&D is on top. For now.



 That's the current data point, yep.



> Right now is looks like a boom and bust model. With a CEO seeing core books selling so many books, why not have another edition soonish?



 That's not implausible.  Each modern edition has had a shorter run than the last, and a half-ed.  But, they also had much faster publication of supplements, yet still couldn't match the initial core sales.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Saying Mearls is good with words and is convicing is an insult now?
> 
> Also, this is factually untrue. Mearls was here commenting recently and so was the author the future tech article.
> 
> Maybe they do not comment here because they are tired of people white knighting them when they can handle posters by themselves.




Mearls has posted three times this year, and seven times last year, and none of his posts are related to the business side of the game.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/search.php?searchid=7668287


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 22, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Yes I queried the statement that 4e financed 5e...
> 
> This is the statement where 4e as a financial failure is specifically brought up...




I always imagined that the 5e development was financed by the sales of the OD, 1E, 2E and 3e reprints.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 22, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> They could be expecting new players to buy PHs.  We're up to 3 new-to-gaming players at our local Encounters venue.  That may not sound like much, but it's pretty good retention compared to 3e or post-fad classic D&D, and there's also returning 2e players represented, as well as the regulars who blithely made the transition to 5e after starting with 4e.  It's not just current players who buy core books (once).   New players buy core books.   Returning players buy core books.




Maybe, but from the interview it seems current new players are less than a fifth of those who are playing have been playing for less than five years. 







> *What about new players? How many people are choosing fifth edition to dive into the game for the first time?*
> 
> I don’t know that we’ve dug into that, but I will say that we did look into how long [fifth edition customers] have been playing Dungeons and Dragons, and it’s pretty evenly split between people who have been playing it forever, people who have been playing it 16 to 25 years, 6 to 15 years, and 5 years or less.




Cattering to old foggies like you and me, four fifth of those who are playing, seems like good way to make money.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Mearls has posted three times this year, and seven times last year, and none of his posts are related to the business side of the game.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/search.php?searchid=7668287




The good thing is that I didn't say he commented on the business side of the game. That is what is called a strawman.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 22, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The good thing is that I didn't say he commented on the business side of the game. That is what is called a strawman.




Yes, because you would obviously be perfectly content to see Mearls appear on EN World regularly and only discuss existing mechanical elements and whatnot of 5e.  I'm sure you would be fine with that right?


----------



## Imaro (Apr 22, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I always imagined that the 5e development was financed by the sales of the OD, 1E, 2E and 3e reprints.




Good call... I had forgotten about those being published as well...


----------



## Mercule (Apr 22, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> And yet, there's still shared lore. If you tell someone that your homebrew campaign is about trying to survive on Falx, the planet of the Tarrasques, they understand you. If your PCs meet a weird, stringy chimpanzee-faced gaunt warrior with yellow skin and a greatsword, and one of them says, "It's a githyanki! Run!", all of your players (not PCs) are benefitting from the shared setting. Squid-faced illithids, eye tyrants, mimics, ropers, spelljamming, the planes... all of these setting concepts can support a homebrew campaign just as easily as a published campaign.
> 
> What's my point? I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. But I think it might be that D&D stories are best supported with tropes (if "beholders and illithids" can be considered a trope) and not with campaign settings or novels per se; although novels and campaign books are one potential way to introduce and popularize a D&D trope.
> 
> So anyway, we'll see what they do with "story, story, story."



Absolutely agree. I know several other folks with home brew settings. For those of us who enjoy such a thing, comparing implementations of the same tropes (and how we spun some of them) is just as entertaining as reliving certain characters/events that happened in those settings. Even the guy who runs Greyhawk can get into the mix, because there's still room for interpretation. That's one of the big things that makes D&D, well, D&D. It's also why I'm so adamant that D&D ceases to be D&D if it becomes synonymous with Forgotten Realms.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 22, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Maybe, but from the interview it seems current new players are less than a fifth of those who are playing have been playing for less than five years.



'Started with 5e' would be an interesting new-player metric.  20% new players translates to 25% growth - which'd be huge if it had all come since the 5e release, and still not terrible if it were spread out over 5 years.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 22, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Saying Mearls is good with words and is convicing is an insult now?




Oh come on, goldomark... stop treating us like we're idiots.

We know just like you do that your use of the phrase "sweet talking" was not meant to be a synonym for "good with words".  "Sweet talker" is almost always used is a less than complimentary fashion... so unless YOU'RE the idiot who just doesn't know what the connotation of "sweet talking" is... yes, you were trying to be somewhat insulting to Mike.

So unless you want to admit you had no idea what "sweet talking" actually implied... be a man and own up to your attempt to chide him.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 22, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Yes, because you would obviously be perfectly content to see Mearls appear on EN World regularly and only discuss existing mechanical elements and whatnot of 5e.  I'm sure you would be fine with that right?




Why not?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 22, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> 'Started with 5e' would be an interesting new-player metric.  20% new players translates to 25% growth - which'd be huge if it had all come since the 5e release, and still not terrible if it were spread out over 5 years.




Yeah, five years is a long time. Of that 20% I'm betting maybe 20% just started playing D&D. So that would be 4% of people who are playing. Playing doesn't mean buying either. So cattering to old foggies and new players is a more rational option.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 22, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Oh come on, goldomark... stop treating us like we're idiots.



Heh. I didn't know I was talking to you too. All I did was paraphrase Jeremy Crawford and someone made a strawman out of that. Blame the strawman maker, not me for correcting him.

Before you get emotional about this response, here is what Crawford said: 







> *"Mike [Mearls] argued very eloquently to the executives for the time to make the best version of D&D and the best books possible.* We gave very frequent reports. The whole company took a gamble on whether the idealistic version of D&D could succeed. It was a risk, and it's possible that it wouldn't pan out, but we are very happy that it actually worked.



http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...emy-Crawford-Co-Designer-and-Editor-of-Dung.3

Eloquent sure seems like someone good with words.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 22, 2015)

Seriously, "Sweet Talker" is an insult now?


----------



## Halivar (Apr 22, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Seriously, "Sweet Talker" is an insult now?



"To coax or cajole with flattery" is not a positive spin to put on it.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 22, 2015)

Seriously, "Flattery" is an insult now?

It is really is Turtles all the way down.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 22, 2015)

Tony Vargas said:


> 'Started with 5e' would be an interesting new-player metric.  20% new players translates to 25% growth - which'd be huge if it had all come since the 5e release, and still not terrible if it were spread out over 5 years.




Another interesting metric might be "came back with 5E." I hadn't played D&D since the 1990s, until 5E. One of the two groups I play with is likewise composed of mostly-lapsed AD&Ders newly-migrated to 5E.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 22, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Seriously, "Sweet Talker" is an insult now?




Maybe its regional. It doesn't conjure negative connotations for me, though it can be used in a sarcastic manner.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 23, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Good call... I had forgotten about those being published as well...



I mentioned them in one of the posts of mine to which you replied.

As I indicated then, I doubt that they generated revenue comparable to DDI. The market for those books is not fully saturated, but I can't imagine there was _that_ much unmet demand.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 23, 2015)

But Pem you have to remember that for some people, 4e must be a failure in all things. Nothing about 4e can ever be considered successful.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 23, 2015)

Hussar said:


> But Pem you have to remember that for some people, 4e must be a failure in all things. Nothing about 4e can ever be considered successful.




Go back and read the posts... again I never called 4e a "failure" but claiming 4e financed the development of 5e is a pretty bold statement that goes beyond 4e wasn't a failure or even that 4e was "successful"... and sorry I'm not going to just accept it unless you actually work at WotC and/or have some data to back it up. 

Here we go... poor 4e the victim edition.  Maybe it's that some people for whatever reason continue to want to exaggerate the success of 4e without the requisite proof of said claims... or that they can't accept the other side of the coin... *gasp* that 4e could have actually failed financially...since you decided to jump in, just curious do you have any proof that 4e and DDI financed the development of 5e?  That the board games, novels, reprint editions, etc. played no part in the budget that was allotted for 5e development?  If so I'd love to hear it... if not the above just sounds like deflection for having to provide some actual proof for the statement that was made by @_*pemerton*_.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I mentioned them in one of the posts of mine to which you replied.
> 
> As I indicated then, I doubt that they generated revenue comparable to DDI. The market for those books is not fully saturated, but I can't imagine there was _that_ much unmet demand.




They didn't have to generate revenue comparable to DDI in order to have contributed to financing the development of 5e.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 23, 2015)

Imaro said:


> do you have any proof that 4e and DDI financed the development of 5e?  That the board games, novels, reprint editions, etc. played no part in the budget that was allotted for 5e development?



No one has said that. I mentioned the reprints in my original posts. I didn't mention the boardgames and novels but have since invited you (or anyone else) to contribute what they know about their sales (compared especially to DDI).



Imaro said:


> They didn't have to generate revenue comparable to DDI in order to have contributed to financing the development of 5e.



Sure. My conjecture is that their contribution was modest at best. Do you think I'm wrong?


----------



## Imaro (Apr 23, 2015)

pemerton said:


> No one has said that. I mentioned the reprints in my original posts. I didn't mention the boardgames and novels but have since invited you (or anyone else) to contribute what they know about their sales (compared especially to DDI).




I'm sorry wasn't your original statement that 4e & DDI financed the development of 5e?  

 I know about as much as you know concerning 4e and DDI's actual revenues concerning the actual sales for novels, boardgames, etc. go... but then I'm not making any claims about the financing of 5e...



pemerton said:


> Sure. My conjecture is that their contribution was modest at best. Do you think I'm wrong?




I think you don't know... 

I will note... no new 4e stuff is being made... no new DDI stuff is being produced... but boardgames using the same 4e-esque rules are still being produced


----------



## Mercule (Apr 23, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Maybe its regional. It doesn't conjure negative connotations for me, though it can be used in a sarcastic manner.



Agreed. It's one of the things that can be used on either side of the line. It's a bit like "interesting" -- my kids use that word all the time and it drives me nuts.



Hussar said:


> But Pem you have to remember that for some people, 4e must be a failure in all things. Nothing about 4e can ever be considered successful.



It goes both ways. There are those to whom any criticism of 4E is a grievous insult. Even saying, "It just doesn't feel like like the other editions of D&D, to me," brings out pitchforks.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 23, 2015)

Mercule said:


> It goes both ways. There are those to whom any criticism of 4E is a grievous insult. Even saying, "It just doesn't feel like like the other editions of D&D, to me," brings out pitchforks.




Not to put too fine a point on it... but as someone who probably would be considered on the side of the "4E apologists"... I will say that while I'm sure there have been a couple people who might bring out the pitchforks if you made a statement of  "It just doesn't feel like like the other editions of D&D, to me."... most of us would accept that statement as-is with no comment.  It's just your personal opinion and you stated it as such.  But more often than not, it's when a person posts a straight "4E isn't D&D" that the rest of us will then comment.  Because that person is trying to imply that their opinion is empirical fact, when in truth, it's merely their opinion.

Should the rest of us just accept that when someone makes a point here on the boards that *of course* it's merely their opinion, even if that part is unsaid in their post?  Maybe.  But at the same time... if you want to make a point about your personal preferences and not receive much (or any) criticism or comment on it, you probably should include "In my opinion..." or "My personal preference is..." as well.  Because these boards are rife with people who post thinking their beliefs are facts, not opinions.  And yeah, they're gonna get called out on it.  You don't want to get call out... just say straight out what you mean.  Nothing wrong with that, and you'll find the rest of us tends to be fine with differing opinions on personal preference.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 23, 2015)

Imaro said:


> By this logic Disney/Marvel should stop making actual comic books and only make movies... why haven't they?




No idea how much money comics bring in for Marvel and DC, they may still be profitable on their own for both companies . . . . but print comics are a struggling business, just like tabletop RPGs.

I am fairly confident that the movies and television shows, and even the video games, based on the Marvel and DC characters bring in TONS more money than the actual comics, so why continue with the comics? 1) The comics are still potentially profitable on their own, even if on a way smaller scale, 2) comics are the *core* of the DC and Marvel brands, they drive everything else, and 3) (as mentioned upthread) comics are a more effective medium for generating new characters and new stories, in other words, new IP that future movies and TV shows can build off of.

But if for some crazy reason Marvel and DC were not allowed to license out their characters and stories anymore for movies, tv, and videogames . . . . I think the comics would go the way of the dinosaurs not long after.

Take away the comics and try to continue with the movies, tv, and videogames? It's possible, in theory, but I don't think it would work out very well. Personally, I think print comics are dying . . . or at least changing in format, but comics will survive in some form, perhaps digital. (I LOVE comixology!)

WotC is taking a similar approach with D&D. The game itself makes profit, although not on a large scale. It is the core of the D&D brand and generates the characters, stories, and worlds that can drive future potential movies, tv, and videogames . . . where the real money is. Trying to build the brand without the game wouldn't work out any better than comic book movies without the comics, but it's the larger profit WotC is chasing, as they should!


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 23, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it... but as someone who probably would be considered on the side of the "4E apologists"... I will say that while I'm sure there have been a couple people who might bring out the pitchforks if you made a statement of  "It just doesn't feel like like the other editions of D&D, to me."... most of us would accept that statement as-is with no comment.  It's just your personal opinion and you stated it as such.  But more often than not, it's when a person posts a straight "4E isn't D&D" that the rest of us will then comment.




There's also the fact that on the Internet, one angry person with a pitchfork can seem like a whole mob. You don't get nonverbal cues from everyone else saying "I'm not with that guy" like you would in real life, there's just silence.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 23, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Take away the comics and try to continue with the movies, tv, and videogames? It's possible, in theory, but I don't think it would work out very well. Personally, I think print comics are dying . . . or at least changing in format, but comics will survive in some form, perhaps digital. (I LOVE comixology!)




I would actually disagree with you here, Brian.  Reason being... in the timeline of comic book history, it was the mid 1980s that saw the largest "explosion" of comic sales.  More kids began reading more books, collecting comics books became a "money-making" hobby of collecting and saving for eventual resale (which explains why so many major lines had new #1s with like five or six different cover), and it coincided with the rise of the nerd and geek set.

What we are seeing currently is *that* group of kids (of which I would include myself) now in the "Adults" age bracket of being flush with cash from careers, having families etc. etc. etc.  So I think even if comic books themselves were to die right now... the movies will continue to be profitable so long as they continue to use the popularity and tropes of the '80s comic boom that we were all reading, and us '80s and early '90s kids are still the target audience willing to spend the money to go see the films.  These Marvel and DC movies could continue to be profitable through the 2020s I'd be willing to bet, because all of us Gen Xers would still get the thrill of seeing our comic heroes on the screen.

However... once the comics boom died in the 90s (I think right around the time it got replaced by the Magic The Gathering boom)... the number of people who were comics readers dropped by fairly large numbers, and thus once THAT group becomes the dominant nostalgia consumer market and us Gen Xers become "Middle Aged"... that's when the comic book movies might begin to drop off in popularity.

And if the comic books were cancelled right now?  I don't think we'd see a REAL shift until those who are teenager readers right now and who would no longer read comics, become the dominant nostalgia consumer market in twenty years when they turn into their 30s and 40s.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2015)

Imaro said:
			
		

> Go back and read the posts... again I never called 4e a "failure"
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-D-amp-D-a-Tabletop-Game/page38#ixzz3YB0yH1bY




Really?  In all your posts, you've never called 4e a failure?  Ever?  Never ever?  Somehow I find that hard to believe, but, it's true, stranger things have happened.

But, yes, of course 5e was funded by the rerelease of pdf's, because, obviously, nothing 4e could possibly make money in order to fund anything.

I mean, good grief.  We have a pretty good idea that DDi had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50k-100k subscribers during the 5e development.  That number was tested and retested a number of times and shown to go up or down when you subscribed and went on the WOTC forums.  So, it's a fairly solid number.

Do you honestly believe that D&D reprints are making several million dollars per year?  Really?  Never mind that it was what, late 2012, early 2013 before Drive Thru RPG started selling the reprints again.  The first playtest packet came out in late 2012, IIRC.  How were the pdf's funding development?  What, they decided to close their doors, and just hope that the reprints would pay the bills?  In a publicly owned company?  Do you honestly believe that's how things work?

This isn't about "poor 4e victims" here.  This is about the wilful rewriting AGAIN of history.  As I said, it's pretty bloody obvious that the only reason that the DDi couldn't have funded 5e, is because people are invested in the idea that 4e must be a failure in all things.  Because if it wasn't a failure in all things, that calls into question what things it might have been successful at.  And we obviously can't have that.  All things 4e must be excised from D&D.


----------



## Eric V (Apr 24, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> comics are the *core* of the DC and Marvel brands, they drive everything else/QUOTE]
> 
> I wonder how much longer that will be true...certainly any moviegoer who decides to pick up a comic based on liking the movie (or Netflix series) is going to be somewhat confused by what they read...in Iron Man, Superman, Avengers, Daredevil, Spider-Man, and more.
> 
> After Marvel's Phase 3?  I bet they could stop printing comics and that fact would have no effect on the movie business.  Heck, it might not affect it now.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 24, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Really?  In all your posts, you've never called 4e a failure?  Ever?  Never ever?  Somehow I find that hard to believe, but, it's true, stranger things have happened.
> 
> But, yes, of course 5e was funded by the rerelease of pdf's, because, obviously, nothing 4e could possibly make money in order to fund anything.
> 
> ...





You really... REALLY aren't following this discussion at all are you?  When you want to address what I actually posted (as opposed to what you're trying to subvert my position to be) I'll happily carry on a discussion with you...

HINT: No one is talking about the PDF's funding 5e except you...

EDIT: I'm also still waiting for a shred of proof that 5e was funded by 4e and DDI...


----------



## Iosue (Apr 24, 2015)

WotC and Hasbro are multi-divisional corporations.  The divisions don't directly fund themselves, so in that sense, one can't really say that DDi or PDFs or whatever funded the 5e development and playtest.  That was funded by whatever the budget was that WotC or Hasbro assigned to the division.

That said, D&D couldn't have said, "Hey, we're going to go dark for a while, while we dream it all up again," and expected WotC to keep paying their salaries.  For something like that, they would have had to make a pitch, and such a pitch would have included projected sources of revenues.  So, DDi, reprints, edition neutral books, fiction, PDFs, and the like.  And it wouldn't have necessarily required a huge number.  Just enough of a steady revenue projection that the higher-ups could say, "Okay, go for it."

So, going into speculation about how much of that pre-5e-release revenue came from DDi versus other sources?  I think DDi has to be a pretty strong percentage, if only because it's steady, every month.  The reprints were limited collector's editions, so probably not quite so much.  A fair chunk of the AD&D 1e reprint revenue in particular went to the fund to build a Gygax statue in Lake Geneva.  4e probably began dropping steadily.  Looking at ICv2, D&D drops to 2nd place in 2nd quarter 2011, when a whole raft of Essentials products were canceled/put on hold, but maintains that position until 4th quarter 2012.  There's brief jump back up to 2nd in 2nd quarter 2013, probably due to the AD&D, Unearthed Arcana, and 3.5 reprints all being available, but afterwards D&D continues to dive down to third, fourth, and eventually off the list until its triumphant return.

Does that mean 4e funded 5e?  Well, it was certainly a contributor to the D&D division's revenues during that period.  I doubt the people involved saw it that way, though.  A while back, in a tweet, Mearls said, while discussing the benefits of big companies vs. small companies:



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> [Y]ou don't do the open fifth ed test without a lot of support from the rest of the company


----------



## Imaro (Apr 24, 2015)

Iosue said:


> WotC and Hasbro are multi-divisional corporations.  The divisions don't directly fund themselves, so in that sense, one can't really say that DDi or PDFs or whatever funded the 5e development and playtest.  That was funded by whatever the budget was that WotC or Hasbro assigned to the division.
> 
> That said, D&D couldn't have said, "Hey, we're going to go dark for a while, while we dream it all up again," and expected WotC to keep paying their salaries.  For something like that, they would have had to make a pitch, and such a pitch would have included projected sources of revenues.  So, DDi, reprints, edition neutral books, fiction, PDFs, and the like.  And it wouldn't have necessarily required a huge number.  Just enough of a steady revenue projection that the higher-ups could say, "Okay, go for it."
> 
> ...




This pretty much sums up my point... stating 4e financed or funded 5e without considering or mentioning everything else they produced during the time of 5e's development... is at best an erroneous statement and at worst purposefully misleading.  Not even sure why 2+ pages of discussion resulted from that observation being made...


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 24, 2015)

Eric V said:


> I wonder how much longer that will be true...certainly any moviegoer who decides to pick up a comic based on liking the movie (or Netflix series) is going to be somewhat confused by what they read...in Iron Man, Superman, Avengers, Daredevil, Spider-Man, and more.




I don't think so, I give movie goers a little more credit. Movies adapted from other sources, whether they be comics, novels, earlier movies, games, or whatever ALWAYS change the details of the source material to one degree or another. And folks know that. Did Peter Jackson's LotR or Hobbit films tell the EXACT same story as the books? Did the Harry Potter films?

Especially when there have been multiple movie versions of characters, like Batman. Tim Burton's Batman was VERY different from Christopher Nolan's, and I think audiences handled that just fine.

So, if after watching the Netflix Daredevil series I decide to pick up the latest Daredevil comic books . . . will I be confused and turned off that they are different? I'll probably be OK, as would most folks, IMO.

_EDIT: Although I will add that both comic houses, Marvel and DC, have made changes to their comic book stories to make them closer to the movies or tv shows. For example, characters created for TV or movies have found their way to comics, like Harley Quinn and John Diggle (Arrow's sidekick). Characters in comics start sporting costumes that look a lot like the ones they wore in the movies, and I'm sure more changes as well. Is this done to lessen difference and confusion? Or just simply because they are cool story elements?_


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 24, 2015)

Imaro said:


> This pretty much sums up my point... stating 4e financed or funded 5e without considering or mentioning everything else they produced during the time of 5e's development... is at best an erroneous statement and at worst purposefully misleading.  Not even sure why 2+ pages of discussion resulted from that observation being made...




Oh good lord.

NONE of us know exactly how and where the dollars flow from and to at WotC. And, frankly, WHO CARES!?!?! The SIMPLE point (IMO) Iosue is trying to make is that 4E was successful, brought in a lot of money, and persuaded the folks at WotC/Hasbro to give the game another edition rather than mothball it.

The idea that 4E was a "failure", financially or otherwise, is tired fanbashing with no basis in reality. Obviously, 4E began to tail off in profitability towards the end of its cycle, and for various good reasons WotC felt that a different approach was needed to make D&D sustainable over the long term. But to say 4E was a failure because it is no longer being published would also be to say that 3E was a failure, and all prior editions before. Which is not the case.

But the 4E core books outsold all prior editions, brought in new fans, and added to the "legacy" of D&D both in rules and setting. It made WotC a ton of money (although, not Magic money, of course), it was successful enough that the folks in charge didn't need to think, "Should we really continue to be printing D&D products?" Instead they thought, "We want to make as much money as 4E brought in again, but we don't want a 6th edition restart in four years! We want a sustainable profit that will last decades!"

So far, seems to be working. 5E core books has outsold the 4E core already, which is itself a trend (each edition has outsold the one prior, if you don't count "half editions" like player's option or essentials).


----------



## Imaro (Apr 24, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Oh good lord.
> 
> NONE of us know exactly how and where the dollars flow from and to at WotC. And, frankly, WHO CARES!?!?! The SIMPLE point (IMO) Iosue is trying to make is that 4E was successful, brought in a lot of money, and persuaded the folks at WotC/Hasbro to give the game another edition rather than mothball it.




You do realize I'm agreeing with @_*Io*_sue... right?  Here's a question... If we don't know where the dollars flow from and to within WotC... why make the statement that 5e was financed by 4e?  That was the original statement I disagreed with since again... novels, boardgames, reprints, etc. all could have contributed to the financing and even the decision to produce a new edition... is this right or wrong?  The fact of the matter is that in stating that we don't know you are in fact agreeing with what I originally said to @_*pemerton*_ earlier in the thread... so what exactly is your point in quoting me here?



Dire Bare said:


> The idea that 4E was a "failure", financially or otherwise, is tired fanbashing with no basis in reality. Obviously, 4E began to tail off in profitability towards the end of its cycle, and for various good reasons WotC felt that a different approach was needed to make D&D sustainable over the long term. But to say 4E was a failure because it is no longer being published would also be to say that 3E was a failure, and all prior editions before. Which is not the case.




I didn't call 4e a failure (find a post in this entire thread where I did)... of course I am also not certain it was as financially successful as you (and some 4e fans) seem to be claiming, since biases work both ways. Which is why I chose not to make a definitive statement either way about it's objective financial success or failure... something 4e fans seem incapable of doing, even though they have no real evidence to support their own claims.  Also did I ever state it was a failure because "it is no longer being published"?  You and @_*Hussar*_ seem to be creating arguments to counter and then attributing them to me... when I never stated them. 



Dire Bare said:


> But the 4E core books outsold all prior editions, brought in new fans, and added to the "legacy" of D&D both in rules and setting. It made WotC a ton of money (although, not Magic money, of course), it was successful enough that the folks in charge didn't need to think, "Should we really continue to be printing D&D products?" Instead they thought, "We want to make as much money as 4E brought in again, but we don't want a 6th edition restart in four years! We want a sustainable profit that will last decades!"




 Great selling corebooks are a given I'm not sure (unless that's the entirety of the edition) how that proves anything about an editions overall success, failure, profitability, etc...  Also if they want 4e pofits again and DDI is such a gigantic part of 4e profits... why wasn't it moved over to 5e?

I'll make the same point here that I made to @_*pemerton*_ since you also seem to be attruibuting a decision that may or may not have been based soelely on the success of the rpg to 4e... Outside of 4e, D&D is novels in various worlds, older edition reprints, PDF's of older books, boardgames, neverwinter the MMOrpg, DDO the MMOrpg, Baldur's Gate the videogame, WizKid's minis, etc. and WotC makes money off all these things... driven initially by the rpg but some, such as the novels, have grown to surpass the rpg in profitability... but you seem sure that the decision to continue with 5e and it's financing was based solely on 4e...right? 

It's in no way calling 4e a failure to acknowledge that it is not the sole driver in decisions around D&D or the sole source of financing for 5e... in fact it seems as I stated earlier either misinformed or purposefully misleading to ignore the other sources of income and drivers around the D&D brand.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 24, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> _EDIT: Although I will add that both comic houses, Marvel and DC, have made changes to their comic book stories to make them closer to the movies or tv shows. For example, characters created for TV or movies have found their way to comics, like Harley Quinn and John Diggle (Arrow's sidekick). Characters in comics start sporting costumes that look a lot like the ones they wore in the movies, and I'm sure more changes as well. Is this done to lessen difference and confusion? Or just simply because they are cool story elements?_




I think much of this - the cross-pollination between comics and the shows - depends on the closeness of the relationship between the publisher and the show producers/writers. *Arrow* is pretty closely related to DC with one of the principal show writers also writing comics. Contrast that with the Sony- or Fox-produced movies made for Marvel and how they're *not* having much of an impact back on the comics. Rumor has it Marvel will not be introducing new Xmen characters in the comics so they aren't fuel for the movies.

If Hasbro can assume control the movie rights to D&D, that will give them a lot more incentive to cross-pollinate between the game and the other media.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 24, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> NONE of us know exactly how and where the dollars flow from and to at WotC. And, frankly, WHO CARES!?!?! The SIMPLE point (IMO) Iosue is trying to make is that 4E was successful, brought in a lot of money, and persuaded the folks at WotC/Hasbro to give the game another edition rather than mothball it.



You do know that is contradicted by Jeremy Crawford's inteview, right? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...emy-Crawford-Co-Designer-and-Editor-of-Dung.3



> "Mike [Mearls] argued very eloquently to the executives for the time to make the best version of D&D and the best books possible. We gave very frequent reports. The whole company took a gamble on whether the idealistic version of D&D could succeed. It was a risk, and it's possible that it wouldn't pan out, but we are very happy that it actually worked.



Risk, gamble, frequent reports, not pan out, could succeed. 

Yeah, doesn't sound like 4e was a success and that 5e was such an obvious choice to make. It is pretty clear. Mearls more than 4e's revenues convinced exects.

"The whole company took a gamble". Best guess as to what that mean is that WotC financed a lot of the research and developement of 5e from non-D&D sources. For two years 15 people (or more?) worked on something that didn't bring in direct revenues. Magic comes to mind as the cash cow. Not that it is that extraordinary that compagny invest in R&D that might not end up making money. 

But of course, feel free to ignore it. It is much more pleasant to imagine 4e as a financial success.


----------



## DongMaster (Apr 24, 2015)

This thread is best enjoyed with lukewarm popcorn and Limahl's Never Ending Story on repeat...


----------



## Eric V (Apr 24, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> I don't think so, I give movie goers a little more credit. Movies adapted from other sources, whether they be comics, novels, earlier movies, games, or whatever ALWAYS change the details of the source material to one degree or another.






Well, right now in comics, Daredevil's identity is publicly known, he is not going around in costume, and is in San Fransisco; Captain America is the Falcon (or the other way around); Iron Man is still evil from the events of 'Axis'; and Thor is a woman.  That's just off the top of my head.  Those changes really aren't in keeping with the characters as portrayed in the movies (who are, IMO, much truer to the characters).

-E


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 25, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I didn't call 4e a failure (find a post in this entire thread where I did).




In reality it is much more fun to just assume that you did and argue against the point that you want to argue against.

No need to worry about facts!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You do know that is contradicted by Jeremy Crawford's inteview, right?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I don't see the inference.

Not producing much product while you build a new version of the game seems obviously to be a gamble, whether or not income is coming in from old products. The gamble is on whether your product you're designing will bring in enough money to justify the outlay on designing it.

That tells us nothing about where the money came from to finance the development.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 25, 2015)

Eric V said:


> Well, right now in comics, Daredevil's identity is publicly known, he is not going around in costume, and is in San Francisco; Captain America is the Falcon (or the other way around); Iron Man is still evil from the events of 'Axis'; and Thor is a woman.  That's just off the top of my head.  Those changes really aren't in keeping with the characters as portrayed in the movies (who are, IMO, much truer to the characters).




Those are some significant changes! Still, I don't think most folks who pick up the comics because they liked the films are going to be super confused over any of it. Heck, I've never collected or read Marvel comics on any sort of regular basis, and you've got me super curious about "Evil Iron Man" (does he have a goatee?)!

Also, I highly doubt these changes are permanent. Just like electric Superman Red and Superman Blue from years past, "evil" Tony Stark will return to hero mode and his classic costume at some point, Daredevil will return to NYC, Steve Rogers will once again become Captain America, and Thor will be Thor again (wow, that name vs title thing is a bit awkward, although necessary I suppose).

The movies are "truer" to the classic comics than the current comics are themselves because the movies, all of them, are relatively young. Iron Man has had five movie adventures so far? A bit too soon for him to be going through major character changes on the silver screen. But in comics, he's been dressing in his robot suit for decades!


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I don't see the inference.



So, the question is: don't want to or just can't?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So, the question is: don't want to or just can't?



OK, if you want me to be more blunt: I deny the inference.

Spending 2 years on designing a product is a risk. Full stop. Because that design costs money (mostly salaries and overheads, in this case) and during the design phase is generating no returns.

That tells us nothing about whether or not the previous product generated returns, and whether or not those returns helped finance the 2 year design phase.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> OK, if you want me to be more blunt: I deny the inference.
> 
> Spending 2 years on designing a product is a risk. Full stop. Because that design costs money (mostly salaries and overheads, in this case) and during the design phase is generating no returns.



So why not do it like previous editions and still print 4e books? I mean according to you 4e was profitable if not highly profitable. Why not make and sell books like they did before to finance R&D? Could it be that 4e was not profitable?



> That tells us nothing about whether or not the previous product generated returns, and whether or not those returns helped finance the 2 year design phase.



It tells us a lot. That working on and printing those books would have been a greater loss than not making them.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 25, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So why not do it like previous editions and still print 4e books? I mean according to you 4e was profitable if not highly profitable. Why not make and sell books like they did before to finance R&D? Could it be that 4e was not profitable?
> 
> It tells us a lot. That working on and printing those books would have been a greater loss than not making them.



Are you talking about writing new books? Who was going to do that, given the staff were working on the new edition. And why would they do that, given that they'd concluded that 4e was not going to achieve their commercial goals into the future?

Are you talking about printing new runs of existing 4e books? My general impression is that the market for one edition tends to wane when there is a public playtest of a new edition being undertaken. Not printing new books presumably did give time for a reasonable amount of existing stock in the distribution chain to flow through.

The main income from 4e during the playtest would have been DDI, I imagine in the neighbourhood of modest single-digit millions per year. Call it 18 months at $5 per month for 50,000 subscribers and you get $4.5 million.

That's enough to pay in the neighbourhood of 15 salaries + oncosts for two years (figuring $150,000 per head).


----------



## Wicht (Apr 25, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> The movies are "truer" to the classic comics than the current comics are themselves because the movies, all of them, are relatively young. Iron Man has had five movie adventures so far? A bit too soon for him to be going through major character changes on the silver screen.




Eh, they are planning on doing Captain America: Civil War in which Iron Man is the bad guy and the Captain, in the comics, is killed.

I can't really say I am looking forward to it, unless they change the ending and have Iron Man come to his senses before Captain America gets killed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 25, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Are you talking about writing new books? Who was going to do that, given the staff were working on the new edition.



They keep producing new books of the current edition when working on Essentials, 4e, 3e and 2e. 5e is the only edition that saw a complete stop on the production of new books "to develop the new edition". 

It speaks volumes on 4e financial success.



> And why would they do that, given that they'd concluded that 4e was not going to achieve their commercial goals into the future?



According to you, finance the R&D of 5e.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 26, 2015)

goldomark said:


> According to you, finance the R&D of 5e.



Huh? If WotC has decided that the way forward is not with 4e, and they are devoting their team to developing 5e, (i) why would they publish books for a system which they've decided won't make a commercially adequate return, and (ii) who would write them?

I sketched out some back-of-the-envelope figures for DDI. Do you think they're wrong?


----------



## Relax (Apr 26, 2015)

Wouldn't Pathfinder outselling D&D 4e be a pretty strong indication that 4e was a failure?  Or do I not understand how the word "failure" is being used?


----------



## Morrus (Apr 26, 2015)

Relax said:


> Wouldn't Pathfinder outselling D&D 4e be a pretty strong indication that 4e was a failure?  Or do I not understand how the word "failure" is being used?




I think you misunderstand the word 'failure'. If not being #1 is failing, then there are 7 billion failures in this world. You included! This website isn't a failure because Google is bigger than it. 

Two games can succeed.  Ten games can. Heck, if the market supports it, a thousand games can.


----------



## Relax (Apr 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think you misunderstand the word 'failure'. If not being #1 is failing, then there are 7 billion failures in this world. You included! This website isn't a failure because Google is bigger than it.
> 
> Two games can succeed.  Ten games can. Heck, if the market supports it, a thousand games can.



Well, I did ask if I was misunderstanding how the word "failure" was being used.  On the other hand, D&D was the #1 RPG for, well, forever, until Pathfinder began outselling 4e.  One _could_ argue that in that respect, 4e _was_ a failure.

The thing is I like 4e, but it didn't really work out too well...


----------



## billd91 (Apr 26, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think you misunderstand the word 'failure'. If not being #1 is failing, then there are 7 billion failures in this world. You included! This website isn't a failure because Google is bigger than it.
> 
> Two games can succeed.  Ten games can. Heck, if the market supports it, a thousand games can.




As people have pointed out, there are different definitions of success. Bringing in more revenue than cost might mean success. But loss of market share may mean failure even if that first criteria is true.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 26, 2015)

billd91 said:


> As people have pointed out, there are different definitions of success. Bringing in more revenue than cost might mean success. But loss of market share may mean failure even if that first criteria is true.




Yes. One really needs to agree on a preset field of success/failure before having these discussions. Or at least, when talking about success, be specific as to what you are addressing with your assessment. 

Pemerton may define success as creating a game that he enjoyed.
Morrus may look at success as turning a profit.
Relax may think success is defined by outshining all the competition.  (Just picking names out of the conversation; not assigning actual opinions.)

4e was obviously initially successful in being published and sold. It was successful, one would assume, in turning something of a profit, at least at first. 

It was not successful in issuing in a version of D&D that was liked by an overwhelming majority of the consumer base nor was it successful in retaining its market lead. It was also not successful in its staying power and the handwriting was on the wall for it after only 2-3 years. 

So depending on what you are looking for, you could argue that 4e was successful, or you could argue it was not successful and on either hand you would be able to be right.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 26, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I sketched out some back-of-the-envelope figures for DDI. Do you think they're wrong?




I really have no idea what the profit of DDI was.

But I understand, correct me if I am wrong, that they are shutting it down for 5e.

I do have to wonder, if DDI was such an easy money maker for WotC, with millions basically just pouring in, why turn the spicket off?


----------



## Imaro (Apr 26, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I do have to wonder, if DDI was such an easy money maker for WotC, with millions basically just pouring in, why turn the spicket off?




I asked this question earlier in the thread and never got a response.  I also wonder what the start up costs & operating costs were for DDI (and whether the failure of Gleemax was included in that) as well as how much money was lost through it's cannibalizing of book sales... I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] (and many other 4e fans who have used DDI numbers as proof of "success") is painting an overly simplistic picture.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 26, 2015)

Wicht said:


> But I understand, correct me if I am wrong, that they are shutting it down for 5e.



You are wrong. They are not shutting it down.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 26, 2015)

Iosue said:


> You are wrong. They are not shutting it down.




Okay technically they aren't continuing DDI for 5e... I think the main point remains though... if this was such a gushing fire hose of money why not continue it moving forward with 5e?


----------



## Wicht (Apr 26, 2015)

Iosue said:


> You are wrong. They are not shutting it down.




So there is a 5e version in the works? Or is it 4e material only?


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 26, 2015)

It's 4e only, and apparently a decent number of 4e players want to keep it for the tools.

As far as I know it's not being converted to use with 5e, and that makes sense as it's not really a tool well-suited to a 5e style of rules and gaming.

But yeah, it's not being shut down as far as I know, and still seeing revenue from 4e players who like the tools and think they are worth keeping their subscriptions for those tools.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 26, 2015)

Will they still be charging for the CB?


----------



## Galladrick (Apr 26, 2015)

Can I please get a setting guide (like the old FRCS) to create my own adventures? That book was and is a friggan gold standard, in my opinion, for containing adventure seeds and flavor, and magic monsters etc.  A new Forgotten Realms Camp. Setting Guide PLEASE!


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2015)

Wicht said:


> I really have no idea what the profit of DDI was.
> 
> But I understand, correct me if I am wrong, that they are shutting it down for 5e.
> 
> I do have to wonder, if DDI was such an easy money maker for WotC, with millions basically just pouring in, why turn the spicket off?



This has mostly been answered.

DDI is still available as a subscription service. The current number of subscribers is unknown, but I think the best guess would be more than ten thousand but fewer than fifty thousand.

Why not develop it for 5e? [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] gave some reasons. My thoughts would be (i) that WotC doesn't want to foot the development costs, and (ii) has decided that outsourcing/licensing is the way to go (see eg Fantasy Grounds).



Imaro said:


> I also wonder what the start up costs & operating costs were for DDI



The operating costs involve server and software maintenance. I would assume that is in the neighbourhood of $100,000 a year (a bit of salary, a bit of machinery), but maybe I'm underestimating. Computing is not my field.

Whatever the startup costs were - and I personally have no idea, but would assume more than $1 million but fewer than $10 million - they were well and truly sunk by 2012.

I've indicated my back-of-the-envelope estimate for DDI revenues over the time of 5e's development. The startup costs don't affect those, do they?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 27, 2015)

Galladrick said:


> Can I please get a setting guide (like the old FRCS) to create my own adventures? That book was and is a friggan gold standard, in my opinion, for containing adventure seeds and flavor, and magic monsters etc.  A new Forgotten Realms Camp. Setting Guide PLEASE!




Maybe.  Eventually.  When WotC decides it's both artistically and financially viable to do.  Until then, keep using your FRCS for adventure seeds and flavor, because they are worthwhile regardless of the edition of the game mechanics.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 27, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I think you misunderstand the word 'failure'. If not being #1 is failing, then there are 7 billion failures in this world. You included! This website isn't a failure because Google is bigger than it.
> 
> Two games can succeed.  Ten games can. Heck, if the market supports it, a thousand games can.




Failure depends upon the criteria imposed...

When corporate explicitly expects being #1, and you come in #2, you have still failed, even if you make money, because the board is going to see the VP saying the team failed to meet expectations.

HasBro expected D&D to remain #1 in the market. It failed to do so.

Not a bad game. Not a total failure as a game (as the psychotic support for it shows), but it was a failure from the corporate view.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Failure depends upon the criteria imposed...
> 
> When corporate explicitly expects being #1, and you come in #2, you have still failed, even if you make money, because the board is going to see the VP saying the team failed to meet expectations.
> 
> ...




No, it didn't.  It expected WOTC to bring in 50 million dollars.  That doesn't necessarily mean being the number one RPG.  After all, had, say, the VTT taken off on Xbox as it was supposed to, it could very well have been that the subscriptions would have made WOTC much bigger than Paizo, despite Paizo selling more physical product.

There is no evidence to suggest that Hasbro expect D&D to remain #1 in the market.

And, nice, "psychotic support".  Let that edition warrior flag fly brother.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 27, 2015)

Hussar said:


> No, it didn't.  It expected WOTC to bring in 50 million dollars.  That doesn't necessarily mean being the number one RPG.  After all, had, say, the VTT taken off on Xbox as it was supposed to, it could very well have been that the subscriptions would have made WOTC much bigger than Paizo, despite Paizo selling more physical product.
> 
> There is no evidence to suggest that Hasbro expect D&D to remain #1 in the market.
> 
> And, nice, "psychotic support".  Let that edition warrior flag fly brother.




It didn't succeed at the $50M mark, either.

If it had remained #1, it might still be the dominant edition (and I'd not be playing a current D&D) despite not making $50M.
If it had made $50M, it might still be the dominant edition even if it hadn't remained #1 (but probably would have been).

Ryan Dancey has mentioned (in 2013) that there was an expectation of remaining #1 when 4E came out. Mearls has mentioned the $50M annual target. Either way, it's a failure from the corporate side.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 27, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> As far as I know it's not being converted to use with 5e, and that makes sense as it's not really a tool well-suited to a 5e style of rules and gaming.




Okay this line is a little confusing... why are a character builder and monster builder tool not well-suited to a 5e style of rules and gaming?


----------



## Imaro (Apr 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> The operating costs involve server and software maintenance. I would assume that is in the neighbourhood of $100,000 a year (a bit of salary, a bit of machinery), but maybe I'm underestimating. Computing is not my field.




What about the costs for the articles & art being published in Dungeon and Dragon... 

Honestly, your estimate of $100,000 seems low to me (I have experience with enterprise level business apps, so admittedly my view could be skewed towards the high side for an app like this)...but then again my original point was that we actually don't know any of this... I mean it's easy enough to just throw out numbers but what are the real basis for them? 



pemerton said:


> Whatever the startup costs were - and I personally have no idea, but would assume more than $1 million but fewer than $10 million - they were well and truly sunk by 2012.
> 
> I've indicated my back-of-the-envelope estimate for DDI revenues over the time of 5e's development. The startup costs don't affect those, do they?




When determining whether something was a success... I think start up costs would matter alot, not sure what them being "sunk" has to do with whether a project is successful or turns a profit.  

Just as an example, with numbers pulled out of the sky...If DDI cost a total of 30 million to get up and running... Until DDI earns above that 30 million you can't consider it to have made a profit?  If it never earns above that 30 million... you actually lost money on the project and it isn't actually funding anything directly.

It's like spending 30 million on a movie and then the movie only makes 10 million at the box office... it doesn't matter that the costs to create the movie are sunk... it's a flop and didn't turn a profit if it only made back 10 million.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 27, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Let that edition warrior flag fly brother.





Kettle...




Hussar said:


> Really?  In all your posts, you've never called 4e a failure?  Ever?  Never ever?  Somehow I find that hard to believe, but, it's true, stranger things have happened.
> 
> But, yes, of course 5e was funded by the rerelease of pdf's, because, obviously, nothing 4e could possibly make money in order to fund anything.
> 
> ...





Pot...


----------



## Wicht (Apr 27, 2015)

"You calling me a psychopath?.... I'll kill your whole family if you call me that!" MST3K: Werewolf (Yuri and Crow)

"I'm really sorry. You are clearly not a psychopath. My mistake." ibid. (Mike Nelson)

"I can't believe people call me a psycho, I'm gonna take those people's heads and carve em' into ashtrays." ibid. (Tom Servo)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Kettle...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, the irony here is pure.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 27, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Oh, the irony here is pure.




Still waiting for you to show me where in this thread I called 4e a failure...


----------



## bmfrosty (Apr 27, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Oh, the irony here is pure.



I play D&D.  It is fun.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 27, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Failure depends upon the criteria imposed...
> 
> When corporate explicitly expects being #1, and you come in #2, you have still failed, even if you make money, because the board is going to see the VP saying the team failed to meet expectations.
> 
> ...



Why should gamers use the corporate metric? What value does it bring to my table when deciding on games to run?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 27, 2015)

Halivar said:


> Why should gamers use the corporate metric? What value does it bring to my table when deciding on games to run?




It doesn't, at least not directly. However, it does seem to have had an impact on 4e's product line - so if you had been anticipating an upcoming 4e release when they started clearing the product list, that corporate metric and 4e's relationship to it may have left you disappointed. Moreover, history informs the decisions of the present. 5e's trajectory and support may be based on lessons learned from the 4e experience. Again, that may not directly affect your decisions, but it may have an impact on how satisfied you are with certain games you may choose to buy and play.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 27, 2015)

Imaro and Hussar,

You guys know better. Your continued protestations of non-partisanship and innocence, all while continuing a conflict, ring false.  Please stop it, or it will be stopped for you.

The rest of you,

Several of you are wandering into either edition warring or company-bashing territory.  If your goal here is really just to say bad things about a company or game, you probably want to stop now - that is not discussion in good faith, and leads to arguments, and that means we have to come down on you for it.  Please save us the trouble.

Clear enough, folks?  If not, please take it to e-mail or PM.  Thanks.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Okay this line is a little confusing... why are a character builder and monster builder tool not well-suited to a 5e style of rules and gaming?




Because the focus of 5e isn't on adding and subtracting bonuses, at least not nearly as much as 4e.  Instead you have a lot of advantage and disadvantage, and a lot of text adders like personality traits, and then even when you have numerical adders it's things like double proficiency rather than a straight +2.  Combined with the lack of a powers system and the uniformity of the aeud system, the emphasis on rulings over rules, the lack of emphasis on a grid, and it's just not well suited to 5e rules and gaming.  You'd just need to tweak too much to make it worth it.

Don't get me wrong, I think DDI was really great.  I know a lot of people say WOTC has never done a digital tool well, and DDI had a rocky roll-out, but by the end of 4e I thought DDI was a truly terrific set of tools that had been programmed well and was quite usable.  I felt I was getting my money's worth and then some out of it.

And I am not saying a digital tool couldn't be done for 5e (it could), I just think it would work better if done from scratch rather than as a patch on the DDI system.  I don't see the existing DDI as a good fit, as a basic platform, for this kind of rules set.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 27, 2015)

I agree with Mistwell.  The DDI software is old, it was designed to be used on Windows machines for 4e.  WotC tried to create a new version that was compatible across various platforms.  The was Dungeonscape, and unfortunately it fell through.  So they've had to start over.  But I have no doubt they will eventually release a subscription service for electronic tools.  Maybe they'll end up revising the old DDI set-up, or start from scratch with something completely new.  But despite 5e being out, and the 4e books being out of print, DDI is still up and running, still available from their webpage, and they expressed a willingness to keep it up as long as people are willing to subscribe.  That suggests to me that it's still bringing in a hefty chunk of change.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 27, 2015)

Halivar said:


> Why should gamers use the corporate metric? What value does it bring to my table when deciding on games to run?




Use them? No particular need. 
Be aware of them? the need is very real.

Because, when a game is owned by a major corporation, their evaluation determines continued availability of core rules. Being a fan of a number of OOP games, it's a bit of a pain for new players. Finding used copies gets harder and harder. If your players want copies, it makes a huge difference.

Some small press games remain in print for decades; others remain available from the publisher until a hurricane destroys the stocks in the designer/publisher's garage. Big names, however, not so much.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 27, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Because, when a game is owned by a major corporation, their evaluation determines continued availability of core rules. Being a fan of a number of OOP games, it's a bit of a pain for new players. Finding used copies gets harder and harder. If your players want copies, it makes a huge difference.
> 
> Some small press games remain in print for decades; others remain available from the publisher until a hurricane destroys the stocks in the designer/publisher's garage. Big names, however, not so much.



I'm not sure. Theoretically, yes, but not in practice, IMHXP. Aside from D&D Classics, I can run down to my local 2nd & Charles and get a hardcover of just about every book put out for either 4E or 3.x (though, not surprisingly, the Palladium section dwarfs them both).


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Okay this line is a little confusing... why are a character builder and monster builder tool not well-suited to a 5e style of rules and gaming?




My guess is because "feel" is hard to program in to computer builder tool.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 27, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> My guess is because "feel" is hard to program in to computer builder tool.




I understood, if not necessarily agreed with the other answers I got for this question... but not really getting this one... how does feel factor into creating characters (by the book) or monsters (by the book)...


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I understood, if not necessarily agreed with the other answers I got for this question... but not really getting this one... how does feel factor into creating characters (by the book) or monsters (by the book)...




Because, unlike say 4e, when you build monsters in 5e there is no set standard.  You ask yourself do I feel that this monster should be tougher, faster, bigger and then you adjust the stats to give the feel that you want.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 27, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Because, unlike say 4e, when you build monsters in 5e there is no set standard.  You ask yourself do I feel that this monster should be tougher, faster, bigger and then you adjust the stats to give the feel that you want.




I'm not sure that should be all that much harder to code. All you'd have to do is allow customization by DM input, that input is then used to calculate an estimated CR, and let the DM override that, if desired, with the CR he wants to apply for the final output.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 27, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Failure depends upon the criteria imposed...
> 
> When corporate explicitly expects being #1, and you come in #2, you have still failed, even if you make money, because the board is going to see the VP saying the team failed to meet expectations.
> 
> ...




To fail or succeed on a task, you must certainly define the task first. And, of course, there can be varying degrees of failure, and varying degrees of success. But I still think you are playing semantics with the word "failure". Or at best, you are a "glass-half-empty" kinda fellow and define something less than a total long-lasting success as a "failure".

You have exactly zero idea of what WotC's internal goals for D&D are, for any edition. You cannot say, and be taken seriously, that 4E failed WotC/Hasbro's expectations, because you do not know. If you did know, you would be one of those folks bound by a ND agreement (non-disclosure).

All of the information that we have gotten from various employees of WotC has told us that 4E was indeed a success. We don't know the specific criteria or sales goal that WotC might have had with 4E, but there have been many statements made letting us know that 4E did very well. Obviously, not well enough to prevent the edition wars and to continue as the current edition of D&D. But, by that metric, all prior editions of D&D are also failures.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 27, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Use them? No particular need.
> Be aware of them? the need is very real.




For fans of a certain game, let's say D&D , it is absolutely NOT essential that we be aware or educated on the business behind our favorite hobby. Having an INTEREST in that type of information is understandable, but is not necessary.

Obviously, a lot of us are interested and find this sort of discussion fascinating, and that's awesome. But there are plenty of D&D players (I'd say the majority) who could care less and their D&D games are not damaged by the lack of interest and knowledge of the business of D&D.

For it to matter, we would have to be able to DO something with the knowledge gleaned from tweets and message board posts. And we can do . . . nothing with this info. We can complain and kvetch all we want, we can even participate in marketing surveys and such, but we cannot affect the business side of D&D unless we actually got a job at WotC (and a managerial one at that). We can affect the rules and direction the game itself might go in IF WotC allows us to (which they have for 5E), but that's about it.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 27, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure that should be all that much harder to code. All you'd have to do is allow customization by DM input, that input is then used to calculate an estimated CR, and let the DM override that, if desired, with the CR he wants to apply for the final output.




Honestly I feel like this should have been a feature of a 4e monster builder as well... since alot of DM's like to house rule/mod.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2015)

Imaro said:


> When determining whether something was a success... I think start up costs would matter alot



Yes. But they are not relevant to determining what revenue might have financed a 2 year development period for 5e. (Unless the start-up money was borrowed, and the revenue was discharging a loan. That seems unlikely in this case.)



Imaro said:


> Honestly, your estimate of $100,000 seems low to me (I have experience with enterprise level business apps, so admittedly my view could be skewed towards the high side for an app like this)...but then again my original point was that we actually don't know any of this... I mean it's easy enough to just throw out numbers but what are the real basis for them?



Well, my basis was a half-time salary (call it in the neighbourhood of $50,000 to $75,000) plus some hardware outlay and electricity. These are all conjecture, especially (in my case) the latter two, which is why I invited correction from others.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 27, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Yes. But they are not relevant to determining what revenue might have financed a 2 year development period for 5e. (Unless the start-up money was borrowed, and the revenue was discharging a loan. That seems unlikely in this case.)





Okay let me turn this around for a minute... do you believe that none of the money from the boardgames, novels, MMOrpg's, videogames, comics, etc... went towards funding 5e?  If not I again think it's erroneous to make a statement along the lines of 4e financed 5e... because it didn't.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 27, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> You have exactly zero idea of what WotC's internal goals for D&D are, for any edition. You cannot say, and be taken seriously, that 4E failed WotC/Hasbro's expectations, because you do not know. If you did know, you would be one of those folks bound by a ND agreement (non-disclosure).




Wrong. Several wizards insiders have stated the various corporate goals. $50M and retention of the top slot in the industry have both been stated as goals of the D&D team for the 4E era by members of the development teams.


----------



## Dire Bare (Apr 28, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Wrong. Several wizards insiders have stated the various corporate goals. $50M and retention of the top slot in the industry have both been stated as goals of the D&D team for the 4E era by members of the development teams.




Sorry, but I still feel you're essentially making stuff up. I've heard the $50 mil bandied about . . . was that $50 per year? Per quarter? Per edition? And how close did 4E come to hitting that goal? Did it make it, did it fall short? By how much? YOU DON'T KNOW.

I've also heard the "D&D needs to be #1" also thrown around. Did WotC/Hasbro expect D&D to be #1 all 12 months of the year? Did WotC expect D&D to be #1 when they weren't really publishing any products? I have my own guesses, but YOU DON'T KNOW. And really, D&D was only NOT #1 when there was no edition being supported in the dry years between 4E and 5E. When 4E was in full swing, D&D was #1. Now that 5E is in full swing, D&D is #1 again.

There is NO evidence that WotC/Hasbro has ever considered 4E a failure. None. They might have! I doubt it personally, but WE DON'T KNOW. Mearls knows, but he won't tell us, neither should he.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 28, 2015)

If DnD made $50 million per year then it would *have* to be the number one RPG.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 28, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Huh? If WotC has decided that the way forward is not with 4e, and they are devoting their team to developing 5e, (i) why would they publish books for a system which they've decided won't make a commercially adequate return, and (ii) who would write them?



(i)Because that is how they did it for all editions. Work on 4e or at least the edition that came after 3.5 started in 2005. 3.5, an edition that WotC decided wasn't the way forward, was published until 2007, if I remember correctly. Not too shabby for an edition that might be losing money. (ii) 3.5 was written by its own designers (Plot twist! Not)! Althought at the very end folks from Paizo helped with some books, but not all. 

Of course, if 4e can't finance 5e's R&D and is just a lost, they will stop developing 4e. Which mean you argument that 4e financed the R&D of 5e is moot.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 28, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> If DnD made $50 million per year then it would *have* to be the number one RPG.




D&D the brand or the RPG? What I got from Ryan Dancey is that D&D the brand was supposed to make 50 millions dollars. Not just the RPG. And you know, Nathan Stewart told us D&D ain't an RPG anymore.

50 million dollars just from the RPG is unlikely. Since we know from ICv2 that the RPG industry was 15 millions dollars in 2013 (just from brick and mortar sells or also online sells that is not clear), it is doubtful the 50 millions came from just the RPG. Of course, in 2013 D&D wasn't in print at the time and the last edition was unpopular. 

At the end of 2014, ICv2 said the market of RPGs was getting steam. Just when D&D saw the light of day again. So that 15 million might just pick up steam. At least momentarely.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Okay let me turn this around for a minute... do you believe that none of the money from the boardgames, novels, MMOrpg's, videogames, comics, etc... went towards funding 5e?  If not I again think it's erroneous to make a statement along the lines of 4e financed 5e... because it didn't.



Of course that money helped. That's why I've invited conjecture upthread as to what the amounts might be - I've given what I think is a reasonable conjecture for DDI, for instance.



goldomark said:


> Of course, if 4e can't finance 5e's R&D and is just a lost, they will stop developing 4e. Which mean you argument that 4e financed the R&D of 5e is moot.



Seriously, this makes no sense. If you've decided to not publish for an edition, and have announced a two-year public playtest for a new edition, why would you devote design resources to publishing splatbooks for the edition you're abandoning?

DDI was generating revenue for the two years that 5e was in development. Upthread I've conjecture some income that suggests it might have covered the salaries of 15 employees. I don't know how big the 5e development team was; I don't know what the other revenues during that period were. Any rational and/or informed conjecture would be welcome.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 28, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> Sorry, but I still feel you're essentially making stuff up. I've heard the $50 mil bandied about . . . was that $50 per year? Per quarter? Per edition? And how close did 4E come to hitting that goal? Did it make it, did it fall short? By how much? YOU DON'T KNOW.
> 
> I've also heard the "D&D needs to be #1" also thrown around. Did WotC/Hasbro expect D&D to be #1 all 12 months of the year? Did WotC expect D&D to be #1 when they weren't really publishing any products? I have my own guesses, but YOU DON'T KNOW. And really, D&D was only NOT #1 when there was no edition being supported in the dry years between 4E and 5E. When 4E was in full swing, D&D was #1. Now that 5E is in full swing, D&D is #1 again.
> 
> There is NO evidence that WotC/Hasbro has ever considered 4E a failure. None. They might have! I doubt it personally, but WE DON'T KNOW. Mearls knows, but he won't tell us, neither should he.




Keep your head buried in the sand.... It's obvious you haven't been keeping up on things for years, why should you start now?

Mearls has outright stated that Corporate considered it to have been unsuccessful. Both right at the start of the 5E playtest, and again late in the playtest.


----------



## bmfrosty (Apr 28, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Keep your head buried in the sand.... It's obvious you haven't been keeping up on things for years, why should you start now?
> 
> Mearls has outright stated that Corporate considered it to have been unsuccessful. Both right at the start of the 5E playtest, and again late in the playtest.




Failure lack of success are two very different thing.


----------



## redrick (Apr 28, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Keep your head buried in the sand.... It's obvious you haven't been keeping up on things for years, why should you start now?
> 
> Mearls has outright stated that Corporate considered it to have been unsuccessful. Both right at the start of the 5E playtest, and again late in the playtest.




What's the goal here? What is it that's keeping this debate going? What is the point of demonstrating irrefutably that 4e was a failure?

I don't have a personal stake in the matter. Out of the editions of D&D that I played (B/X D&D, 2e, 4e and 5e), 4e was my least favorite, though it had its strengths and I can see why some would gravitate towards it. But what's the point of declaring that 4e was an abject failure? (As opposed to the several editions that preceded it, all of which were replaced.)


----------



## Relax (Apr 28, 2015)

redrick said:


> What's the goal here? What is it that's keeping this debate going? What is the point of demonstrating irrefutably that 4e was a failure?
> 
> I don't have a personal stake in the matter. Out of the editions of D&D that I played (B/X D&D, 2e, 4e and 5e), 4e was my least favorite, though it had its strengths and I can see why some would gravitate towards it. But what's the point of declaring that 4e was an abject failure? (As opposed to the several editions that preceded it, all of which were replaced.)



I think it may just be something about the nature of these discussion boards, the weird anonymity they provide, that make some (okay, a lot) of people oddly argumentative over things that really matter very little.

Whether 4e was a success or failure is largely up for debate because there are so many criteria by which something could be judged so.

4e isn't a bad game, and I can understand both its faithful followers and devout detractors as it really did go in a different direction than previous editions.

Ah, it's late, I'm going to bed...


----------



## mflayermonk (Apr 28, 2015)

In the baseball front office, we would walk around and as a mantra say "Pitching, Pitching, Pitching."  But we never had the arms and things didn't work out for us.

So, does WoTC have the people that can make "Story, Story, Story" happen?


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 28, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> For fans of a certain game, let's say D&D , it is absolutely NOT essential that we be aware or educated on the business behind our favorite hobby. Having an INTEREST in that type of information is understandable, but is not necessary.
> 
> Obviously, a lot of us are interested and find this sort of discussion fascinating, and that's awesome. But there are plenty of D&D players (I'd say the majority) who could care less and their D&D games are not damaged by the lack of interest and knowledge of the business of D&D.
> 
> For it to matter, we would have to be able to DO something with the knowledge gleaned from tweets and message board posts. And we can do . . . nothing with this info. We can complain and kvetch all we want, we can even participate in marketing surveys and such, but we cannot affect the business side of D&D unless we actually got a job at WotC (and a managerial one at that). We can affect the rules and direction the game itself might go in IF WotC allows us to (which they have for 5E), but that's about it.



You could have been a playtester to affect the game in a direct way, but you also have a wallet to to affect the game indirectly. Knowing the business decisions of a company has certainly affected my buy/don't buy decisions for other products, why not RPGs? A company's decisions may not affect your ability to play the game (assuming they are selling you a product and not a service), but they may affect the future products that come out, and if you like a game to be supported with product, this can be an issue. I know I don't like buying into something I don't think will last.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> D&D the brand or the RPG? What I got from Ryan Dancey is that D&D the brand was supposed to make 50 millions dollars. Not just the RPG. And you know, Nathan Stewart told us D&D ain't an RPG anymore.
> 
> 50 million dollars just from the RPG is unlikely. Since we know from ICv2 that the RPG industry was 15 millions dollars in 2013 (just from brick and mortar sells or also online sells that is not clear), it is doubtful the 50 millions came from just the RPG. Of course, in 2013 D&D wasn't in print at the time and the last edition was unpopular.
> 
> At the end of 2014, ICv2 said the market of RPGs was getting steam. Just when D&D saw the light of day again. So that 15 million might just pick up steam. At least momentarely.




That was part of 4e's problem. The movie rights were held by someone else. The digital tabletop project faltered. Were there any D&D video games (other than a stupid Facebook app) out there? Were there fiction books published in the numbers that appeared for other editions? 4e largely *was* the D&D brand. It pretty much *couldn't* make the core brand metric. That's one reason I hope Hasbro is treating 5e-era D&D differently. The fact that they're aggressively working on getting the movie right back suggests they are thinking a bit differently this time around - exactly how differently, we'll have to see.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 28, 2015)

redrick said:


> What's the goal here? What is it that's keeping this debate going? What is the point of demonstrating irrefutably that 4e was a failure?
> 
> I don't have a personal stake in the matter. Out of the editions of D&D that I played (B/X D&D, 2e, 4e and 5e), 4e was my least favorite, though it had its strengths and I can see why some would gravitate towards it. But what's the point of declaring that 4e was an abject failure? (As opposed to the several editions that preceded it, all of which were replaced.)




Who I'd really would love to see posting about this topic are the people who played and enjoyed 4E as a game but still consider 4E a failure (in either design or financial concerns)... and the people who didn't like 4E as a game and wouldn't play it, but also think it successfully achieved what it set out to do.

Because everyone else who comments always seem to be the people who think 4E was great and was a success, or the people who hated 4E, don't think it was "D&D", and was a complete failure of a game.  And in both cases their views cannot be taken completely objectively.

For me personally... I look at all four recent games (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder & 4E, of which I played three of them) and see success.  Both creatively *and* financially.  All four of these games were popular with a segment of the roleplaying populace, and they all brought new players and returning players to the game.  None of them were met with 100% satisfaction, but none of them were hated by all of the roleplaying population either.  And for the type of game they were trying to design, I can see what they were aiming for and believe they succeeded in their design goals for the most part.  And as far as financially, I consider being able to produce a product that allows you to pay your staff and keep the lights on so that you can then produce MORE product to be a success.  Because that then allows you to pay your staff again and keep the lights on again, so you can then produce more product again... and so on and so on.  That's what a company does.  And all of those games allowed WotC (and the D&D department) to do that.

With so many fans of all four of those different games, all of which kept the D&D department of Wizards of the Coast going and not being shut down... why anyone would consider any of them a "failure" is beyond me.  But obviously, their metrics for what they consider a success to be different than mine.  I'd just love it if the fact that the person HATED a particular game wasn't so prevalent in their overall claims of whether it was a "failure".


----------



## Halivar (Apr 28, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> For me personally... I look at all four recent games (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder & 4E, of which I played three of them) and see success.  Both creatively *and* financially.  All four of these games were popular with a segment of the roleplaying populace, and they all brought new players and returning players to the game.  None of them were met with 100% satisfaction, but none of them were hated by all of the roleplaying population either.  And for the type of game they were trying to design, I can see what they were aiming for and believe they succeeded in their design goals for the most part.  And as far as financially, I consider being able to produce a product that allows you to pay your staff and keep the lights on so that you can then produce MORE product to be a success.  Because that then allows you to pay your staff again and keep the lights on again, so you can then produce more product again... and so on and so on.  That's what a company does.  And all of those games allowed WotC (and the D&D department) to do that.



I played and enjoyed 4E. I believe ultimately, however, that it failed to serve me as a player, but it served WotC just fine. The goal (IMHO) was the pump out as much content as soon as possible for a quick cash-in. I mean, in half the lifespan of 3.x we got just as many books, covering just as many options. It was the glut of 3.x with the hose opened wide. Now maybe someone has better stats than me and can prove me wrong, but that is my impression from what I saw at the time.

I think 4E would have been more successful for me if the PHB1 and 2 and had been combined, and then no further player options released. I think the edition would have lasted longer, as well. BUT, that was not WotC's plan for the edition in any event. I am thankful for the new approach.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 28, 2015)

Nevermind...no point in furthering a series of meaningless arguments that are off topic.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 28, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> With so many fans of all four of those different games, all of which kept the D&D department of Wizards of the Coast going and not being shut down... why anyone would consider any of them a "failure" is beyond me.  But obviously, their metrics for what they consider a success to be different than mine.  I'd just love it if the fact that the person HATED a particular game wasn't so prevalent in their overall claims of whether it was a "failure".



I think it's because the crux of the issue has nothing to do with an objective measurement of success or failure.  What the underlying question is "Did the Edition War hasten the termination of 4e?"  Was 4e's termination the inevitable result of corporate decisions, or was the negative reception broad enough in base that the development was impacted by that reception?  Answering that question would give a "win" to one side or the other, which is why this question continues to be raised 7 years after 4e's release.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 28, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Who I'd really would love to see posting about this topic are the people who played and enjoyed 4E as a game but still consider 4E a failure (in either design or financial concerns)... and the people who didn't like 4E as a game and wouldn't play it, but also think it successfully achieved what it set out to do.
> 
> Because everyone else who comments always seem to be the people who think 4E was great and was a success, or the people who hated 4E, don't think it was "D&D", and was a complete failure of a game.  And in both cases their views cannot be taken completely objectively.
> 
> ...



I don't fit neatly into either of the categories you are referring to, but I'll comment anyway. While I do fall into the "4E was not D&D" bucket, to say that I hated it would be too strong. I was disappointed that they were no longer making 3.x products, since I loved that game. I looked at the PH while in a Barnes & Noble, and decided it wasn't what I was looking for, and put it down. If I was invited to play it, I'd probably try it, but it wasn't compelling enough to seek a group on my own.

As to whether it was a success? Financially, I think it was, merely by the fact that D&D is still a thing today. If 4E was an abject failure, I don't think Hasbro would have spent any money creating 5E, they would have sold it off or mothballed it. Creatively, I think it was successful too, if their goal was to create a game where balance reigned supreme. However, I think underestimated the backlash that would result from the slaughtering of so many sacred cows at once.

The design of 5E, being so melting pot-ish, suggests to me that 4E failed at something, though. 3E failed to retain the grognards, but they were relatively quiet. WotC turned off a lot more people at launch (due to the game itself, and their attitude toward legacy gamers), and further turned off a lot of people that actually liked the game with Essentials (I know at least one group that dropped 4E due to it). 5E is trying (and succeeding, from what I can tell) to bring them all back.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Apr 28, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Who I'd really would love to see posting about this topic are the people who played and enjoyed 4E as a game but still consider 4E a failure (in either design or financial concerns)... and the people who didn't like 4E as a game and wouldn't play it, but also think it successfully achieved what it set out to do.
> 
> Because everyone else who comments always seem to be the people who think 4E was great and was a success, or the people who hated 4E, don't think it was "D&D", and was a complete failure of a game.  And in both cases their views cannot be taken completely objectively.
> 
> snip.....



Ok I will give it a go. I really liked 4e and still do. Personally for me its major flaw is that at the table it provides so many options many players fall into options anxiety and dither endlessly over the optimal move. Now I liked it for the ease of DMing and I think that this was a desgn goal but in hindsight I think 4e was meant to be the online game. Played on a VTT with a lot of automation to remove the fiddly bits.
I think it was meant to mesh with Gleemax to provide a strong online experience and bring back players that no longer played due to time constraints or the fact that the old college gang were scattered to the four winds.
Therefore the strategy at conception (IMHO and all that) died when the plug was puled on the Gleemax servers and the failure to deliver the initial VTT. 
Everything after that was remedial action. That was the $50million bet.


----------



## Iosue (Apr 28, 2015)

The $50 million thing gets somewhat overblown.  Sure, the 4e pitch was a path to that, but I think it was fairly obvious fairly soon that it wasn't going to do that.  The Digital Initiative was a key part of the strategy, but from early on it was clear that it was not going to be as planned.  Not getting the $50 million didn't kill 4e; it just maintained the status quo for the game (while necessitating staffing cuts).

IMO, two things, somewhat related, led to 4e's replacement with 5e.  The first was 2014.  I think it can be assumed that something big was going to happen that year, be it a clear 4.5, or 5e.  The second was that, regardless of how well it was selling, they found that they were not getting the new players they wanted.  Mearls has mentioned how their starter sets always sold well, but they didn't see people moving on to the full game.  Essentials was one crack at this problem, and one that IMO strongly influenced 5e's approach to character class complexity.

The only thing Edition Wars influenced was how the transition was done, i.e., the open playtest.  Rather than have the designers design in an ivory tower and then be surprised by public reaction, they could get immediate feedback on their design choices.  And sure, doing a public playtest meant 4e going dark early.  But, as I suggested earlier they were only able to do that because DDI provided steady revenue.  Not because it literally paid for the D&D department's salaries and expenses, but because it let WotC/Hasbro leave the team to its own devices, secure that it was bringing in revenue, even if its only new products were limited edition premium reprints.


----------



## Larac (Apr 28, 2015)

I think 4e would still be strong today, if the VTT had been created and it worked just decently.

4e was built to push that and we all know what happened, 5e is paying for those sins still today.

Hasbro does not care about you one bit, only profit. No building the community, no making great stuff, just Profit.
If that makes profit they will do it, if not it is dropped by a person who gets paid to kill things off if the profit is not high enough, it can be making money but they have a % and if it falls under that it is axed.

Then they sit on the rights to have no competition.
They are far from the worst but they are what they are.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 28, 2015)

houser2112 said:


> As to whether it was a success? Financially, I think it was, merely by the fact that D&D is still a thing today. If 4E was an abject failure, I don't think Hasbro would have spent any money creating 5E, they would have sold it off or mothballed it. Creatively, I think it was successful too, if their goal was to create a game where balance reigned supreme. However, I think underestimated the backlash that would result from the slaughtering of so many sacred cows at once.




I think "underestimated the backlash" is a very fair and even-handed statement of point.  Yes, the changes wrought with the new edition did result in a backlash throughout a segment of the D&D populace, and the extent of the backlash was probably unforeseen (since in any creative endeavor you always think you are doing something really good and you just hope other people like it.)  But it also doesn't put any blame on them for not being able to see into the future, nor treat them like idiots or bad business people for trying to evolve the 3E game in a manner that it seemed many people were already playing it (minis and maps).  The fact that it did alienate a larger segment of the D&D populace than they probably expected is very unfortunate, and was a lesson that they had to learn the hard way.

But in the end... the lessons learned about game design with 4E I believe have made 5E a better game.  And for that, I'm very thankful.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 28, 2015)

ardoughter said:


> Ok I will give it a go. I really liked 4e and still do. Personally for me its major flaw is that at the table it provides so many options many players fall into options anxiety and dither endlessly over the optimal move. Now I liked it for the ease of DMing and I think that this was a desgn goal but in hindsight I think 4e was meant to be the online game. Played on a VTT with a lot of automation to remove the fiddly bits.
> I think it was meant to mesh with Gleemax to provide a strong online experience and bring back players that no longer played due to time constraints or the fact that the old college gang were scattered to the four winds.
> Therefore the strategy at conception (IMHO and all that) died when the plug was puled on the Gleemax servers and the failure to deliver the initial VTT.




I definitely agree that one of the strengths of the 4E design was the easier ability to port the game to the virtual tabletop, but I wouldn't wipe away the sales of the D&D pre-painted miniatures, poster maps, and Dungeon Tiles for use at the face-to-face table as inconsequential though.  I think the money that could be brought in from all four (minis, maps, tiles, VTT) all had a hand in spearheading 3E's miniatures evolution towards what 4E became.  But then losing one of those four so early in the game's lifespan probably did reduce the game's ceiling ultimately.  I think that's fair.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 28, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Seriously, this makes no sense.



You've said before that you refuse to see it. This is just a continuation of this.  



> If you've decided to not publish for an edition, and have announced a two-year public playtest for a new edition, why would you devote design resources to publishing splatbooks for the edition you're abandoning?



Why did Paizo continue to publish 3.5 compatible books when it was doing its playtest for 3.75 (Pathfinder)?

Simple answers are often the best: *drumroll* it was profitable. 



> DDI was generating revenue for the two years that 5e was in development.



Revenues sure, but profits? We do not know. Once DDI covered its cost, what was left? We do not know. Saying it financed 5e's R&D is just an unsubstantiated claim.  



> I don't know how big the 5e development team was; I don't know what the other revenues during that period were. Any rational and/or informed conjecture would be welcome.



What is rational conjecture is that 4e wasn't a success financially and this is why it was so short lived and D&D went on a 2 years hiatus. Developing 5e was a risk, a gamble taken by WotC, as Jeremy Crawford said. Because exects didn't see the brand as profitable and needed Mearls to convince them.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 28, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I definitely agree that one of the strengths of the 4E design was the easier ability to port the game to the virtual tabletop, but I wouldn't wipe away the sales of the D&D pre-painted miniatures, poster maps, and Dungeon Tiles for use at the face-to-face table as inconsequential though.  I think the money that could be brought in from all four (minis, maps, tiles, VTT) all had a hand in spearheading 3E's miniatures evolution towards what 4E became.  But then losing one of those four so early in the game's lifespan probably did reduce the game's ceiling ultimately.  I think that's fair.




If one had the digital tools, 4E was a brilliant game - but they flubbed the tools. It was a lesson learned the hard way by WotC.

The 4E Encounters also had a perception problem: tactical-play-only. (It wasn't supposed to be, but it ended up looking that way.) 

Both of which seem to have shaped 5E quite strongly. The Big Story emphasis across 3 games (NWN, Attack Wing, and D&D)... It's got a reason to buy new stuff without forcing new core purchases. It's a reaction to the corporate-side perception of failure for the D&D brand during the 4E era.

Remember: It's not just got to be profitable - it's got to be profitable enough. Apparently, since 5E's launch, D&D as a brand is doing so.


----------



## redrick (Apr 28, 2015)

I jumped back about 20 pages to see how this whole conversation started. Here is what I found. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] replied to a statement by [MENTION=6790888]HonorBoundSamurai632[/MENTION] about WoTC "punishing" consumers for supporting or not supporting a certain edition. He suggested that this line of thinking was akin to 4e players complaining about being punished by WoTC through the release of 5e. The statement of 4e "financing" the development of 5e was part of a throwaway statement _dismissing the argument that 4e fans were somehow entitled to something_, because they contributed to Wizards financially while Wizards went about developing a new, non-4e product. He wasn't building some grand thesis about the terrible injustice done to 4e fans by mean awful Wizards, who stole the 4e fans money and then spent it on a bunch of good-for-nothing grognards and 3e fans. He was saying, "that thesis is not valid!" (Or at least that was my takeaway. Correct me if I'm wrong here, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].)

 [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] then responded, demanding that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] properly cite his "claim" that 4e financed 5e. Which isn't even a claim that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] exactly made, but he seems to believe that it is reasonable to assume that 4e's revenue during the public playtest of 5e helped contribute to the bottom line of the D&D division at Wizards, and allowed that department to spend 2 years and millions of dollars investing in the next edition. I agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] — it is reasonable to assume that 4e's revenue (through DDI) was significant, and that the presence of some black on the ledgers could only have been a positive when the D&D department asked Wizards to pay for a lengthy and expensive public playtest. But he really is under no obligation to "prove" that to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] or anybody else. He presented it as conjecture, and isn't using it as evidence for any broader statement about the success or failure of 4e.

Why did I just waste the last 30 minutes of my life doing this little internet archival research?

Quotes below.



			
				HonorBoundSamurai632 said:
			
		

> it's not MY fault that sales started dropping off at the tail-end of 3.5 (some of those books felt like they weren't even playtested.) It's not my fault that 4th Edition didn't make Hasbro the kind of money Hasbro was hoping to see. It's not my fault that Pathfinder was such a success. Some of the things that WoTC is doing, it feels like I'm the one being punished for not supporting 4th like I did the previous editions to it.
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-D-amp-D-a-Tabletop-Game/page18#ixzz3YdEVoT9K






pemerton said:


> This makes no real sense to  me - it would be like 4e fans complainging that we are being "punished" although it was the sales of 4e books and DDI subscriptions than financed the development of 5e.
> 
> WotC is a commercial publisher and manager of intellectual property. They're not a charity. They don't owe duties to anyone to publish particular books about particular things. If they think a book is a good commercial prospect, they will publish it. Otherwise they won't. It has nothing to do with "fault" or "punishment".


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You've said before that you refuse to see it. This is just a continuation of this.
> 
> Why did Paizo continue to publish 3.5 compatible books when it was doing its playtest for 3.75 (Pathfinder)?
> 
> ...




You make assumptions left and right.  DId Paizo continue to make 3.5 stuff during that time for profits, or merely cash flow, or maybe just to keep employees working while they brought some money in to mitigate the loss? You don't know which it is, but you declare "profitable" to be fact with nothing to support it but your instincts.  Then you do the opposite with DDI - we don't know how profitable it was, so you imply no statement should be made one way or the other.  Really? That didn't stop you the sentence prior, concerning Paizo.  It just depends on what side you happen to be discussing in the moment, to determine which standard you will slide over to. 

So much of this seems to be based on your instincts.  So I think it's fair to ask (obviously you don't have to answer), what is your personal business experience that you're basing these declarations on?


----------



## redrick (Apr 28, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You've said before that you refuse to see it. This is just a continuation of this.
> 
> Why did Paizo continue to publish 3.5 compatible books when it was doing its playtest for 3.75 (Pathfinder)?
> 
> ...




These are different circumstances and not really comparable. Pathfinder was explicitly designed to be a logical extension of 3.5, with strong backward compatibility with that system. Any 3.5 material purchased could easily be converted to run in Pathfinder. 5e, by comparison, was expected to be very different from 4e, so folks are less likely to buy a product for a system that they don't plan to be using that much longer.

Also, how large was the _public_ playtest for Pathfinder? I don't know. Wizards not only started working on the next edition, but also started running their playtest at game stores as part of D&D organized play. They _wanted_ everybody, fans of 4e included, to start engaging with the new rules system. They also published and sold several adventures for D&D Next while it was still in development.

Now, as to profitability of 4e, well, we really just don't know. The presumed profitability of D&D 4e at the start of the public playtest for 5e isn't really an indicator on the profitability of 4e earlier on in its release cycle. Nor is it an indicator on the profitability of DDI, which didn't rely on new material to drive its revenues. (There is more than enough material coded into the DDI system to last any gaming group for quite some time, and the fact that it's still online is a testament to the fact that many gamers are still willing to pay a monthly subscription for it, long after any new content has been generated.)

Wizards might very well have decided that new books for 4th edition would not be profitable, or at least not profitable enough. They might have decided that the potential payoff of a new, massively popular 5th edition would be far bigger than the diminishing profits of splat books for 4e, and focused their energy on 5e to maximize those returns. If you have limited resources, you will invest those resources in whatever will generate the _most long-term profit,_ even if there are other places you could invest those resources that would generate modest short-term profit. All sorts of reasons could have gone into that decision. 4e being _unprofitable_ is just one possible explanation.

I can stay in my neighborhood and make $8 an hour at a local coffee shop. Or I can spend an hour on the train, making no money, in order to get to an office where I can make many times that. I could have stayed in Texas, making $12 an hour working small-time, but I chose to move to New York City, where I spent several months getting myself established, but ultimately make much more money.


----------



## Wicht (Apr 28, 2015)

redrick said:


> Also, how large was the _public_ playtest for Pathfinder? I don't know.




Since you asked, I braved the very bowels of the internet to uncover this dark, secret, known only to a select few, but, ironically enough, published in a wiki.

There were about 45,000 downloads of the playtest material, and the feedback portion of the playtest elicited over a 100,000 posts. Also, the entire print run of the hard-copies of the Beta rulebook completely sold out.


----------



## redrick (Apr 28, 2015)

Wicht said:


> Since you asked, I braved the very bowels of the internet to uncover this dark, secret, known only to a select few, but, ironically enough, published in a wiki.
> 
> There were about 45,000 downloads of the playtest material, and the feedback portion of the playtest elicited over a 100,000 posts. Also, the entire print run of the hard-copies of the Beta rulebook completely sold out.




Why thank you! I'm not a Pathfinder person and unfamiliar with those particular internet bowels, even if they happen to be published on an easily google-searchable wiki for all to see.

So that was definitely a large public playtest! In that respect, the Wizards and Pathfinder circumstances seem comparable. On the other hand, it still doesn't change the fact that Pathfinder was created with the intention of backwards compatibility with 3.5. Which makes it a little easier to sell somebody material for 3.5e while also engaging them in the beta for 3.75e.

Anyway, I really don't know that much about Pathfinder, or Paizo's business, or ultimately Wizards' business, so I'ma stop speculating beyond that.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Apr 28, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I definitely agree that one of the strengths of the 4E design was the easier ability to port the game to the virtual tabletop, but I wouldn't wipe away the sales of the D&D pre-painted miniatures, poster maps, and Dungeon Tiles for use at the face-to-face table as inconsequential though.  I think the money that could be brought in from all four (minis, maps, tiles, VTT) all had a hand in spearheading 3E's miniatures evolution towards what 4E became.  But then losing one of those four so early in the game's lifespan probably did reduce the game's ceiling ultimately.  I think that's fair.



Never said that they were inconequential but that the traditional market was not where they planned to really expand D&D. That the original plan was to massivly expand the game in the online area and that that 4e was built to show very favourably as an online game. that is my take of where they planned to go to make D&D a $50 million game.
Personally I think that hte idea had some merit but the execution on the software side was truely awful. The VTT was vapourware and Gleemax was an abomination.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2015)

redrick said:


> that was my takeaway. Correct me if I'm wrong here, pemerton.



No correction needed!



redrick said:


> he really is under no obligation to "prove" that to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] or anybody else. He presented it as conjecture, and isn't using it as evidence for any broader statement about the success or failure of 4e.



Yep. I've really not got anything to add on the issue of 4e's success/failure to this post I made on these boards over 4 years ago:



pemerton said:


> 4e resembles a game like The Dying Earth. I've never read the Vance stories, but feel that I could run a game of Dying Earth from the rulebook. It gives me the "vibe" and "meta-setting", plus tips on how to set up situations/scenarios that will exploit that vibe to produce a fun session.
> 
> My feeling is that 4e was written with the intention to be GMed in this sort of way. I say this because (i) it fits with the game's emphasis on the encounter - combat or non-combat as the basic unit of play; (ii) it fits with the obvious effort to create that default atmosphere, with the gods, race backgrounds and so on in the PHB and the little sidebars in the Power books; (iii) when you look at the original MM (with most of the campaign info located in skill check results), plus think about how skill challenges should play out (with the GM having to make calls about NPC responses, and other elements of the gameworld, on the fly in response to unpredictable player actions), and even look at the whole emphasis on "situations" rather than "world exploration" as the focus of play, the game seems intended to support "just in time" creation of world details, using "points of light" and the default atmosphere as a framework for doing this in; (iv) it fits with the absence of a developed setting.
> 
> ...



Was 4e a financial failure? I don't know, but it seems unlikely, given the RPG group were given a chance to have another go.

Was 4e a project failure, in the sense of not meeting its internal goals? Probably. Certainly, the digital stuff seems not to have realised its aspirations.

Was 4e a cultural failure? In one sense, yes - as per my self-quote, it did not bring the D&D community with it in the way that (presumably) WotC hoped. In another sense, obviously not - there is clearly now a large and flourishing culture of "indie"/"light narrativist" FRPGers, whether playing 4e, or DungeonWorld, or 13th Age, or other systems, and 4e undoubtedly helped build and reinforce that culture.



Mistwell said:


> I think it's fair to ask (obviously you don't have to answer), what is your personal business experience that you're basing these declarations on?



You didn't ask me, but it's probably fair for me to reply. I'm not a business person, I am an academic lawyer and philosopher. My knowledge of commercial matters draws on my teaching of various aspects of commercial law, and my personal and professional contacts with commercial lawyers. Upthread I've indicated the bases for my speculations: I've sketched out some conjectures for DDI revenue (based on likely number of subscribers plus monthly rates), and have equally said that I don't know much about the cost of maintaining a system like DDI.

Here, repeated, are my conjectures on revenue: over 2 years, I'll call it 50,000 subscribers for 18 months (I'm deliberately contracting the time period to allow for drop-offs in subscriptions towards the end of the period). And I'll call it $5 per month. (There is no DDI option that cheap, but I'm allowing for transaction costs.)

That makes it $4.5 million. Which is $2.25 million per year.

I then suggested this is enough to pay 15 employees, at salary + on-costs of $150,000 per year. Again,that is conjecture in relation to salary scale but doesn't seem too crazy (salaries of $100,000 plus 50% on-costs).

I don't know how big the D&D team was during the playtest. I also don't know what the revenue from boardgames and reprints was. And I don't know how much it costs to maintain DDI, though I've guessed around $100,000 per year for a part-time software person plus some hardware and power costs. If that's a crazy underestimate I'm happy to be corrected - it's just a guess on my part.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Who I'd really would love to see posting about this topic are the people who played and enjoyed 4E as a game but still consider 4E a failure (in either design or financial concerns)



I've reposted a four year old quote of mine above, in relation to 4e's popular uptake.

As for design issues, from the same post:



pemerton said:


> Unfortunately, though, the rulebooks don't do much to support GMing this sort of game. A contrast is provided by The Dying Earth rulebook, which does offer tools to help the GM with this sort of situation-based preparation and play.
> 
> For 4e, this is really provided by Worlds and Monsters. Good art, interesting stories, and (most importantly for a GM) good discussions of the way in which those stories have been designed to help make an interesting game. Big chunks of this book should have been incorporated into the 4e DMG, in place of (what are in my view) unnecessary or overlong parts of it like the tedious discussion of giving adventure locations personality and the random dungeon generation. If they had been, that would have gone some way - though not all the way - to helping GMs run games in the sort of fashion that the rulebooks seem to intend.



Other well-known design flaws in 4e, besides the gaps in its GMing advice, are:

* The differential scaling for attacks/defences vs skill/DCs, which makes it hard to integrate the two in action resolution, especially at Paragon tier and above;

* Adding to the above, the abstraction of skill challenge resolution can be hard to integrate with the concreteness of movement and positioning in combat resolution;

* PC building has needless fiddly bits (eg the use of stats and items in generating attack bonuses, some of the issues around defence scaling, etc; I gather that 4e Gamma World showed how a lot of this could be cleaned up);

* Related to the above, many feats are largely redundant and some powers could be improved too (eg building in scaling where feasible rather than having improved versions be completely new powers);

* The game could give explicit advice on integrating the rest cycle and the disease/condition track to help support lingering injuries, gritty exploration, etc.​
Those are probably the main, widely accepted flaws among those who play and enjoy the game.


----------



## fjw70 (Apr 29, 2015)

$100k in salary per EE? I doubt Mearls even makes that much. Most of those people are probably in $40-60k range.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 29, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I played and enjoyed 4E. I believe ultimately, however, that it failed to serve me as a player, but it served WotC just fine. The goal (IMHO) was the pump out as much content as soon as possible for a quick cash-in. I mean, in half the lifespan of 3.x we got just as many books, covering just as many options. It was the glut of 3.x with the hose opened wide. Now maybe someone has better stats than me and can prove me wrong, but that is my impression from what I saw at the time.
> 
> I think 4E would have been more successful for me if the PHB1 and 2 and had been combined, and then no further player options released. I think the edition would have lasted longer, as well. BUT, that was not WotC's plan for the edition in any event. I am thankful for the new approach.




Umm, you do realise that WOTC's release schedule during 4e was about half of that of 3e right?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 29, 2015)

redrick said:


> Why thank you! I'm not a Pathfinder person and unfamiliar with those particular internet bowels, even if they happen to be published on an easily google-searchable wiki for all to see.
> 
> So that was definitely a large public playtest! In that respect, the Wizards and Pathfinder circumstances seem comparable. On the other hand, it still doesn't change the fact that Pathfinder was created with the intention of backwards compatibility with 3.5. Which makes it a little easier to sell somebody material for 3.5e while also engaging them in the beta for 3.75e.
> 
> Anyway, I really don't know that much about Pathfinder, or Paizo's business, or ultimately Wizards' business, so I'ma stop speculating beyond that.




Well, that's a bit of a question isn't it?  WOTC's playtest numbers are considerably more than 45k individuals.  It's listed as 175 000 in the DMG.  There's a fair difference in scale.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Apr 29, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> $100k in salary per EE? I doubt Mearls even makes that much. Most of those people are probably in $40-60k range.




I doubt that. If that's how much he were making he couldn't even pay rent. Houses in the Seattle area all seem to be $600K and up. Apartments start at $1400+/month. At $40K you're on the ragged edge of disaster, here. Seattle is crazy expensive, and I hope Mearls is doing better than that.

What's your basis for estimating WotC salaries?


----------



## fjw70 (Apr 29, 2015)

emdw45 said:


> I doubt that. If that's how much he were making he couldn't even pay rent. Houses in the Seattle area all seem to be $600K and up. Apartments start at $1400+/month. At $40K you're on the ragged edge of disaster, here. Seattle is crazy expensive, and I hope Mearls is doing better than that.
> 
> What's your basis for estimating WotC salaries?




I remember a few years ago a job posting for a new designer and they were offering something like $40k. The top D&D guys are probably over the $40-60k but I would be surprised if many of them are nearly $100k. Maybe Mearls.

I also doubt any of them are buying $600k houses, unless their spouses have good paying jobs.

There just isn't a whole lotta money in RPGs.

I haven't studied the Seattle area compensation, but my work in compensations says that higher costs of living don't necessarily support higher wages, at least not proportionally so.


----------



## Halivar (Apr 29, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Umm, you do realise that WOTC's release schedule during 4e was about half of that of 3e right?



I don't believe that's correct. By my count, there were 70 full-crunch splats for 3.x and 59 for 4E.

EDIT: 56. I accidentally counted the two softcover design books and a character portfolio that doesn't properly count, I think.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 29, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I don't believe that's correct. By my count, there were 70 full-crunch splats for 3.x and 59 for 4E.
> 
> EDIT: 56. I accidentally counted the two softcover design books and a character portfolio that doesn't properly count, I think.




Ah.  I was counting products, not just splats.  So, things like Eberron books, and FRCS and that sort of thing.  That explains things.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 29, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> I haven't studied the Seattle area compensation, but my work in compensations says that higher costs of living don't necessarily support higher wages, at least not proportionally so.




In general they do.  If they didn't there would be no realistic way to sustain the higher cost of living.

Here are writer salaries in the Seattle area.


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 29, 2015)

Halivar said:


> I don't believe that's correct. By my count, there were 70 full-crunch splats for 3.x and 59 for 4E.
> 
> EDIT: 56. I accidentally counted the two softcover design books and a character portfolio that doesn't properly count, I think.




3.X 1999 to 2008 = 9 years. 70 products means 7.7 per year
4.X 2008 to 2013 = 5 years*. 56 products means 11.2 per year

Now, we all know that the products weren't evenly distributed, too. 2013 was pretty slow for 4E, and 2004 was a bit of a dry spell, as were late 2013 and early 2008.  And then the time just before the release of 2003's 3.5, 2010's 4E Essentials. So, roughly, 3.X had one per 6 weeks, skipping the Christmas vacation, and 4.x roughly 1 per month, again, no product over christmas.

Now, I wonder (but am too lazy to count) the adventures released commercially by  WotC during the editions as well.

We also know that, during 4E, Dungeon/Dragon was rolled into the DDI subscription... and was a large chunk of adventure support. I don't know if it also added rules content. 

4E's "perceived errors" are the core of Mearls' direction on the 5E project. (At least, that's a large part of his claims. I see no reason to challenge his credibility nor honesty.  Others here are nowhere near as charitable on that score.)


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> $100k in salary per EE? I doubt Mearls even makes that much. Most of those people are probably in $40-60k range.



I'm in another country (Australia) which has higher average wage than the US. And I was using round numbers to make the maths easier. If the salaries are lower, or the on-costs, then of course the number of salaries paid goes up. Which doesn't really undermine my basic conjecture.


----------



## fjw70 (Apr 29, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> In general they do.  If they didn't there would be no realistic way to sustain the higher cost of living.
> 
> Here are writer salaries in the Seattle area.




Many people in higher cost of living areas cant afford the same lifestyle as counterparts in lower cost of living areas. Your link says writers in Seattle have salaries 8% higher than the national average.  This link

http://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Washington-Seattle

Says the cost of living for Seattle is 24% higher than the national average. So the two aren't necessarily going to increase at the same rate.


----------



## fjw70 (Apr 29, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I'm in another country (Australia) which has higher average wage than the US. And I was using round numbers to make the maths easier. If the salaries are lower, or the on-costs, then of course the number of salaries paid goes up. Which doesn't really undermine my basic conjecture.




No, it doesn't undermine your point.


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 29, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> I remember a few years ago a job posting for a new designer and they were offering something like $40k. The top D&D guys are probably over the $40-60k but I would be surprised if many of them are nearly $100k. Maybe Mearls.
> 
> I also doubt any of them are buying $600k houses, unless their spouses have good paying jobs.
> 
> ...




Designer salaries at work are around 70-75k, sr manager $110-120k

Also, wotc is in Renton, south of Seattle and most likely employees live in Kent/Renton were rent is significantly lower: 1 bedroom start 900-1000 per month

Sources: glassdoor and zillow


----------



## Imaro (Apr 29, 2015)

Warbringer said:


> Designer salaries at work are around 70-75k, sr manager $110-120k
> 
> Also, wotc is in Renton, south of Seattle and most likely employees live in Kent/Renton were rent is significantly lower: 1 bedroom start 900-1000 per month
> 
> Sources: glassdoor and zillow




Yeah this is why I was saying @_*pemerton*_'s  estimates might have been low... Outside of the costs for regular contributors to Dungeon/Dragon, plus their in-house writers/developers...I was also thinking about the programming/database aspects of DDI, the requisite testing, plus the fact that it had semi-regular updates to the data and bug fixes which implies that an operations team was also hired/kept on once the initiative team for creating the app got it to an acceptable level of functionality and stability... I also wonder how much money was lost on Gleemax and if this was from the same budget as DDI...


----------



## Halivar (Apr 29, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ah.  I was counting products, not just splats.  So, things like Eberron books, and FRCS and that sort of thing.  That explains things.



Yeah, I suspect campaign setting, fluff, and adventures made the actual printed products under 3.x greater by far than 4E (though I haven't looked at the numbers). My original argument was that the crunch glut ramped up faster in 4E than 3E, with the further conjecture that the goal was a quick cash-in on player-oriented products.


----------



## fjw70 (Apr 29, 2015)

O







Warbringer said:


> Designer salaries at work are around 70-75k, sr manager $110-120k
> 
> Also, wotc is in Renton, south of Seattle and most likely employees live in Kent/Renton were rent is significantly lower: 1 bedroom start 900-1000 per month
> 
> Sources: glassdoor and zillow




Designers designing what? What level designer? I have data that says graphic designers in Seattle average $55k (senior ones around $70k).  

Obviously none of us can be sure what they make. The only semi-hard data was the advert for the entry designer at $40k around 7 years ago. But with talented freelancers that would love to work for Paizo or Wizards those employees don't have a lot of leverage to demand top salaries.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 29, 2015)

fjw70 said:


> O
> 
> Designers designing what? What level designer? I have data that says graphic designers in Seattle average $55k (senior ones around $70k).
> 
> Obviously none of us can be sure what they make. The only semi-hard data was the advert for the entry designer at $40k around 7 years ago. But with talented freelancers that would love to work for Paizo or Wizards those employees don't have a lot of leverage to demand top salaries.




Well I was more concerned with the actual coding...as in developers, but googling average salary of web designers in Seattle does come back with $71,000.  Average salary of a web developer in Seattle is $84,000 and a .Net developer is $94,000... 

Of coursed were still not considering managers, testers, DBA's, analysts, etc. and this is all outside of those who actually have to develop, design, etc. the books with the content to be utilized by DDI.

EDIT: I guess the biggest issue in guesstimating this stuff is that we don't know the team size, roles, etc...


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 29, 2015)

What is the point of this salary discussion? I seem to have lost that in the midst of the conversation.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 29, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> What is the point of this salary discussion? I seem to have lost that in the midst of the conversation.




I think we're trying to guesstimate the costs for getting DDI up and then running it... but like most of this stuff it's no way to pin down hard numbers...


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 29, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I think we're trying to guesstimate the costs for getting DDI up and then running it... but like most of this stuff it's no way to pin down hard numbers...




Oh.  Well, the estimate is going to be plus or minus a million probably, so I am not sure how dickering over $10K here and there is really going to help much achieve that estimate.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 29, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Oh.  Well, the estimate is going to be plus or minus a million probably, so I am not sure how dickering over $10K here and there is really going to help much achieve that estimate.




Honestly I'm not sure how we can get that estimate period... but hey everyone else is throwing out numbers and conjecture, so why not join in??


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 29, 2015)

Imaro said:


> I think we're trying to guesstimate the costs for getting DDI up and then running it... but like most of this stuff it's no way to pin down hard numbers...




Looking at what's at glassdoor, wizards salaries run $65K to $117K (directors). A strong benefits package and overhead costs generally runs 30% of base salary (according to several CPA's I know, and some published overhead figures from the State of Alaska Dept of Commerce). So, costs to company around $85K to $152K per person. With only the top 4 being in the $152K slots...and most of the employees being paid around $75K, so costing around $100K.

It's safe to call the costs about $100K per person per year. The team was 8-10 strong during the playtest, but add 2 directors. So, estimate high, and call the dev costs about $1.1M per year.

We know that DDI brought in $10 per subscriber... 
And Merric comes up with some minimums of 56K people subscribing in 2011... here - enworld thread
Assume only 97.5% due to CC handling... (1.5% to 2.5% is typical)

So, presuming it held true, that's $0.5M per month in. Single server op costs can be as low as $0.1K per month (I administer a large BBS; out rented server is $100/month, but that seems a particularly good deal, and supports a lower hits per month), but given the volume needed, probably on the order of $1K per month. Content creation adds costs, too.  But it's a fairly safe bet that they're clearing $0.2M per month  in 2011... however, it does drop off during the playtest, as content creation slows, then stops. And given that they have four $75K salaries listed at glassdoor for software engineers and developers, that's about $40K per month in expenses there. 

Did it support 5E development? The math says "maybe, at first" - but with the caveat that we have no access to internal budgets, so we don't know what pool they came from. Still, if we assume about 1/10th as many subscribers near the end, it's breaking even.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 29, 2015)

redrick said:


> Now, as to profitability of 4e, well, we really just don't know. The presumed profitability of D&D 4e at the start of the public playtest for 5e isn't really an indicator on the profitability of 4e earlier on in its release cycle.



I didn't mention 4e's profitability. I said it wasn't a financial success. Those are different. 

What we do know is that it wasn't a financial success. The first evidence comes from Ryan Dancey and the 50 million$ target that D&D didn't manage to reach. The second is market share loss. The rise of Pathfinder, the decline in ICv2's rankings, Mearls saying they didn't mean to lose half their fans, Monte Cook saying D&D only has a third of its base, Essentials, the fiddling with the release schedule of 2011 and finally 4e's cancellation are all indicators of that loss. The two year hiatus could fit in there too. Lack or loss of profits would also contribute to it not being a financial success, but we do not know anything about that a side from some people's wishful thinking.

We have no idea if 4e turned a profit and turning a profit doesn't mean that is a profit that is interesting. It is relative to whom you're dealing with. For a 3PP making 50,000$ could be pretty awesome. For WotC/Hasbro, 50,000$ seems low and not worth it, but hey how knows right? 



> Nor is it an indicator on the profitability of DDI, which didn't rely on new material to drive its revenues. (There is more than enough material coded into the DDI system to last any gaming group for quite some time, and the fact that it's still online is a testament to the fact that many gamers are still willing to pay a monthly subscription for it, long after any new content has been generated.)



What we can deduce from DDI is that it covers it maintenance cost, cause it wouldn't be up if it didn't. WotC ain't a charity. We can assume some profitability, since just maintaining it for the sake of it doesn't make much sense. But how profitable and where those profits go we have no idea and to say that it financed the playtest is pure speculation. 

We do not know how Hasbro, WotC and D&D are structured financially. Where does the revenues of DDI go? Does it help pay the salary of Jen from legal at WotC or only those who directly work on 5e? Does WotC has  a policy of getting revenues so? Big corporation can be very complexe, and saying revenues just go into paying salaries of employees is over simplifying. Even if it were that simple, we have no idea how many employees DDI could cover.  

Heck, we have no idea if they actually wanted to release a new edition in 2014. For all that we know, the first playtests were just market research. Exects might have said "if you get X number of people to respond to the first three playtests, we'll finance the rest of the R&D and launch of 5e". From Crawford's comment about how they had to convince exects and give them frenquent reports, that seems plausible.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 29, 2015)

Imaro said:


> Honestly I'm not sure how we can get that estimate period... but hey everyone else is throwing out numbers and conjecture, so why not join in??




Sure!

I strongly suspect a crack team of adventurers was gathered, a worm hole to an alternative Earth was opened, the adventurers leaped through the portal, stole the code from alternate earth's Wizards of SeaTac headquarters (where they had already developed the system using an alternate form of credits that has no good translation to dollars) and re-opened the portal to leap back to our earth.  They then uploaded the stolen data, and spent a small sum learning how to use it and tweak it to fit our earths needs.  

So DDI was practically free! But, Mike Mearls was shot in the process.  He lived, but was pissed.  So as a reward, they put him in charge of 5e.

That's my conjecture.


----------



## Imaro (Apr 29, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Sure!
> 
> I strongly suspect a crack team of adventurers was gathered, a worm hole to an alternative Earth was opened, the adventurers leaped through the portal, stole the code from alternate earth's Wizards of SeaTac headquarters (where they had already developed the system using an alternate form of credits that has no good translation to dollars) and re-opened the portal to leap back to our earth.  They then uploaded the stolen data, and spent a small sum learning how to use it and tweak it to fit our earths needs.
> 
> ...




But... there's no numbers, I said *numbers* and conjecture you've got the one down but not the other.


----------



## Mistwell (Apr 29, 2015)

Imaro said:


> But... there's no numbers, I said *numbers* and conjecture you've got the one down but not the other.




Wizards of SeaTac spent 18,346.59 Kunukoole credits.


----------



## TBeholder (Nov 28, 2016)

Morrus said:


> > We are story, story, story. The story drives everything.



 Thanks for linking this. Nothing unexpected, but it does confirm a lot.

Yes, it's very noticeable.
The current approach is that The Big Thing Of The Month drops in the middle and everything is about it. Giant, dragons, copycats, whatnot.
If you don't visit Candlekeep, FR fans have a term for this, for at least two edition now: "Realms Shaking Event". And most despised RSE even before RSE was adapted as a form of marketing milking maneuver. Surprise, surprise - people don't like when someone takes them for dumb sheep and tries to fleece, nor when someone tries to squeeze money for trying to bury what they like under trash.


Morrus said:


> As for settings, he confirms that "we’re going to stay in the Forgotten Realms for the foreseeable future." That'll disappoint some folks, I'm sure, but it is their biggest setting, commercially.



 I am calling chicken-and-egg here. If they don't sell anything else, why anyone would buy anything else?
Drizzt? That one is dead by now. Or maybe undead. Either way, they poisoned this cash cow too, and artificially kept it alive for years. Salvatore himself was clearly tired of it long ago, and the fans are moving on. If they expect Twilight crowd to run in, this doesn't seem to happen.
Old FR fans? Yeah, sure, we are going to jump on it. Like we jumped on "OMG GLOWING TATTOOS" in 4e.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 28, 2016)

_Animate thread_: Cast! 

But actually, this is a good one to revive. How does it look (aside from the fungus and the rot and the groan of "BRRRRAAAAIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSS") after a year and a half?

Sword Coast Legends is... uh... not a feather in WotC's cap any more (more of a big ol' splotch of tar), and there has been no triple-A computer RPG. The missing piece remains missing. The movie is still in the works, and it'll come out eventually, and I'm sure it'll be every bit as good as you'd expect a movie scripted by the "Wrath of the Titans" author to be. The big tie-in push has yet to bear fruit.

As for the game itself, they have stuck with their "two stories a year" plan, but they seem to have woken up to the fact that we homebrewers were not getting much out of that plan; hence Volo's and the upcoming book-that-ABSOLUTELY-IS-NOT-a-Player's-Handbook-2.

All in all, I'd say Stewart's interview doesn't come off very well today. Yes, 5E was a tremendous smashing success, but not because of the brand or the stories or the tie-ins. It was a success because they built a damn good game. Now they are faced with the same challenge as every edition before them: How do you keep selling books once everyone has the new PHB? And they are quietly edging back toward the one solution that works: Splatbooks.

To be clear, I don't think this is a bad thing. D&D no longer has to support close to 100 full-time employees (more like 15-20), so they can afford to focus on quality. They could do, say, two adventure arcs, one player book, and one DM/monster book a year, well into the 2020s, and release 6E after a solid run of 12-15 years.

But the course 5E is following does not look much like the vision Stewart had for it.


----------



## gyor (Nov 28, 2016)

"the upcoming book-that-ABSOLUTELY-IS-NOT-a-Player's-Handbook-2"

 The above made me laugh.


 Honestly all all I want now is a FRCG with the deities and details they left out of the SCAG ( to be fair my issue with the SCAG is that it wasn't the FRCG which should have come out first).

 Outside of FRCG I don't care what they produce, odds are I'm not interested any of it until I get a FRCG, I have my +1 if I decide to do my AL character that I had planned, so I don't really need anything else, except FRCG. Honestly it needs only a list of deity domains for gods like Lurue, Mulhorandi Pantheon (including Sharess), Nobian, Zehir, Dragon Pantheon, ect...

 Like seriously we don't even have something as a full detailed map of the whole Faerun!

 So I'm kind of getting frustrated. I don't give fig about any other D&D books until they do a FRCG and full proper map of Faerun.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 28, 2016)

Dausuul said:


> _Animate thread_: Cast!
> 
> But actually, this is a good one to revive. How does it look (aside from the fungus and the rot and the groan of "BRRRRAAAAIIIIIINNNNNNSSSSS") after a year and a half?
> 
> ...




I disagree. Despite the interview in the OP being over a year old, I think it holds up rather well to explain WotC's approach to 5th Edition D&D. You may not like it, but it's working just fine for them.

No "AAA" video game title yet? True. But making a video game "hit" is harder than most armchair quarterbacks in the fandom would like to believe. And just because we haven't seen a blockbuster title announced, doesn't mean it isn't in the works. And both "Neverwinter" and "Sword Coast Legends" have active player bases that are keeping both games alive, and making money.

No movie yet? Well, just like video games, making good movies takes time. Especially when the licensing rights are tied up and in dispute between companies. But again, this is very much still on the agenda. And don't judge a movie by it's scriptwriter, as the shooting script often varies widely from the initial draft (and has many hands polishing it). Ultimately, while there are many factors that make a movie "good", the director is the "controlling artist" on a film. Last news I heard is that Rob Letterman is attached to direct (although, I haven't seen any confirmation), but he might not get you all that excited either. He's mostly known for just-above-average animated movies so far. Unfortunately D&D is not the kind of property (yet!) that can attract more A-list directors.

Without that blockbuster film and AAA video game title out in the wilds yet, that doesn't change anything about WotC's management of D&D. They know that there is more money (potentially) in movies and video games than there is in tabletop RPGs, and so they are smartly focusing effort there. Thankfully, they are doing so without neglecting the game itself.

Without that eye on movies and video games, would WotC be pursuing a similar release schedule as they are now? IMO, yes, they would be. The slower release schedule, with a focus on story over crunch, has been working very well for them so far, just for the game itself. And there really hasn't been any communication from WotC that they are changing their overall plan, although I'm sure they have been adjusting things as they go along (note how the support for each adventure path has been different). They may be working on what some are calling the "Big Book of Crunch", but they remain adamant they aren't doing a "Player's Handbook 2" and we don't really know what format this future release might take. Will it be connected to story? Even if it isn't, if it is independent of any ongoing story arcs, it's hardly a radical departure and doesn't really go against what WotC's been telling us over the past few years.

TLDR; Crowing about WotC coming to their senses and moving away from the slow release and focus on story is more than a bit premature.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 28, 2016)

gyor said:


> Honestly all all I want now is a FRCG with the deities and details they left out of the SCAG ( to be fair my issue with the SCAG is that it wasn't the FRCG which should have come out first).
> 
> Outside of FRCG I don't care what they produce, odds are I'm not interested any of it until I get a FRCG, I have my +1 if I decide to do my AL character that I had planned, so I don't really need anything else, except FRCG. Honestly it needs only a list of deity domains for gods like Lurue, Mulhorandi Pantheon (including Sharess), Nobian, Zehir, Dragon Pantheon, ect...
> 
> ...




Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Nov 28, 2016)

I am much more interested in episodic sandbox adventures than long drawn out adventure paths. This "story, story, story" (.... someone else's story) approach by Wotc only turns me off 5e more.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 28, 2016)

gyor said:


> "the upcoming book-that-ABSOLUTELY-IS-NOT-a-Player's-Handbook-2"
> 
> The above made me laugh.
> 
> ...




I'm  the exact opposite. That's the very last book I want.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 28, 2016)

Dausuul said:


> As for the game itself, they have stuck with their "two stories a year" plan, but they seem to have woken up to the fact that we homebrewers were not getting much out of that plan; hence Volo's and the upcoming book-that-ABSOLUTELY-IS-NOT-a-Player's-Handbook-2.



I don't think their plan changed or they're increasing their rate of book releases. They've done one book that is not an adventure each year: _Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide_, _Volo's Guide to Monsters_, and whatever mechanical expansion they're doing for 2017. 



Dausuul said:


> All in all, I'd say Stewart's interview doesn't come off very well today. Yes, 5E was a tremendous smashing success, but not because of the brand or the stories or the tie-ins. It was a success because they built a damn good game. Now they are faced with the same challenge as every edition before them: How do you keep selling books once everyone has the new PHB? And they are quietly edging back toward the one solution that works: Splatbooks.



Planning one accessory that includes subclasses doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a 3e era splatbook. It could be 1/2 subclasses and 1/2 something else entirely, like SCAG is subclasses and world guide and VGtM is monster lore, monsters, and PC races. 
And it certainly doesn't mean they're planning more after. At Gamehole Con, less than a month ago, Mearls reiterated that he wanted fewer new classes and class options and that races were going to be how they added new options. 
We may only get 4-6 new options for each class. That's like 4 pages per class. Keep in mind that all four class we've seen so far take up all of twelve pages. All the classes will fill 36 pages. Doubling that number is only 72 pages. A third of a 256-page book....


----------



## dropbear8mybaby (Nov 28, 2016)

Chimpy said:


> I'm pretty pleased with the direction D&D is going at the moment. I would like to see some shorter adventures published though, preferably tying into the bigger story arcs.



This used to be the domain of Dungeon magazine. That role is now being filled by Adventurer's League and the DM's Guild. Lower quality (especially for the price of the AL modules), IMO, but readily available.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 28, 2016)

Jester David said:


> I don't think their plan changed or they're increasing their rate of book releases. They've done one book that is not an adventure each year: _Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide_, _Volo's Guide to Monsters_, and whatever mechanical expansion they're doing for 2017.
> 
> 
> Planning one accessory that includes subclasses doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a 3e era splatbook. It could be 1/2 subclasses and 1/2 something else entirely, like SCAG is subclasses and world guide and VGtM is monster lore, monsters, and PC races.
> ...





Yeah, between what they are doing in UA now, and have done previously, and several new classes...probably not much past 50 pages.

Not sure still why people are so confident that the movie will fail; Warner Bros. is throwing major resources at this, could go either way, easy.


----------



## Uchawi (Nov 28, 2016)

I believe they can maintain the pace of 2 adventures, supplements, or whatever else you call it per year as long as there is not major competition. If there is a new breakout RPG and players want something new, then progress forward will diminish or stop. At that point they will have to decide if investing in more rules, etc. is worth it. I believe that is the biggest change in reference to the current version of D&D, versus predecessors, i.e. the lack of competition or something new to draw players away. Regardless, story is always important.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 29, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Not sure still why people are so confident that the movie will fail; Warner Bros. is throwing major resources at this, could go either way, easy.



Because it failed the last time they tried a theatrical release. 
But... you could say the same thing about, oh, _Lemony Snickey's A Series of Unfortunate Events_ or _The Golden Compass_/ _His Dark Materials_, _Daredevil_, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ and a myriad other properties that produced a terrible first adaptation. 

(Ironically, of the ones I grabbed, looking back they're all now TV series...) 

Anyhoo... WB wants another franchise so bad they can taste it. They'll want to throw money at it, like Harry Potter. I thought for sure _Fantastic Beasts_ would fail as well, but that seems to be doing very well. Because they're a film studio company that wants another hit franchise they can control to compete with Disney.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 29, 2016)

Jester David said:


> Because it failed the last time they tried a theatrical release.
> But... you could say the same thing about, oh, _Lemony Snickey's A Series of Unfortunate Events_ or _The Golden Compass_/ _His Dark Materials_, _Daredevil_, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ and a myriad other properties that produced a terrible first adaptation.
> 
> (Ironically, of the ones I grabbed, looking back they're all now TV series...)
> ...





Good point about Fantastic Beasts; between Harry Potter and Tolkien flicks, Warner Bros is the premiere fantasy film studio: institutional knowledge there.  The film-makers have been involved in an array of movies, some bad, some good, some fantastic: but at any rate, they are experienced professionals.  Way too early to say where this will go, but I am intrigues.


----------



## Lanliss (Nov 29, 2016)

Jester David said:


> Because it failed the last time they tried a theatrical release.
> But... you could say the same thing about, oh, _Lemony Snickey's A Series of Unfortunate Events_ or _The Golden Compass_/ _His Dark Materials_, _Daredevil_, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ and a myriad other properties that produced a terrible first adaptation.
> 
> (Ironically, of the ones I grabbed, looking back they're all now TV series...)
> ...




Wait, golden compass got a tv series? When, and how did I not know?

EDIT: Never mind, I looked it up. Mildly disappointed I cannot watch it immediately.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 29, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Good point about Fantastic Beasts; between Harry Potter and Tolkien flicks, Warner Bros is the premiere fantasy film studio: institutional knowledge there.  The film-makers have been involved in an array of movies, some bad, some good, some fantastic: but at any rate, they are experienced professionals.  Way too early to say where this will go, but I am intrigues.



Exactly. 
There's a lot of people with superhero fatigue. I'm not one, but do think some diversity among franchises would be nice. Rather than lots of DC Universe movies, Warner Brothers could have fewer of those and more fantasy and Potter. Which leaves Marvel more room as well. Everyone wins. 

Really, if the WB could have regular new Tolkien films, they would. They'd love that. But they can't, and Christopher Tolkien ain't giving them the rights to the Silmarillion anytime soon.  (Until he dies anyway, and the WB backs up a dump truck full of money to the next literary executor.)
In the meantime, a D&D franchise is just as good. They can make as many of then as they want for as long as they want.



Lanliss said:


> Wait, golden compass got a tv series? When, and how did I not know?
> 
> EDIT: Never mind, I looked it up. Mildly disappointed I cannot watch it immediately.



Sorry I got your hopes up.
But it's coming!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 29, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Read it through the filter of the High Church of Marketing (he is, after all, the Brand Manager), and the meaning is clearer: _D&D_ isn't a tabletop game, it's a brand. The tabletop game is one expression of that brand - it's "spiritual core," in the interview. But the tabletop game isn't all of D&D - that would imply that people who play the D&D videogames or who enjoy a D&D movie or a D&D TV show aren't "part of D&D," and they would be, when you look at the world through Brand-colored glasses, because they're spending money on D&D things.
> 
> I do like that he mentioned that he wants digital tools to help enhance the tabletop experience, that was an interesting statement. And from the biz perspective, "the best launch we've ever had" speaks pretty highly of 5e's success.
> 
> But Nathan Stewart is a brand dude, so he'll see the thing through those glasses. Those are the glasses he is paid to wear.



He is 100% right, so that helps. It's also more than a brand, though, and I think that is what he actually was saying. 

DnD is a cultural icon. Has been for most of it's life, but these days more so than ever before. 

Its not "brand colored glasses", it's just the plain truth. 

People who play DnD video games *are* part of DnD. Just as much as people who only play the ttrpg. And people who love the DnD novels. And if there springs up a DnD movie or tv show fandom someday, they will be just as much part of DnD, as well.


----------



## guachi (Nov 29, 2016)

I find the "story, story, story" push depressing. It's probably why I've purchased zero of the big adventures for 5e.

It's like I'm just playing a computer game where the entire story and conclusion have been pre-chosen by someone else.

And also because i find a big hardback to be a poor choice of format to run an adventure from as a DM.

Also, also - I really hate the Forgotten Realms. So much "lore" it makes me feel like I'm not playing in a world where the PCs are primary. I care not a whit for anything that's happened in the Realms and any of the explanations for why stuff has changed to fit the rules.

It's an RPG not some poorly written comic. I always thought there should be a separation between what happened in the books and what happened in the setting itself. That the books should be an example of the adventures you could have yourself and not that the events and characters, like Drizzt, actually exist.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 29, 2016)

Jester David said:


> Because it failed the last time they tried a theatrical release.
> But... you could say the same thing about, oh, _Lemony Snickey's A Series of Unfortunate Events_ or _The Golden Compass_/ _His Dark Materials_, _Daredevil_, _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ and a myriad other properties that produced a terrible first adaptation.
> 
> (Ironically, of the ones I grabbed, looking back they're all now TV series...) .



To be perfectly honest, I think D&D would work a *lot* better as a TV series than as a movie. The basic format of D&D is episodic: a campaign made up of multiple adventures. You also want an adventuring party, which means an ensemble cast, and that works better on TV where you can focus on different characters in different episodes.

Also, they should get John Rogers to run it.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 29, 2016)

Jester David said:


> Exactly.
> There's a lot of people with superhero fatigue. I'm not one, but do think some diversity among franchises would be nice. Rather than lots of DC Universe movies, Warner Brothers could have fewer of those and more fantasy and Potter. Which leaves Marvel more room as well. Everyone wins.
> 
> Really, if the WB could have regular new Tolkien films, they would. They'd love that. But they can't, and Christopher Tolkien ain't giving them the rights to the Silmarillion anytime soon.  (Until he dies anyway, and the WB backs up a dump truck full of money to the next literary executor.)
> ...





D&D is kind of ideal to continue what they were doing in the LotR franchise: battles, monsters, magic, etc. Buy no literary legacy to be concerned about, go hogwild, and nigh infinite story possibilities.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 29, 2016)

Staffan said:


> To be perfectly honest, I think D&D would work a *lot* better as a TV series than as a movie. The basic format of D&D is episodic: a campaign made up of multiple adventures. You also want an adventuring party, which means an ensemble cast, and that works better on TV where you can focus on different characters in different episodes.
> 
> Also, they should get John Rogers to run it.





Dollars to donuts we will get a D&D cartoon: I want to see something like the Jason Thompson dungeon walkthrough map comics, but maybe I'm just crazy.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 29, 2016)

Uchawi said:


> I believe they can maintain the pace of 2 adventures, supplements, or whatever else you call it per year as long as there is not major competition. If there is a new breakout RPG and players want something new, then progress forward will diminish or stop. At that point they will have to decide if investing in more rules, etc. is worth it. I believe that is the biggest change in reference to the current version of D&D, versus predecessors, i.e. the lack of competition or something new to draw players away. Regardless, story is always important.




There may be a "breakout" RPG in the future, but it will be no competition to D&D. The only time D&D hasn't been the top dog RPG is when they weren't printing books (at that's just sales, there where still probably more people playing the game than other games). Nothing competes (at the same level) with D&D, and I really don't expect that to ever change.


----------



## Dire Bare (Nov 29, 2016)

guachi said:


> I find the "story, story, story" push depressing. It's probably why I've purchased zero of the big adventures for 5e.




Would you rather have adventures without story? Or are you just not a adventure type of person when it comes to purchases?



> It's like I'm just playing a computer game where the entire story and conclusion have been pre-chosen by someone else.




Luckily, none of WotC's 5E adventures do this.



> It's an RPG not some poorly written comic. I always thought there should be a separation between what happened in the books and what happened in the setting itself. That the books should be an example of the adventures you could have yourself and not that the events and characters, like Drizzt, actually exist.




This complaint is a bit played out at this point. "The Sundering" that launched the 5E Realms was the RSE to end all RSEs (Realms Shaking Events), and it had nothing to do with any of the published adventures. Well, some of the novel characters make an appearance, but they are cameos . . . easily ignored or name-changed to NPCs of your preference.

The 5E Realms adventures have been screamingly easy to run without any prior knowledge of the greater Realms setting, and they have also been super easy to convert to other settings, official and homebrew.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 30, 2016)

Dire Bare said:


> Would you rather have adventures without story? Or are you just not a adventure type of person when it comes to purchases?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





To be fair, he said he hadn't gotten the APs, so clearly not knowing about them is kind of to be expected.


----------



## Jer (Nov 30, 2016)

Parmandur said:
			
		

> Not sure still why people are so confident that the movie will fail; Warner Bros. is throwing major resources at this, could go either way, easy.






Jester David said:


> Because it failed the last time they tried a theatrical release.




That's a big part of it.  But also because D&D is unlike other adaptations and so it's hard to see how it can succeed.  It's not a literary adaptation like "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings".  It's not an adaptation of a beloved children's cartoon from the 1980s/1990s like "Transformers" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles".  It's not an adaptation of the adventures of a long-running serialized comic book character like all of the Marvel movies or the Batman franchise.  It's not even an adaptation of a video game like the Resident Evil movies.

They're attempting to adapt a tabletop game to a movie.  This is not an easy sell.  Previous attempts to do this brought us "Clue" (a movie I love but was not a success) and "Battleship" (ugh).  What's more, D&D is a narrative game so on the one hand it seems like it would be easy to build a film narrative around something in the game and make it work, but so far there have been three D&D movies and none of them have worked (though the second one was kind of hilarious in a "Hercules the Legendary Journeys" sort of way).

I think this is why a lot of people say things like "Why don't they just do Dragonlance?" or "Why aren't they doing the Drizz't stories?"  Because those would be literary adaptations and it's easy to see how they could be done (though I think they are problematic for their own reasons).  The concern is that whatever is done with the D&D movie it'll be a generic fantasy movie with the D&D name slapped on it.  Or if we're "lucky" a generic fantasy movie with a few fanservice namechecks thrown into the dialogue (i.e. a "Why I haven't seen danger this severe since that time we fought those cultists of Elemental Evil - remember that one boss?" sort of thing).

I'm hopeful it turns out good but it's uncharted territory.  You need a writer (or group of writers) who can come up with a screenplay that holds to the spirit of D&D who don't really have a plot laid out before them to adapt.  They're not doing something wholly original, but they aren't just taking someone else's vision and putting it on the screen.  That's going to be hard, and you'll need some special people to do that.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 30, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Not sure still why people are so confident that the movie will fail; Warner Bros. is throwing major resources at this, could go either way, easy.



Mostly because of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Out of every ten new things, nine are crap. It may not seem that way, but that's because we quickly forget the nine crappy things and remember the one thing that wasn't crappy.

The only way I know of to beat Sturgeon's Law is to start from a thing that isn't crap and build on it. If you take a good book and adapt it to a movie, you can do substantially better than a 10% chance of making a decent movie. (Though you're still nowhere near 100%.)

The D&D movie is not using this strategy. There is no pre-existing story to build on. A new one will have to be written from scratch, and Sturgeon's Law applies in full force. Therefore, there is a 90% chance that the movie will be crap.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 1, 2016)

There's also no pre-written story for every non-sequel or non-adaptation. There's a *lot* of great movies based on very little. 

And unlike other game based movies, there's a lot more to drawn on than "ships firing blind and pegs" or "a murder and people with colour themed names". 
Heck, _Fantastic Beast_s is based on a bestiary. And that's becoming a multi-film series.

And while most franchises have an origin story, they go in their own direction. _Rogue One_ is likely pure original, and _Captain America: Civil War_ only has the barest connection to the source material.


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 1, 2016)

Dausuul said:


> Mostly because of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Out of every ten new things, nine are crap. It may not seem that way, but that's because we quickly forget the nine crappy things and remember the one thing that wasn't crappy.
> 
> The only way I know of to beat Sturgeon's Law is to start from a thing that isn't crap and build on it. If you take a good book and adapt it to a movie, you can do substantially better than a 10% chance of making a decent movie. (Though you're still nowhere near 100%.)
> 
> The D&D movie is not using this strategy. There is no pre-existing story to build on. A new one will have to be written from scratch, and Sturgeon's Law applies in full force. Therefore, there is a 90% chance that the movie will be crap.





If anything, adaptations are behind the curve: never, ever live up to the book, even when decent.

The only way to beat those odds is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.  And we don't have much to judge on, other than the fact that a major studio, with a successful producer (LEGO Movie!!) putting years of work into it: the previous efforts were low budget amateurs at work, so set no precedent.

Time will tell, but I will never bet against the man who sheparded the LEGO Movie into being.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 1, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> If anything, adaptations are behind the curve: never, ever live up to the book, even when decent.



I never said anything about living up to the book. The standard is "not crap." Adaptations of good works, in my experience, have a significantly better rate of being not crap than non-adaptations; even if the movie-makers mangle it badly, there is at least a good storyline underneath it all.



Parmandur said:


> And we don't have much to judge on, other than the fact that a major studio, with a successful producer (LEGO Movie!!) putting years of work into it: the previous efforts were low budget amateurs at work, so set no precedent.



In the absence of anything to judge on, Sturgeon's Law rules. Major studios produce crap all the time. The amount of money lavished on a movie does not change its odds of being crap; it merely determines the level of turd-polishing applied.

I agree that the LEGO producer is a good sign; but he's canceled out by the Wrath of the Titans screenwriter.


----------



## Jester David (Dec 1, 2016)

"Crap" is a broad definition and pretty non-specific. Plus subjective.
 I have a friend who hated most of the Marvel movies. A lot of people liked Batman vs Superman. The Bay Transformers movies made a *lot* of money. Lots of people enjoy watching bad movies.
It's a studio made film, not an indie art house darling. It's never going to be _good_. Being "art" isn't on the table. It's not going to win Amy award. 
But it could be fun. Enjoyable. A decent popcorn flick.


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 2, 2016)

Dausuul said:


> I never said anything about living up to the book. The standard is "not crap." Adaptations of good works, in my experience, have a significantly better rate of being not crap than non-adaptations; even if the movie-makers mangle it badly, there is at least a good storyline underneath it all.
> 
> 
> In the absence of anything to judge on, Sturgeon's Law rules. Major studios produce crap all the time. The amount of money lavished on a movie does not change its odds of being crap; it merely determines the level of turd-polishing applied.
> ...





Even by that nebulous standard pulled out of thin air by a hack writer, I would say 95% of adaptations are crap if 90% of everything normally is crap: seriously, non-adaptations are more likely to have redeeming qualities than unoriginal work.


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 2, 2016)

Jester David said:


> "Crap" is a broad definition and pretty non-specific. Plus subjective.
> I have a friend who hated most of the Marvel movies. A lot of people liked Batman vs Superman. The Bay Transformers movies made a *lot* of money. Lots of people enjoy watching bad movies.
> It's a studio made film, not an indie art house darling. It's never going to be _good_. Being "art" isn't on the table. It's not going to win Amy award.
> But it could be fun. Enjoyable. A decent popcorn flick.





It could even be a fairly terrible popcorn movie, and make a big impact on the hobby.

But seriously, LEGO Movie is the best use of Plato in film since the 80's: good is always on the table.

But we have no idea of the table yet, it could go any which way.  But it will not be Sweetpea incompetence, at least.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 3, 2016)

gyor said:


> So I'm kind of getting frustrated. I don't give fig about any other D&D books until they do a FRCG and full proper map of Faerun.



This is funny and shows just how hard it is to please the fan base.

I am so bloody sick of the Realms. I could happily live out the remainder of my life without seeing another reference to it. I already refuse to buy any product that leans heavily on the IP -- so, just having Volo's name on the cover made that product unworthy of consideration, to me. I'm about to the point where even as much Realms content as Curse of Strahd had is going to disqualify it.

So, on one hand, they have folks like you who really just want some "real" Realms material. On the other, they have folks like me who just want one book completely free of even one Realms word.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 3, 2016)

And then there are the 99% of the remaining of us, somewhere in the middle.*


* Volo's is a good book regardless.


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 3, 2016)

*double post*


----------



## gyor (Dec 3, 2016)

Jester David said:


> "Crap" is a broad definition and pretty non-specific. Plus subjective.
> I have a friend who hated most of the Marvel movies. A lot of people liked Batman vs Superman. The Bay Transformers movies made a *lot* of money. Lots of people enjoy watching bad movies.
> It's a studio made film, not an indie art house darling. It's never going to be _good_. Being "art" isn't on the table. It's not going to win Amy award.
> But it could be fun. Enjoyable. A decent popcorn flick.




 The Michael Bay movies were not bad movies, they were great, people bash Michael Bay way too much.

 He took a movie that I thought could never translate to the movie screen without massive suckage, and he made it fun, action filled, and funny, with interesting and likable characters.

 I'd love it if Michael Bay had been picked to made the D&D movie. Yeah that's right, get you pitch forks and light your torches, I said it.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Dec 4, 2016)

I firmly believe the D&D will fall into the realm of the forgotten. It's not going to bad, but it's not going to be good either. It will just fade away into the background and essentially become forgotten.

Now if the movie has anything to do with Acquisitions Inc then I think it will crash in a fiery ball of death.


----------



## Echohawk (Dec 7, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, between what they are doing in UA now, and have done previously, and several new classes...probably not much past 50 pages.



I count 122 pages of UA material released so far, so a bit more than 50 pages.


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 7, 2016)

Echohawk said:


> I count 122 pages of UA material released so far, so a bit more than 50 pages.





Interesting, but I was referring to new class info exclusively: does your reckoning account for redundancies like the SCAG material or multiple iterations of the new Ranger?

At any rate, they could throw everything they've tested so far in one book, and be just 30-50% of the way done...


----------



## Echohawk (Dec 7, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Interesting, but I was referring to new class info exclusively: does your reckoning account for redundancies like the SCAG material or multiple iterations of the new Ranger?



Nope, I just counted all the articles released so far. Eliminating the first version of the ranger (there have only been two in UA, right?) reduces the total by only four pages. I'm not familiar with the contents of SCAG, so I don't know which of the early UAs it makes redundant.



> At any rate, they could throw everything they've tested so far in one book, and be just 30-50% of the way done...



Add some illustrations and maybe even a bit more than that.


----------



## Parmandur (Dec 7, 2016)

Echohawk said:


> Nope, I just counted all the articles released so far. Eliminating the first version of the ranger (there have only been two in UA, right?) reduces the total by only four pages. I'm not familiar with the contents of SCAG, so I don't know which of the early UAs it makes redundant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Yeah, art is a wildcard.  SCAG accounts for several more pages, at least, and there are articles that [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has made clear were tossed in the dump heap (spelless Ranger variant, mass combat system which he is completely redoing from scratch, prestige classes in general).  Also, the Rune material made it into Sky Kings Thunder, though I reckon that was partially a dry run for the Artificer class.


----------



## Brandegoris (Dec 9, 2016)

Halivar said:


> I like what I'm reading, with one caveat: There does need to be a psionics product, if only for the support of previous edition campaign conversions. But yeah, I agree that splat needs to have purpose. 75% of all the prestige classes in 3.x were gimmicky, silly, and contrived. There were a few gems, but these were highly thematic and probably best belonged in a campaign book or adventure path.




I never did like Psionics. it just seems redundant? I mean we have spell asters so WHY Psionics. It just seems to re-tred it all. I just find them unnecessary 


I do think 5th Edition is way more STORY focused. You can see it in the way the streamlined and Simplified the system. I like it quite a bit


----------

