# Scott Thorne, a retailer, comments on recent events



## xechnao (Jan 18, 2011)

ICv2 - Rolling for Initiative--Oh, By the Way...

It seems there have been going some abrupt changes of plans in the Wotc quarters.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 18, 2011)

I sure find this line very interesting:

"As far as the publishing side, Pazio’s Pathfinder line appears to have taken a huge chunk of market share away from D&D, with many stores reporting it supplanting 4th edition as their number one seller."


Can't say I am surprised, and certainly believe it to be true. Since it as announced that Paizo was essentially even with WOTC last quarter.

I wondered at the time if Paizo would take the lead, and at this time I believe they will. Customer relations really help, and only Paizo acknowledges that.

WOTC likes to operate as if we have to go where they take us. They are failing to realize a lot of us know we don't have to follow.

That, combined with over 100 pages of errata for their book line, are the reasons why I think WOTC is losing so much ground to Paizo, and I am looking forward to seeing how their futures play out.

Please don't take this as a "bashing" post, I clearly like Paizo much better as a company. Simple as that. I don't run or play 4E or Pathfinder, but I do buy way more than I should from Paizo.

The only thing I buy religiously from WOTC is their tiles. Prior to 4E I pretty much bought everything. I know WOTC misses me and others like me.

We made them far more money in the 3E days, now our money goes to Paizo and others.

WOTC is struggling, we know it, some of us know why. Now the question is, will WOTC figure out how to win us back before Hasbro shuts them down?

My money is on Paizo. Not because I want WOTC to fail, but because I simply believe they won't figure out how to win us back in time. I would love for WOTC to succeed, to bring me back. D&D has been a big part of my life for over 20 years, and I certainly do not want that to go away.

I want WOTC to get the message, to figure it out, to bring me back into the D&D family.

But I think Paizo is going to do it first, with this "introductory" Pathfinder James Jacobs is working on.

But I am going to have to continue to sit back and wait and see.

In the mean time playing with Castle and Crusades and following the OSR movement, and buying way too much awesome Paizo adventures and map and card products, all that will keep me pretty happy.

WOTC turning things around would make me even happier.


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Jan 18, 2011)

Treebore said:


> with this "introductory" Pathfinder James Jacobs is working on




Woo hoo. When I get into work tomorrow, I am so going to ask James how this is coming along...

Makes my life sooo much easier.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

(and no worries Treebore, folks get me and James mixed up all the time. Its better now then when Paizo had three James, a Jeremy, two Jeffs, and a Jason)


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 18, 2011)

IuztheEvil said:


> Woo hoo. When I get into work tomorrow, I am so going to ask James how this is coming along...
> 
> Makes my life sooo much easier.




Sure the NDA is not stopping you from talking about this?


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 18, 2011)

Very interesting comments from the retailer.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 18, 2011)

So Paizo's taken a chunk out of WotC off-the-shelf market share.  Well, so what?

Isn't the fact that WotC's focusing on DDI and the subscription format make this a fait accompli?  It just makes logical sense.  They're _voluntarily giving up_ publishing market share, because they make more money via DDI subscriptions than they do for hardcover book sales.

This doesn't mean WotC's in trouble... it doesn't mean they need to find ways to "win back" the disenfranchised... it just means they are changing their means of distribution (much to the chagrin of the game sellers, whom I'm sure would rather keep the sales of WotC products as they probably made the sellers a good chunk of change.)


----------



## shadzar (Jan 18, 2011)

WotC doesn't tell consumers what they are doing and just drops products, doesn't tell retailers, doesn't tell anyone...and people wonder why all the confusion?

I feel the return of GLEEMAX! is coming. Won't that be fun?


----------



## megamania (Jan 18, 2011)

I don't feel comfortable with the state of affairs with DnD these days.


So much has been fragmented ever since 4e came out.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 18, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So Paizo's taken a chunk out of WotC off-the-shelf market share.  Well, so what?
> 
> Isn't the fact that WotC's focusing on DDI and the subscription format make this a fait accompli?  It just makes logical sense.  They're _voluntarily giving up_ publishing market share, because they make more money via DDI subscriptions than they do for hardcover book sales.
> 
> This doesn't mean WotC's in trouble... it doesn't mean they need to find ways to "win back" the disenfranchised... it just means they are changing their means of distribution (much to the chagrin of the game sellers, whom I'm sure would rather keep the sales of WotC products as they probably made the sellers a good chunk of change.)




If I remember the (older) article directly, Paizo was #2 after D&D in RPG sales in hobby stores.  This did not include all D&D products, such as board games (which, while a small number of products now, one, seem to be becoming more important to the D&D brand), and more importantly, miniatures (although, those are gone now, sad).  It also only referenced hobby store sales, not online sales (Amazon) or big box sales (B&N, Target).

_Edit: It also didn't take into account the difference in volume between #1 and #2.
_
Paizo is awesomesauce mixed with even more awesomesauce, but they never have been serious competition to WotC.

But you're right, with D&D products starting to focus on props - cards of various sorts (Fortune, deck in Shadowfell boxed set, deck of many things, and tokens, perhaps more to come) and with major "crunch" support seemingly moving online . . . . Paizo and other RPG companies will start to play catch-up in the _printed RPG book in hobby stores category_, but still won't seriously compete with WotC.

Doesn't bother me either way.  I like 4e and I lurve Pathfinder, and props help my game either way!  5 years from now, I'll still be playing either D&D or Pathfinder, or perhaps even still both!


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 18, 2011)

kitsune9 said:


> Very interesting comments from the retailer.




Not really (IMO, of course).  He doesn't know anymore than we do, and all he really is saying is that he doesn't like the changes themselves, and he doesn't like the way WotC communicated those changes to the retailers.

I'm indifferent to the canceled books, excited about the book changing to hardcover, and sad about the loss of the minis line (although, I haven't purchased minis for years).  I also think WotC could have communicated to both the fans and the retailers much better . . . .

However, it's my opinion that WotC isn't deliberately trying to keep anybody in the dark, but rather the D&D line is going through some rapid changes due to management decisions based on recent sales data.  WotC is trying to adapt to a changing market and come ahead.  Will they succeed?  Time will tell.  They guys who communicate about the game to fans and retailers are playing catch up, and the ground is still shifting beneath them.  Not due to incompetence, not due to neglect, and certainly not due to indifference.  But due the need to reinvent the game to succeed in a market that is in a constant state of flux.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 18, 2011)

Treebore said:


> I sure find this line very interesting:
> 
> "As far as the publishing side, Pazio’s Pathfinder line appears to have taken a huge chunk of market share away from D&D, with many stores reporting it supplanting 4th edition as their number one seller."
> 
> ...




I say this as someone who vastly prefers 4E to 3.x/PF: WOTC seems to think that they're the only game in town, as it were... as if they have a captive audience and marketing ventures are all the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel (which actually may be true, inasmuch as I'm not sure that shooting fish in a barrel is actually possible... if you want to kill the fish you're much better off just dumping the water out). But this isn't so... eventually even the industry standard can drive off so many customers that they're not the standard anymore.

If D&D goes down in flames and leaves a crater, I actually think we're in a reasonable time for that to happen. Savage Worlds recently released a Fantasy Companion that's quite good and they've got some serious fantasy product rolling (the Hellfrost stuff is nice and there's a lot of it). Pathfinder is going strong, against my expectations (but then I hate 3.x so maybe I just doubted that anyone would still play it willingly!) and Paizo seems to be doing everything right as a company (and bully for them!). The OSR seems to have retained its vitality and actually may be poised to pick up some steam in the way of some (semi-)novel upcoming releases, such as the Lovecraft supplement for Labyrinth Lord (bolstered by the Advanced Edition Companion) and a boxed set version of Carcosa.

There are things out there that can catch some of the vacated market share. Some of it will just go away, but I think most of that which was game store commerce will simply migrate to other things in the LGS (like boardgames) if it does not go into other RPG product lines.

So if D&D tanks it's not good news but I don't think it's the end of the world. The dice will roll on.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 18, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> There are things out there that can catch some of the vacated market share. Some of it will just go away, but I think most of that which was game store commerce will simply migrate to other things in the LGS (like boardgames) if it does not go into other RPG product lines.




Wonder how much of that "vacated market share" will just completely disappear, such as casual D&D players exiting the hobby entirely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2011)

I was one of the first to raise the specter of 4Ed as the "New Coke" (March or April 2008, as  Irecall)- not out of hate but of concern.  There are just certain things I've noticed about the way the brand has been managed since the 4Ed rollout that resonated with that marketing blunder.  See, even though it's not my game of choice, I would rather not see it crash & burn.  I don't want to be right in this case.

But if the retailers who sell the product are getting concerned, then so am I.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was one of the first to raise the specter of 4Ed as the "New Coke" (March or April 2008, as  Irecall)- not out of hate but of concern.  There are just certain things I've noticed about the way the brand has been managed since the 4Ed rollout that resonated with that marketing blunder.  See, even though it's not my game of choice, I would rather not see it crash & burn.  I don't want to be right in this case.
> 
> But if the retailers who sell the product are getting concerned, then so am I.




The problem with these comparisons - and why they're so tiresome - is that New Coke lasted months.  Less then half a year.

4e has gone for two years now.  Wait, more, now.

If customers were streaming and bailing out as fast as some people seem to think they were, I really think it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with these comparisons - and why they're so tiresome - is that New Coke lasted months.  Less then half a year.
> 
> 4e has gone for two years now.  Wait, more, now.
> 
> If customers were streaming and bailing out as fast as some people seem to think they were, I really think it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.



Maybe, but I think the lawyer makes a good point. Coke can most likely pick up on daily sales data for almost instantaneous consumer trends. Several months of data for new coke is far far more indicative than amost 3 years of 4e sales data traversing the GFC (a very significant factor in my opinion). Still though, my gut tells me Dannyalcatraz has the right of it. D&D has taken a big kick in the pants and it is starting to become obvious to its consumers.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jan 18, 2011)

Treebore said:


> WOTC is struggling, we know it, some of us know why. Now the question is, will WOTC figure out how to win us back before Hasbro shuts them down?




Claims like this always amuse me.  WoTC's primary product line was, I think, mentioned in Hasbro's last annual report as offsetting an otherwise lean period.  WoTC is therefore not even _close_ to struggling.  On the other hand, compared to Magic the Gathering, D&D is just a sideshow.  Now if you're wondering how long before WoTC shuts D&D down (or more likely pulls back to just the "Essential 10") I have no idea.


----------



## MoxieFu (Jan 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I was one of the first to raise the specter of 4Ed as the "New Coke" (March or April 2008, as  Irecall)- not out of hate but of concern.  There are just certain things I've noticed about the way the brand has been managed since the 4Ed rollout that resonated with that marketing blunder.  See, even though it's not my game of choice, I would rather not see it crash & burn.  I don't want to be right in this case.
> 
> But if the retailers who sell the product are getting concerned, then so am I.




I remember that. I was the one who compared the rollout and the GSL to the way IBM handled the PS/2 line of computers by forcing their customers to change.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 18, 2011)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Maybe, but I think the lawyer makes a good point. Coke can most likely pick up on daily sales data for almost instantaneous consumer trends. Several months of data for new coke is far far more indicative than amost 3 years of 4e sales data traversing the GFC (a very significant factor in my opinion).



Exactly.  Not all market cycles have the same time scale.  And soft drinks rotate through much more quickly than RPGs.  

Comparing the two one-to-one is like saying your 14 year old dog isn't old because your uncle is 58.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But if the retailers who sell the product are getting concerned, then so am I.




For me, I have no way of knowing mr. Thorne's track record in predicting the development of the business of publishing RPGs.

But my FLGS staff, retailers as it were, are the last people on this earth I turn to when looking for accurate gossip on how things are going in the business and in the hobby.

I don't know how many times I've heard things about lines being cancelled and not being cancelled and whatnot from "trusted sources" of FLGS staff. This time it might be that the doom and gloom are warranted, but until the apocalypse arrives my motto is "don't borrow trouble. And don't take much heed of madmen and game store staff." 

Cheers!

/M


----------



## francisca (Jan 18, 2011)

One thing is for sure, WotC isn't going to maintain the #1 market share by removing products from the release schedule.  You gotta have product on the shelves, you know?  In addition, whether or not 4e (and D&D as TableTop product) is circling the drain, certainly people are worried about it.  Seeing a dearth of product on the shelves may just confirm that suspicion is some people's minds, and they may not bother to pickup the last few products of (in their mind) a dying game.

Now, it could also be that WotC is really getting ready to get away from the deadtree market for traditional RPG product formats, and that this is nothing alarming to them.  Who knows?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 18, 2011)

I just want to toss in a different spin, suppose Gleemax and the original digital tools had been a complete technical success, would WoTC still be selling books in the numbers they were up to now?


----------



## Wicht (Jan 18, 2011)

Something else interesting to ponder: If you check out the Amazon top-selling RPGs right now, Paizo's Bestiary 2 is at #1. The Pathfinder Core book is at #3. The current top selling 4e book is at #6. The Player's Handbook (4e) is at #8, outperforming the Redbox which is at #9.


----------



## jefgorbach (Jan 18, 2011)

[MENTION=9734]francisca[/MENTION] True and I suspect you're correct in WOTC is moving to 95% digital, with just the Core books available in print to lure new players. The past few years have seen them take several steps in limiting player's access to information (PDf's, free articles) in favor of moving things behind a monthly subscription plan and associated virtual play. The recent discontinuation of physical minis is thus simply yet another step in this metaplot. 

One thing I find curious is nobody's mentioned the "unexpected" announcement coincided with the recent rises in oil prices (ie plastic costs) and the recent news regarding Border's continuing decline. While they do have exposure at B&N's, local observations regarding the two stores implies losing Border's could have a serious impact upon WOTC's print sales (based upon apparent foot-traffic, product placement and copies carried). Combined, these external factors made the perfect timing for WOTC's "unexpected" announcements ... although management's decision to do so solely via their monthly Ampersand column is obviously a poor one.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 18, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Something else interesting to ponder: If you check out the Amazon top-selling RPGs right now, Paizo's Bestiary 2 is at #1. The Pathfinder Core book is at #3. The current top selling 4e book is at #6. The Player's Handbook (4e) is at #8, outperforming the Redbox which is at #9.




I've watched those rankings go all over the place - even in the span of 48 hours, so I wouldn't put too much stock in them.  (Though I am very happy to see Pathfinder ranking highly anyway.)


----------



## Wicht (Jan 18, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> I've watched those rankings go all over the place - even in the span of 48 hours, so I wouldn't put too much stock in them.  (Though I am very happy to see Pathfinder ranking highly anyway.)




They are certainly fluid. But they are useful for spotting trends, especially as you look at them over a period of time. I must admit its been a few months since last I checked Amazon's list and it would be interesting to know how long Pathfinder has been outperforming 4e on a day to day basis (which is what these lists really shows - a snapshot of what is selling right now).


----------



## francisca (Jan 18, 2011)

jefgorbach said:


> [MENTION=9734]francisca[/MENTION] True and I suspect you're correct in WOTC is moving to 95% digital, with just the Core books available in print to lure new players. The past few years have seen them take several steps in limiting player's access to information (PDf's, free articles) in favor of moving things behind a monthly subscription plan and associated virtual play.




yeah that's just "Business 2.0" at work in the boardroom, as they seek to reap profits from the persistently connected masses.  A company that large would be off their freakin' rockers not to try market to that audience.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 18, 2011)

francisca said:


> Seeing a dearth of product on the shelves may just confirm that suspicion is some people's minds, and they may not bother to pickup the last few products of (in their mind) a dying game.




A _dearth_ of products?  Where exactly are you going?

I go to a very large Barnes & Noble in a suburb outside of Boston, and in the RPG section the top three shelves are CRAMMED with D&D stuff, in addition to a 3'x3' table next to it displaying a pile of Essentials material.

Wizards could cancel their entire year's worth of new D&D product and you'd never know it, because of the size and volume that all the Essentials stuff takes up alone.  Three different Dungeon Tiles boxes (of which there's about a half-dozen copies of each), Monster Vault, DMs Kit, Gamma World... you can't NOT see D&D product at your fingertips.  Throw in additional copies of all their other hardcovers, trade paperbacks and module/adventure sites... and you'd think WotC were making millions based on shelf space alone.

You know where the precious Pathfinder Core, Advanced, and Bestiary books are?  Bottom shelf... one copy of each... mixed in amongst the Shadowrun, Star Wars Saga Edition, and Mutants & Masterminds books.  Throw in a couple leftover hardcovers like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and one or two World of Darkness... and you'd never know Pathfinder was some kind of wunderkind in certain people's minds.

If you were to ask someone who knows nothing about the industry which company seems to be in dire straights based purely on what is found on the shelves... it sure as heck wouldn't be WotC.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2011)

> The problem with these comparisons - and why they're so tiresome - is that New Coke lasted months. Less then half a year.




Actually, point of fact: New Coke was sold for seven years- 1985-1992- before it had it's name changed to Coke II, under which name it was still for sale as late as 2006.

The point of the New Coke comparison is- at least in my posts- that you can do all kinds of market research and still get it wrong if you:

1) Don't ask the right questions or ask the right questions the wrong way
2) Accidentally get skewed data due to sampling error 
3) Misinterpret the data you get

...all of which happened in the New Coke saga.  People preferred New Coke over not just Coke, but more importantly, surging rival Pepsi (and Dr. Pepper) in test after test after test.  It wasn't even close.  Coke thought this meant it was time to replace the old formula.  In reality, though, while people may have wanted that New Coke flavor in the market, they didn't want it as a _replacement_ for Coke's traditional recipe.

Looking back, we can see if they had released New Coke into the market ALONGSIDE the traditional recipe- thereby not alienating the base- they'd have done much better.  We might not even have Pepsi around as a major force in the market today.

WotC DID do market research, that much is clear, but judging from the size and depth of the rift between adopters and non-adopters of 4Ed, at least some of the same factors may be present here.  Their data showed that a sampling if people wanted D&D to change...and fairly radically.  What it may not have shown is how many did not.  At least, not as a substitute for 3.5Ed.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 18, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you were to ask someone who knows nothing about the industry which company seems to be in dire straights based purely on what is found on the shelves... it sure as heck wouldn't be WotC.




I would readily admit that it is easier to find WotC products in the major retailers. What this does not tell me is how well it is selling. A plethora of stock is only a good thing if demand is high. The fact that Paizo has a hard time keeping books on the shelf could mean they are not as well known or it could mean they are so popular that when the one of their books hits the shelf it gets snatched up. 

The trend, in sales, indicates to me that demand for 4e is dropping and demand for Pathfinder is increasing. When one couples this trend with the reality that WotC has an easier time with distribution than Paizo does, it is even more impressive.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 18, 2011)

> But my FLGS staff, retailers as it were, are the last people on this earth I turn to when looking for accurate gossip on how things are going in the business and in the hobby.




Fair enough, bit IMHO, there's a significant difference between the opinions of staff and the observations of owners who get to see where all of the dollars and cents are going...or NOT going.

Not that they're infallible, no-  I know of a former movie rental store owner who thought DVDs were no threat to the VCR market...


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 18, 2011)

Danny, if you're saying that WotC bungled the release and marketing of 4E, I agree. If you're saying that 4E was too far removed from "traditional" D&D, I somewhat agree. If you are saying that 4E should not have been different from traditional or 3.5 D&D, I disagree.

The main mistake that WotC made, imo, was in releasing a half-baked product, _not _in making 4E significantly different from 3.5; "half-baked" in that it not only still had a lot of kinks to be worked out (not to mention errata), but it seemingly wasn't playtested widely with little to no communication with fans about what 4E was going to be. It was almost as if they were either not interested in what the diehard fanbase thought and/or they were so sure that we'd like it that they wanted it to be a kind of secret present. Bad move. Sort of like not asking a family member what they want for Christmas and then getting them something you _think_ they might want. It is a risk, even a calculated one, but with a high chance of error. And the rest is history...

But the marketing and PR is a very different issue from the quality of the game itself, which can be teased apart into (at least) two major aspects of "presentation/vibe" and "game system." A further mistake that WotC made, I think, was trying too hard to change the presentation/vibe to cater to what they thought "kids these days" were into. But in the end it was little different than a bunch of 45-year olds trying to be hip around a bunch of 20-year olds. At best it is awkwardly cute; at worst it is just embarrassing. 

But the game system itself, imho of course, was a step forward from 3.5. It was (and is) actually a better game (again, imho) - a further development in the evolution of D&D. The problem is that it had huge flaws that were only partly addressed by Essentials, some of which remain. 

Now it may be that 5E, such as it will be, will actually be first published digitally. If WotC plays their cards right they can release it via DDI and then get feedback and evolve the game with a kind of feedback mechanism and only publish it in paper form after a year or so of back-and-forth with the core customer base. Sort of like Pathfinder's Alpha and Beta books, but instead via DDI. Maybe "5E Alpha" can be DDI only and released over a period of time as modular options for 4E; that would also assure that it remained at least somewhat backwards compatible. "5E Beta" might come a year later as a roughish draft PDF of a proposed new _Player's Handbook _for DDI susbscribers_, _which would be published after another year of playtesting, proofreading, and customer feedback.

If WotC wants to kill two birds with one stone--get customer feedback thereby pleasing customers _and _make some money--then they can offer a higher tier subscription service, an "inner circle" that gives the individual an avenue of communication and feedback so they can be part of the process of playtesting and commenting on the new rules. Just imagine the advertising for this service: "Be part of the next edition of the greatest game in the world!"


----------



## Dedekind (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm skeptical about any statements about market share. 

WotC is one of the few companies competing in multiple products and so you can't just compare book sales. Furthermore, Essentials is a product aimed outside (though useful to) the current market. Again, you can't compare traditional demand measures because nobody else has Target/Wal-mart sales and the population will not likely, at first, be in the FLGS. Finally, WotC has focused heavily in the digital format which necessarily will not be seen by the distributors or the FLGS. 

Yeah, it looks fuzzy from the supply chain perspective, but I bet the old supply chain represents a shrinking percentage of sales.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 18, 2011)

Maggan said:


> For me, I have no way of knowing mr. Thorne's track record in predicting the development of the business of publishing RPGs.
> 
> But my FLGS staff, retailers as it were, are the last people on this earth I turn to when looking for accurate gossip on how things are going in the business and in the hobby.
> 
> ...




Pundits get it right...50% of the time   Even the guys who get paid the big bucks to predict things.  It's just that we tend to remember the times that they're right, and forget the times that they're wrong.

My FLGS owners (two separate chains of stores owned by different people) have both commented that Pathfinder and 4E seemed to split their customer base pretty much right down the middle. Both commented that 4E was selling well....but so was Pathfinder.  For that matter, even at my local Chapters, each system gets a shelf.  And in those FLGS's, the two systems get pretty much equal shelf space.  4E gets a little more, but only by virtue of there being more 4E books on the market....or rather, a larger proportion of hardcovers (which take up more space) vs. the soft cover adventure paths and accessory books Paizo sells.

That is by no means scientific though.  It's just....4 stores in my city?  And it's not exactly a big city, so by no means indicative of larger market trends.

Banshee


----------



## billd91 (Jan 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The point of the New Coke comparison is- at least in my posts- that you can do all kinds of market research and still get it wrong if you:
> 
> 1) Don't ask the right questions or ask the right questions the wrong way
> 2) Accidentally get skewed data due to sampling error
> ...




Along with Dannyalcatraz's excellent points above, I'd add that another good point of comparison is in the power of brand identification. When Coca-Cola brought out New Coke, they were surprised by the vitriolic reaction of a minority of customers who rejected New Coke. They had not realized how successful their branding efforts had been, nor how specific. Customers identified themselves with the Coke brand and, with New Coke that identification was being changed to something they didn't recognize as the Coke they knew.
I would say that there are elements of the D&D divide that remind me of the Coke/New Coke identification issue.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 18, 2011)

Treebore said:


> That, combined with over 100 pages of errata for their book line, are the reasons why I think WOTC is losing so much ground to Paizo, and I am looking forward to seeing how their futures play out.




Personally I love that they go through stuff that doesn't work well and fix it with errata. I much prefer taking the time to check for errata than to play a game that doesn't work well.


----------



## Solvarn (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with these comparisons - and why they're so tiresome - is that New Coke lasted months. Less then half a year.
> 
> 4e has gone for two years now. Wait, more, now.
> 
> If customers were streaming and bailing out as fast as some people seem to think they were, I really think it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.




The competition is a lot less intense, and the media drove the story a lot more. I don't expect to see anything about WotC's woes anywhere. I think the comparison is fairly apt.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The problem with these comparisons - and why they're so tiresome - is that New Coke lasted months.  Less then half a year.
> 
> 4e has gone for two years now.  Wait, more, now.
> 
> If customers were streaming and bailing out as fast as some people seem to think they were, I really think it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.




I think you need to look closer at the analogy of "New Coke".

New Coke came out and people didn't like it they moved to Pepsi.

4th edition came out and people didn't like it, they moved to Pathfinder.

So the initial thrust is where the company noticed the biggest hit and made the decision sooner to backpedal and "try" to fix things. It just took WotC those years worth of time you mention to try to bring out their Coke Classic via Essentials.

I say the analogy works VERY well. You just have to look at them not in exact times, but time in relative terms of the products. Ask yourself, now that the time has passed, is Essentials WotC's Coke Classic?

WAY off topic as to not telling retailers and such, but I just want to support the New Coke analogy as I see it fits also.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2011)

You mean the Essentials products that were an announced part of the business plan when 4e first came out?  Because I'm fairly certain "following the plan we made" and "backpedaling ferociously" are the opposite 

I suppose if you claim 4e will die any day now for the entirety of 4e - which is exactly what has been happening - you'll get it right eventually.  By the same token, Nostradamus totally foretold 4e and it's end!


----------



## darjr (Jan 18, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You mean the Essentials products that were an announced part of the business plan when 4e first came out?  Because I'm fairly certain "following the plan we made" and "backpedaling ferociously" are the opposite
> 
> I suppose if you claim 4e will die any day now for the entirety of 4e - which is exactly what has been happening - you'll get it right eventually.  By the same token, Nostradamus totally foretold 4e and it's end!




Essentials was planned from the very beginning? I don't recall that at all.

I was very adamantly following the announcements and was very involved with 4e when it was coming out and I don't remember that bit.


----------



## Ourph (Jan 18, 2011)

Wicht said:


> The trend, in sales, indicates to me that demand for 4e is dropping and demand for Pathfinder is increasing. When one couples this trend with the reality that WotC has an easier time with distribution than Paizo does, it is even more impressive.



This is why I find the predictions and speculations being thrown around lately so ridiculous.

Poster A: WotC book X sold through it's first print run right away. They obviously have no confidence in their books selling. WotC is doomed!
Poster B: WotC isn't printing new copies of book X because they have several years of backstock. Their core books obviously aren't selling. WotC is doomed!

Poster A: WotC just announced something I don't like. They hate their customers! I'm going to complain about it for a week. WotC is doomed!
Poster A (different day): WotC isn't making announcements about their future plans. They hate their customers! I'm going to complain about it for a week. WotC is doomed!

Poster A: WotC is reducing their release schedule for 2011. They won't have a physical presence in bookstores. WotC is doomed!
Poster A (different day): WotC has lots of books on the shelves in 2011. Sales must be stagnant compared to their competitors. WotC is doomed!

Conclusion: WotC is not doomed.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 18, 2011)

I don't recall using the word "doom" once


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 18, 2011)

Dedekind said:


> I'm skeptical about any statements about market share.
> 
> WotC is one of the few companies competing in multiple products and so you can't just compare book sales. Furthermore, Essentials is a product aimed outside (though useful to) the current market. Again, you can't compare traditional demand measures because nobody else has Target/Wal-mart sales and the population will not likely, at first, be in the FLGS. Finally, WotC has focused heavily in the digital format which necessarily will not be seen by the distributors or the FLGS.
> 
> Yeah, it looks fuzzy from the supply chain perspective, but I bet the old supply chain represents a shrinking percentage of sales.




Doesn't Essentials *replace* the three core books?  I know they don't even *have* the core books at my Chapters anymore...they just have Essentials and the red box.  Of course, Chapters is by no means a vendor of a complete D&D product line.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 18, 2011)

Wednesday Boy said:


> Personally I love that they go through stuff that doesn't work well and fix it with errata. I much prefer taking the time to check for errata than to play a game that doesn't work well.




I don't think the problem is whether or not they're looking for errors.  What people might be griping about is the volume of it.  If there's too much errata, then it's an indicator they didn't build/test properly before publishing.  And, given the rules are codified in physical books that we buy and hold in our hands, errata is a pain in the ...  Either you have to carry around printouts and remember which printouts contain which errata, or you have to fill your books with sticky  notes, or mark them up with pen or whatever.  Or wait until the errata is codified in a new print run, and buy the same books all over again.

That having been said, people likely forget how much errata 3E had.  I don't remember how much there was, but I remember like 20 variants of Polymorph, for instance.

Banshee


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 19, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You mean the Essentials products that were an announced part of the business plan when 4e first came out?




I don't recall them being part of the announced plans at launch. I do however very much recall them being rushed into development on a shorter than normal timetable, which rather suggests they were added late in response to changes in management whim or market research rather than being something planned well in advance.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 19, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So Paizo's taken a chunk out of WotC off-the-shelf market share.  Well, so what?
> 
> Isn't the fact that WotC's focusing on DDI and the subscription format make this a fait accompli?  It just makes logical sense.  They're _voluntarily giving up_ publishing market share, because they make more money via DDI subscriptions than they do for hardcover book sales.
> 
> This doesn't mean WotC's in trouble... it doesn't mean they need to find ways to "win back" the disenfranchised... it just means they are changing their means of distribution (much to the chagrin of the game sellers, whom I'm sure would rather keep the sales of WotC products as they probably made the sellers a good chunk of change.)




Assuming this post wasn't meant as sarcasm...

This is like global warming "science": If it's hot, it's global warming.  If it's cold, it's global warming.  If it's dry... If it's wet... (And, no, I'm not saying global warming isn't happening, I'm saying the "science" being used to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't meet the scientific method criteria of most 9th grade science classes.  To avoid violating the politics rule, I'll leave the analogy there.)

4e is #1 on Amazon.  See?  _Of course_, 4e is outselling Pathfinder. 

Pathfinder is taking book sales away from 4e?  Of course they are, but only because WotC ceded that ground in favor of the more lucrative online subscription model.

C'mon, get real.  Companies like to _*add*_ revenue streams.  They don't replace them, especially if they are their traditional bread-n-butter, unless they have to.  Electronic vs. print, for a property like D&D, should largely be a matter of format -- the content should be consistent.  So WotC's electronic endeavors shouldn't impact the quality or success of their print products.

Now if WotC comes out and says "we're abandoning print b/c our electronic revenues are 2x, 3x, or some other multiplier greater than their book sales then it's a rational business transformation.  What evidence (slight & often anecdotal, I'll admit) exists today, however, paints a far less rosy picture.


----------



## Zil (Jan 19, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Something else interesting to ponder: If you check out the Amazon top-selling RPGs right now, Paizo's Bestiary 2 is at #1. The Pathfinder Core book is at #3. The current top selling 4e book is at #6. The Player's Handbook (4e) is at #8, outperforming the Redbox which is at #9.




Similar results for the Canadian amazon games list with Pathfinder #1 and #2 and #3 (Core, Bestiary 2, and Advanced Players Guide) - at least for this hour.  An hour ago it was #1, #2 and #4.    I wonder if there is any way to actually track Amazon sales ranking longer term instead of just these hourly snapshots.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

Wednesday Boy said:


> Personally I love that they go through stuff that doesn't work well and fix it with errata. I much prefer taking the time to check for errata than to play a game that doesn't work well.




A good publisher certainly does this but the bulk of such effort is usually done _before _the product is released. 

Not to say that products are expected to be 100% error free or anything but the sloppy levels of editing I have seen in some 4E products are truly embarrassing for a company of WOTC's stature. 

It is all well and good to let people tinker with your playtest ideas and make adjustments based upon feedback just don't peddle your science experiments as finished product. Many gamers enjoy buying new products and also like it when game companies listen to thier feedback. The thanks the fans get for all that dedication should be a finished product that rocks once they are asked to pay money for the result. 

Selling devoted fans playtest drafts, just so you can sell them the finished versions later as well is a pretty crappy way to treat the people who care enough about the products to put in the effort to improve them.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 19, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Selling devoted fans playtest drafts, just so you can sell them the finished versions later as well is a pretty crappy way to treat the people who care enough about the products to put in the effort to improve them.



That's quite bad enough, and all too common besides.

Sometimes, it is even worse than that.

For example, 3.5 was planned from the outset. As was, I have no doubt whatsoever, 4.5.

Yes, yes: "Essentials". Whatever.

These things take time to plan and get ready for release. It seems... *unlikely*, let's just say , that folks in WotC were _unaware_ of 4.5 being underway, at the same time their mouthpiece was claiming that such a thing was not to be.

"Fool me once (...)", eh?


----------



## Wayside (Jan 19, 2011)

ICv2 said:
			
		

> When I hear "digital offerings," I hear PDF or online subscriber content, neither of which will bring customers into the store or put an additional dollar in my pocket.



I actually laughed out loud at this.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 19, 2011)

Wayside said:


> I actually laughed out loud at this.




Because it finally shows that WotC is a fair weather friend and will only be there for the store so long as the stores have something to give them back in return.

WotC...

I see your true colors shining through, so don't be afraid to let them show, your true colors....


----------



## SSquirrel (Jan 19, 2011)

EDIT: I didn't read the whole thread and Danny covered the much longer history of New Coke already.  It's a very interesting story tho and a great example of a vocal minority upending the cart


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 19, 2011)

> Danny, if you're saying that WotC bungled the release and marketing of 4E, I agree. If you're saying that 4E was too far removed from "traditional" D&D, I somewhat agree. If you are saying that 4E should not have been different from traditional or 3.5 D&D, I disagree.




I'm not saying that 4Ed should not have been different from traditional or 3.5D&D...but the market may be.

Personally, the D&D split is much like the early days of New Coke: I like 4Ed as a FRPG, but I dislike 4Ed as a replacement for 3.5.  And I'm not alone.  As Yogi Berra might say, people are staying away from 4Ed in droves.  Its a success by many measures, to be sure, but I seriously doubt that the divide was desired or envisioned by its designers.

And the thing is, it probably didn't have to be like that.

As the major player in the RPG market- especially with the backing of Hasbro- I think WotC could very well have adopted a business model not unlike the soft-drink companies eventually did (after New Coke) and supported 2 top-notch FRPGs.  (Whether both would/should have been called D&D in such a model is a debate for another time, perhaps.)


----------



## Reigan (Jan 19, 2011)

The biggest competition for 4e printed books is ddi, WotC seemed to have hopelessly mismanaged this.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 19, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> If you are saying that 4E should not have been different from traditional or 3.5 D&D, I disagree.



4E definitely did could have been different from traditional or 3X and been much more successful than it turned out to be.  

But the specifics of what was different did play an important role.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 19, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> I don't think the problem is whether or not they're looking for errors. What people might be griping about is the volume of it. If there's too much errata, then it's an indicator they didn't build/test properly before publishing. And, given the rules are codified in physical books that we buy and hold in our hands, errata is a pain in the ... Either you have to carry around printouts and remember which printouts contain which errata, or you have to fill your books with sticky notes, or mark them up with pen or whatever. Or wait until the errata is codified in a new print run, and buy the same books all over again.




I hear what you're saying but at least in my experience it's been pretty easy to incorporate relevant errata without much fuss.  I play in two 4E games and when there's new errata I look at only the stuff that's relevant for my character (i.e., their class, race, powers, feats, skills, etc.).  That pares it down from being a ton of errata to a minor amount of errata.



ExploderWizard said:


> Selling devoted fans playtest drafts, just so you can sell them the finished versions later as well is a pretty crappy way to treat the people who care enough about the products to put in the effort to improve them.




But isn't the errata free?

Regardless, for me I still like that if they see something that needs to be fixed (either because they missed it or because the vast sea of gamers and their character optimization boards found a legal loophole) they try to fix it.  It's much preferred to systems that have problems that never get addressed.


----------



## qstor (Jan 19, 2011)

Yeah I ordered the Bestiary 2 on borders.com with a Xmas gift card I got and its back ordered. I talked to a friend at a con this weekend and he's junked playing 4e cause of the essentials books. He feels that they were a marketing ploy by WOTC.

Mike


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 19, 2011)

Wednesday Boy said:


> But isn't the errata free?
> 
> Regardless, for me I still like that if they see something that needs to be fixed (either because they missed it or because the vast sea of gamers and their character optimization boards found a legal loophole) they try to fix it. It's much preferred to systems that have problems that never get addressed.




Sure the errata is free. Customers are free to print out the edited versions of content and insert them into the nice hardback playtest draft that they just spent money on. By the time the material is released in a corrected form that is clean and polished the customer is expected to buy it again. 

I said before that fixing issues and getting input from players is a good thing. There are ways to do it that are more friendly. 

Green Ronin released most of the material for the 2nd Dragon Age boxed set as a playtest draft (free of charge) to do exactly what WOTC charges thier player base full retail price for. 

When the box is released it will have the benefit of public playtest _and_ customers will only have to pay for a nice printed copy once.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 19, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> By the time the material is released in a corrected form that is clean and polished the customer is expected to buy it again.




That seems especially cynical to me.  I think the whole reason they give out the errata for free is so that it is easily accessible and doesn't require the customers to make any further purchases.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 19, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> Now if WotC comes out and says "we're abandoning print b/c our electronic revenues are 2x, 3x, or some other multiplier greater than their book sales then it's a rational business transformation.  What evidence (slight & often anecdotal, I'll admit) exists today, however, paints a far less rosy picture.




So basically what you're saying is that until WotC comes out and _tells you_ that their DDI subscriptions are their main source of revenue... then DDI is not their main source of revenue and the company's not doing well.

Oh yeah.  Makes perfect sense.  (And yes, that was sarcasm.)


----------



## Maggan (Jan 19, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Fair enough, bit IMHO, there's a significant difference between the opinions of staff and the observations of owners who get to see where all of the dollars and cents are going...or NOT going.




Fair enough. As an aside, my FLGS is owner-staffed. Those who own the shop, work in it. But yeah, not all of them are into the nitty-gritty business side of things.

/M


----------



## Bacris (Jan 19, 2011)

Wednesday Boy said:


> That seems especially cynical to me.  I think the whole reason they give out the errata for free is so that it is easily accessible and doesn't require the customers to make any further purchases.




You're missing the point.

While the errata is free, a company with the size and experience of WotC should have fairly minimal errata, or its errata should be in obscure places.  What I believe ExploderWizard is saying is that issuing errata is fine - with a system as complex as just about any RPG is, it's actually to be expected.  But the VOLUME of the errata being released is the issue.

Some = okay
Lots = bad, even if it's free.  

Lots of errrata points to having done minimal editing / internal review / proofing / lack of quality controls.  A company with the resources of WotC is expected to do that stuff better than most.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 19, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So Paizo's taken a chunk out of WotC off-the-shelf market share.  Well, so what?
> 
> Isn't the fact that WotC's focusing on DDI and the subscription format make this a fait accompli?  It just makes logical sense.  They're _voluntarily giving up_ publishing market share, because they make more money via DDI subscriptions than they do for hardcover book sales.




Look, being optimistic is fine, but this statement above is a wee bit out of touch with the simple realities of supply and demand.  Companies that are making a ton of $$$ don't "voluntarily give up" the market.  Companies that are LOSING $$$ do.


----------



## Ourph (Jan 20, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> Look, being optimistic is fine, but this statement above is a wee bit out of touch with the simple realities of supply and demand.  Companies that are making a ton of $$$ don't "voluntarily give up" the market.  Companies that are LOSING $$$ do.



Companies that have two options for distributing their product will choose the one that generates the most profit. It doesn't mean that one is profitable and the other one is losing money, it means if you think you can make more money by focusing on one instead of doing both, it makes good sense to do it.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 20, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> I say this as someone who vastly prefers 4E to 3.x/PF: WOTC seems to think that they're the only game in town, as it were... as if they have a captive audience and marketing ventures are all the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel (which actually may be true, inasmuch as I'm not sure that shooting fish in a barrel is actually possible... if you want to kill the fish you're much better off just dumping the water out).




Not to derail the thread but they actual tested that saying on Mythbusters and it turns out the shock wave from a bullet fired into a barrel of water would kill a fish even if you missed them and kill all of them. Just thought I would mention it, I love that show.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 20, 2011)

Bacris said:


> Lots of errrata points to having done minimal editing / internal review / proofing / lack of quality controls. A company with the resources of WotC is expected to do that stuff better than most.




That's fair.  Personally I'm happy that things eventually get fixed even if they should have been more perfect from the get go.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 20, 2011)

I love the synergy of moving goal posts and sour grapes.

For months now we've been hearing report after report that Paizo is matching or beating WotC.  And every time the claim was met with howls that the source was unverifiable therefore their claim was automatically proven false.

Suddenly it might be true, but is all meaningless because this was the plan all along....

I believe based on my experience that DDI is successful, BUT 4E is still going from ok downward in total fanbase, regardless of what media you look at.  Yes, the book trade is taken the brunt of it.  But that doesn't mean it is simply a one to one transition from paper to electronic.  It is nowhere near that.

The change in sales is a composite of both fewer players and some players switching to DDI.


----------



## xechnao (Jan 20, 2011)

Ourph said:


> Companies that have two options for distributing their product will choose the one that generates the most profit. It doesn't mean that one is profitable and the other one is losing money, it means if you think you can make more money by focusing on one instead of doing both, it makes good sense to do it.




If books were profitable they would have kept printing them unless they could have figured out that the printed books would have weighted negatively on the profits of DDI so that the profit losses of DDI would outclass the profits of the books.

I am not seeing it.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jan 20, 2011)

On one hand, WoTC has their Encounters programs. Which from my observations, they got cheap on. Same as the old Game Day programs they did a while ago. Perhaps they weren't seeing the returns they wanted on them in terms of purchases. The fact that they still support them and still provide adventurers and have other plans, is good.

On the other hand, we have the DDI. If stores are making most of their money from D&D, they need to, like WoTC, learn to react and do so quickly and start diversifying their goods and services.

I agree with some that only printed book sales cannot tell how WoTC is doing but not can it do that for Paizo, as they have their own subscription model, which often gets overlooked in these conversations.

I do think however, that in terms of bringing those 'millions' of fans back to the fold that it appeared to me, that WoTC bent over backwards to do with that retro ads and Red Box nonsense, that if they do come back, it won't be to WoTC, it'll be to some OSR publisher or to some pirated copy of the older rules they already knew.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 20, 2011)

Bacris said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> While the errata is free, a company with the size and experience of WotC should have fairly minimal errata, or its errata should be in obscure places.  What I believe ExploderWizard is saying is that issuing errata is fine - with a system as complex as just about any RPG is, it's actually to be expected.  But the VOLUME of the errata being released is the issue.
> 
> ...




Yeah, just because the errata should be free (as it is) doesn't mean that the errata should exist (in that volume) in the first place.

Given that WOTC's books don't contain much else, it seems that they see their job to be writing rules. They should do that accurately if that's their thing. If a poet makes a lot of math mistakes you blow it off; an accountant, not so much.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 20, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> So basically what you're saying is that until WotC comes out and _tells you_ that their DDI subscriptions are their main source of revenue... then DDI is not their main source of revenue and the company's not doing well.
> 
> Oh yeah.  Makes perfect sense.  (And yes, that was sarcasm.)




No, what I'm saying is that DDI is an additive D&D revenue stream, not the primary D&D revenue stream.  The assertion that Pathfinder was only making inroads on 4e was due to WotC abandoning print has little evidence to support it.  It's equally possible that Pathfinder is catching/outperforming 4e because an increasing number of people like it more.

I've said repeatedly in numerous posts, that until tangible evidence to the contrary emerges (an official WotC announcement, news of a 5e, formal declaration of abandoning print, etc.), I believe 4e to be a money maker for WotC.  I'm just sick of 4e fans asserting that every move WotC makes is good for the game & good for the hobby & that any success Paizo is achieving with Pathfinder is a fluke, an anomaly, or b/c WotC stepped out of the way & let them succeed.

Case in point: Settings & Adventures.  According to WotC, these products are money-losers or a weak link in an RPG business plan.  Yet they are the cornerstone products at Paizo.  While the two companies' business plans are different enough in scale to bear out WotC's assertion, what I've seen in 3e & 4e adventures from WotC (save a few standouts) suggests that it goes beyond that.  The body of evidence suggests that they simply don't have the desire, talent, or perhaps the will to write & publish great adventures.  Could they?  Almost certainly.  Yet they continue to fall short in that regard.


----------



## Reigan (Jan 20, 2011)

Bacris said:


> You're missing the point.
> 
> While the errata is free, a company with the size and experience of WotC should have fairly minimal errata, or its errata should be in obscure places.  What I believe ExploderWizard is saying is that issuing errata is fine - with a system as complex as just about any RPG is, it's actually to be expected.  But the VOLUME of the errata being released is the issue.
> 
> ...




Most of the errata isn't correcting errors, the game plays just fine without most of it, the errata is mainly a rebalancing of the game as it evolves and corner case abuses come to light. Without the character builder to make it easy to manage these changes I suspect the list would be a lot shorter.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 20, 2011)

Reigan said:


> Most of the errata isn't correcting errors, the game plays just fine without most of it, the errata is mainly a rebalancing of the game as it evolves and corner case abuses come to light. Without the character builder to make it easy to manage these changes I suspect the list would be a lot shorter.




That doesn't change Bacris' statement:



> Lots of errrata points to having done minimal editing / internal review / proofing / lack of quality controls. A company with the resources of WotC is expected to do that stuff better than most.




...one bit because in an RPG, part of QC is playtesting, where you find things like balance issues.  Simply put, as the RPG industry's top dog, WotC has no excuse for the amount and nature of 4Ed errata.

Or do you also give companies like Microsoft a pass when products like their X-box hit failure rates of 24-52%?


----------



## Reigan (Jan 20, 2011)

The size and resources of WotC has allowed it do publish this level of errata, something many game companies don't bother to do. This all looks like WotC bashing, the level errata has almost no effect in game.

I imagine the level of scrutiny some people are demanding would dramatically increase costs and reduce publication rates, nothing is free.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 20, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...one bit because in an RPG, part of QC is playtesting, where you find things like balance issues.  Simply put, as the RPG industry's top dog, WotC has no excuse for the amount and nature of 4Ed errata.




Really?  Then explain to me why Blizzard continually needs to rebalance World of Warcraft _all the time_?  Even after new patches have been on the Public Test Realm for weeks on end... theoretically gaining all the beta info they need to get their patch "right"... even after the patch gets released to the general playing audience there are still constant tweaks and hotfixes that occur to the game itself every Tuesday.  Why?  Because you _can't find everything_ even WITH beta-testing.  Balance issues are constantly changing, especially once you move from a smaller beta test sample size to _everybody_ playing with it.

And Blizzard is their industry's 'top dog' too.  In actuality, a much, much bigger dog that WotC is.  Are you going to say that they have 'no excuse' for needing to do all their hotfixes after the fact?


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 20, 2011)

JoeGKushner said:


> I do think however, that in terms of bringing those 'millions' of fans back to the fold that it appeared to me, that WoTC bent over backwards to do with that retro ads and Red Box nonsense, that if they do come back, it won't be to WoTC, it'll be to some OSR publisher _*or to some pirated copy of the older rules *_they already knew.




The beauty of it is that you don't need a pirated copy; the older rules are widely available on amazon.com, eBay, and your local used bookstore / FLGS.

Last week I bought three copies of the AD&D 2e Player's Handbook (one in MINT condition--had never been purchased before!) at my FLGS in his used section.  

Long live OOP games!


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Jan 20, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Why? Because you _can't find everything_ even WITH beta-testing. Balance issues are constantly changing, especially once you move from a smaller beta test sample size to _everybody_ playing with it.




Exactamundo.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 20, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> No, what I'm saying is that DDI is an additive D&D revenue stream, not the primary D&D revenue stream.  The assertion that Pathfinder was only making inroads on 4e was due to WotC abandoning print has little evidence to support it.  It's equally possible that Pathfinder is catching/outperforming 4e because an increasing number of people like it more.




And how do you know DDI is not the primary revenue stream?  It seems to me that you're making just as much of an assumption as the rest of us supposedly are.  The fact is... WE DON'T KNOW.  None of us do.  However, that doesn't stop people like Treebore in the second post of this thread saying...

_"WOTC is struggling, we know it, some of us know why. Now the question is, will WOTC figure out how to win us back before Hasbro shuts them down?"_

It's THESE kinds of posts that I'll come in and comment in the thread on.  Because Treebore is just as clueless as the rest of us.  So when he attempts to say definitively that 'WotC is struggling' and that 'he knows it' and 'knows why'... I'll show up to let him know that perhaps things are not so black and white as he believe them to be.



> I've said repeatedly in numerous posts, that until tangible evidence to the contrary emerges (an official WotC announcement, news of a 5e, formal declaration of abandoning print, etc.), I believe 4e to be a money maker for WotC.  I'm just sick of 4e fans asserting that every move WotC makes is good for the game & good for the hobby & that any success Paizo is achieving with Pathfinder is a fluke, an anomaly, or b/c WotC stepped out of the way & let them succeed.




I can't speak for other people... but my comments are never strictly 'WOTC RULEZ!  RAH-RAH-RAH!'  They are almost always more moderate comments that give possible explanations as to the methods WotC is taking.  Many people here can't help but talk in hyperbole, and that everything that occurs is either 'WOTC'S DEATH KNELL, SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL!' or 'WOTC IS FANTASTIC AND DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT!'  A few of us... tends to try and find the middle ground between both extremes.  Granted, I sometimes get myself a little more worked up than I should.  But I fully admit that I know just as little as everybody else, I'm trying to use the evidence presented to find likely reasons why, that don't devolve into it being just because the company itself is stupid and can't do anything right.



> Case in point: Settings & Adventures.  According to WotC, these products are money-losers or a weak link in an RPG business plan.  Yet they are the cornerstone products at Paizo.  While the two companies' business plans are different enough in scale to bear out WotC's assertion, what I've seen in 3e & 4e adventures from WotC (save a few standouts) suggests that it goes beyond that.  The body of evidence suggests that they simply don't have the desire, talent, or perhaps the will to write & publish great adventures.  Could they?  Almost certainly.  Yet they continue to fall short in that regard.




And this is where I would mirror my comments from my very first post in this thread.  _So what?_  What does it mean?  It means WotC doesn't do adventures (that often).  Okay, fine.  They don't tend to publish adventures.  

HOWEVER... certain people will then take this fact and try and use it for evidence as to why WotC is 'failing' in their business.  And they'll go on and on in post after post saying that because WotC doesn't do adventures 'they obviously have no idea what they are doing', and 'the company sucks', and 'I hope someone buys the brand who cares about the game!' and other such nonsense.  And don't even get me started on the whole "release old books in PDF form" talking point that can't help but get certain people so worked up you'd think WotC was the Antichrist or something for not doing it.

Azgulor... if you really think people keep coming down hard on Paizo and what they've done is a 'fluke'... try taking a look at the dozen threads that crop up that chastise Wizards of the Coast after almost every single thing they do.  I think you'll find that the rancor is probably equally thick _on both sides_.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 20, 2011)

DEFCON 1, chill out.  I was responding to a ridiculous assertion that the only way Paizo could do as well as 4e was for WotC to surrender the print format to Paizo.  Companies look to add revenue streams.  They don't replace existing ones lightly. And despite the current predictions of doom, WotC's current publishing schedule, or DDI's subscriber base, there's nothing definitive to suggest that A) WotC is abandoning printed 4e products or B) the # of DDI subscribers is the total sum of the 4e player base.  

Logically, if B isn't true, WotC is not going to do A and abandon that presumably larger pool of customers.  (Unless they learned business strategy from the Shadowrun core rulebook section on megacorps or Wikipedia...)

My last post was a response to your claim I was asserting greater knowledge on the subject, when I wasn't.  Other than addressing that claim, I didn't say anything about any of your posts in this thread.

I've also said, again - in numerous threads, that in general I don't understand why the Edition Wars continue as strongly as they do.  By my estimation, both sides "won" by having games in print.  The two largest camps have 4e & Pathfinder.  Then there's the old-school revival crowd, other OGL games, etc.

As for that 2-way street, bro, I've taken fire like yours from the pro-4e camp _while saying 4e is doing well _almost as often as when I've had a criticism of WotC.  Yeah, there's trigger-happy fans on both sides of the aisle.  My personal experience is that a lot of folks on the 4e side have hair-triggers, however.  Just because I don't care for 4e and think WotC has made some bonehead moves doesn't mean I don't agree with a 4e fan or three from time to time.

Closing thought: If the number of DDI subscribers DOES equate to 50% or more of the active 4e customer base, D&D 4e is in *big* trouble.  As I still don't think that's the case, however, my comments above stand.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 20, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> Closing thought: If the number of DDI subscribers DOES equate to 50% or more of the active 4e customer base, D&D 4e is in *big* trouble.  As I still don't think that's the case, however, my comments above stand.



Exactly right.

I've made the point before that I'm certain DDI is making really good money, but if we as fans are really interested in how popular a game is then everyone should hope that the DDI subscription is just a part of the tip of the iceberg.

Now people have moved on to saying that the decline in book sales is simply because of DDI subscriptions.  Well, that would mean that the total number of people playing has plummeted.

Subscription and online business models are great.  I support the idea of both and look forward to more evolution in that direction.  And, from a business sense, (assuming the same cost either way) total revenue is all that matters.  So we can easily say that 4E/DDI is a financial success.

However, despite DEFCON1's insistence of total cluelessness, I feel that there is a very reasonable ground for saying that the steady stream of circumstantial data points, combined with highly numerous anecdotes, provides a reasonable approximation that need not be absolute certainty to still be fairly comfortable.  

And as a gaming fan who has no skin in WotC's actual profits, WotC making a lot of money by using a great business model and fewer fans is not equal (to me) as WotC making a lot of money by having a massive fan base.

And I also am left to wonder just how huge they could be with the DDI business model AND the huge fanbase of systems past.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 20, 2011)

Though I will readily admit that as nothing more than some guy out there in the interwebs, it is a bit fun to watch as my predictions come to be.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 21, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Though I will readily admit that as nothing more than some guy out there in the interwebs, it is a bit fun to watch as my predictions come to be.




I hear that.  

It was just this past July I was getting grief for making the observation that I would not be surprised to learn Paizo's market share was as high as 25-40%.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 21, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Really? Then explain to me why Blizzard continually needs to rebalance World of Warcraft _all the time_? Even after new patches have been on the Public Test Realm for weeks on end... theoretically gaining all the beta info they need to get their patch "right"... even after the patch gets released to the general playing audience there are still constant tweaks and hotfixes that occur to the game itself every Tuesday. Why? Because you _can't find everything_ even WITH beta-testing. Balance issues are constantly changing, especially once you move from a smaller beta test sample size to _everybody_ playing with it.
> 
> And Blizzard is their industry's 'top dog' too. In actuality, a much, much bigger dog that WotC is. Are you going to say that they have 'no excuse' for needing to do all their hotfixes after the fact?




Are you really going to compare an MMO to to a tabletop rpg and expect not to get laughed at?

Constant patches and tweaks are par for the course in an MMO environment. The crunch is all handled seamlessly in the background. If the developers make changes and adjustments here and there the average player needs to do nothing different. There are simply new physics at work in the computer fantasy realm. 

Constant rules changes in a tabletop rpg is a frustrating headache. People have to absorb and interpret the rules during actual play. You learn how to play a certain system until it becomes second nature. Then the rules can fade into the background once learned without intruding too much upon the actual playing. 

If the rules are constantly changing, they will never be learned well enough to keep them from dominating play and resolving things never gets all that much faster because the system requires a constant never-ending learning process. Learning _new things_ about a game as play progresses is cool. Constantly having to check to see if what you already think you know is still valid is an abysmal waste of time.


----------



## carmachu (Jan 21, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> I don't recall them being part of the announced plans at launch. I do however very much recall them being rushed into development on a shorter than normal timetable, which rather suggests they were added late in response to changes in management whim or market research rather than being something planned well in advance.





And given the way that esesentials was marketed, as a step back into things that folks reconized(like being what was it they called it, 3.75, 3.9) it seemed more like trying to snag some folKS with nostalgia rather then a planned from the beginning.

I dont remember anything like this planned at all from the outset. Tabletop, DDI, electronic magaines- monster and character builder...all those were planned at the beginning prior to release.

Essential box? Wasnt part of the plan.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 21, 2011)

I seem to remember reading WotC writing that there was going to be no 4.5, because they learned how much customers were frustrated by 3.5 coming out so close after 3.0.

The *impression* I get is that Impressions may have been a "knee jerk" type product release.

For that matter, the release of 4E seemed rushed.  IIRC, at GenCon 2007, didn't they say that 4E was a long way off?  Then, 4E was announced the following year at WinterCon or something, and came out a few months later at GenCon.

3E was announced a full year ahead of time.  I can't help thinking that there may be a trend.....but that's just my impression.

Is it possible that they got pushed into releasing the game early?  Maybe they're finding themselves increasingly under the gun by their owners.  That pressure wouldn't have been there in 1999, because Hasbro didn't own WotC yet at that point....3E was announced at Gen Con in 1999, and Hasbro completed the purchase a month or two later.

Banshee


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> For that matter, the release of 4E seemed rushed.  IIRC, at GenCon 2007, didn't they say that 4E was a long way off?  Then, 4E was announced the following year at WinterCon or something, and came out a few months later at GenCon.




Technically 4th edition isn't due out until April this year.

Countdown to Fourth Edition


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 21, 2011)

I seem to remember reading WotC writing that there was going to be no 4.5, because they learned how much customers were frustrated by 3.5 coming out so close after 3.0.

The *impression* I get is that Impressions may have been a "knee jerk" type product release.

For that matter, the release of 4E seemed rushed.  IIRC, at GenCon 2007, didn't they say that 4E was a long way off?  Then, 4E was announced the following year at WinterCon or something, and came out a few months later at GenCon.

3E was announced a full year ahead of time.  I can't help thinking that there may be a trend.....but that's just my impression.

Is it possible that they got pushed into releasing the game early?  Maybe they're finding themselves increasingly under the gun by their owners.  That pressure wouldn't have been there in 1999, because Hasbro didn't own WotC yet at that point....3E was announced at Gen Con in 1999, and Hasbro completed the purchase a month or two later.

Banshee


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 21, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> IIRC, at GenCon 2007, didn't they say that 4E was a long way off?  Then, 4E was announced the following year at WinterCon or something, and came out a few months later at GenCon.




In fact, WotC announced Fourth Edition at Gen Con 2007; something they had been denying up until that point. The 4E PHB, which was the first Fourth Edition product notwithstanding promos like the online magazine articles and preview books such as _Worlds & Monsters_, came out in June of 2008.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 21, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> In fact, WotC announced Fourth Edition at Gen Con 2007; something they had been denying up until that point. The 4E PHB, which was the first Fourth Edition product notwithstanding promos like the online magazine articles and preview books such as _Worlds & Monsters_, came out in June of 2008.




I seem to remember something funny with the timing....was it that at WinterCon they denied that 4E was coming out yet, and said that the next edition wouldn't be announced at Gen Con?  Then they turned around and announced it at Gen Con a few months later?

that's what I remember....but I could be wrong.  Something along those lines.  At the time, given the buzz, I had thought WotC was going to announce 4E at Gen Con in 2007.....then they said at another show that they weren't going to announce it that year...then all of a sudden they did.  That's what caught me off guard.

I remember thinking at the time that it almost felt like they'd had a bad quarter, sales were falling through the floor on 3E materials, and that management pushed them to announce the new edition early, and release it early.  It felt rushed.

When 3E came out, there was a long, long playtest.  One of the players in our group was even involved in it.....but he never told us until after the fact, due to the NDA.  I guess he was only testing the new edition in a game he was playing with, in another group.  4E seemed to have such a short playtest period by comparison.

The truth will likely never come out.....this could all be baseless guessing....or it could be right on, but nobody will ever admit it due to legal reasons.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Technically 4th edition isn't due out until April this year.
> 
> Countdown to Fourth Edition




That's a blast from the past 

Banshee


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 21, 2011)

Essentials and 3.5 are close to nothing alike, and I rarely see the comparison made by people who, you know, _have played them_.  3.5 was a massive revamp amongst dozens and dozens of tiny pinpricks - tons and tons of small changes culminating in one large change, including a full revamp of classes and abilities.  Essentials has _no_ rule changes and doesn't contain any revamps of classes or abilities.

You cannot play a 3.0 and 3.5 ranger together.  You can play a thief and a rogue together.

Essentials is by and large little more then a new set of splats with a new variant style of class that doesn't utilize the powers system.  That's it.  It's as much as a "4.5" as Tome of Magic made 3.75.

While "Essentials" in of itself was not the literal plan we were given, the plan of having callback products to bring back in older gamers *was* in the original plan, and the timing coincided perfectly with when Essentials - a series of callback products to bring back older gamers - was released.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> I seem to remember something funny with the timing....was it that at WinterCon they denied that 4E was coming out yet, and said that the next edition wouldn't be announced at Gen Con?  Then they turned around and announced it at Gen Con a few months later?




4dventure webpage was on WotC site in August 2007 with the countdown sometime in that month if that helps any.

Have to find my screenshot if i still have it to check the creation date for the 00:00:01 on the countdown, because I tried to catch it before it changed, but the page didn't change right away and still left people hanging in limbo.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 21, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> While "Essentials" in of itself was not the literal plan we were given, the plan of having callback products to bring back in older gamers *was* in the original plan, and the timing coincided perfectly with when Essentials - a series of callback products to bring back older gamers - was released.




But weren't they produced to bring in a big new crowd of D&D noobies to expand the 4e player base, providing a concise set of evergreen products to keep the new people flowing in? Or wait, was it not that at all but to attract back the players that never converted to 4e in the first place? Or maybe it was indeed the first one... this keeps switching back and forth. A lot. Mixed signals both from WotC's marketing and online apologists alike.

It came across to me as an abrupt mid-course change in plans that was never part of a grand business scheme, but instead was necessitated by both changes in staff and a response to market share for 4e. IMO.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> But weren't they produced to bring in a big new crowd of D&D noobies to expand the 4e player base, providing a concise set of evergreen products to keep the new people flowing in? Or wait, was it not that at all but to attract back the players that never converted to 4e in the first place? Or maybe it was indeed the first one... this keeps switching back and forth. A lot. Mixed signals both from WotC's marketing and online apologists alike.
> 
> It came across to me as an abrupt mid-course change in plans that was never part of a grand business scheme, but instead was necessitated by both changes in staff and a response to market share for 4e. IMO.




Wait...what? I thought Essentials was just to fix the rules, not get new players, or draw old ones that left back in?

So much deception.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 21, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Wait...what? I thought Essentials was just to fix the rules, not get new players, or draw old ones that left back in?



Surely WotC has never said that, have they? That's a good description of 3.5, but from the beginning Essentials has been tailor made to woo back lost customers and attract new players. I'd be surprised if anyone claimed otherwise.

Cirno's correct that Essentials and 3.5 are very different beasts. They clearly learned from the complaints surrounding 3.5; I really like that Essentials classes can be played alongside regular 4e classes. It doesn't have much of an impact on my game either way.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 21, 2011)

Piratecat said:


> Surely WotC has never said that, have they? That's a good description of 3.5, but from the beginning Essentials has been tailor made to woo back lost customers and attract new players. I'd be surprised if anyone claimed otherwise.
> 
> Cirno's correct that Essentials and 3.5 are very different beasts. They clearly learned from the complaints surrounding 3.5; I really like that Essentials classes can be played alongside regular 4e classes. It doesn't have much of an impact on my game either way.




It was a play on logic, since Essentials can do both the other things, those persons would _consider_ 4th editions rules were _fixed_, it it brought them back into the fold.

Could you not see new players joining 4th with Essentials, as well as it bringing back the older edition players who see Essentials and think "they fixed those rules!'


----------



## BryonD (Jan 21, 2011)

Piratecat said:


> Cirno's correct that Essentials and 3.5 are very different beasts.



The comparisons between Essentials and 3.5 remind me of the comparisons between WOW and 4E.

There are enough points in common that the case can easily be made.

But there are enough points of distinction that the case doesn't stand up to serious inspection.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2011)

I'd say the strength of any comparison depends upon the point you're trying to make.

...and that the more you scrutinize the comparison, the less it coheres- such is the nature of the beast.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 21, 2011)

Agreed.  If you are focusing on one of the points of commonality then it is fine.

But it seems 99% of the debates are about one blind man describing the elephant.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 21, 2011)

Shemeska said:


> But weren't they produced to bring in a big new crowd of D&D noobies to expand the 4e player base, providing a concise set of evergreen products to keep the new people flowing in? Or wait, was it not that at all but to attract back the players that never converted to 4e in the first place? Or maybe it was indeed the first one... this keeps switching back and forth. A lot. Mixed signals both from WotC's marketing and online apologists alike.
> 
> It came across to me as an abrupt mid-course change in plans that was never part of a grand business scheme, but instead was necessitated by both changes in staff and a response to market share for 4e. IMO.




No.

There's never been mixed signals.  The product is designed to bring in both a new crowd and to bring in the older players because _every_ product is designed to bring in new people.  That's not mixed signals, that's appealing to multiple crowds.

And can we not use "online apologists?"  It really doesn't further the conversation.



shadzar said:


> Wait...what? I thought Essentials was just to fix  the rules, not get new players, or draw old ones that left back in?
> 
> So much deception.




Essentials was _never_ to "fix the rules."  Again, the only people that have claimed this are those that _don't play 4e_ and, even more likely, didn't listen to the actual changes in Essentials (of which there are _zero_).  Simply put, Essentials can't be there to fix the rules, as no rules are changed.

Here's the big problem WotC faced - _regardless of what they put out_, it was going to be claimed as 4.5.  Period.  The *day* 4e came out, people were claiming that 4.5 would be just around the corner, and by god did we see a lot of threads wondering when it would come.  Essentials didn't change any rules at all and is in no way similar to 3.5, but it's "different" enough to, on a very superficial level, make a connection.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 21, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...but it's "different" enough to, on a very superficial level, make a connection.




And for those people whose narrative is to continually claim that Wizards of the Coast is a horrible company and 4th edition is a horrible game... that's all the sliver of a connection they unfortunately need.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 21, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You cannot play a 3.0 and 3.5 ranger together.




We tried this once.  One guy had a 3.0 ranger (elf, I believe) and the other guy had a 3.5 ranger (half-orc).  I warned them that they cannot do this, but they refused to listen.  What happened? You guessed it . . . only fifteen minutes into the session our books began shaking and spitting and soon black, oily smoke belched out of them.  The PHB, DMG, and even the MM were completely melted down into a useless pile of slag.  It was a disaster.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 22, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> We tried this once.  One guy had a 3.0 ranger (elf, I believe) and the other guy had a 3.5 ranger (half-orc).  I warned them that they cannot do this, but they refused to listen.  What happened? You guessed it . . . only fifteen minutes into the session our books began shaking and spitting and soon black, oily smoke belched out of them.  The PHB, DMG, and even the MM were completely melted down into a useless pile of slag.  It was a disaster.




Another point of favor for 4e then - when it melts down, it does so in an eco-friendly manner ;p


----------



## thewok (Jan 22, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Are you really going to compare an MMO to to a tabletop rpg and expect not to get laughed at?



The comparison seems valid to me.  Both are games that rely on math and random numbers to determine outcomes.  The only real difference is that most MMOs keep the math secret, while tabletop RPGs have to keep it public.  That math can be pristinely balanced, but the addition of even a single new item to the system can completely throw off the system and require changes.



> Constant patches and tweaks are par for the course in an MMO environment. The crunch is all handled seamlessly in the background. If the developers make changes and adjustments here and there the average player needs to do nothing different. There are simply new physics at work in the computer fantasy realm.



If you've played WoW (or EQ2, or pretty much any MMO) before, then you know that this is not the case.  Balance passes are never handled seamlessly.  The smallest changes might call for swapping one piece of gear for another, but, generally, updates and balancing require examination of a character as a whole to maintain effectiveness, and, at its worst, can cause people to completely reallocate stat/talent points or to completely stop playing an old character and start fresh with a new one.

There was a time during Wrath of the Lich King when some people just stopped playing healing priests altogether simply because druids, paladins and shamans could heal better in any situation.  I was forced to respec my Death Knight numerous times as the developers rebalanced the class, like the period of time when Unholy specs were completely unviable.



> Constant rules changes in a tabletop rpg is a frustrating headache. People have to absorb and interpret the rules during actual play. You learn how to play a certain system until it becomes second nature. Then the rules can fade into the background once learned without intruding too much upon the actual playing.



I actually agree with this sentiment somewhat, but it's really a non-issue for me as I am a DDI subscriber (at least for the time being), but not a character optimizer (at least not like the guys on the CharOp forum).  Updates to powers are fairly transparent to me for the most part.

I actually think the changes in games like WoW are _worse_ than those that have happened in 4E--at least in so far as disruption to the game goes.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 22, 2011)

Dark Mistress said:


> Not to derail the thread but they actual tested that saying on Mythbusters and it turns out the shock wave from a bullet fired into a barrel of water would kill a fish even if you missed them and kill all of them. Just thought I would mention it, I love that show.




Doesn't apply only to fish in barrels.  I read in Nelson's Trafalgar, by Roy Adkins, that sailors were killed by canon balls passing through the air near them....the shockwave in the air cold be lethal.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 22, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 4dventure webpage was on WotC site in August 2007 with the countdown sometime in that month if that helps any.
> 
> Have to find my screenshot if i still have it to check the creation date for the 00:00:01 on the countdown, because I tried to catch it before it changed, but the page didn't change right away and still left people hanging in limbo.




That sounds about right...didn't that page come up at GenCon?

Banshee


----------



## shadzar (Jan 22, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> That sounds about right...didn't that page come up at GenCon?
> 
> Banshee




The page was up before it I think, but the countdown on the page came later.

Nobody knew what it was about, well many knew what it was about, but many others were trying to deny it due to denial being the first stage of grief.

Here is the best thing I can find dated with a countdown clock actually on it from August 16, 2007

4dventure countdown: Is it the end of the world, what is all this about? : Product Reviews Net


----------



## BryonD (Jan 22, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Essentials was _never_ to "fix the rules."
> 
> ...
> 
> Essentials didn't change any rules at all and is in no way similar to 3.5, but it's "different" enough to, on a very superficial level, make a connection.



I have heard this, but I'm not certain if it was true or not, so please clarify for me....

Is it true that WotC has stated that for all future material the Essentials versions of classes are the presumed version being used.

I realize that in no way means that you can't still use the older version side by side.  Nothing from the original books is mechanically out-dated, as was the case in some 3E stuff.  But, assuming this is true, wouldn't that still create a feeling of obsolescence to the "old school" options?

I think calling 4E equal to 3.5 is putting spin way ahead of fair, unbiased assessment.  But I also think calling the differences "very superficial" is just as far from the truth.  

In both cases it seems to be people saying what they wish to be true in place of fair judgment.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 22, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I have heard this, but I'm not certain if it was true or not, so please clarify for me....
> 
> Is it true that WotC has stated that for all future material the Essentials versions of classes are the presumed version being used.



Not that I am aware of; if they have i would be interested in a citation as some of the later of the traditional classes could do wiith more support.


BryonD said:


> I realize that in no way means that you can't still use the older version side by side. Nothing from the original books is mechanically out-dated, as was the case in some 3E stuff. But, assuming this is true, wouldn't that still create a feeling of obsolescence to the "old school" options?
> 
> I think calling 4E equal to 3.5 is putting spin way ahead of fair, unbiased assessment. But I also think calling the differences "very superficial" is just as far from the truth.
> 
> In both cases it seems to be people saying what they wish to be true in place of fair judgment.



This I would agree with.


----------



## Vigilance (Jan 22, 2011)

Ah, a retailer is mad because someone is doing something in digital format.

WOTC, welcome to my world, circa 2003.


----------



## Dumnbunny (Jan 22, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Is it true that WotC has stated that for all future material the Essentials versions of classes are the presumed version being used.



From the July Ampersand:


> We’ve charted a new direction in class design with the Essentials products. It’s a direction we intend to use from here on out.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 22, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Is it true that WotC has stated that for all future material the Essentials versions of classes are the presumed version being used.
> 
> I realize that in no way means that you can't still use the older version side by side.  Nothing from the original books is mechanically out-dated, as was the case in some 3E stuff.  But, assuming this is true, wouldn't that still create a feeling of obsolescence to the "old school" options?




It entirely depends on what it is they are designing.  If they are making entirely new classes or new builds of existing classes... I imagine they might very well decide to stay with the Essentials format.  But all the Essentials format really means is that rather than having a power choice at every level... sometimes you'll have an assigned ability instead.  Does that really affect anything?  Only so much as stuff like the Martial classes won't have new Daily powers created for them anymore... but then again, after PH, Martial Power, and Martial Power II... it's not like any of the Martial classes need any more Daily powers.

As far as I'm aware... the Essential Arcane, Divine, and Primal classes still use at-wills, encounters, and dailies, which means those powers are all still useful for the classic 4E classes.  And the feats work across the board as well.  So new "Essential" stuff that is designed will basically be universal 4E stuff... with the exception of the occasional level abilities that are created when a new build is made.  Speaking personally... if the Heroes of Shadow book has a whole host of powers and feats _plus_ has leveled "class abilities"... I will forgive them for designing those things that my non-Essential classes can't use.  Because when you get right down to it... those abilities are such a minor focus of the character power design.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 23, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Because when you get right down to it... those abilities are such a minor focus of the character power design.



Fair enough.  I completely accept that.

But, I still used virtually all my 3E stuff after 3.5 came out.  Sure, I used the 3.5 monk and that REPLACED the 3E monk.  Clearly a distinction.  But they weren't all the different really, just cleaned up.  

I certainly had no problem forgiving them for making me recall that Wilderness Lore was now covered by Survival.  No big deal.

So, bottom line, I'll stick to my position above.  Call Essentials the same as 3.5 is more political that thoughtful and saying Essentials is not readily comparable to 3.5 is more political than thoutghful.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 23, 2011)

Dumnbunny said:


> From the July Ampersand:





Thanks!


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I love the synergy of moving goal posts and sour grapes.
> 
> For months now we've been hearing report after report that Paizo is matching or beating WotC.  And every time the claim was met with howls that the source was unverifiable therefore their claim was automatically proven false.
> 
> ...




No kidding.

What is even more hilarious is the suggestion that Paizo's off-the-shelf sales dwarf Paizo's own direct to customer sales program.

They don't. 

Paizo's ENTIRE business model since the day it was spun off from Wizards of the Coast was premised upon selling directly to its customers to remain profitable. It is a business model that Paizo, to this day, employs to remain profitable and pursue a product release schedule that is several times larger than WotC's entire RPG and accessories line in terms of #SKUs.

The same adventures that WotC insists are not profitable are, in fact, profitable for Paizo. In fact, the Adventure Path line is profitable before a single copy of an AP is sold at retail BECAUSE of Paizo's emphasis on subscriber sales.

Indeed, you can subscribe to entire categories of products that Paizo sells. Thousands and thousands of fans do. It's a regular influx of cash that pays the bills at Paizo and contributes handsomely to their bottom line. Does it antagonize their retailers? Yes, it does. But that does not seem to have hurt them in terms of shelf space in the past 30 months.

In fact, I am dead certain that the average subscriber to Paizo spends AT LEAST three times the amount per month in dollars than a WotC subscriber pays. My guess is that after taking into account the additional product lines that Paizo subscribers also subscribe to, that the true number is four (maybe even five) times the revenue per subscriber, per month.

Does WotC have four to five times the subscribers that Paizo does? They might; and they might not, too.

Do I think that Paizo earns a greater amount of gross revenue by selling its products directly to customers in a given year than WotC does?

It's probably reasonably close, but overall? Yes, I do.

The net revenue on pure digital products is generally higher than a printed product of course. Still, the point ot take away is that 4E is cancelling products while Paizo is adding them. One game is clearly going up in popularity; the other one is going down. 

I don't wish harm to WotC's overall success. They are the gateway game and acquisition arm of the hobby. If they suffer, we will all ultimately suffer throughout the hobby; manufacturer and fan alike. But do I wish pure misery and financial doom upon a product line of randomized card packs intended to be used as part of each RPG session?

Yes, I do. It is an idea utterly contemptuous of the core gamer and is worthy of our collective scorn and derision.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 23, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I don't wish harm to WotC's overall success. They are the gateway game and acquisition arm of the hobby. If they suffer, we will all ultimately suffer throughout the hobby; manufacturer and fan alike.




I don't think so. I think the OGL pretty much screwed WotC, otherwise 4th wouldn't have been needed to move away form that system to set D&D apart from every other game that used and continues to use it.

WotC stepped up to the RPG table with a respectable bank and sat down with the OGL and went all-in with the first hand and caught a few people and put them out of the game, but opened a few seats for some new players. As time went on WotC played the hands and started to break even then got HASBRO to back them so they could try some more betting tactics. All the while new players kept coming to the table and whittling away at WotC's chips with each new hand played. Paizo kept watching WotC tells and knew just how to push them into making bad bets. WotC started having to fold on *4th* street and it has gotten down to Paizo and WotC, a few more respectable players that aren't really chips leaders, and the consumer that has the largest bank of all. Now WotC is looking at their hand on the river, and noticing they are up it without a paddle, as Paizo has about an even amount of chips. HASBRO is getting tired of standing and watching to see when they will get the money back and telling WotC it is time to start going all-in every hand and either hurry up and win it, or get out of the game so HASBRO can sit down.

This is where we are now. WotC is about to have to go all-in every hand or slowly continue to lose their chips to Paizo, and not win many hands from the consumer either. They may have started as a chips leader, but are now finding they wish they could just kiss their sister and go back to breaking even. Each new attempt to go all-in will likely result in WotC only taking the blinds, as Paizo plays out the full hands and taking more an more chips from everyone else, until WotC is left with just enough to pay back HASBRO, then HASBRO walks away leaving WotC with no more chips to bet, and out of the game.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 23, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> But do I wish pure misery and financial doom upon a product line of randomized card packs intended to be used as part of each RPG session?
> 
> Yes, I do. It is an idea utterly contemptuous of the core gamer and is worthy of our collective scorn and derision.




Is this product line just hyperbole?  Or is this actually planned?  Randomized card packs intended as part of an RPG session?  I hadn't read anything about that.  If that's the way they're trying to take things....ew.....just........ewwwwww.

I'm hoping this is just hyperbole.

Banshee


----------



## ATimson (Jan 23, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> Is this product line just hyperbole?  Or is this actually planned?  Randomized card packs intended as part of an RPG session?



Planned and releasing next month.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 23, 2011)

ATimson said:


> Planned and releasing next month.




So, once you use and "discard" a card, does that mean you're supposed to throw it out? You use them once in your game and throw them out?  Or simply use them, and take them out of your deck?

Regardless.....I wouldn't allow a player to use them in my game.  I would *assume* that the use of these cards would be entirely be dependent upon DM fiat.  If the DM doesn't support them, then they can't be used.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I can't say that I'm surprised to see them.  I remember predicting something similar, back in 2008.....so this is just basically seeing the materialization of something I figured would happen.

Banshee


----------



## Zil (Jan 23, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> In fact, I am dead certain that the average subscriber to Paizo spends AT LEAST three times the amount per month in dollars than a WotC subscriber pays. My guess is that after taking into account the additional product lines that Paizo subscribers also subscribe to, that the true number is four (maybe even five) times the revenue per subscriber, per month.



It wouldn't surprise me at all if you are correct.  I'm subscribed to four of Paizo's lines so that adds up to some significant change some months, especially if you consider that I'm always adding extra things to my monthly shipment.   It's certainly a lot more than the cost of a DDI subscription - easily 5 times (assuming the more expensive month-by-month DDI subscription) minimum, but much more on average.

If, as some say, many 4E fans have stopped buying printed books and are instead opting to only buy DDI, that has to hurt.  That's a significant revenue stream that they are cannibalizing.


----------



## Tuft (Jan 23, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> So, once you use and "discard" a card, does that mean you're supposed to throw it out? You use them once in your game and throw them out?  Or simply use them, and take them out of your deck?
> 
> Regardless.....I wouldn't allow a player to use them in my game.  I would *assume* that the use of these cards would be entirely be dependent upon DM fiat.  If the DM doesn't support them, then they can't be used.
> 
> ...




Reviewed here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ollectible-cards-come-d-d-24.html#post5436623


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 23, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Yes, I do. It is an idea utterly contemptuous of the core gamer and is worthy of our collective scorn and derision.




Please do not attempt to speak for me.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Jan 23, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Paizo's ENTIRE business model since the day it was spun off from Wizards of the Coast was premised upon selling directly to its customers to remain profitable. It is a business model that Paizo, to this day, employs to remain profitable and pursue a product release schedule that is several times larger than WotC's entire RPG and accessories line in terms of #SKUs.



I think the more interesting part to this is even with this process in place, retail stores are starting to sell more and more Paizo products.  Normally stores would be against a manufacture selling direct to "their" customers, but apparently things are so "bad" at retail locations they don't care anymore.  They just want the sales. Any sales they can get.  I wonder when the economy turns around will stores still support Paizo and their business model?


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 23, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> But do I wish pure misery and financial doom upon a product line of randomized card packs intended to be used as part of each RPG session?
> 
> Yes, I do. It is an idea utterly contemptuous of the core gamer and is worthy of our collective scorn and derision.




Ding! Ding! Ding!

Exactly.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 23, 2011)

lmpjr007 said:


> I think the more interesting part to this is even with this process in place, retail stores are starting to sell more and more Paizo products.  Normally stores would be against a manufacture selling direct to "their" customers, but apparently things are so "bad" at retail locations they don't care anymore.  They just want the sales. Any sales they can get.  I wonder when the economy turns around will stores still support Paizo and their business model?




Speaking for myself as a consumer: I currently have a subscription to the APs (which gets you the PDFs and the 15% discount) and a subscription to the rulebooks (free PDF). When I have money however, I also like to purchase the other books and look first for the books in local stores (instant gratification). If the book therefore stocks the modules, flipmaps and chronicles lines, they are going to get my business. I also need a new Core Rulebook and will be looking in the local Books-A-Million for it first before turning to look online. When buying online, the fact that Paizo does not accept Paypal yet means that I am more likely to look first on Ebay as well for a store carrying the product. 

All of which is to say, even subscribers buy Paizo material from local and online retailers. If it dopes indeed become the more popular game, they would be foolish not to keep it in stock.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 23, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Speaking for myself as a consumer: I currently have a subscription to the APs (which gets you the PDFs and the 15% discount) and a subscription to the rulebooks (free PDF).




+1

I too am subscribed to the AP line and the RPG line. I buy other things like the Combat Pad, the extra Magnet Pack, the Cards and occasionally a map Pack from my (relatively) LGS. 

I also absolutely REFUSE to by a module in hardcopy unless I'm able to get a PDF as well. Hardcopies are great for reading in bed or on the train coming home from work. But as far as actually RUNNING an adventure give me a PDF. I can print out the maps separately, extract images (NPC's, Monsters, etc) print those images onto card stock and display them to the players. 

I can copy, paste and modify stat blocks if need be. I can copy, paste and modify information about a city location, an NPC and email them to PC's if I feel that it's information that their characters need to know. There's so much that I can do with a PDF, even if it's just printing out the module and laying the pages out in a manner that easier for me to use rather than just flipping pages through the bound book. 


I also run a Pathfinder Game there at least once a month. I bring this up because while I get my Pazio books directly from Pazio, my players don't. Our session right after the APG came out one of my players went right upstairs and bought her copy after flipping through mine. Another player who had ordered his from Amazon, promptly cancelled his order and bought his from the store as well after flipping through the other players copy of the APG. Pretty much after every session at least two of my players are browsing the store and picking up something. I ve had players come to the game and realize that they've forgotten their dice only to go upstairs and buy a new set of dice rather than borrow some. 

Granted I still have two players who havent gotten the Core Rulebook yet (one uses Hero Lab to create and maintain his PC and the other uses the Pathfinder SRD) but hopeful if we're able to start playing more than once a month they'll cave.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 23, 2011)

Zil said:


> It wouldn't surprise me at all if you are correct.  I'm subscribed to four of Paizo's lines so that adds up to some significant change some months, especially if you consider that I'm always adding extra things to my monthly shipment.   It's certainly a lot more than the cost of a DDI subscription - easily 5 times (assuming the more expensive month-by-month DDI subscription) minimum, but much more on average.
> 
> If, as some say, many 4E fans have stopped buying printed books and are instead opting to only buy DDI, that has to hurt.  That's a significant revenue stream that they are cannibalizing.




Same here, with subscriptions I think I the lowest they cost is about 40 a month to as much as 80 a month when one of the hardbacks come out.(which is rare) I would say I avg like about 50 a month, with Paizo keeping the lion share of that money.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 23, 2011)

Wicht said:


> All of which is to say, even subscribers buy Paizo material from local and online retailers. If it dopes indeed become the more popular game, they would be foolish not to keep it in stock.




I personally don't, I get all my pathfinder stuff but mini's sometimes from Paizo. But none of my people in either gaming group I play in sometimes do. So when I bring a new Pathfinder book to games, that often prompts one or more of them to then go buy the books from the FLGS.


----------



## Maggan (Jan 23, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Yes, I do. It is an idea utterly contemptuous of the core gamer and is worthy of our collective scorn and derision.




Please inform me where I can apply to be excluded from this collective of gamers who are full of scorn and derision.

Much appreciated, since I, as a player of all kinds of games with a multitude of rules and gimmicks, don't want to be associated with such a collective. And I don't really want them speaking for me.

/M


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 23, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> So, once you use and "discard" a card, does that mean you're supposed to throw it out? You use them once in your game and throw them out?  Or simply use them, and take them out of your deck?



Presumably, you take them out of your deck until you shuffle it again at the beginning of the next encounter.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 24, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I don't wish harm to WotC's overall success. They are the gateway game and acquisition arm of the hobby. If they suffer, we will all ultimately suffer throughout the hobby; manufacturer and fan alike. But do I wish pure misery and financial doom upon a product line of randomized card packs intended to be used as part of each RPG session?
> 
> Yes, I do. It is an idea utterly contemptuous of the core gamer and is worthy of our collective scorn and derision.




Why will the hobby as a whole suffer just because one company runs their rpg product line into the ground? One good thing that might come out of all this upheaval about WOTC is that gamers might come to realize that the hobby is stonger than the product produced by any company. As a group, we can game on no matter who is or isn't publishing product. That in itself is a good thing for the hobby overall. The game companies need us more than we need them. Those that understand this can make some money. 

I really don't care if the cards are a huge hit or a flop personally. Scorn and derision take effort and I don't consider the cards worthy of effort on my part of any kind. Let those that like them use them and have fun doing so.


----------



## Winterthorn (Jan 24, 2011)

*I think 4E has "Jumped the Shark"...*

I saw the promotional boosters of these Fortune cards at my FLGS last week.  I'm not impressed.  Consider this: a pack of 8 randomly assorted Fortune card is to retail at $3.99; and a pack of 15 randomly assorted Magic the Gathering cards retails at... $3.99!  Same price for 8 cards vs 15 cards -- so as a consumer, what's the better deal?  Eight cards one does not really need to buy to play a RPG game vs 15 cards that one *must* buy to play a CCG game?  (I am also betting that the actual production cost to make Fortune cards is lower than the cost to make MTG cards.)

All things considered, I think WotC is desperate and that their business plan for D&D has finally Jumped the Shark*.  IMO this is the hopelessly corny move that will simply elicit rolled-up eyes from their customers/audience who will say "meh", "bah", or "blah", and walk away to play something else.


*confused? Check out the expression on Google or Wikipedia in relation to the old sitcom "Happy Days".


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 24, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I don't wish harm to WotC's overall success. They are the gateway game and acquisition arm of the hobby. If they suffer, we will all ultimately suffer throughout the hobby; manufacturer and fan alike. But do I wish pure misery and financial doom upon a product line of randomized card packs intended to be used as part of each RPG session?
> 
> Yes, I do. It is an idea utterly contemptuous of the core gamer and is worthy of our collective scorn and derision.




You find the idea of printing a product some people may be interested in to be utterly contemptuous and worthy of scorn and derision?

Wow, man.

You know, I'm not fond of the cards either, so know what I did?  I went "Hey, a product I'm not interested in," and moved on with my life.


----------



## Reigan (Jan 24, 2011)

Paizo seem to have managed to sell large quantities of DM material, something WotC don't seem to be able to do. WotC focus more on player material which the character builder and errata policy makes largely redundant in printed form.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Jan 24, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You find the idea of printing a product some people may be interested in to be utterly contemptuous and worthy of scorn and derision?
> 
> Wow, man.




Hey, a lot of people are interested in buying cigarettes, but I still have scorn and derision for tobacco companies.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 24, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> Hey, a lot of people are interested in buying cigarettes, but I still have scorn and derision for tobacco companies.




However, you didn't try to suggest that all smokers have scorn and derision for a specific tobacco company.

Steel_Wind attempt to say that all "core gamers" should have scorn and derision for the WotC Fortune Cards.  As someone who would probably consider himself a "core gamer" (whatever that term actually means), I hold no scorn or derision for WotC offering this product.  Same way I didn't give a rat's ass that they released Three Dragon Ante... another so-called "non-rpg" product that could be used as an RPG accessory.


----------



## Belen (Jan 24, 2011)

Reigan said:


> Paizo seem to have managed to sell large quantities of DM material, something WotC don't seem to be able to do. WotC focus more on player material which the character builder and errata policy makes largely redundant in printed form.




I'll bet that DMs represent a  nice percentage of Paizo subscribers.  DMs tend to buy a lot of product because they use a much wider array than players.

Paizo also has the advantage of being closer to the fans.  They do not have to get approval from a bunch of suits to respond to the community.

I just do not see WOTC continuing as a company that will be able to serve the table top community.  It just seems too big and unwieldy and maybe recent actions on their part show that they are moving away from the TT community to serve a different market.


----------



## Ourph (Jan 26, 2011)

Reigan said:


> Paizo seem to have managed to sell large quantities of DM material, something WotC don't seem to be able to do. WotC focus more on player material which the character builder and errata policy makes largely redundant in printed form.




Open Grave, MMI, MMII, MMIII, Manual of the Planes, The Plane Above, The Plane Below, Underdark, DMG1, DMG2, Hammerfast, Vor Rukoth, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Dark Sun Campaign Setting, Draconomicon I, Draconomicon II, the DM's Kit, Monster Vault, over a dozen printed adventures, numerous adventures and articles published online, plus the lineup for 2011 (Shadowfell, Icewind Dale Campaign Setting, Monster Vault: Nentir Vale, etc.) would all seem to argue against that observation.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 26, 2011)

Belen said:


> Paizo also has the advantage of being closer to the fans. They do not have to get approval from a bunch of suits to respond to the community...




Not entirely true. Although Paizo may not have an administrative overseer like WotC (i.e.: Hasbro), and can probably respond to and address community feedback more quickly and directly, they still have people they are responsible to. They can't just go and do whatever they want, whenever they want. How much Paizo is beholden in this manner is something only Erik Mona can answer, but I'm sure that some level of approval does exist. For example: if Paizo insisted on selling a predominant amount of DM material even if their customer base had changed or no longer desired that material, I'm sure Paizo's stakeholders would have something to say about that. Now I don't know exactly what Paizo's corporate structure looks like, or what level of control Erik Mona has (such as, I don't know if his stockholders can have him replaced or not), but I'm sure the shareholder's (also "Suits") do have a voice in the course of the company.

And, so I can't be accused of stating my own opinion only, or pulling this out of thin air, here's some of Erik's own words on the subject from the Question for the Paizo folks regarding D&D's state of today thread:



Erik Mona said:


> ...From running my own publishing operation, I've come to appreciate the concept of "opportunity cost" more acutely than ever before. Let's say I have 1 employee. I can put that guy to work on a Pathfinder book, and let's say that book makes Paizo $200 of profit.
> 
> The same guy could also work on a Planet Stories mass market pulp reprint, which takes about the same amount of time and effort and has somewhat similar costs. But because the margins are nowhere near as good and the audience is much, much, much smaller, let's say that Planet Stories book makes $2.
> 
> ...


----------



## ATimson (Jan 26, 2011)

Ourph said:


> Open Grave, MMI, MMII, MMIII, Manual of the Planes, The Plane Above, The Plane Below, Underdark, DMG1, DMG2, Hammerfast, Vor Rukoth, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Dark Sun Campaign Setting, Draconomicon I, Draconomicon II, the DM's Kit, Monster Vault, over a dozen printed adventures, numerous adventures and articles published online, plus the lineup for 2011 (Shadowfell, Icewind Dale Campaign Setting, Monster Vault: Nentir Vale, etc.) would all seem to argue against that observation.



I accept your point if you replace _Dark Sun_ (which had player & DM content) with _Eberron_ (which was split like FR). 

That said, if DM material sells so well for Wizards, why are they cutting back? _Dark Sun_ consolidated the player/DM books, and _Neverwinter_ appears to have done the same. DMG3 went by the wayside (of course there aren't that many epic-level games, Wizards, you never put out the DM support book!). They haven't bothered with any campaigns after their first, just assorted scattershot adventures.

If Paizo is selling support contracts to DMs, Wizards is just a spare parts vendor.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 26, 2011)

ATimson said:


> That said, if DM material sells so well for Wizards, why are they cutting back?




Depends entirely on what they have left to produce, the man-hours they would have to spend to produce it, and the expected profit they would make off of it if they did.  It's not that hard to understand.

The first DMG produced for whatever edition of D&D we have and will get will always be the biggest seller.  The second one will sell less.  The third one will sell even less.  At some point, the amount of man-hours spent to create that third, fourth, fifth DMG will not justify the amount of profit they will make off of it.  Many people _usually_ like and get excited for "new".  "More of the same" does not hold the same place in many people's hearts.

In fact... as is evidenced from what we've seen in every edition transition... they're more likely to get higher sales from producing a _new edition's_ first DMG, than a current edition's third or fourth DMG.  Even accepting the fact that you'll have a good segment of the gaming population who is not ready to move on to a new edition and will decry the fact that it is occuring... there will probably be many more who will.  Many more than who would buy that current edition's #3 or #4.  After all... WotC could have released a third 3.5 DMG had they wanted to... but they must have looked at their financials and determined that they just would not have sold enough to justify working on it.  Instead, they moved on to 4E and probably sold many more copies of 4E's first one.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 26, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> Not entirely true. Although Paizo may not have an administrative overseer like WotC (i.e.: Hasbro), and can probably respond to and address community feedback more quickly and directly, they still have people they are responsible to. They can't just go and do whatever they want, whenever they want. How much Paizo is beholden in this manner is something only Erik Mona can answer, but I'm sure that some level of approval does exist.




Erik Mona is answerable to Lisa Stevens. That's it. So yes, it IS fair to say that Paizo is closer to their fans and is more nimble, in terms of corporate decision making and the corporate heirarchy, to respond to changes in the marketplace as contrasted to the process of decision making at WotC and its ultimate responsibility to Hasbro's Board of Directors.

As Erik has explained elsewhere (episode 007 of our podcast, for example), for the most part, Erik calls the shots on what products get made or don't get made at Paizo publishing. That's his job as publisher within the company. He gives Green lights and he gives red lights; that's his job.

He's earned that responsibility for the very good reason that Erik Mona happens to have a proven track record that shows that he has an extremely well developed sense of what sorts of products will appeal to a widely divergent marketplace. Erik knows how to guage how a product can be gussied up to appeal to old skool gamers and how *same product* appear fresh and new to others. It's something Erik has a real talent for. He demonstrated it as editor of _Dungeon_ magazine, did the same with _Dragon _and has done so at Paizo ever since.

I'm sure that he's made mistakes. But from what I can discern - it doesn't appear that he has made too many of them.

I'm sure that Lisa Stevens is heavily involved in many of these decisions and, let's be clear, she does have the final say at Paizo. That authority is not in doubt. It's her company, after all. She was in on the ground floor for White Wolf Publishing, was Wizards of the Coast first employee (and had a $take in the company as well) and Paizo Publishing LLC is her baby. 

Last time I checked, that's a singularly KICK-ASS track record in the hobby games business. In fact, if you are looking for a better track record in the business, you simply won't find a better one. 

But it is not an insult directed at Lisa Stevens (or Vic Wertz) to suggest that both of them trust and rely upon the recommendations of Paizo's key staff, and in particular, they trust and rely upon the business judgment of Erik Mona on a day-to-day basis.  Just as I am sure that she relies upon her own, too.

One of the most undervalued qualities in a CEO is the ability for that CEO to select EXACTLY the right people to make key decisions in the company. If the CEO gets that right? Things generally go as well as they possibly can. That does not necessarily mean that the company will  be profitable, but it usually does mean that things go about as well as they could reasonably be expected to, in all of the circumstances.

If you are the CEO of a company that makes fedoras and garters for men's socks, say, then no talented decision maker is going to make that core business the envy of the world. Dead product lines are dead product lines -- no matter who is in charge.

At the same time, if the CEO puts the wrong people in charge of key decision making elements within the company? Well... 

Those are the sorts of companies that frequently make poor long-term business decisions. The company's underlying market position may be so advantageous that the company's natural strengths can hide the sins of the key decision makers for a very long time. Eventually, however, the truth wins out over the long-term.

In the case of Paizo, Erik Mona and Lisa Stevens turned an utter and complete DISASTER (when the _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine license were not renewed) and managed to switch the company's publishing focus and brand -- *ALL without skipping a beat or having to fire anybody.*

That's remarkable; it really, really is.

From a TOTAL DISASTER to what now appears to be the manufacturer  of the currently #1 selling  RPG in the hobby games business. In less than four years. That's without coming up with  key original IP or leveraging a unique patent or other unique product concept, either. 

That success was realized entirely by leveraging the assets that Paizo had and putting them to their best possible advantage. 

Seen in that light, Paizo's success is a truly outstanding accomplishment. Over the long-term, that success is clearly not the product of chance, rather, it's the consequence of making the right choices at critical points in time where others could have made very different choices.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 26, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I'm sure that he's made mistakes. But from what I can discern - it doesn't appear that he has made too many of them.




I can think of a few, though they were all relatively minor. To my mind, Erik is at his best when he's working on a setting he personally enjoys (for that matter, who isn't?) such as Greyhawk or Golarion. When it comes to other settings though...not so much.

For example, back when he was in charge of _Polyhedron_, he published the ill-received Spelljammer (mini-)setting "Shadow of the Spider Moon" (_Polyhedron_ #151/_Dungeon_ #92). In fact, the troubles with that began in the preceding issue, where his editorial dissed the "silly" nature of the original Spelljammer setting (I believe he called the giff "goofy hippo-men").

Now, before everyone jumps in to point out how the setting was silly and the giff are goofy, that's not the point. The point is that, when you're making a niche product to appeal to a certain set of fans - in this case fans of Spelljammer - you don't start out by telling them how stupid the previous iteration of the product was and how yours makes it better now. That just insults and upsets the very people you're trying to market to. It was shades of the same thing that WotC did to 3.X players when they began marketing 4E years later.

Then there was an editorial in _Dragon_ where he talked about how the arrangement of the planes didn't make sense (I can't find the specific issue number, apologies). It wasn't anything such as the alignment-based structure of the Great Wheel - rather, he talked about how the planes were largely wasted space (e.g. "can you fly into the sky in an Outer Plane for an infinite distance?"), how being able to go to Heaven made adventuring superfluous (a variant of the old "why not just stay at home instead of adventuring?" argument), and other pokes at the setting.

I posted a response here on EN World, and to be fair I remember receiving a very nice reply from Erik himself. My basic point was that none of the issues he raised were specific to the planes themselves - the universe around a given campaign world is also wasted space, but nobody worried about that too much (except for those silly fans of SJ  ).

But the big one was the debacle with Dark Sun in _Dragon_ #319 and _Polyhedron_ #169/_Dungeon_ #110. Now, I certainly didn't agree with a lot of the complaints people had (mostly those regarding the setting and timeline), but many of the mechanical issues were rightly disliked - paladins just don't belong on Athas, and sorcerers are a very ill-fit. It got to the point where Dave Noonan publicly outlined how his manuscript had been different, and that the changes in the final product were due to editing.

From what I remember, Erik was rather bitter about that one, saying something to the effect of "some fans just can't be pleased." Again, he's not entirely wrong - some fans of that setting really seem to hate everything after the first boxed set - but his editor's pen clearly took him in the wrong direction where Dark Sun was concerned.

Now, to be fair, all of these are minor problems over the course of what's been a truly distinguished career with D&D/Pathfinder. Erik is one of the modern-day giants in the industry, and deservedly so. But nobody does everything perfect all the time, especially where the varied nature of campaign settings are concerned. It's an object lesson, I think, that settings are best written and published by the people who love them the most; anything less than that has a very hard time living up to the fans' expectations.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 26, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> how being able to go to Heaven made adventuring superfluous (a variant of the old "why not just stay at home instead of adventuring?" argument), and other pokes at the setting.




I never got this one.  That is to say, I never got the arguments _against_ this one.

Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever _not_ run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever?  I mean, it's *heaven.*


----------



## Bacris (Jan 26, 2011)

Planetar bouncers.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 26, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> Erik Mona is...




I agree with everything you said.  I was just responding to Belen's statement characterising Paizo as not having to account to anyone, and therefore is better able to give the community what they want.  Although Erik Mona seems quite brilliant, and I'm truly impressed by everything Paizo has accomplished, everyone is accountable to somebody (or in someway).  If Erik did start making serious mistakes, and continued to make them without attempting to rectify them or listen to his shareholders, I highly doubt he'd remain in the position he is for very long.

A more accurate statement by Belen would have been that Paizo's leadership is much more streamlined and flexible than WotC's, and therefore better able to give the community what they want.

But a blanket statement that they don't need approval...?  That's not entirely accurate.


----------



## Tuft (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I never got this one.  That is to say, I never got the arguments _against_ this one.
> 
> Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever _not_ run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever?  I mean, it's *heaven.*




You don't need planar travel to ask that question: 

Once you collect a few astral diamonds worth of loot, why don't you buy a small country, employ all the nubile dancing girls or boys you want, and settle for earthly bliss?

Or, for that matter, pay for enough food to end hunger and starvation in the Beggar's Quarter?


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 27, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I never got this one.  That is to say, I never got the arguments _against_ this one.
> 
> Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever _not_ run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever?  I mean, it's *heaven.*




Because Heaven is wherever you find it. Yes, it's also a literal place in D&D, but the idea of being able to put down roots and remain happy somewhere can easily be found in your character's hometown.

People go adventuring because they *want* to leave their idyllic home life behind (and oftentimes find some sort of calamity that needs to be stopped, to boot), whether it's their small-town life or Heaven itself.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 27, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I never got this one.  That is to say, I never got the arguments _against_ this one.
> 
> Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever _not_ run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever?  I mean, it's *heaven.*




Because to a degree, it's like looking into the face of God. You're still alive, and as a mortal being you simply cannot fathom it, it's not meant for a consciousness constrained and limited by the conceits of flesh and neurochemicals. It's not for you, not yet, if ever, and if you ever have to go back, you may go back in despair at what you witnessed, what you couldn't understand, and what you can't acheive while still being alive. It damages you if you wash yourself in it, because everything else is dimished by comparison.

The planes are not normal. They're not just another planet with funny colored and funny shaped people. They're beautiful and terrible to behold.


----------



## Kafen (Jan 27, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> For example, back when he was in charge of _Polyhedron_, he published the ill-received Spelljammer (mini-)setting "Shadow of the Spider Moon" (_Polyhedron_ #151/_Dungeon_ #92). In fact, the troubles with that began in the preceding issue, where his editorial dissed the "silly" nature of the original Spelljammer setting (I believe he called the giff "goofy hippo-men").
> 
> Now, before everyone jumps in to point out how the setting was silly and the giff are goofy, that's not the point. The point is that, when you're making a niche product to appeal to a certain set of fans - in this case fans of Spelljammer - you don't start out by telling them how stupid the previous iteration of the product was and how yours makes it better now. That just insults and upsets the very people you're trying to market to. It was shades of the same thing that WotC did to 3.X players when they began marketing 4E years later.




I speak for three of four Spelljammer fans that know the material when I say - he did not offend three of us. The fourth player of my group is still sulking over the article as a 'lost chance to reclaim the glory', however. Overall, the article is a decent take on bringing goofy setting concepts into d20 rules for the happy ones. So, I would label that potential mistake as a darn good effort which is why three aging SJ fans have it in the binder. 

Not arguing, I am just giving my account of the article in a living SJ game. 

*clears throat and goes back to observing before giant space rodents appear with 4e stats*


----------



## 13garth13 (Jan 27, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> Not entirely true. Although Paizo may not have an administrative overseer like WotC (i.e.: Hasbro), and can probably respond to and address community feedback more quickly and directly, they still have people they are responsible to. They can't just go and do whatever they want, whenever they want. How much Paizo is beholden in this manner is something only Erik Mona can answer, but I'm sure that some level of approval does exist. For example: if Paizo insisted on selling a predominant amount of DM material even if their customer base had changed or no longer desired that material, I'm sure Paizo's stakeholders would have something to say about that. Now I don't know exactly what Paizo's corporate structure looks like, or what level of control Erik Mona has (such as, I don't know if his stockholders can have him replaced or not), but I'm sure the shareholder's (also "Suits") do have a voice in the course of the company.
> 
> And, so I can't be accused of stating my own opinion only, or pulling this out of thin air, here's some of Erik's own words on the subject from the Question for the Paizo folks regarding D&D's state of today thread:




Just to correct something that you've now repeated twice.....I'm pretty darned sure that the statement that Erik made about publicly traded companies needing to be more cautious about their bottom line etc was directed at the decision making process at WOTC, not Paizo.  Paizo certainly has *stakeholders* because they are a business (Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz would be the only people "higher" than Erik on the Paizo totem pole who therefore might have a say in his decision making, but obviously every employee there is also a stakeholder, in so far as they have an interest in seeing the company do well, given as it keeps them employed doing something they love)!

Paizo has NO *shareholders*, at least not in any typical sense of the word as they are NOT a publicly traded company.

So, yeah, while there is some vetting that could go on, the whole milieu of big-business coporate shenanigans doesn't really come into play, which absolutely gives them more creative freedom to take chances and not have to worry about whether their shareholders are pleased with the return on investment.

Cheers,
Colin

P.S.  This is to the best of my knowledge only, and I could be dead wrong....but I'm absolutely positive that Paizo is not a publicly traded company, and can happily avoid all the b.s. that comes along with that burden....


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 27, 2011)

13garth13 said:


> Paizo has NO *shareholders*, at least not in any typical sense of the word as they are NOT a publicly traded company.




This was my understanding also. You can't buy stock in Paizo Publishing (though I certainly would if I could).

For what it's worth, the Wikipedia definition of a stakeholder is the following:



> A corporate stakeholder is a party that can affect or be affected by the actions of the business as a whole. The stakeholder concept was first used in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research institute. It defined stakeholders as "those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist."[1] The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR).
> 
> The term has been broadened to include anyone who has an interest in a matter.




So the stakeholders in Paizo are the employees and the customers and really anyone who cares at all about how they're doing.



			
				13garth13 said:
			
		

> Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz would be the only people "higher" than Erik on the Paizo totem pole who therefore might have a say in his decision making




Lisa Stevens is the CEO, so she definitely outranks everybody in the company. But I'm not so sure about Vic Wertz - he's their Technical Director, as opposed to Erik being Publisher. I'd say Erik is the second-in-command in the Paizo hierarchy.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 27, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> Lisa Stevens is the CEO, so she definitely outranks everybody in the company. But I'm not so sure about Vic Wertz - he's their Technical Director, as opposed to Erik being Publisher. I'd say Erik is the second-in-command in the Paizo hierarchy.




Vic Wertz was one of WotC's earliest employees. He also was a stakeholder at Wizards of the Coast, and when Hasbro pulled up to the door with a provervial truckload of cash  -- a chunk of it fell on him, too.

Vic is the co-founder of Paizo. He, along with Lisa Stevens, -- they both own the company. 

That isn't the only thing Lisa Stevens and Vic own together. They also happen to own a home together - and furniture - and the world's largest Star Wars memorobilia collection. They sleep in the same bedroom, too. Clearer now?

So while the "publisher" may technically outrank the "technical director" on the totem pole of corporate speak, I think it is fair to say that he and Lisa run the company as its officers and directors.


----------



## Ourph (Jan 27, 2011)

ATimson said:


> I accept your point if you replace _Dark Sun_ (which had player & DM content) with _Eberron_ (which was split like FR).



I knew I'd forget something. 



> That said, if DM material sells so well for Wizards, why are they cutting back? _Dark Sun_ consolidated the player/DM books, and _Neverwinter_ appears to have done the same. DMG3 went by the wayside (of course there aren't that many epic-level games, Wizards, you never put out the DM support book!). They haven't bothered with any campaigns after their first, just assorted scattershot adventures.



It looks like they are cutting back on print products overall, but I'd say what is left is more of an even split between DM-centric and player-centric than we were used to. Essentials pretty much split things down the middle. Compendium is useful for both. Two books are clearly for players. The DM's Kit and Monster Vault are clearly for DMs. Upcoming releases also seem pretty evenly split. I wouldn't argue that WotC are increasing their DM-centric output. I would say they are cutting back across the board, but what is left seems to favor the DM side much more than their previous output.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 27, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I never got this one.  That is to say, I never got the arguments _against_ this one.
> 
> Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever _not_ run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever?  I mean, it's *heaven.*






Bacris said:


> Planetar bouncers.



"And you are?"

"Who am I?  Who am *I*?  I am Lord Necrophillius!  Scourge of the Twelve Kingdoms!  Eater of Souls!"

"Ehhhhhhh...mmmmm...you're not on the list.  Step back behind the velvet rope, please."

"WHAT?"

"I said _step back_- nicely, might I add- and I don't like repeating myself.  *Back. Off.  Sir.*"


----------



## Wicht (Jan 27, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Something else interesting to ponder: If you check out the Amazon top-selling RPGs right now, Paizo's Bestiary 2 is at #1. The Pathfinder Core book is at #3. The current top selling 4e book is at #6. The Player's Handbook (4e) is at #8, outperforming the Redbox which is at #9.




Seeing as how these things don't mean much on a daily basis, I thought it might be interesting to do a followup to this every week or so for a while. 

Currently on Amazon Gaming Bestsellers:
Bestiary 2 as at #3 (its been fluctuating around the top 3 all week),
Pathfinder Core is #5
Red Box has jumped up to #6 (a big move since yesterday, I believe it was around 14)
Pathfinder APG is at #7
D&D Rules Compendium is at #8
There's a tile set at #9 and
Monster Vault is at #10.

_A couple of thoughts, I'm guessing that the amount of sales needed to move books up or down this list in the short term is pretty slight and that the list is a projection of expected sales. That being the case, holding steady is a bigger feat than initially moving up as it shows the sales are meeting projections. Three of the top four slots are being held by novels by a relatively unknown author, which makes me wonder just how many sales Amazon does account for in the gaming field. Not as many as they did about two years ago would be my guess. _


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 27, 2011)

13garth13 said:


> Just to correct something that you've now repeated twice.....I'm pretty darned sure that the statement that Erik made about publicly traded companies needing to be more cautious about their bottom line etc was directed at the decision making process at WOTC, not Paizo. Paizo certainly has *stakeholders* because they are a business (Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz would be the only people "higher" than Erik on the Paizo totem pole who therefore might have a say in his decision making, but obviously every employee there is also a stakeholder, in so far as they have an interest in seeing the company do well, given as it keeps them employed doing something they love)!
> 
> Paizo has NO *shareholders*, at least not in any typical sense of the word as they are NOT a publicly traded company...





I stand corrected then.  I certainly misread what Erik Mona was saying then.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 27, 2011)

The store that I visit sometimes to buy games here in Germany has more Pathfinder stuff than 4E. That is because most of the 4E stuff has not been translated into german, but there is a lot of german Pathfinder stuff. 

Now, does that say anything about the state of the revenue of 4E products? I say, no.

Here is what I think happened: when WotC introduced 4E everything was supposed to be a core product. That is why we saw PHB 1, then PHB 2, then PHB 3. And DMG 1, then 2. And MM 1, then 2. Then MP 1 and 2. And so on.
If you are an older roleplayer like me, this does not bother you very much: you see the stuff in book 1 as the basis of where to start the game and book 2 and 3 as extra rules that you can use, maybe want to use.

As a new player, you have a problem. Do you need books 2 and 3? Can you play with just book 1? WTF should you buy?

Then the rules themselves: They are not easy to understand for a beginner. Easier than 3.x in my opinion, but not that easy for a complete beginner. Maybe there are too many options. As an older gamer, I have no problem ith this, but I play with unexperienced players and they sometimes do.

Last but not least, the split between 4E and 3.x. With 3.x you have the OGL. That was a good solution while there was only 3.x. But other companies could use that open liscence for ever for free. And because of this, WotC created their own competion for 4E. And Pathfinder thrives on that. That is why Pathfinder needs less errata: The system has been tested for 10 years. And Paizo was not responsible for the errata during that time, WotC was. So basically, concerning the rules system, Paizo is living off of the work that WotC has done. Which is fine, because that is what WotC has gotten itself into.

So now WotC is looking for new customers. And they see that new customers are confused by the many books with 2 and 3 in the title and the rules that are either 1. not that easy to understand or 2. too different from 3.x.

And that is why they created the Essentials line, which addresses the older roleplaying crowd by a "new" old-school flair (just check the old school cover art and the old school webpage design with the Deities and Demigods background). And the rules are easier for introductory play.

At the same time, though, they realize, that players nowadays use digital tools more often. And these people ask for digital tools that work. And they find that about 50.000 DDi subscribers probably make 6 million $ every year, without any printing costs.

And this is the direction where they are going: More internet services (which hopefully will work), less books but more digital content and books that make it clear that they are not core books, but offer options instead, in hardcover format. 

And then WotC will see where to go from there. If people want to buy more fluff in book-form and crunch digitally, they will do that. If people still want MM3 in book-form, they will give them that.
Make no mistake: If WotC actually does deliver on digital tools, 4E will go through the roof. I am fully convinced that this is what people want.

So, to me, what they are doing now makes sense (in the meaning that I think I can follow what is going on).  

Paizo does what they have always done: publish rpgs the old fashioned way, including the pdf.-format. And I do not mean that in a bad way. But it is not "going digital" the way we are seeing it with WotC.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## 13garth13 (Jan 27, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I stand corrected then.  I certainly misread what Erik Mona was saying then.




Not a big deal, and I certainly hope I didn't come off as snarky or pedantic.

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 27, 2011)

13garth13 said:


> Not a big deal, and I certainly hope I didn't come off as snarky or pedantic.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin




Not at all.  I don't feel anyone did.  And I hope I didn't either.  It was a good discussion, and I even learned something.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 27, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> And they find that about 50.000 DDi subscribers probably make 6 million $ every year, without any printing costs.



That is a huge point.  There is no doubt that the subscription model is a great move.  

But, it also allows for both sides of the debate to be right, depending on what you are looking at.

If the nosecount of players can be represented by DDI, then actual number of people playing D&D has plummeted.  Yes, a ton of cash flow results.  So the claims of success are validated.  End of discussion.  But, the claims of dramatic losses in player base are validated at the same time.  Still end of discussion.

It certainly leads one to wonder what could be done with DDI supporting a game with historic levels of fan base.

And there still seems to be the perception that the DDI # is a running count, and not a current subscriber total.  How many have dropped? (And I readily admit that 50% would still be a healthy $3 Million/year)



> Make no mistake: If WotC actually does deliver on digital tools, 4E will go through the roof. I am fully convinced that this is what people want.



I don't agree here.  I mean, you may be right about wanting digital tools.  But I don't know anyone who is in the anti-4E camp because of lack of digital tools.  Improve there and I'm certain there will be benefits seen.  But no massive shift will happen.  At the end of the day opinions of the game itself are key.



> Paizo does what they have always done: publish rpgs the old fashioned way, including the pdf.-format. And I do not mean that in a bad way. But it is not "going digital" the way we are seeing it with WotC.
> 
> Just my thoughts.



Agreed.  But I tend to think, for now, the subscription element is more important than the digital element.  Having people signed up to be automatically charged greatly increases the ability to forecast cash flow, and even more importantly, turns the hills and valleys into a constant high mesa.  As long as you customers are happy overall, they don't really think about purchases.  They buy everything instead of looking at this months offering and making selections.

Digital is good too.  And that will grow.  But right now it is the marketing game theory working here.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 28, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Make no mistake: If WotC actually does deliver on digital tools, 4E will go through the roof. I am fully convinced that this is what people want.






BryonD said:


> I don't agree here. I mean, you may be right about wanting digital tools. But I don't know anyone who is in the anti-4E camp because of lack of digital tools. Improve there and I'm certain there will be benefits seen. But no massive shift will happen. At the end of the day opinions of the game itself are key.




I agree with Bryon here.  If the digital tools get really good, WotC may see a bump in subscribers, but those subscribers are going to be from those who already play 4E.  The largest untapped customer base is those who don't play 4E, and nothing short of the return of out-of-print materials and support on DDI for all editions, is ever going to win them over.  It may never happen, and that's unfortunate as WotC is the only company able to do this, but it's the only way to get them as customers.

You don't get Pepsi and RC fans to spend money in your store by only selling Coke.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jan 28, 2011)

I remember some of this stuff differently. To wit:



Alzrius said:


> I can think of a few, though they were all relatively minor. To my mind, Erik is at his best when he's working on a setting he personally enjoys (for that matter, who isn't?) such as Greyhawk or Golarion. When it comes to other settings though...not so much.
> 
> For example, back when he was in charge of _Polyhedron_, he published the ill-received Spelljammer (mini-)setting "Shadow of the Spider Moon" (_Polyhedron_ #151/_Dungeon_ #92). In fact, the troubles with that began in the preceding issue, where his editorial dissed the "silly" nature of the original Spelljammer setting (I believe he called the giff "goofy hippo-men").




I agree that this was a mistake, in that it turned off the folks who were most likely to be interested in a new take on Spelljammer. I chalk this one up to "lessons learned," though I still stand by Shadow of the Spider Moon and in many ways I think it's conceptually stronger than the original Spelljammer campaign setting. But I shouldn't have dissed the Giff.



Alzrius said:


> Then there was an editorial in _Dragon_ where he talked about how the arrangement of the planes didn't make sense (I can't find the specific issue number, apologies). It wasn't anything such as the alignment-based structure of the Great Wheel - rather, he talked about how the planes were largely wasted space (e.g. "can you fly into the sky in an Outer Plane for an infinite distance?"), how being able to go to Heaven made adventuring superfluous (a variant of the old "why not just stay at home instead of adventuring?" argument), and other pokes at the setting.




I suspect the editorial you're referring to was "Please Pass the Ketchup," on page 6 of Dragon #321. That editorial included such observations as: "The planar cosmology of D&D stands out as the most unique and imaginative element of D&D fantasy, a trophy tarnished merely by the fact that the cosmology is also the worst element of the game" and "Sure, we should keep the sacred cows, but the rest should find their way to the chopping block."

Outrageous, you might think! Detestable!

And I'd probably agree with you. Because I didn't write that editorial. That came from the pen of Mr. Matthew Sernett, my immediate predecessor on Dragon, and I remember that editorial driving me up the wall when I first read it. Mostly because I have a soft spot (perhaps much too soft) for stuff that's been part of the game since 1st edition, and the editorial read, to me, like heresy. Reading it now, 7 years later, I don't find it nearly so offensive, but if you want to know the reasoning for all of the changes they made to the Great Wheel in 4e, this editorial is, in retrospect, a nice preview. I still don't like it very much.  



Alzrius said:


> I posted a response here on EN World, and to be fair I remember receiving a very nice reply from Erik himself. My basic point was that none of the issues he raised were specific to the planes themselves - the universe around a given campaign world is also wasted space, but nobody worried about that too much (except for those silly fans of SJ  ).




Did I? I'd love to see that post, because I'm having a hard time imagining that I might have defended that editorial back then, but I suppose anything is possible. Matt's a great guy, so I may have tried to stick up for him out of solidarity or something. I don't remember this exchange, in any event.



Alzrius said:


> But the big one was the debacle with Dark Sun in _Dragon_ #319 and _Polyhedron_ #169/_Dungeon_ #110. Now, I certainly didn't agree with a lot of the complaints people had (mostly those regarding the setting and timeline), but many of the mechanical issues were rightly disliked - paladins just don't belong on Athas, and sorcerers are a very ill-fit. It got to the point where Dave Noonan publicly outlined how his manuscript had been different, and that the changes in the final product were due to editing.
> 
> From what I remember, Erik was rather bitter about that one, saying something to the effect of "some fans just can't be pleased." Again, he's not entirely wrong - some fans of that setting really seem to hate everything after the first boxed set - but his editor's pen clearly took him in the wrong direction where Dark Sun was concerned.




You mean the Dragon #319 that was not edited by me, but by the aforementioned Matthew Sernett? I am guilty of editing the adventure in Dungeon #110 and the associated world and monster info in that issue's Polyhedron section, but I most certainly had nothing to do with the Dragon article that force-fed the paladin and sorcerer into Dark Sun. Poor Matt, I don't even think it was his decision, but rather something Wizards insisted that we did to make it "compatible" with 3e. I certainly don't think I would have posted to the effect of "some fans just can't be pleased," though. I think you're thinking of someone else in this case (again).

For the record, I took over Dragon starting with issue #327 and continued through to the very last issue of Dragon, #359. For many years prior to #327 I edited the Living Greyhawk Journal section of Dragon, but had no editorial control over the rest of the magazine.



Alzrius said:


> Now, to be fair, all of these are minor problems over the course of what's been a truly distinguished career with D&D/Pathfinder. Erik is one of the modern-day giants in the industry, and deservedly so. But nobody does everything perfect all the time, especially where the varied nature of campaign settings are concerned. It's an object lesson, I think, that settings are best written and published by the people who love them the most; anything less than that has a very hard time living up to the fans' expectations.




I'll cop to an inartful insult against D&D's hippo men, but as for the other criticisms, like Grizzly Adams, I'm afraid I've been convicted for crimes I did not commit. 

--Erik


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 28, 2011)

Erik Mona said:


> I'll cop to an inartful insult against D&D's hippo men, but as for the other criticisms, like Grizzly Adams, I'm afraid I've been convicted for crimes I did not commit.




Erik, my most sincere apologies! It seems that you were right and I was wrong regarding those latter two points. I can't seem to find the thread where I ranted about that planar editorial (you were right, it was issue #321), but I distinctly remember getting a response from the writer - apparently, it must have been Matt Sernett.

So again, that was my misremembering those two points. Sorry man, my mistake. 

But you still suck for dissing the giff.


----------



## Erik Mona (Jan 28, 2011)

Well, I like to think I made up for it by publishing PC-playable race write-ups for the giff, insectares, and scro in Dragon #339, but those Spelljammer fans have long memories.


----------



## OnyxPharaoh (Jan 28, 2011)

13Garth13

You are correct that there are no shareholders or shares in Paizo. Paizo is currently registered as an Limited Liability Company. An LLC is formed like a partnership between founding members who each agree to a split of the profits, but it enjoys some of the legal protections of a corporation, such as the right to sue and be sued.

And just to clarify, not all corprations are publicly traded. A corporation can have a small number of private shareholders holding privately traded stock and still be a corporation.

But you are right, since it is an LLC there are no shares to be traded, publicly or privately and the only people they have to answer to are the people who formed the company.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 28, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I agree with Bryon here. If the digital tools get really good, WotC may see a bump in subscribers, but those subscribers are going to be from those who already play 4E. The largest untapped customer base is those who don't play 4E, and nothing short of the return of out-of-print materials and support on DDI for all editions, is ever going to win them over. It may never happen, and that's unfortunate as WotC is the only company able to do this, but it's the only way to get them as customers.
> 
> You don't get Pepsi and RC fans to spend money in your store by only selling Coke.




WotC will most certainly get more subscribers from the group of people who want to play 4E. I can only judge by scanning the WotC forums, but I find that there are a lot of people who expect to play with a virtual tabletop, to have a proper character visualizer and other functioning digital tools. And I guess (all of what we are doing here is mostly guesswork anyway, in my opinion) that those people will go back to DDi subscriptions.

What I do not think will happen is that DDi will offer any services for the old versions of DnD. This is like asking Mercedes to still manufacture spare parts for an old 280E (built in the late 70s to mid 80s). To take your example: if you are Coke, you will not sell Pepsi. WotC is Coke. Paizo is not Pepsi.
No, WotC will focus on the latest version of the game. This is even more true for 3.x, which WotC will never support again. Because if they did, they would also support Paizo, which is the competition.

However, what I could see WotC doing, is to reproduce old adventures from the old days but as a 4E version. Then again, what is the appeal of playing old DnD adventures? I have never understood that. But this is a matter of taste, which cannot be argued over. But I doubt that there is a lot of money in that. Again, my guess is just as good as anyboy elses here.

I really do not see any way of getting people who do not like the rules of 4E to play 4E. After all, if you do not like Harnmaster, you will not play it.
This is especially true for older players. But WotC can try to win new, young players who will stick with the game as have I for 30 years. But - and here I think that the design of the Essentials line is flawed - you cannot achieve this by catering to the older people taste. Old Deities and Demigods design on the website? A "Red Box" with a red dragon on it? WTF? This is old school. And not in a good way. It solely caters to the old folks. And it contradicts the design paradigm of 4E, which is streamlined, power-card, miniature oriented and action focussed, very easy on the DM. People want Penny Arcade/Wil Wheaton type of play. That is 4E. 
Make books with lots of fluff that can be used by DMs and players alike. Offer crunch in digital form. Including adventures.

I would guess that they should produce more in that direction.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 28, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> To take your example: if you are Coke, you will not sell Pepsi. WotC is Coke. Paizo is not Pepsi.




True, as far as that goes. What's missing from the above analogy is: DDI itself has the potential to be the RPG industry equivalent of WalMart. If WalMart sold only Coke, ignoring Pepsi and others, that would be a very foolish business decision. Ignoring a large pool of potential customers to which you alone have a real ability to tap, is a foolish business decision.

(P.S.: that would mean Paizo is _Target_, RPGNow is _Costco..._and Palladium is _K-mart_.)




TheFindus said:


> I really do not see any way of getting people who do not like the rules of 4E to play 4E. After all, if you do not like Harnmaster, you will not play it. This is especially true for older players. But WotC can try to win new, young players who will stick with the game as have I for 30 years...




You're right, they won't get an additionally significant amount of people who don't prefer 4E, to play 4E. The only way you get this large group of people to by a DDI sub is to provide things they will pay for.

As far as new players though, WotC has made their play for new players...and although I'm not saying they won't get anymore, the initial big bump of a new edition is over. All they can hope for now is a slow, steady stream of new players - which history has shown tapers off over the life of an edition. So eventually, out comes a new edition.

You (TheFindus) have stuck with D&D for 30 years, through multiple editions - but a significant portion of players don't (possibly a _majority_ of players). A significant portion of customers are lost with each new edition - an amount when combining _all_ previous edition players, I believe, is a larger group than players of the current edition. As history has shown, this is a situation that will only _increase_ with each subsequent edition. So, more customers have been left behind than new customers have been gained...and history shows that a significant portion of WotC's new customers will not switch when a new edition comes out. When 5E comes out, as is eventually inevitable, many of the current customers will fall away to continue with 4E - _unless WotC maintains DDI support for 4E!_ The same thing is true for all other previous editions. Remember, 4E will likely be a _"previous"_ edition someday also.


----------



## shadzar (Jan 28, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> True, as far as that goes. What's missing from the above analogy is: DDI itself has the potential to be the RPG industry equivalent of WalMart. If WalMart sold only Coke, ignoring Pepsi and others, that would be a very foolish business decision. Ignoring a large pool of potential customers to which you alone have a real ability to tap, is a foolish business decision.
> 
> 
> 
> (P.S.: that would mean Paizo is _Target_, RPGNow is _Costco_, and Palladium is _K-mart_.)




White Wolf then is...Roses?

I might be missing what is going on in this analogy...so Walmart would carry not only Coke, but a variety of soft drinks, such as DDi could carry a variety of...D&D?


----------



## Wicht (Jan 28, 2011)

What is interesting is that Paizo is, in its own way, already doing some of this. That is, they are not producing (that I know of) a virtual tabletop, but their online store carries not only their own brand, but all of their competitors brands as well. Not only do they sell it but upon occassion they even promote 4e merchandise through their blog. I would be interested in knowing when the last time anyone from WotC did that for any non-WotC product on the WotC website.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 28, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I might be missing what is going on in this analogy...so Walmart would carry not only Coke, but a variety of soft drinks, such as DDi could carry a variety of...D&D?




Yes.



Wicht said:


> What is interesting is that Paizo is, in its own way, already doing some of this. That is, they are not producing (that I know of) a virtual tabletop, but their online store carries not only their own brand, but all of their competitors brands as well. Not only do they sell it but upon occassion they even promote 4e merchandise through their blog. I would be interested in knowing when the last time anyone from WotC did that for any non-WotC product on the WotC website.




True. Paizo is awesome that way. But unfortunately, only WotC has the legal ability to provide actual, official, out-of-print D&D materials.

But you're also right that WotC would probably never offer non-WotC products (though I think that would be seriously cool).

I'll refine the WalMart analogy a bit. WotC providing only 4E on DDI, would be like WalMart only selling regular Coke (and pointedly not selling Diet Coke, Caffiene Free Coke, Caffiene Free Diet Coke, and Coke Zero - the other "editions" of Coke - as well as other cola brands). But even more than the above analogy, imagine that WalMart actually owns Coke, knows there's a market for the other forms of Coke, and for whatever reason purposely won't sell them.

Sounds silly, but that's essentially what WotC is doing...


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 28, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> You (TheFindus) have stuck with D&D for 30 years, through multiple editions - but a significant portion of players don't (possibly a _majority_ of players). A significant portion of customers are lost with each new edition - an amount when combining _all_ previous edition players, I believe, is a larger group than players of the current edition. As history has shown, this is a situation that will only _increase_ with each subsequent edition. So, more customers have been left behind than new customers have been gained...and history shows that a significant portion of WotC's new customers will not switch when a new edition comes out. When 5E comes out, as is eventually inevitable, many of the current customers will fall away to continue with 4E - _unless WotC maintains DDI support for 4E!_ The same thing is true for all other previous editions. Remember, 4E will likely be a _"previous"_ edition someday also.




I would not say that during the 3.x times of DnD, too many people played the older versions of DnD compared to the number of people that played 3.x. I would guess that the number of DnD players not playing 3.x at that time was, well, insignificant revenuewise.

This changed with 3.x because of the OGL. These rules are free, creating competition for a new version of DnD. So competitors could still make a fortune with a product that is DnD without WotC being able to do anything about it.
Now, I do not think that anybody thought a lot about a new, fourth edition when the OGL was invented. But for 4E, WotC shot themselves in the knee with this.
And I see that as one of the 3 major reasons why a lot of people are not playing 4E now: they have 3.x to go to with full product support. If that support had stopped, more people would play 4E. Why buy 4E books if you have a shelf full of 3.x books that you can use? At least that was one of the 3 major reasons people said they did not turn to 4E. That, and of course, the design paradigm of 4E. And the fact that WotC sucked at digital content (promises, but not so much of a delivery).
Why should Paizo make 4E products if they can scavenge on the OGL? If you ask me, WotC should have put a 4 year OGL-licsence-running out-phase into the OGL to stop the competition. Cancel the liscence in 2008, be done completely with 3.x in 2012. I was not surprised at all to see that they did not offer a new OGL-type liscence for 4E. Because if 5E comes out, the same stuff would happen again. It is bad for WotC 4E business.


----------



## James Jacobs (Jan 28, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Why should Paizo make 4E products if they can scavenge on the OGL? If you ask me, WotC should have put a 4 year OGL-licsence-running out-phase into the OGL to stop the competition. Cancel the liscence in 2008, be done completely with 3.x in 2012. I was not surprised at all to see that they did not offer a new OGL-type liscence for 4E. Because if 5E comes out, the same stuff would happen again. It is bad for WotC 4E business.




Just an observation... having worked at a version of Paizo that revolved around directly building on WotC's intellectual properties (Dragon and Dungeon magazine) and having worked at a version of Paizo that revolved around "scavenging on the OGL," I must say... scavenging is a LOT more healthy and, to be honest. a LOT more fun and rewarding.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 28, 2011)

People!

Don't think of DDI as Wal-Mart: you're twisting the analogy very painfully.  Wal-Mart is the retailer, not the producer.

Think of WotC as Coca-Cola Co.  That company currently has more than 3,300 different brands under its corporate umbrella.

So the analogy would be WotC as an RPG company with Dungeons & Dragons 4Ed as one of their products.  Gamma World is another.  Previous iterations of D&D and GW- as well as past products like Boot Hill and future products as yet unknown- each satisfying part of the RPG buying public.

The question is whether WotC has the $$$, skills, and personnel to support more than 4Ed and GW, including past & present RPG IPs.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 28, 2011)

Yeah I'd imagine the freedom of developing your own work/world is more fun than having to work on someone else's being subject to their final say. 

I still lament Paizo not doing Dungeon...my players have suffered mightily with 4e's efforts, but I have begun translating a couple old Dungeon modules/AP's to 4e and once again have excellent stories to run my PC's through.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 28, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I would not say that during the 3.x times of DnD, too many people played the older versions of DnD compared to the number of people that played 3.x. I would guess that the number of DnD players not playing 3.x at that time was, well, insignificant revenuewise.
> 
> This changed with 3.x because of the OGL. These rules are free, creating competition for a new version of DnD. So competitors could still make a fortune with a product that is DnD without WotC being able to do anything about it.




First an aside, I agree that WotC won't be supporting older editions through DDI any time soon.

It is interesting to imagine a one stop digital home for "Dungeons and Dragons".  And it is even easy to imagine how that *might* end up being a huge winning choice after some start up.  But, it is really hard to see that being in WotC's current plan.



On you comment here, it is difficult to divide between the effect of the 3X ruleset and the effect of the OGL.  Clearly Pathfinder would not exist if it were not for the OGL.  So it is a fundamental piece.

But, you can't write off the appeal of the rules.  (As always, no comment intended on anyone's individual tastes, I am talking about overall market).

Pazio announced Pathfinder in March 2008. It was before 4E was released, but the market mood toward 4E was loud and clear.  If a groundswell of fans were going, a lot of 3PPs would have held their nose and gone GSL.  No doubt they would have set aside a lot of their IP first.  But they would have gone that way.  And even baring that, had Paizo still not gone 4E, they would not have gone 3E if there was not a clear market there.  (I think the awesome results exceed their "very good" expectations, but the expectations of "very good" were reasonably founded.)

3E (or at least D20/OGL) was frequently criticized for stifling innovation because such a huge chuck of the market went that way.  Again, the OGL was critical, but if players were not at least ok with the ruleset, the OGL would have sunk at the dock.

From a market point of view, 3E brought diverse gamers together.  4E simply doesn't offer the inclusion.



> Now, I do not think that anybody thought a lot about a new, fourth edition when the OGL was invented. But for 4E, WotC shot themselves in the knee with this.
> And I see that as one of the 3 major reasons why a lot of people are not playing 4E now: they have 3.x to go to with full product support. If that support had stopped, more people would play 4E. Why buy 4E books if you have a shelf full of 3.x books that you can use? At least that was one of the 3 major reasons people said they did not turn to 4E. That, and of course, the design paradigm of 4E. And the fact that WotC sucked at digital content (promises, but not so much of a delivery).



Heh, got long winded above....

Yeah, "design paradigm"....


----------



## freebfrost (Jan 29, 2011)

Wicht said:


> I would be interested in knowing when the last time anyone from WotC did that for any non-WotC product on the WotC website.




That would have been the TSR Mail Order Hobby Shop.  Pre-internet.


----------



## czak (Jan 29, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Pazio announced Pathfinder in March 2008. It was before 4E was released, but the market mood toward 4E was loud and clear.  If a groundswell of fans were going, a lot of 3PPs would have held their nose and gone GSL.




Just a minor quibble - I don't think the groundswell was the driver for the move to pathfinder, rather, I think it was the lack of a license (and all the crossed wires and changed plans at wotc around the licensing paradigm).

Paizo did not have the option of going GSL. The company had to keep publishing products in order to stay in business. IRCC Paizo needed between 8 and 6 months lead time to publish material. No license ahead of the game release and no access to the rules to actually write something meant switching to 4th ed was not an option.

If you go back and check the paizo forum archives, Vic Wertz and others were quite open about the process and why the decisions at various steps were made.


I do agree with you about the market mood, they did poll their fans to see what their options were - now how useful polling your forum and internet opinion is.... *shrug* It worked for them in this case, but was still a big gamble.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 29, 2011)

czak said:


> Just a minor quibble - I don't think the groundswell was the driver for the move to pathfinder, rather, I think it was the lack of a license (and all the crossed wires and changed plans at wotc around the licensing paradigm).



Well, I didn't say it was groundswell, I said it was "lack" of one.

Again, I agree that the were multiple pieces to the issue, and I recall the conversations.  But the did have an option to use the GSL.  It was just a very poor option.  And the gap was certainly a concern as well.
But the market moods towards both systems were at least as critical as anything else in getting us where we are.

I certainly don't think they were disappointed that GSL issues stood between them and their chance at supporting 4E....


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 29, 2011)

James Jacobs said:


> Just an observation... having worked at a version of Paizo that revolved around directly building on WotC's intellectual properties (Dragon and Dungeon magazine) and having worked at a version of Paizo that revolved around "scavenging on the OGL," I must say... scavenging is a LOT more healthy and, to be honest. a LOT more fun and rewarding.




I am sure it is. 
And from a DMs point of view, I have to admit that LOOTING every product financially available for the game you are playing is the best thing you can do. And since I like a lot of the stuff Paizo publishes, I loot it quite often - while playing 4E. And while Dungeon and Dragon magazines were much more expensive in the print version here in Germany, the content was much better under Paizo. Again, more to loot there.

But I am sure that WotC does not like the competition Paizo is. They do not like the fact that you can use the OGL for free and support an old version of DnD to an extent which this game has never seen before, resulting in a rift between gaming DnD communities.
Please, do not get the wrong impression about my choice of words here: If I were in Paizo's position, I would be a "scavenger", too. And in a big way. For me as a customer, competition is good.


----------



## Zil (Jan 29, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I am sure it is.
> And from a DMs point of view, I have to admit that LOOTING every product financially available for the game you are playing is the best thing you can do.






> But I am sure that WotC does not like the competition Paizo is. They do not like the fact that you can use the OGL for free and support an old version of DnD to an extent which this game has never seen before, resulting in a rift between gaming DnD communities.
> Please, do not get the wrong impression about my choice of words here: If I were in Paizo's position, I would be a "scavenger", too. And in a big way. For me as a customer, competition is good.




I think that your choice of wording is not really appropriate.   I'm referring to "looting" and "scavenging".  These words have very negative connotations and are not really appropriate descriptors.

A more apt analogy is to describe the OGL like an open source license which is, afterall, what is was modelled after.  In a software world analogy, WoTC announced that they were no longer going to maintain or develop the 3.x D&D software branch.  Because it was released via an open source license (i.e. the OGL), anyone else was free to step up to the plate and become the maintainer of the 3.x branch.  So Pathfinder is thus the next version of the 3.x software that WoTC abandoned and Paizo is simply the new maintainer. 

In the open source world, you don't go around saying that people taking over abandoned software projects are looters and scavengers.  It's not polite and isn't really a true reflection of what has happened which is actually a positive thing - namely that software that people like is being supported rather than abandoned.

Now as for whether WoTC knew what they were getting into when the effectively "open-sourced" D&D, I'm sure many did know what they were getting into.  And if they didn't, then they clearly weren't paying enough attention to the project model they were adopting.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 29, 2011)

Zil said:


> ...I'm referring to "looting" and "scavenging". These words have very negative connotations and are not really appropriate descriptors.
> 
> A more apt analogy is to describe the OGL like...




I like to describe what Paizo has done as rennovating a rundown neighborhood into a thriving and revitalized community...a community possibly even more healthy than it was at it's previous peak.

They have done something quite astounding and eminently praiseworthy, so I agree_..."scavenging"_ and _"looting"_ seem disparaging in any context, but even more so when compared with what Paizo has accomplished.

Now I, on the other hand, shamelessly loot and scavenge the hell out of Pathfinder...


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 29, 2011)

From the long-term business perspective of WotC, I think it's abundantly clear that the OGL was a mistake.

But for all that, it was only a _minor mistake _that had other fringe benefits. It proved to be a real inconvenience in terms of marketing at a retail level. The flood of poor, substandard products in the marketplace hurt the overall brand  and WotC knew that had hurt retailers. WotC was concerned about the effect those substandard products had on the overall D&D brand image, too.  They wanted to fix it - and it wasn't wrong for WotC to want to do that.

Still, from WotC's perspective, the negatives of the OGL were minor only; they were not a *major disaster*. Unless WotC did something stupid, that negative wouldn't mature and crystallize into a major disaster, either. 

But, as it turns out -- WotC DID do something stupid. 

As long as WotC kept up with the OGL with each new edition of the game, that minor mistake would not lead to a disaster or somebody using the OGL to essentially use WotC's core IP, rebrand it, and sell it in *effective* competition with D&D itself.

Anybody could TRY and do it. But do it *effectively*? Very, very hard. Impossibly hard, really. Unless WotC made it possible through their own errors. Turns out - WotC made it possible.

I submit three things allowed a minor mistake to crystallize into a MAJOR mistake.

1) *The Ticking Time Bomb:* The OGL was a time bomb, but one that would never go off as long as you kept hitting the refresh button. WotC chose NOT to hit the refresh button and tried to retrofit a cancel button onto the OGL with the GSL instead. 

There was no cancel button on the OGL, by design. They tried to add one. That was a non-starter and it was rejected because the underlying GSL was not in the commercial interests of the perpetual licensees. 


*
2) Different Opinion on Length of Business Cycle:* The OGL is incompatible with WotC's preferred length of the Business Cycle of its D&D product line. Even if the OGL couldn't be cancelled, it could be ignored as long as it was continued and re-implemented with the next edition of the game. 

When WotC tried to escape that effect, nobody else would sign on. This STILL would not have resulted in competition against their own IP, except for one thing: WotC wanted to revise/reset/resell the game *too soon* after the last version of the game was released. The value-in-use to the customer of the last version of the game was too high at the time 4E was released. 

This created a market opportunity that a well-positioned competitor could use to their advantage.

*3) You Can't License The Goodwill of an Entire Brand: 
*WotC should NEVER have spun off their own periodicals division (now Paizo) and allowed it to communicate monthly with their core customers while Wotc remained largely silent in communicating with those same customers. When WotC allowed that to happen, it transferred the goodwill and legitimacy as "official guardians of the game" from WotC to Paizo -- PERMANENTLY. 

WotC believed it was just licensing this goodwill and at the end of the license, they would get it back. That was a FOOLISH business decision. The real world does not work that way. 

If you are a big company, sometimes you start to believe your own balance sheet is REAL. You start to think that the product you make is a trademark, IP, and a brand which has very little to do with the people who actually create your products -- or who buys them. There is truth in this view -- but only to a point.  

Because ANY certified business valuator will tell you that you CAN'T RELIABLY VALUE THE GOODWILL OF AN ENTIRE BRAND AFTER IT IS LICENSED. 

You can SELL IT, but it is very difficult to value it after you license it. 

When you sell an asset -- it's gone. When you license it for a fee, you are planning on a reversion of that goodwill at the end of the license. So the terms of the deal call for the goodwill to come back to the licensor at the end of the license. 

A certified business valuator will tell you that is an inherently risky bet to expect that you will get back the same goodwill attached to an entire brand if you license it. You might get that goodwill back -- and you might not, too. All you can value is the short-term revenue stream of that license. Trying to value the goodwill of an entire brand as a capital asset AFTER you license it is almost impossible. 

So it is an inherently risky business proposition to do it. Smart companies don't do it. WotC wasn't smart. When they spun off their own periodicals division AFTER they created the OGL? They effectively licensed the entire D&D brand to another company in the minds of the customer. 

DUMB move.

*Putting those three mistakes together 
*
When the last version of the game still had significant legs in the minds of customers? That's when the time bomb that was the OGL crystallized, went active, and allowed Paizo to use it to compete effectively with WotC. 

Paizo was perfectly positioned to do it, because they had the goodwill of customers and legitimacy as "real owners of D&D" because WotC allowed them to acquire it with every column and article which appeared in those magazines over the course of five years.  That was a serious mistake, imo. Closing the periodicals department at WotC and spinning it off was exactly the sort of short-sighted business decision that poor key business people make. 

*End Result:* From the perspective of WotC's commercial interests, the OGL was a mistake. But it need not have been a significant mistake that cost it a lot of money. That effect was lurking, but only WotC's own subsequent business decisions could set it off. 

Turns out, they did set it off. When WotC tried to escape the OGL with the GSL, -- while trying to force a radically new edition of the game on customers so soon after the last one was released -- they set off the bomb.

It is hard to have sympathy for WotC in these circumstances. They are entirely the architects of their own misfortune in this matter. If they could have a mulligan over the whole GSL and roll-out of the 4E rules? They'd take that mulligan  in a heartbeat. 

But that isn't the way the world works. You live or die by your choices. Right now, D&D is dying by them. There may be a way out of this for WotC and the D&D Brand in the long-term, but I'm not sure what that is right now.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 29, 2011)

I don't know. I think the OGL has, in a way, hurt WotC but it didn't have to. 

Firstly, a minor nitpick counter argument. I would disagree that it was a minor mistake to issue the OGL, at least on the part of the creator of the OGL. As envisioned, the OGL did exactly what it was intended to do. Part of the intent was to free the actual product (D&D) from the possibility of a change in company ownership leading to the death of the product in its current form (i.e. rebranding it as a boardgame, a card game, etc. and allowing the RPG aspect to die). That is, it was supposed to allow for exactly what Paizo did. While this is not necessarily good for WotC/Hasbro, it was part of the publicly stated reason for the license and therefore cannot properly called a mistake.   

But,  if WotC has used the OGL in a manner similar to how Paizo is using it, I think WotC would be enjoying phenomenal success with it. The glut of bad product (a phenomena I think personally to be overstated) would have (and did) correct itself after a period of time. It was merely a moment in the history of the brand that needed to be weathered. If WotC had weathered that problem and began incorporating the _good_ 3pp material in their books, they would have benefitted from the license. That is, it was only a minor problem because they chose to view it that way when all along they should have sought to use it in a way beneficial to themselves.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 29, 2011)

I agree with most of what Wicht and Steel_Wind said.

Personally, I don't think that the OGL was ever a mistake for anyone. As Wicht noted, WotC flat-out stated that they wanted people to use it to make the sort of products that they didn't care to focus on (such as adventures), and that's exactly what a lot of people did.

Now, WotC certainly didn't foresee a lot of the other ramifications of the OGL that came into being. Remember that FAQ on their site dismissively saying "Can someone reprint the entire OGL as a sort of PHB? Sure, if you think you could make money off of it." But this was still in their enlightened self-interest; even if you were playing an OGL game that was d20-based (and thus didn't need so much as the PHB) you were still far and away closer to D&D than if you were playing another table-top game - in fact, odds were good you'd started with D&D anyway.

I also agree that the so-called "glut" of products is overstated. Yes, there were a lot of d20 products, and some of them weren't good, but that's the case in any instance where there are multiple companies producing the same type of material - some will be better than others.

The "glut" largely happened after v.3.5 was released, which created massive stores of v.3.0 products that were suddenly valueless in the minds of the consumers (and thus retailers), which seriously shook consumer confidence in the game as a whole - it's no coincidence that right after v.3.5 came out was when we started seeing a lot of threads here on EN World about what Fourth Edition would be like.

Beyond that though, I think that Steel_Wind's three points are correct. The OGL wasn't a mistake for WotC, but they managed to make it work against them by 1) Licensing the goodwill of D&D out to Paizo, 2) Releasing Fourth Edition much too soon, and 3) Trying to kill the OGL with the GSL.

Those things empowered (and indeed, somewhat forced) Paizo to step up and become the "alternative D&D" in the tabletop RPG market. What happened was the natural consequence of WotC's mishandling of the OGL - it wasn't a mistake for them; they just changed their business practice to where they wouldn't let it work for them anymore, instead making it a detriment.


----------



## carmachu (Jan 29, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I agree with Bryon here. If the digital tools get really good, WotC may see a bump in subscribers, but those subscribers are going to be from those who already play 4E. The largest untapped customer base is those who don't play 4E, and nothing short of the return of out-of-print materials and support on DDI for all editions, is ever going to win them over. It may never happen, and that's unfortunate as WotC is the only company able to do this, but it's the only way to get them as customers.
> 
> You don't get Pepsi and RC fans to spend money in your store by only selling Coke.




The better be out of this world. Because right now, I know several folks that play 4e and that are incredibly unhappy with the new character builder, and want the old one back.

Its not looking good.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 29, 2011)

I agree with everything Wicht and Alzrius said, and almost everything Steel_Wind said, except I don't believe that D&D is dying.  They've definitely suffered some setbacks and damage to the brand (most of it self-inflicted), but I don't think it's dying.  I think they've pulled back on things that aren't proving profitable, and concentrating on things that do, which is what a business should do.  The impact those decisions may have on retailers definitely sucks, but I don't think it will be fatal for them either.  But, I do think that D&D's physical presence is going to be much smaller in the future, while their digital presence should expand (as long as they don't screw that up too)...


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 29, 2011)

Zil said:


> I think that your choice of wording is not really appropriate.   I'm referring to "looting" and "scavenging".  These words have very negative connotations and are not really appropriate descriptors.
> 
> A more apt analogy is ...




I do not want there to be a misunderstanding. "Looting" in my post referred to what I am doing as a DM with products I buy. I will not use the entire piece, but use what I need. I consider this an easy way to find the stuff to play and prepare for sessions. I do not think that there are many DMs that don't do this.

I used the word "scavenge" to emphazise that in my opinion it was a bad business decision by WotC to have the OGL in the form it is today when they published 4E. And that is entirely WotC's fault. Although I like 4E much much better than 3E - which is a matter of taste - the way WotC handled many things did just not go well. They screwed up a lot of times. And that is the reason we see a lot of threads in all different kinds of forums about the "death spiral", the "end" of WotC. Well, lots of death there anyway.
And I thought it fitting to picture the carcass of WotC failed business decisions lying somewhere in the RPG savanna, being fed on by, well, scavenger birds. It is not the birds fault. And these birds will stay alive and healthy. Which is a good thing. I did not intend to use the word in an offensive way. And it well within anybodies right to find my description lacking of aptitude.
Just wanted to make that clear.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 29, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I used the word "scavenge" to emphazise that in my opinion it was a bad business decision by WotC to have the OGL in the form it is today when they published 4E.




You are wording this funny. I just want to make sure that you understand there is no way that WotC could have done anything to change the OGL as it is irrevocably open. WotC can never turn it off or do anything to scale it back. They can issue a new OGL but the license itself gives permission to use whichever version of the license you want to use, so in a very practical sense, the only thing WotC could do to make changes to it is make it even more open, which might be tricky in and of itself. 

Now if you mean it was a bad idea to publish 4e as they did within a reality that includes the irrevocable OGL, then I would agree with you.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 29, 2011)

Steel_Wind said:


> I submit three things allowed a minor mistake to crystallize into a MAJOR mistake.
> 
> 1) *The Ticking Time Bomb:* The OGL was a time bomb, but one that would never go off as long as you kept hitting the refresh button. WotC chose NOT to hit the refresh button and tried to retrofit a cancel button onto the OGL with the GSL instead.
> 
> There was no cancel button on the OGL, by design. They tried to add one. That was a non-starter and it was rejected because the underlying GSL was not in the commercial interests of the perpetual licensees.




Your post included a lot of things in a context I had not thought about before. And I mostly agree with you.

However, I think that Paizo would have gone with Pathfinder or some OGL-version of the game regardless of a new OGL for 4E. When they announced Pathfinder, they said that they had been working on this since 2007, way before 4E was announced.
I think because of the different design ideas in 4E, they assumed there would be a good business opportunity to start out on their own, without having to depend on another company's business decision. The OGL was their chance, and they took it.
They assumed - and rightfully so - that a lot of people would not like the new game design.




> *
> 2) Different Opinion on Length of Business Cycle:* The OGL is incompatible with WotC's preferred length of the Business Cycle of its D&D product line. Even if the OGL couldn't be cancelled, it could be ignored as long as it was continued and re-implemented with the next edition of the game.
> 
> When WotC tried to escape that effect, nobody else would sign on. This STILL would not have resulted in competition against their own IP, except for one thing: WotC wanted to revise/reset/resell the game *too soon* after the last version of the game was released. The value-in-use to the customer of the last version of the game was too high at the time 4E was released.
> ...



All I can say is that I was ready for a new game. I loved Book of Nine Swords and the fact that all the classes in this book could do something every encounter. I had played high-level campaigns and dreaded the fact that spellcasters had to sift through tons and tons of spells, leaving the non-spellcasters waiting. Most of the arguments for 4E ring true with my experience of 3.x. I know that this is a matter of taste and cannot be argued over. But after 10 years of 3rd edition, the people I know were ready for something new. Some play Warhammer now, most of them 4E.
So I think that WotC would have had a good chance of winning a lot more people over to 4E if they reacted differently. I do not think that the time factor made a difference.



> *3) You Can't License The Goodwill of an Entire Brand:
> *WotC should NEVER have spun off their own periodicals division (now Paizo) and allowed it to communicate monthly with their core customers while Wotc remained largely silent in communicating with those same customers. When WotC allowed that to happen, it transferred the goodwill and legitimacy as "official guardians of the game" from WotC to Paizo -- PERMANENTLY.
> 
> WotC believed it was just licensing this goodwill and at the end of the license, they would get it back. That was a FOOLISH business decision. The real world does not work that way.
> ...



That is so true. And you put into words what I for the longest time could not wrap my head around. I kept asking myself: why do they neglect the magazines? Why is there no real effort? The 4E AP was suboptimal, lacking the quality of, say, Age of Wyrms. They do not offer enough campaign material for the campaign books they publish. There is almost no story arc for Eberron, Dark Sun for 4E while, in my opinion, there should be something like this in every Dungeon magazine.

If they want to take what you call "goodwill" back, they need to up the quality of the magazines. And I have no clue why they outsourced them to begin with.
But you are right: this made Paizo very strong. It was the end of WotC as the sole "DnD" company. Now there are two.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 30, 2011)

Wicht said:


> You are wording this funny. I just want to make sure that you understand there is no way that WotC could have done anything to change the OGL as it is irrevocably open. WotC can never turn it off or do anything to scale it back. They can issue a new OGL but the license itself gives permission to use whichever version of the license you want to use, so in a very practical sense, the only thing WotC could do to make changes to it is make it even more open, which might be tricky in and of itself.
> 
> Now if you mean it was a bad idea to publish 4e as they did within a reality that includes the irrevocable OGL, then I would agree with you.




Oh, I agree completely. I understand the legal nature of the OGL. What I am saying is, that they should have thought about the effect of the OGL when they created it (1999?) and should have asked the question: What will happen if we release a new version of the game? Will that enable other companies to seriously compete with us? And they either did not do that at all or they thought that everything would be fine for them. Which it is not. This is their own fault.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 30, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> However, I think that Paizo would have gone with Pathfinder or some OGL-version of the game regardless of a new OGL for 4E. When they announced Pathfinder, they said that they had been working on this since 2007, way before 4E was announced.




I don't think this is quite correct. While it's possible that I'm misremembering, I recall it differently.

I remember that shortly after we were told that the magazines would be ending (in early-mid 2007) Paizo let people know that they were starting a new monthly book of 3.5 material called Pathfinder, and that was all.

Later on (I think a few months after Gen Con that same year, which was when 4E was announced) Paizo announced that they would be releasing their own RPG, also called Pathfinder. We were told that Jason Bulmahn had basically been writing his own set of house rules for 3.5, and that these were the basis for the new game.

The open playtest then began in March of 2008, and lasted for about eighteen months before the final game came out.

In other words, at the time 4E was announced, Paizo hadn't made up their mind to publish their own game yet. It was the lack of announcement for what opportunities would be made available for third-parties regarding 4E that basically left them little choice but to go their own way (since they need to work several months in advance).


----------



## Wicht (Jan 30, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Oh, I agree completely. I understand the legal nature of the OGL. What I am saying is, that they should have thought about the effect of the OGL when they created it (1999?) and should have asked the question: What will happen if we release a new version of the game? Will that enable other companies to seriously compete with us? And they either did not do that at all or they thought that everything would be fine for them. Which it is not. This is their own fault.




Except, Ryan Dancey understood completely what he was doing and as far as I can tell, from what he has said, designed it so that if WotC dropped the ball with D&D, others would be able to pick it up and run with it. So the ones in charge at the time did think about it. What happened is that after the ones who created the OGL left, the ones who came in did not seem to understand how to use it. 

One should always remember that WotC is actually a group of people and the group of people there at the moment, living with the ramifications of the OGL are not the ones who released the OGL. The ones who released the OGL knew exactly why they were doing it. They were, in essence, putting the game ahead of the company; though at the same time, again, WotC evolved into a company which did not take advantage of the OGL like they could have.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 30, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Your post included a lot of things in a context I had not thought about before. And I mostly agree with you.
> 
> However, I think that Paizo would have gone with Pathfinder or some OGL-version of the game regardless of a new OGL for 4E. When they announced Pathfinder, they said that they had been working on this since 2007, way before 4E was announced.




Yeah, as Alzrius said, that's not quite right. Jason had been developing his own rules beforehand, but it was not with the intent, originally to go up against 4e. I get the feeling he was just messing around with "house-rules." Paizo was very much publically on the fence leading up to their announcement with the Alpha rules. There was no secret plan being developed all along. They were playing it be ear right up till the last moment as far as I could tell, following along.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 30, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Yeah, as Alzrius said, that's not quite right. Jason had been developing his own rules beforehand, but it was not with the intent, originally to go up against 4e. I get the feeling he was just messing around with "house-rules." Paizo was very much publically on the fence leading up to their announcement with the Alpha rules. There was no secret plan being developed all along. They were playing it be ear right up till the last moment as far as I could tell, following along.




You are correct. They decided to do the Pathfinder RPG after 4E was announced. They began design on the Pathfinder RPG in 2007 before the final version of the 4E GSL was released (WotC went back and forth on that final version a couple of times). However, they saw that there would not be another OGL, but a (limiting) GSL instead. So they decided to use the old 3.x OGL.

Still, staying with 3.x was their way to become independent from WotC after having successfully published the iconic DnD magazines. They were able to build a fanbase around that. To stay with WotC and their latest version of the game while at the same time neglecting the old version would have meant for them to continue to be dependent on WotC. With the 3.x OGL, there was no need for that anymore, especially because WotC had decided to cancel the printed version of the magazines anyway. Why stay with 4E then? Add to that the fact that a lot of people did not like the new design of 4E and wanted to continue playing 3.x.

Paizo saw an opportunity and made a wise business decision. And as far as I can tell, it paid off.

However, I am not so sure if this is still on topic with the title of this thread.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 30, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> I don't think this is quite correct. While it's possible that I'm misremembering, I recall it differently.
> 
> I remember that shortly after we were told that the magazines would be ending (in early-mid 2007) Paizo let people know that they were starting a new monthly book of 3.5 material called Pathfinder, and that was all.
> 
> ...




Thats how i remember it, was just going to say that with a XP but it wouldn't let me. Apparently I have given you to much.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 30, 2011)

Wicht said:


> The ones who released the OGL knew exactly why they were doing it. They were, in essence, putting the game ahead of the company




In my opinion, putting the game ahead of the company was a mistake for WotC. Cooperating with other companies and allowing them to use what you have created is one thing. Giving them a chance to compete with you in the long run, is another. I would say that, for a company, the game is neither more important than the company. Nor are the rules in the OGL the best DnD rules there can be.

I am not sure whether WotC would have sold less books without the OGL if they had cooperated with other companies on a different basis. Can anybody educate me on this? Would you have stopped playing DnD without the 3.x OGL in 1999/2000? At least I was drawn back to DnD and the third edition not because of the OGL but because of the rules.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 30, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> In my opinion, putting the game ahead of the company was a mistake for WotC. Cooperating with other companies and allowing them to use what you have created is one thing. Giving them a chance to compete with you in the long run, is another. I would say that, for a company, the game is neither more important than the company. Nor are the rules in the OGL the best DnD rules there can be.
> 
> I am not sure whether WotC would have sold less books without the OGL if they had cooperated with other companies on a different basis. Can anybody educate me on this? Would you have stopped playing DnD without the 3.x OGL in 1999/2000? At least I was drawn back to DnD and the third edition not because of the OGL but because of the rules.




So we can assume you think the game should be second to the company's interests? They shouldn't necessarily do what's best for the game if it might not be good for the company?

I don't think it matters that any single consumer thinks that 3e wasn't the best D&D possible. The OGL, had WotC actually put some leverage to it, could have been a powerful tool for improving the game. By incorporating ideas and revisions, the game could have been really progressive, like AD&D was intended to be when it first debuted.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 30, 2011)

billd91 said:


> They shouldn't necessarily do what's best for the game if it might not be good for the company?




I do not expect them to. Being able to pay for food and health insurance is more important than "the game". I would hope the two go hand in hand most of the time, though.



> I don't think it matters that any single consumer thinks that 3e wasn't the best D&D possible. The OGL, had WotC actually put some leverage to it, could have been a powerful tool for improving the game. By incorporating ideas and revisions, the game could have been really progressive, like AD&D was intended to be when it first debuted.



I know a lot of people who think the rules of the new version of DnD are progressive. They most certainly were the result of the 3.x experience and what the designers of 4E thought was not so good about third edition.
But I was not comparing different existing editions of DnD. I will not start or participate in an edition war. What I am saying is that when you make rules for a roleplaying game, any game really, and offer these rules to other companies, your competition, forever and for free without being able to take that decision back, you have to think about what will happen if you - as WotC/TSR have done at least two times before - publish a new version of these rules. After all, rules do evolve and at some point you will want to publish a new version. What is the competition going to do with the free old rules that they can continue to publish new material for? What impact will this have? I think these are valid and important questions before you create an OGL.

And I would like to know if WotC would have sold less books if they had not created the OGL but instead found some other way of cooperating with competing companies without giving them the legal right to use the rules forever for free. I am not so sure that they would have made less money.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 30, 2011)

Again though, when you say "WotC" you make it sound like the company is this monolithic entity, but it is and was not. It is a group of people.  In a sense "WotC" could not have anticipated the results of the OGL because "WotC" as it exists today is not the "WotC" which released the OGL. Legally it is the same entity, but the people comprising the entity are different. 

On the other hand, again, the people that released the OGL *wanted* to create the possiblity that another company could do what Paizo did. Now, one could argue they were shortsighted in their company decision making, though, personally, I think the OGL was good for WotC D&D sales. It helped create a palpable excitement that invigorated the roleplaying community in a good way. However, one cannot accuse them of not anticipating this outcome when they (read Ryan Dancey) more or less publically stated at various times and in various ways that he had considered the outcome and thought it was a good thing. 

From a non-company-loyalty, at-will-employee perspective, the OGL makes very good sense. If I have a hand in creating a new and well-recieved product, and am working for another company who is going to own that product; if I can convince the powers to be to allow me the legal right to keep making that product should the company let me go, I am going to try to do so. If the company then mismanages their ownership of the product, I have not only guaranteed that I can continue to make a living, but I can continue to produce the product in a form I personally approve of.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 30, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Again though, when you say "WotC" you make it sound like the company is this monolithic entity, but it is and was not. It is a group of people.  In a sense "WotC" could not have anticipated the results of the OGL because "WotC" as it exists today is not the "WotC" which released the OGL. Legally it is the same entity, but the people comprising the entity are different.




I do not know what you are trying to say here besides stating the obvious. The people at WotC have to make the business decisions. At the time they work there. And their decisions influence the decisions other people working at WotC have to make at some later point in time.



> On the other hand, again, the people that released the OGL *wanted* to create the possiblity that another company could do what Paizo did. Now, one could argue they were shortsighted in their company decision making, though, personally, I think the OGL was good for WotC D&D sales. It helped create a palpable excitement that invigorated the roleplaying community in a good way. However, one cannot accuse them of not anticipating this outcome when they (read Ryan Dancey) more or less publically stated at various times and in various ways that he had considered the outcome and thought it was a good thing.




I know they wanted the OGL and thought it was a great idea. But in my opinion they only made more money through the OGL if 
1. that would have been their only option of giving other companies the right to use the 3rd edition material without being able to stop them from using that material at some later point,
2. a OGL product published by another company was the reason why somebody bought WotC products that would not otherwise been purchased.

I claim that they could have given other companies the right to use the material with a time limit, a cancellation time frame if you will ("you have to stop using our rules in 3 years").
I also claim that people jumped on the 3rd edition train because they were tired of the old rules, the 3rd edition rules were good and people liked them. The content was there, support through the magazines was stable and campaigns like Eberron were a huge success. I would therefore guess that the amount of people who only wanted to play with the product of a third party publisher or otherwise not play 3rd edition at all is very limited.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 30, 2011)

Dark Mistress said:


> Thats how i remember it, was just going to say that with a XP but it wouldn't let me. Apparently I have given you to much.




Covered it for you.  I agree also.


----------



## Zil (Jan 30, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I claim that they could have given other companies the right to use the material with a time limit, a cancellation time frame if you will ("you have to stop using our rules in 3 years").




I suspect if they had done it this way, then you would have had a lot fewer third party publishers and a lot less excitement about 3rd edition in the industry.  You probably wouldn't have had Green Ronin and Freeport, Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, etc.  And the game would have been the poorer for it.  

I think you underestimate the benefits the creation of the OGL ecosystem had.   Unfortunately WoTC failed to properly take full advantage of the ecosystem.  The only material of theirs that I remember including any third party OGL material was their 3E Unearthed Arcana book.  

Paizo on the other hand heavily utilizes non-Paizo OGL material.  You commonly see OGL things from Necromancer Games and Green Ronin for example in their adventures.  Also, all of their rules are released back as OGL for others to use.  WoTC didn't always update their SRD with their many splat book rules.  



> I also claim that people jumped on the 3rd edition train because they were tired of the old rules, the 3rd edition rules were good and people liked them. The content was there, support through the magazines was stable and campaigns like Eberron were a huge success. I would therefore guess that the amount of people who only wanted to play with the product of a third party publisher or otherwise not play 3rd edition at all is very limited.




I would say that your first point that people would have upgraded to 3E even if it were not OGL is probably correct.  3E is a good system and I am pretty sure our group would have upgraded regardless.

However, the real question is, would all of these same people stuck with 3E if there was not that 3rd party ecosystem out there or would they have moved on to completely different game systems after a while with much less chance of coming back to WoTC because they were now playing GURPS, BRP or whatever as their primary game system.   

I know that I purchased a lot of WoTC and a lot 3rd party 3.x/D20/OGL material over the years and I don't think I was alone in this.  

I also know that the idea of the D&D game being released as open source (via the OGL) was a truly exciting thing for me and it earned a lot of goodwill from me.  I work with Open Source software a lot through work and was involved in pushing some of our own software into an open source license so it strongly resonated with me.  I kept buying Wizards gaming material even though much of it was mediocre (especially the many splat books) - mostly because of the general feeling of goodwill.  That goodwill abruptly vanished with 4E when they tried the poison pill via the early drafts of the GSL.

If the OGL had a built in poison pill, it certainly wouldn't have created nearly as much goodwill nor built a particularly vibrant community.  I'm thankful it did not and grateful to WoTC for having the courage to do what they did with 3.x and the OGL.   They put the interests of the game first.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 30, 2011)

Zil said:


> I think you underestimate the benefits the creation of the OGL ecosystem had.   Unfortunately WoTC failed to properly take full advantage of the ecosystem.  The only material of theirs that I remember including any third party OGL material was their 3E Unearthed Arcana book.




Monster Manual 2 as well if I remember correctly (had a total of 2 monsters and a messed up section 15 I believe). 

I also would have bought into 3e without the OGL but the OGL certainly made me a great deal more enthusiastic for the game. The OGL was what convinced me that D&D was in good hands and that the heads of the WotC RPG division (at that time) understood the gaming community.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 30, 2011)

Zil said:


> I suspect if they had done it this way, then you would have had a lot fewer third party publishers and a lot less excitement about 3rd edition in the industry.  You probably wouldn't have had Green Ronin and Freeport, Monte Cook's Malhavoc Press, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, etc.  And the game would have been the poorer for it.




Why should WotC care about Green Ronin or Monte Cook after he stopped working for WotC? "The game" is not a holy grail. I find the notion of "We are all friends here" amusing. Where is the support of Green Ronin for 4E? It is a business decision that needs to be made. "We are all one big community, group hug" has nothing to do with it.

DnD worked fine without the OGL for a very long time. TSR failed because they did not produce products that people wanted to buy. But 3rd edition was a product that, after all these years of drought, people really really, I mean really, wanted to buy.



> I think you underestimate the benefits the creation of the OGL ecosystem had.




I think you overestimate the benefits of the OGL for WotC. The market was flooded with, let's put it mildly, suboptimal material which gave customers and retailers a hard time, because nobody would buy the stuff (problem for retailers) and you did not know which stuff was good enough to be bought (customer's problem). You can still find the most outrageous nonsense at the game convention here in Essen for less than a buck. And still nobody will buy it. 



> I would say that your first point that people would have upgraded to 3E even if it were not OGL is probably correct.  3E is a good system and I am pretty sure our group would have upgraded regardless.
> 
> However, the real question is, would all of these same people stuck with 3E if there was not that 3rd party ecosystem out there or would they have moved on to completely different game systems after a while with much less chance of coming back to WoTC because they were now playing GURPS, BRP or whatever as their primary game system.




Now, why would they do that? Because they could not find enough 3rd party support for 3rd edition? I do not think this is realistic. 3rd edition was what WotC made it. As I have said before, the magazines were going strong, the campaign books were successful. Plenty of reasons to keep playing 3rd edition. As far as I can see, many of them are still playing it now BECAUSE of the good products that Paizo puts out.



> I know that I purchased a lot of WoTC and a lot 3rd party 3.x/D20/OGL material over the years and I don't think I was alone in this.




So did I. And it was good for the 3rd party publishers that we bought their stuff. But that does not mean that it was good for WotC. Again, would the situation have been soooo much different if they had worked with 3rd party publishers on a long term, but cancelable basis? I have many serious doubts. WotC either creates products strong enough to stand on their own. Or they fail trying. To hope for 3rd party support does not seem to be a reliable business strategy. And to give away their creation for free without ever being able to get it back is a very risky business decision.



> I also know that the idea of the D&D game being released as open source (via the OGL) was a truly exciting thing for me and it earned a lot of goodwill from me.  I work with Open Source software a lot through work and was involved in pushing some of our own software into an open source license so it strongly resonated with me.  I kept buying Wizards gaming material even though much of it was mediocre (especially the many splat books) - mostly because of the general feeling of goodwill.  That goodwill abruptly vanished with 4E when they tried the poison pill via the early drafts of the GSL.




We all like things for free, sure. But I will not buy a mediocre product if I cannot use or like the content. And I do not think that there are a lot of people who buy the stuff just because it has WotC on the front cover. If people had that kind of money to throw around we would not see the abundance of threads complaining about the price of DDI and what WotC should do to reduce the price or increase the quality of it's content.

Plus - but I have to do more research on that subject, because I am not a programmer or in the computer industry - I am very skeptical if you can really compare Open Source Software to a RPG OGL. I have to do more research on that to make up my mind.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 30, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Monster Manual 2 as well if I remember correctly (had a total of 2 monsters and a messed up section 15 I believe).




The razor boar and scorpionfolk, which were themselves OGC reprints of the iron tusker and sandmasker, respectively, from Sword & Sorcery Studios' _Creature Collection_ (which had pre-empted the _Monster Manual_ onto the market).

It mentioned the origins of these creatures in a sidebar, which also talked about how it was "time for Wizards of the Coast to take its first step" into Open Gaming. Apparently, it was also the last step (save for _Unearthed Arcana_, some SRD expansions, and one or two _Dragon_ articles).

And indeed, they didn't get the Section 15 of their own license correct, either.


----------



## Zil (Jan 30, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Why should WotC care about Green Ronin or Monte Cook after he stopped working for WotC? "The game" is not a holy grail. I find the notion of "We are all friends here" amusing. Where is the support of Green Ronin for 4E? It is a business decision that needs to be made. "We are all one big community, group hug" has nothing to do with it.




Very few of the big companies from 3E are supporting 4E because (a) the license for 4E is bad and (b) a number of these folks didn't like the direction where 4E went, but I'd say (a) was the main reason.   The fact that 3rd party publishers have no way to add material to the DDI is another issue, but wasn't one of the initial reasons for potential 3rd party publishers staying away from 4E.   But that is beside the point.  These people did effectively raise the value of the 3E brand and the OGL allowed that to happen. 

I believe that as gamers, the game should be the holy grail.  It's about the game, not about the business entities that market the game to us.  Unless you're a shareholder of Hasbro, why are you so concerned about WoTC so much so that you put that concern ahead of your interest in the game?  That I don't understand.  

If the companies producing the game(s) we love seems to put the interests of the game first, then fantastic!  We should be excited and happy.  That's why what WoTC did with the OGL SRD was so great!  And it's also why what Necromancer Games did with the Tome of Horrors, Green Ronin with the Advanced Bestiary, and Paizo with Pathfinder is so great.  The OGL helps build communities which is good for gamers, and I would argue, good for all the companies involved, WoTC included.  Wizard's problems only came about because of what they did in the transition to 4E.  



> DnD worked fine without the OGL for a very long time. TSR failed because they did not produce products that people wanted to buy. But 3rd edition was a product that, after all these years of drought, people really really, I mean really, wanted to buy.




And some of us really were interested in Freeport.  And Ptolus.  And the Scarred Lands.  We played in those settings but still purchased the crunch books from WoTC because we were playing the same game.



> I think you overestimate the benefits of the OGL for WotC. The market was flooded with, let's put it mildly, suboptimal material which gave customers and retailers a hard time, because nobody would buy the stuff (problem for retailers) and you did not know which stuff was good enough to be bought (customer's problem). You can still find the most outrageous nonsense at the game convention here in Essen for less than a buck. And still nobody will buy it.




Sure, there was sub-par 3rd party material, but there was also sub-par WoTC material.  If you look at previous versions of D&D under TSR's stewardship,  you can find a fair bit of sub-par material there as well.  It's probably inevitable whether you allow 3rd party participation or not.  The smart consumer learned to pick and choose.  And the smart retailers learned the same.  

I remember one retailer in my town (the only FLGS at the time - now out of business) who went and ordered in more than a dozen of one WoTC book aimed at DMs (one of the fiendish codex books) even though there were only a handful of DMs that bought at his store - but many players.  If he was paying attention he would have ordered in fewer of the DM books, but more player oriented books.  Also, if your line of complete guide to salamanders is not selling, then you probably should not bring in so many of that line in the future or relegate it to special orders only.  The dealers need to pay attention to what they are bringing in.  The same is true in lots of retail stores.  You need to watch trends and understand your customers. 

What really caught the dealers was the change from 3E to 3.5.  As soon as 3.5 was unexpectedly released any product that was 3E dropped dramatically in value.  I'd say that was a much worse problem for the dealers than any glut of sub-par 3rd party material.  



> As I have said before, the magazines were going strong, the campaign books were successful. Plenty of reasons to keep playing 3rd edition. As far as I can see, many of them are still playing it now BECAUSE of the good products that Paizo puts out.




At the time of 3E it was stated that the TSR campaign settings were not successful and that they were partly what put TSR under.  So the 3E focus was on core rules and not the release of lots of settings.  What did they have in 3E?  Forgotten Realms and Eberron.  Gone was Planescape, Darksun, Birthright, Mystara, etc etc.  They licensed off Ravenloft and Dragonlance, but the rest of the them sat idle other than brief appearances in Dragon magazine.



> So did I. And it was good for the 3rd party publishers that we bought their stuff. But that does not mean that it was good for WotC. Again, would the situation have been soooo much different if they had worked with 3rd party publishers on a long term, but cancelable basis? I have many serious doubts. WotC either creates products strong enough to stand on their own. Or they fail trying. To hope for 3rd party support does not seem to be a reliable business strategy. And to give away their creation for free without ever being able to get it back is a very risky business decision.




Do you have evidence that 3rd party publishers actually _hurt_ Wizards of the Coast profits in the 3.x era?  Post-3E it is a different story, but there are lots of factors there as Steel Wolf laid out a while back.   And WoTC could have taken better advantage of the OGL like Paizo does today.  They chose not to.  They could have handled the transition to 4E much better.  Heck, if they had released 4E under the OGL then we may have had a very different situation than we do now.  

Do I think WoTC would have gotten some 3rd party publishers on-board with a restrictive 3E license?  Possibly.  You had people like Kenzer who were willing to negotiate a D&D license.  But the pool of 3rd party support would have been much smaller and I'm not sure that WoTC would have been able to step up and fill the void to keep everyone engaged and playing the game.  Those that drifted off to third party OGL settings may have instead drifted off to completely different game systems and been lost to WoTC completely.  



> We all like things for free, sure. But I will not buy a mediocre product if I cannot use or like the content. And I do not think that there are a lot of people who buy the stuff just because it has WotC on the front cover. If people had that kind of money to throw around we would not see the abundance of threads complaining about the price of DDI and what WotC should do to reduce the price or increase the quality of it's content.




Yea, well I did throw that kind of money around on WoTC books, minis, tiles, maps, etc.  I don't anymore, but I did.  I have even more TSR material - many thousands of dollars of stuff.  Some is quite good, some less so.   And I suspect there are more people out there like me who have been with this game for 30+ years, have good paying jobs and are willing to spend money on their hobby, sometimes a bit foolishly.  These days I direct most of my money at Paizo and the various 3rd party Pathfinder publishers and you know what, the quality of things has gone up dramatically from the old 3E days.  Hopefully that continues.  



> Plus - but I have to do more research on that subject, because I am not a programmer or in the computer industry - I am very skeptical if you can really compare Open Source Software to a RPG OGL. I have to do more research on that to make up my mind.




It's definitely an analogous copyleft license.  You can find quite a bit on open source licenses online in Wikipedia and other places.


----------



## TheFindus (Jan 31, 2011)

Zil said:


> I believe that as gamers, the game should be the holy grail.  It's about the game, not about the business entities that market the game to us.  Unless you're a shareholder of Hasbro, why are you so concerned about WoTC so much so that you put that concern ahead of your interest in the game?  That I don't understand.




There is a difference between what I think helps my game as a gamer and the strategical business decision somebody has to make as a manager of a company. I think I made myself very clear that as a gamer I use, loot and scavenge every bit of material I bought and think I could use to improve my game. 

I do want WotC to succeed as a company because I like the new version of the game very much. Maybe you feel the same way about Pathfinder. And although this seems to be completely off the topic of this thread, we are discussing the effect of the OGL on WotC's ablitity to be successful with 4E. And I still argue that the OGL took a huge chunk out of that success.



> If the companies producing the game(s) we love seems to put the interests of the game first, then fantastic!  We should be excited and happy.  That's why what WoTC did with the OGL SRD was so great!  And it's also why what Necromancer Games did with the Tome of Horrors, Green Ronin with the Advanced Bestiary, and Paizo with Pathfinder is so great.  The OGL helps build communities which is good for gamers, and I would argue, good for all the companies involved, WoTC included.  Wizard's problems only came about because of what they did in the transition to 4E.




Of course it hurt them! But only more so because these other companies had the OGL to turn to. They could, effectively, live without the creator of the main rules. And if that is not bad for WotC, then I do not know what is.



> And some of us really were interested in Freeport.  And Ptolus.  And the Scarred Lands.  We played in those settings but still purchased the crunch books from WoTC because we were playing the same game.




Again: Would you not have bought WotC products if Freeport, Ptolus and the Scarred Lands had been 1. nonexistant or 2. published under a more limited version of the OGL, a GSL let's say?



> Do you have evidence that 3rd party publishers actually _hurt_ Wizards of the Coast profits in the 3.x era?




I never claimed that and I think this is the wrong question to ask. Again, the question is whether gamers would not have bought WotC's 3rd edition material if less 3rd party publishers had been around.
And I am saying that judging from the fact that before 3rd edition DnD was strong for a very very long time without an OGL, WotC's 3rd edition would have been very strong also without a OGL. The reason being that people were ready for a new edition and really liked the new version of DnD. That was the reason why they bought so many PHBs, not because they said: "Oh, without Ptolus/Freeport, I do not want to play 3rd edition".



> Post-3E it is a different story, but there are lots of factors there as Steel Wolf laid out a while back.   And WoTC could have taken better advantage of the OGL like Paizo does today.




What Steel Wind said was that they should not have given Paizo the rights to publish the magazines. And he is right about that. With the OGL, they gave their IP away for free. With the magazines, they also transferred the brand identity to Paizo. But, mind you, without the OGL, Paizo would have never been able to use the rule-system like they are doing now. WotC could have taken back the magazines and left Paizo in the dirt. WotC would still have to keep up the quality of their products. But there would not have been a second fullfledged supported version of DnD that effectively competes with the new version of DnD which is 4E.

And again, to make this very clear: as a DM, I like the fact that I have Paizo's products to choose from that I can loot for material. But it is not my job to make money in the RPG business. It is WotC's job to do that. And they should not have created the OGL in my opinion. It hurt them really badly. 

Have you ever wondered why WotC did not publish the old campaigns in hardcover format? Maybe they thought that they would not sell because of the sheer amount of campaign worlds out there. Maybe that caused a glut in the market. At least I felt that there were too many campaigns to choose from. 
WotC wants to make a pirate campaign. Oh, wait, because of the OGL, Green Ronin already has one. What about a mega-city full of adventure? Oh, Mr. Cook came up with that after he left.
As a gamer, I do not care if I buy Ptolus from Cook or WotC. But as WotC, I probably want the gamers to buy Ptolus from me only perhaps? I would argue that the OGL created missed opportunities for WotC, because it gave the competition the chance to fully implement interesting game worlds using the 3rd edition rules.



> Yea, well I did throw that kind of money around on WoTC books, minis, tiles, maps, etc.  I don't anymore, but I did.




At some point, I found I had enough minis to last a lifetime. I am lending them out to other groups actually. And with a wife, kids, job and other hobbies, I do not even have the time to paint them. So then I start paying others to paint them for me. And when all the mins are painted I will stop spending money on them altogether. Again, the glut.

The only thing I still buy is terrain. I just love Worldworksgames products too much. The usablity an ingenuity of their products makes me weep. I am actually crying right now just thinking about it


----------



## Wicht (Jan 31, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> WotC wants to make a pirate campaign. Oh, wait, because of the OGL, Green Ronin already has one. What about a mega-city full of adventure? Oh, Mr. Cook came up with that after he left.




REspectfully, you are looking at it all wrong. In fairness, your point of view is probably the one some in WotC have (just a guess), but its wrongheaded and counterproductive. With the OGL synergy is the key to success. So Green Ronin has a successful pirate city? Riff off of it and make a book about ship to ship combat. Come up with an Adventure Path in which the PCs are marooned with cannibal pirates on an island. Develop a book of sea monsters. Enter into an agreement with Green Ronin and create a new set of adventures set in that city. 

So Monte Cook has a successful book in Arcana Evolved. Pick a race from the book and, with Monte's permission, expand on that race and create more material for that race. So Tome of Horrors is wildly popular? Use some of their monsters in your published adventures. 

By building off of the very things that are popular, you can expand your audience and sell more books.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 31, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> ... we are discussing the effect of the OGL on WotC's ablitity to be successful with 4E. And I still argue that the OGL took a huge chunk out of that success.



I actually doubt that.

Right now choosing to play 4E or Pathfinder or straight 3X or any other RPG are all valid options.

If someone prefers 4E to Pathfinder then they would spend their money on 4E.  The OGL won't do anything about that.  (Yes, there may be some exceptions of people who prefer 4E but their group plays PF.  But if D&D is the 800 lb gorilla, that should hurt PF much more than 4E, so lets just call it a wash and move on.)

Very, very few people are so rabidly loyal to the concept of Open Gaming that they will choose their system on that basis.  They are not non-existent, but they are pretty negligible to the market.

I guess you could argue that there are people who only play PF as their game of choice and only support one game AND 4E is their no prize second place.  But again, how many people do you really think that is?

If WotC makes a game that the market overwhelming wants, the OGL won't be the slightest speed bump.  

You may argue that some people would have defaulted to following 4E had PF not jumped up as an "anti-4E" of sorts.  Again, I doubt that would have been THAT many people.  But assume it was significant.  The popularity of 4E is waning already amongst people who DIDN'T jump ship for PF.  I think is is safe to say that those who were ambivalent enough to jump at the get go would have already left faster than those who stuck around.

GURPS is a competitor to 4E.  Warhammer is a competitor to 4E.  D20 games are a competitor to 4E.  People play the game they want to play.

Is there an effect?  Maybe some.
Is it a "huge chunk"?  No, not close.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 31, 2011)

[MENTION=75791]TheFindus[/MENTION]



TheFindus said:


> ...If people had that kind of money to throw around we would not see* the* *abundance of threads complaining about the price of DDI* and what WotC should do to reduce the price or increase the quality of it's content...




I at least skim a significant portion of the threads here at ENWorld, and fully read a good many of the most trafficed ones, and I don't recall any threads complaining about the price of DDI. Quality? Yes...Price? No. I haven't seen it mentioned (not even once) in any of the threads about why people have unsubscribed, or what it would take to get people to subscribe/resubscribe. I've seen people stating that in this economy they can't afford an indulgence like DDI, but that isn't the same as complaining that the price is too high or asking WotC to reduce it.

Perhaps you could enlighten me with some links to these threads and the applicable posts...?


----------



## BryonD (Jan 31, 2011)

Wicht said:


> By building off of the very things that are popular, you can expand your audience and sell more books.



I agree with you.  

There may have been some money that was diverted from WotC to 3PPs.  But for every dollar that went that way, three dollars came to WotC because somebody loved the direction a 3PP took their D&D game and kept buying D&D books because of it.

3E lasted a solid life cycle.  If the competition was hurting it, it would have gone away much quicker.


----------



## Zil (Jan 31, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> There is a difference between what I think helps my game as a gamer and the strategical business decision somebody has to make as a manager of a company. I think I made myself very clear that as a gamer I use, loot and scavenge every bit of material I bought and think I could use to improve my game.




I'm not talking just about just my own personal game.  I'm talking about the greater gaming community, and in particular the D&D umbrella which includes all previous versions of the game and close relatives/offshoots.  I'm talking more about the hobby than my personal game.  

Yes, I do understand that business decisions don't always align perfectly with my personal wishes and desires.  And business decisions don't always align perfectly with what is best for the hobby.  However, sometimes they can align well.  And I think the OGL did align well for WoTC.  

It no longer does, but that is because they tried to escape from the OGL with 4E and they've discovered it wasn't so easy.  They could have better used the OGL ecosystem in 3E days and they could have released 4E via the OGL.  



> I do want WotC to succeed as a company because I like the new version of the game very much. Maybe you feel the same way about Pathfinder. And although this seems to be completely off the topic of this thread, we are discussing the effect of the OGL on WotC's ablitity to be successful with 4E. And I still argue that the OGL took a huge chunk out of that success.




And I say that it didn't have to take such a huge chunk out of 4Es potential sales.  If they had initially released 4E via the OGL then there would have been less incentive for Paizo to have gone their own way.  Perhaps they may still have, but they were on the fence for a while and if WoTC had gone with the OGL for 4E they wouldn't have necessarily have driven Paizo into being a direct competitor.  

I'm actually pleased with how things turned out because I get to continue to have support for the version of the game I prefer, but the 4E crowd still has their own version and support through WoTC.  Everyone wins and gets to play the game they enjoy.  WoTC might not earn as much money as they were hoping, but I doubt they are losing money from 4E.  What they may be losing is their position as market leader, but all that means is that they need to better position their game so that it appeals to more people.  Whether that is by improving on the game or otherwise better positioning the game to appeal to more people, it's something they need to work out.  And when they do, hopefully you'll be happier with the version of the game you enjoy.



> Again: Would you not have bought WotC products if Freeport, Ptolus and the Scarred Lands had been 1. nonexistant or 2. published under a more limited version of the OGL, a GSL let's say?




I never said I wouldn't have.  However, I don't really care for the Forgotten Realms as a campaign setting so until Eberron came around I might seriously have been tempted elsewhere to another game that had a more interesting setting.   If I had, then I wouldn't have been buying that many WoTC crunch books since I wasn't using the 3E d20 system anymore.  



> The reason being that people were ready for a new edition and really liked the new version of DnD. That was the reason why they bought so many PHBs, not because they said: "Oh, without Ptolus/Freeport, I do not want to play 3rd edition".



You are missing the point I was trying to make.  The issue is that people might get bored of the limited options available from WoTC so having these other OGL 3.x options available from third party publishers helps these folk keep playing the same game which means WoTC has the potential to keep selling stuff to them even though they are playing someone elses campaign setting (or using someone elses book of magic items or monsters or whatever).  The alternative in a non-OGL version of 3E is that people are more likely to drift away to a completely different game system that is not d20/3.x based and then those people are far less likely to buy WoTC products.



> And again, to make this very clear: as a DM, I like the fact that I have Paizo's products to choose from that I can loot for material. But it is not my job to make money in the RPG business. It is WotC's job to do that. And they should not have created the OGL in my opinion. It hurt them really badly.




Wizard's completely botched the release of 4E.  That is what hurt them. Even still, I think they are still making money - just not as much as they would have liked.  The only sad thing is that they are at risk of seeing D&D fall from being the #1 fantasy RPG game.   

If 4E had from the get-go been released as OGL I think we would have a completely different ball-game now.  It was the 4E release decisions more than anything that have lead to the relative decline of D&D 4E.  



> Have you ever wondered why WotC did not publish the old campaigns in hardcover format? Maybe they thought that they would not sell because of the sheer amount of campaign worlds out there. Maybe that caused a glut in the market. At least I felt that there were too many campaigns to choose from.




You just said earlier that the TSR campaign worlds were doing well when justifying a non-OGL based release of 3E.  I don't follow where you are going with this sub-thread.  



> WotC wants to make a pirate campaign. Oh, wait, because of the OGL, Green Ronin already has one. What about a mega-city full of adventure? Oh, Mr. Cook came up with that after he left.
> As a gamer, I do not care if I buy Ptolus from Cook or WotC. But as WotC, I probably want the gamers to buy Ptolus from me only perhaps? I would argue that the OGL created missed opportunities for WotC, because it gave the competition the chance to fully implement interesting game worlds using the 3rd edition rules.




There were and are a limited number of employees at WoTC working on D&D products.  They can only do so much.  WoTC clearly decided to focus on putting out crunch via the various splat books because that was where they saw the money, i.e. books for players rather than campaign worlds or lots of adventures.    

All that said, there is some third party support of 4E.  Open Design/Kobold Quarterly manages to support both versions of the game (in addition to other non D&D game systems such as their BRP based patronage project and possible Dragon Age in their Midgard patronage project.)    I think having 4E patronage products and having 4E articles appearing in Kobold Quarterly is good for 4E.  There would be a lot more of that type of support for 4E if it had been released as OGL.  

Finally, I think that competition can be healthy for the game.  Designers writing for the various versions of D&D can be inspired by each other and strive to better their own version be it with superior adventures, more fluid mechanics, or whatever.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 31, 2011)

I know this wasn't directed at me, but i wanted to comment to this one part.



TheFindus said:


> Again: Would you not have bought WotC products if Freeport, Ptolus and the Scarred Lands had been 1. nonexistant or 2. published under a more limited version of the OGL, a GSL let's say?




Personally yes it would have effected me buying WotC books if they did not exist. The reason being is, 3pp offered niche products that WotC didn't offer which keep me playing. With out them I would have instead done what I did in previous years. Go play other games, which means buying their core rule books and their splat books etc. All money not going to WotC. Now if 3pp gives me niche products I keep playing DnD and keep buying more WotC. So for me personally having 3pp and a wide variety keep me buying more WotC books than if there hadn't been any or a lot less.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 1, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I am not sure whether WotC would have sold less books without the OGL if they had cooperated with other companies on a different basis. Can anybody educate me on this? Would you have stopped playing DnD without the 3.x OGL in 1999/2000? At least I was drawn back to DnD and the third edition not because of the OGL but because of the rules.




I can say with near-certainty that I would have stopped playing regularly circa-2003 and probably never upgraded to 3.5 as a result. My first campaign was winding down at that point and it was only OGL material that fueled my interest in continuing to run the system at that point.

Which isn't to say I wasn't still a WotC customer. In addition to core rulebooks, I spent several hundred dollars every year on WotC products until 2008. But it wasn't WotC producing that "I gotta run a campaign in Freeport!" type vibes (to use one example).

And I don't think that was a failure on WotC's part. 90% of everything is crap, and it's even tougher to produce something that really EXCITES someone (and that can be a very idiosynchratic reaction). Few companies in this industry manage that even once. It's why pre- D20 I was switching to a new game every few months and had been doing so for years.

The OGL got hundreds of companies producing stuff for D&D. Which meant I had a constant supply of material to get me excited about playing and running the game. Which kept me engaged as a customer for WotC.

As long as WotC maintained itself as the core of this little galaxy of support products, they benefitted from it. As 3.5 demonstrated, this remained true across edition boundaries. (3.0 material became obsolete - it didn't fuel an insurgency of 3.0 players using the Mongoose Player's Handbook.)

But once WotC decided to abandon that network, they left a vacuum that could be filled. And it was filled. And it's kicking WotC's ass in a way that nobody has ever done.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 1, 2011)

Dark Mistress said:


> I know this wasn't directed at me, but i wanted to comment to this one part.
> 
> Personally yes it would have effected me buying WotC books if they did not exist. The reason being is, 3pp offered niche products that WotC didn't offer which keep me playing. With out them I would have instead done what I did in previous years. Go play other games, which means buying their core rule books and their splat books etc. All money not going to WotC. Now if 3pp gives me niche products I keep playing DnD and keep buying more WotC. So for me personally having 3pp and a wide variety keep me buying more WotC books than if there hadn't been any or a lot less.




I understand your point.
But the question I am asking is whether the OGL was absolutely neccessary to let 3rd party publishers offer material that would not have been created. To give you an example: I played the Freeport adventures. Now it may be that there was some sort of piratey stuff in some of the DnD magazines, but I don't know. At the time, I thought the Freeport adventures fit into my campaign, so I used the material. 
Why was the OGL neccessary for these adventures? Would it not have been possible for Green Ronin to publish these adventures under some other legal agreement with WotC that gave them the right to publish this, but gave WotC the right - after a couple of years - to not let them use the material again. You know, use it for a timespan that makes your business possible but does not take away the rights of WotC to cancel the usage of the 3rd edition rules. Say, use the rules with a yearly liscense fee. And then use all of the published rules (which, if I recall correctly, did not offer the full rules). I am getting the impression that you think that legally the OGL was the only way to achieve a deep involvement of 3rd party publishers. Well, we know that it is not. There is (to stick with the software thing) software you can use when you pay a liscence fee. 
That would have kept the rights to the rules solely with WotC.

All of what you are saying would have been possible with a different legal solution, but WotC would not have given away their IP.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 1, 2011)

Zil said:


> It no longer does, but that is because they tried to escape from the OGL with 4E and they've discovered it wasn't so easy. They could have better used the OGL ecosystem in 3E days and they could have released 4E via the OGL. ´




First let me say that I am enjoying this conversation very much.

I understand your point. 
But I think there is one aspect that you might be overlooking. Now this is with hindsight, but lets just say Paizo would have gone with 4E at first. And then, when the deition war storm broke loose, they would have realized that there are a lot of people who just do not like 4E because of the design, which these people think sucks big time.
This is a target group that WotC did not reach anymore and taht would have been looking for somebody to pick up the 3rd edition stick and march on with it. And I am 100% sure that Paizo would have done that. It is just too big of an opportunity, too many business chances there.

And the OGL would have made that possible.

As I posted above, in my opinion this could have been avoided with some sort of other legal agreement. Something that gives the right to use the rules to a company but retains the rights to stop that usage with WotC. Combine this with a lower fee than the 5000$ (was that the OGL fee, I do not remember) and I gues WotC would have been good to go. 
I would say, same effect as the OGL, no loss of IP.



> I'm actually pleased with how things turned out because I get to continue to have support for the version of the game I prefer, but the 4E crowd still has their own version and support through WoTC. Everyone wins and gets to play the game they enjoy. WoTC might not earn as much money as they were hoping, but I doubt they are losing money from 4E. What they may be losing is their position as market leader, but all that means is that they need to better position their game so that it appeals to more people. Whether that is by improving on the game or otherwise better positioning the game to appeal to more people, it's something they need to work out. And when they do, hopefully you'll be happier with the version of the game you enjoy.




I agree with you completely here.



> You just said earlier that the TSR campaign worlds were doing well when justifying a non-OGL based release of 3E. I don't follow where you are going with this sub-thread.




I do not think they were doing well, because they build up competing products within the company that people could buy. But the fact that they were able to create all these worlds shows that you had a lot of design potential which could have been used to satisfy by far the most DnD players.
Maybe we just have different memories, but I remember the 3rd edition times being fun, sure, but also as a time when there were a lot of D20 books that one simply could not use. A complete glut. It was hard to find something that I really wanted to use.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 1, 2011)

Wicht said:


> REspectfully, you are looking at it all wrong. In fairness, your point of view is probably the one some in WotC have (just a guess), but its wrongheaded and counterproductive. With the OGL synergy is the key to success. So Green Ronin has a successful pirate city? Riff off of it and make a book about ship to ship combat. Come up with an Adventure Path in which the PCs are marooned with cannibal pirates on an island. Develop a book of sea monsters. Enter into an agreement with Green Ronin and create a new set of adventures set in that city.
> 
> So Monte Cook has a successful book in Arcana Evolved. Pick a race from the book and, with Monte's permission, expand on that race and create more material for that race. So Tome of Horrors is wildly popular? Use some of their monsters in your published adventures.
> 
> By building off of the very things that are popular, you can expand your audience and sell more books.




If I thought that would really work, then more power to it. I just don't think this works. The main reason being that we cannot determine success in this industry correctly. That is the reasson nobody except WotC knows how successful their product is. Same is true for Paizo.
But if you are trying to say the could have used stuff they thought was cool to use or fun or fitting, they could have.

And, again, was the OGL the only way to achieve this (if you really want to - I have the impression 3rd edition worked well for WotC)? I have said this in the last 4, 5, 6? posts: find a legal agreement that lets companies use the rules but keeps the IP with WotC. This happens all the time in other industries.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 1, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> @TheFindus
> I at least skim a significant portion of the threads here at ENWorld, and fully read a good many of the most trafficed ones, and I don't recall any threads complaining about the price of DDI. Quality? Yes...Price? No. I haven't seen it mentioned (not even once) in any of the threads about why people have unsubscribed, or what it would take to get people to subscribe/resubscribe. I've seen people stating that in this economy they can't afford an indulgence like DDI, but that isn't the same as complaining that the price is too high or asking WotC to reduce it.
> 
> Perhaps you could enlighten me with some links to these threads and the applicable posts...?




Interesting name.
I almost missed your reply.

I was not referring to ENWorld only. I read a lot of threads that complained that the price for the DDI subscription is too high because of the use people get out of it. They complained about the price because they did not think it is worth paying for what DDI has to offer. In fact, there was one thread that talked about a different subscription price policy. 
I remember a thread on the WotC forums that was quite long that was almost entirely about the price and the online version of the CB. Over 150 pages of complaints on 6 euros a month. It is always a question of how much are you willing to pay for your money, of course.

But what I was and am saying is that I pay 6 euros a month for more than what I was able to get in the old days for 14 euros. With DDI you get the information in the books, so I also buy less books. But, really, this is sooo far off topic, we should not discuss in this thread.

Here are some threads I found in just the short time I have now:


http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-industry-forum/299918-should-they-price-dungeons-dragons-insider-way-people-actually-use.html

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26636229/What_am_I_paying_for

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/26496729/Heres_what_I_would_pay_for

Edit: Oh, that looks awful. I do not know what to do about the colour now, though. Sorry for that.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 1, 2011)

Wicht said:


> With the OGL synergy is the key to success. So Green Ronin has a successful pirate city? Riff off of it and make a book about ship to ship combat. Come up with an Adventure Path in which the PCs are marooned with cannibal pirates on an island. Develop a book of sea monsters. Enter into an agreement with Green Ronin and create a new set of adventures set in that city.




The only problem with this idea is that it meant WotC would be delving into the minutia/niche parts of the hobby that would probably not generate the sales numbers necessary to justify the expense of putting man-hours to it.  The whole point of the OGL was so other companies could produce things like a book of ship-to-ship combat, or modules for a pirate campaign etc.

The problem WotC had with 3E, 3.5 (and now 4E) is that the products which sell _at the numbers they need_ to justify the expense of producing them... is the baseline books.  The first wave of PH, DMG, MM, and splatbooks for the classes in PH.

As soon as those are done, they are now on the downward slope towards running out of money-making material.  Now WotC actually made a good decision in holding back the gnome, halforc, druid, barbarian, bard, and sorcerer... in that it actually _extended_ their baseline products into the second series of books.  So they got a second wave of fairly good sales.  But once those three books PHII, DMG2, MMII were on the shelf... they again have run up against the wall.

PH3 and MM3 have run into diminishing returns.  They've tried to replicate the sales boost of 3.5 without the stigma of 3.5 by releasing Essentials... but they've found that because those are basically glorified 'splatbooks' for the existing 4E player, they are not necessary purchases (not nearly to the same extent 3.5 was).

So what is left for them?  There are no books remaining in 4E that would create the same sales numbers that they got two years ago... the same way there were no 3.5 books for them to release when they made the decision to create 4E.  Because despite claims to contrary... I do not personally believe that 'adventure paths' or niche books do that for them.  If they did... we'd have another three or four Hammerfast/Von Rukoth books on the schedule, we wouldn't have seen the Player's Options: Dragonborn and Tiefling books end after just those two, and a couple more hardcover adventure books like Revenge of the Giants and Tomb of Horrors would be scheduled.

Instead... what is really left for WotC?  It's DDI.  A monthly revenue stream that generates for them for the year the equivalent sales of _two hardcover books_ for every person who subscribes to it.  And what's most important is that they're getting this money from the people who they probably wouldn't get the equivalent money from had they just released a bunch of hardcover books.  I subscribe to DDI... but I didn't buy PH3, nor will I buy Heroes of Shadow when that gets released.  Monster Manual 3?  Didn't buy it.  Any of the Essentials?  Didn't buy it.  Champions of Sword and Spell?  Wouldn't have bought it had it been released.  Heck, even the products they still DO have on their schedule for the year I still don't intend to buy... because I am quite happy playing D&D using the dozen products I bought in the first two years of the game's lifecycle.

However, I will still continue to subscribe to DDI... because the tools I get from it are just so damn useful.  So that's $70 they'll get from me that they otherwise would not.  And the fact that they are following this tack of release gives a pretty good indication that there are probably many more people _like me_... than there are of people who would have bought at least three of the hardcover books they would have released this year had they not changed their publication decisions.  A few of you probably are diehards who intended to buy every book... but I don't think there are enough of you to sustain the sales that WotC needs.

Print is not 'dead' per se... but I do think we are approaching the point where print is now 'niche'.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 1, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Why was the OGL neccessary for these adventures? Would it not have been possible for Green Ronin to publish these adventures under some other legal agreement with WotC that gave them the right to publish this, but gave WotC the right - after a couple of years - to not let them use the material again.




Possible? Yes, of course.

Would it have happened? No.

First, for any kind of one-on-one arrangement this adds additional legal expenses to both WotC and the other company involved. It's doubtful WotC would be interested in spending that money; and those costs would certainly be passed on to the licensee.

Second, companies simply are not interested in spending money to develop products which can then be yanked from the market on somebody else's timetable. It is not a responsible or an effective way of doing business.

The proof is in the pudding: The type of license you're talking about largely exists in the 4th Edition GSL. Virtually nobody is using it.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Feb 1, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I understand your point.
> But the question I am asking is whether the OGL was absolutely neccessary to let 3rd party publishers offer material that would not have been created. To give you an example: I played the Freeport adventures. Now it may be that there was some sort of piratey stuff in some of the DnD magazines, but I don't know. At the time, I thought the Freeport adventures fit into my campaign, so I used the material.
> Why was the OGL neccessary for these adventures? Would it not have been possible for Green Ronin to publish these adventures under some other legal agreement with WotC that gave them the right to publish this, but gave WotC the right - after a couple of years - to not let them use the material again. You know, use it for a timespan that makes your business possible but does not take away the rights of WotC to cancel the usage of the 3rd edition rules. Say, use the rules with a yearly liscense fee. And then use all of the published rules (which, if I recall correctly, did not offer the full rules). I am getting the impression that you think that legally the OGL was the only way to achieve a deep involvement of 3rd party publishers. Well, we know that it is not. There is (to stick with the software thing) software you can use when you pay a liscence fee.
> That would have kept the rights to the rules solely with WotC.
> ...




If other companies had still made the stuff with out a OGL then sure it wouldn't have mattered. But me personally I don't think most companies would have jumped on the D20 train with out the OGL. Even if we say only half did, thats still only half the 3pp stuff. So still I think it would have effected how long many people including me would have stuck with 3.x DnD. I am not saying I am right but i do believe that's true. But I also think had the OGL been restrictive we would have seen the same number of companies jumping on as there is with the GSL. To me that's all the proof you need to show most companies wouldn't have done it.

Of course we will now never know and all we can all do is guess. I just know with out a lot of 3pp stuff I would have stopped playing DnD and moved on to other stuff. I speculate that with a less open or time restricted OGL you would have had the same turn out as what the GSL has. Which to me is not nearly enough to keep it going.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 3, 2011)

Dark Mistress said:


> If other companies had still made the stuff with out a OGL then sure it wouldn't have mattered. But me personally I don't think most companies would have jumped on the D20 train with out the OGL. Even if we say only half did, thats still only half the 3pp stuff. So still I think it would have effected how long many people including me would have stuck with 3.x DnD. I am not saying I am right but i do believe that's true. But I also think had the OGL been restrictive we would have seen the same number of companies jumping on as there is with the GSL. To me that's all the proof you need to show most companies wouldn't have done it.
> 
> Of course we will now never know and all we can all do is guess. I just know with out a lot of 3pp stuff I would have stopped playing DnD and moved on to other stuff. I speculate that with a less open or time restricted OGL you would have had the same turn out as what the GSL has. Which to me is not nearly enough to keep it going.




I do not think this is true. One of the sections in the GSL that makes it awfully painful for publishers to use it is section 10. WotC has to right to terminate the liscense and end all publications of 4E content by 3rd party publishers with just a notice. It is very hard to plan a business based on that.
So, while they went way too far with the OGL, WotC was too strict with the GSL when it comes to the planning period of a new edition. That takes up 2 years at least and you could form a liscense around that fact. For example, you pay a liscense fee to be able to use the IP for 2 years. Just like a antivirus-software, just with a 2 year timespan. And two years is planable, if you ask me.

But to say that the only versions of enabling 3rd party publishers to effectively produce material were the OGL on the one hand or the GSL on the other is flawed in my opinion. 
You can regulate a lot of stuff with contracts that are good for all parties involved. WotC just did not and that was a major mistake.

And this is not a matter of speculation. We can clearly see what the effect of the OGL is for WotC: They gave their IP away!
And it is easy to see the reason behind the success of the 3rd edition: WotC created a great ruleset. People loved the rules! They like them still! They just do not call it 3.x anymore. It is called Pathfinder. All thanks to the OGL.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Feb 4, 2011)

TheFindus - I get your point, I am not saying your wrong. But I do disagree with you. I think for most companies to have jumped on the D20 train and not knowing if 3pp would be well received they would have needed a nice safety net to know if things did work well and they changed to produce a lot of it, that it wouldn't be pulled out from under them. 

I might be wrong and 2 years might have been enough, but I think because it couldn't be taken away is exactly the reason most jumped on. They knew it was a safe long term business plan. I also still think WotC could have used the OGL to their advantage personally. If they had embraced it and used it more themselves. Since the OGL lets anyone use any ones stuff. Find the best 3pp stuff and use it for the next edition of DnD. I think if they would have evolved slower and used the OGL to help them do it. Things would be very different right now. *shrug* but I fully admit I could be wrong, thats just my view. I don't think it was the OGL that hurt WotC but how they decided to use the OGL that end the end hurt them.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 4, 2011)

Without the OGL would not have purchased anywhere near as much material from WotC - having a smorgasbord of material available multiplied what I purchased, and not just from the 3PP. Having more material to run a pirate campaign meant getting more of it - without Green Ronin and Mongoose I would not have purchased Stormwrack.

When WotC acquired the rights AD&D had stagnated, opening the license made it a thriving community again - and freed WotC from spending the gobs of money that TSR had wasted suing everybody and their cousins to the third remove. By having a license that allowed the use of the system without endangering their IP they freed up a large chunk of change.

Do you remember who ended up shelling out on all those lovely cases that TSR opened? It wasn't the defendants, it was TSR - buying the rights then burying them. 

With the GSL we are seeing the return of the lawyers and their suits, as they sue folks for things that would have been allowed under the OGL.

And notice, Kenzer & Co has shown that hey! You can do 4e compatible material without signing the license, just stay away from their IP - you can't copyright or trademark a system, only the words as written and the dress thereof.

The OGL was a fair license, affecting both parties. The GSL protects only one party, so why would 3PP gather in support of a license that can be ended on the whim of the first party?

You may want to read up on what the founders of the OGL have to say about their decisions - they made those decisions in large part in order to make _money!_

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 4, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> The OGL was a fair license, affecting both parties. The GSL protects only one party, so why would 3PP gather in support of a license that can be ended on the whim of the first party?
> 
> You may want to read up on what the founders of the OGL have to say about their decisions - they made those decisions in large part in order to make _money!_




Of course the OGL was a fair liscense and it is completely WotC fault for underestimating the effect it would have in a situation when they want to publish a new edition and have to compete with the old edition and the 3rd party companies that grew into competitors.
And of course they thought it would make money, otherwise, why bother.

But my point is that they could have gone another legal route. Back in 1999/2000, nobody expected the OGL. With all the legal issues that TSR had to go through, they could have gone with a different approach. One - I am repeating myself here - which would have made it much much easier for other companies to use their stuff for a plannable period but to give WotC the freedom to keep the IP. And that, in 1999/2000, would have been revolutionary also.
There are many legal ways to open up the usability of your product for others without giving up on the IP.

Did they think about a new edition in 1999/2000? I would say probably only in a very fuzzy way, since the new edition had just come out.

They choose the OGL, but this was by far not the only way to handle this legally. From a legal point of view, it is not: either OGL or GSL. Back in 1999/2000, something in between would have been possible, leaning more to the side of the easyness (is that an english word?) of the OGL, but without giving away the IP.

This decision haunts them to this day and is the reason for the GSL. That, and giving away the brand itself to Paizo with the magazines. Those are the major mistakes, in my opinion, that WotC made in the past.

In the present, of course, we also see A LOT of mistakes. It is painful to watch. But the effect of these mistakes multiply because they have created their own competition with a second actual, running version of DnD.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2011)

I still think you greatly overrate that.

It isn't like they went from no competition to having competition.

They went from having N to having N+1 competitors.

If they made a new game tomorrow and the bulk of the fanbase wanted to play it, that game would be a huge hit.  It would not matter if that game was OGL or not and it would not matter if other OGL games continued or not.  (That said, this cool new game would do EVEN better if it WAS OGL, just as 3E did)

People are going to play the game they want to play.  It doesn't get much more simple than that.  

Now MAYBE you could claim that 4E is second best and by denying people the option of playing their true game of preference they would be forced to settle for whatever WotC offered.  But is that the spin you want?


----------



## Wicht (Feb 4, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Did they think about a new edition in 1999/2000?




Yes. _*They*_ did think about a new edition. _They_ also created the OGL so that when _they_ were not there, _they_ could be assured that Dungeons and Dragons continued in a form _they_ liked. _They_ are also, today, funnily enough, _the competition_, so to speak. So for _them_ it was a smart business decision.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 4, 2011)

> It isn't like they went from no competition to having competition.
> 
> They went from having N to having N+1 competitors.




And at least one of those competitors was essentially using their own past strengths against them...industry judo.  It's hard to top your past successes.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 4, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Yes. _*They*_ did think about a new edition. _They_ also created the OGL so that when _they_ were not there, _they_ could be assured that Dungeons and Dragons continued in a form _they_ liked. _They_ are also, today, funnily enough, _the competition_, so to speak. So for _them_ it was a smart business decision.




Gary was already working on a 2nd edition prior to being ousted, and a 3rd edition was already being worked on in like 1995....


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And at least one of those competitors was essentially using their own past strengths against them...industry judo.  It's hard to top your past successes.



But it was only a strength because people wanted to play that game more.

We are seeing OGL versions of other editions floating around as well.  There is no market shifting groundswell of action happening there.

There is no meaningful chunk of fanbase that thinks 4E is the better game for their taste, but still play the old edition because that is what they've been doing for years.....


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 4, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Yes. _*They*_ did think about a new edition. _They_ also created the OGL so that when _they_ were not there, _they_ could be assured that Dungeons and Dragons continued in a form _they_ liked. _They_ are also, today, funnily enough, _the competition_, so to speak. So for _them_ it was a smart business decision.




I am not sure, but aren't you the one who said that WotC is "people" and the "people" have changed at WotC, so WotC is not an entity (or something like that, I might not remember correctly)?

Well, if you work for a company in a managing position, you have to act according to the needs and interests of that company. Duty is a big word here for me. We know that some managers do not do that, but I never would have guessed that you think the decision makers at WotC back then were these kind of "people". But wait, then again, for you it was a good decision, because you still play the game "they" like. But whether you like 3rd edition or not does not really matter here.

If they really thought that 3rd edition was the edition they liked and wanted this edition to stay around without the future "people" at WotC having any say in the matter, "they" accomplished their mission. But if you are right, but I am not sure you are, then they made the wrong decision about the best interest of the company that they worked for at the time, which was WotC.


----------



## Wicht (Feb 4, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I am not sure, but aren't you the one who said that WotC is "people" and the "people" have changed at WotC, so WotC is not an entity (or something like that, I might not remember correctly)?




Right. Which is still my point.

Who are the individuals who created and promoted the OGL? 

I think, by and large, if you look at who was at WotC at that time you will find that some of them are still benefitting from the OGL in some way or another. 

Now, one could make the argument that it was unethical for them to create a license which allowed for them to benefit from that license after they left the company. You could make that arguement but I think it would be wrong. If I create a product and I work for an entity with legal control over that product, if I can legally create a situation in which I can continue to benefit from my own work after I leave the company, that is not a bad decision, nor is it unethical to do so.

WotC has been hurt by the OGL. I think we can all agree on that. But it is a self inflicted wound which is not the fault of the OGL itself. The OGL did not have to hurt them and they could have used it to their advantage. But the people who came after the people who came after the people who created the OGL thought that they could bypass it and work around it. Which was just foolish. You have to deal with the business realities created by the people who came before you. 

As has been pointed out, if WotC had created and released a game which was better than the game had been under the OGL, the OGL would not have mattered. Likewise if they had continued to use the OGL, they would still be beneffiting from it. But they did exactly the wrong things considering the market and the existance of the OGL.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 4, 2011)

Wicht said:


> ...As has been pointed out, if WotC had created and released a game which was better than the game had been under the OGL, the OGL would not have mattered. Likewise if they had continued to use the OGL, they would still be beneffiting from it. But they did exactly the wrong things considering the market and the existance of the OGL.





Good Points!  I agree with everything you've said, except for partial agreement with this.  I don't believe it's possible to create a game that's "better".  What gamers find good or bad is purely subjective.  The way 4E was designed had as much to do with feedback from players who had issues with 3.x, as it did with marketing decisions.  When it comes to making a new system, I believe you can make one that's worse, but "better" in a universal and objective way...No.  As much as 4E isn't my preferred flavor, I don't think it's a bad game.  On the contrary, I think it's a really good game - but of course, everyone has parts of every game they don't like, even as concerns their preferred system.  It's impossible to make a game that everybody will like, or even that anybody will like absolutely (unless you're making a game for yourself).  Not accepting that RPG fact of life, and ceasing support for older editions because of it, is why they lost customers - along with other reasons (though I'm sure they did gain _new_ customers...only WotC knows if they gained more than they lost, or vice-versa).

But I completely agree that WotC could have avoided a lot of the problems they had if 4E had been OGL.  It would have generated more 3pp support resulting in increased and more sustained sales of core material.  And they could have learned from the 3.x era, and better mined 3pp products for popular ideas to implement on a broader scale (the advantage of being WotC and D&D).  And maintaining some older edition support, even limited, would have helped hang on to players that weren't going to switch for any reason.  Not to mention the overall goodwill such approaches would have generated (and although hard to quantifiy, and debatable wether goodwill does or does not result in more revenue, it's a certainty that ill will does reduce revenue).


----------



## BryonD (Feb 4, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> I agree with everything you've said, except for partial agreement with this.  I don't believe it's possible to create a game that's "better".  What gamers find good or bad is purely subjective.  The way 4E was designed had as much to do with feedback from players who had issues with 3.x, as it did with marketing decisions.  When it comes to making a new system, I believe you can make one that's worse, but "better" in a universal and objective way...No.



"Better" at being fun for "Gamer A" is subjective.

"Better" at getting a lot of people to consistently play, and more importantly, consistently spend is more objective and can, at least, be approximated.

I'm pretty sure Wicht is referencing me, and that is what I am talking about.

I do not remotely question that there are many individuals for whom 4E is the ultimate "betterestest" game ever.   But it still could have been a better game if you are a WotC beancounter.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 4, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Now, one could make the argument that it was unethical for them to create a license which allowed for them to benefit from that license after they left the company. You could make that arguement but I think it would be wrong. If I create a product and I work for an entity with legal control over that product, if I can legally create a situation in which I can continue to benefit from my own work after I leave the company, that is not a bad decision, nor is it unethical to do so.




Oh, if "they" knew that it would cause trouble for later editions WotC, the company that payed them, would create but did it anyway to be able to profit from it at the time when they would not be working for "them" anymore, it is unethical. Because they are harming the company.
Now, I am not sure if they really thought that, though.
But if you think it is not and would have done something like that - I do not know if I should read your thread like this though - than I would not want you to work for my company.

Tss, and people on these boards claim we lawyers are a bad bunch....


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2011)

> Tss, and people on these boards claim we lawyers are a bad bunch....




I know that attending UT's law school almost made me change my alignment to LE...but I made my save.  CG RULES!*




* well, some rules...the ones we like, anyway.  But don't hold us to that, man!


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2011)

Wicht said:


> WotC has been hurt by the OGL. I think we can all agree on that. But it is a self inflicted wound which is not the fault of the OGL itself. The OGL did not have to hurt them and they could have used it to their advantage. But the people who came after the people who came after the people who created the OGL thought that they could bypass it and work around it. Which was just foolish. You have to deal with the business realities created by the people who came before you.
> 
> As has been pointed out, if WotC had created and released a game which was better than the game had been under the OGL, the OGL would not have mattered. Likewise if they had continued to use the OGL, they would still be beneffiting from it. But they did exactly the wrong things considering the market and the existance of the OGL.




I was going to say that I don't think we can conclusively say that WotC was hurt by the OGL, but then your next paragraph gets to the point I was going to make. I think they could certainly still be benefiting from the OGL, even with a new edition, with different business strategies than the ones they are pursuing now.
They made a choice to move away from the OGL strategy, and maybe that's burning them a bit now. But I don't believe it had to be that way at all.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 5, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Food Points!




I'm a food speller!


----------



## Zil (Feb 5, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Oh, if "they" knew that it would cause trouble for later editions WotC, the company that payed them, would create but did it anyway to be able to profit from it at the time when they would not be working for "them" anymore, it is unethical. Because they are harming the company.
> Now, I am not sure if they really thought that, though.
> But if you think it is not and would have done something like that - I do not know if I should read your thread like this though - than I would not want you to work for my company.




I don't think the employees of WotC  made the initial OGL out of personal  self-interest.  WotC believed (rightly) that the OGL would create a huge ecosystem with themselves at the centre of it and they profited from it.   Sure, some of those at WoTC back when the OGL was created believed that the OGL would also help protect the game (i.e. D&D ) from future management decisions.   Even if that was their primary motivation, the fact that it was still also clearly a profitable (to WotC) concept,  you can't say it is truly an unethical decision or even a bad decision in the 3E context.   

Back to my work example.  When we open-sourced our software system one of our goals was to ensure that the software could survive future bad senior management decisions.   We weren't acting in our own interests.  Rather, we were ensuring that even if management were to wreck our project group (which produces critical Search and Rescue software), there was a better chance that the software could survive in some form.   Of course there were many other reasons to go open-source, but self-interest certainly wasn't one of them nor do I believe what we did was unethical.  

As has been hashed out in earlier messages, I do not believe that the OGL had to hurt 4E.  4E released under the OGL would have been a much more sane decision for WotC.  If any management made mistakes, it is the current crop - not those who were around in 1999.  I believe you are pointing your finger at the wrong people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2011)

> But it was only a strength because people wanted to play that game more.




I agree.

3.5Ed was a _*huge*_ success.  A followup to something like that is incredibly difficult.

Think of what it was like for Danny White to follow Roger Staubach in the Cowboys.  How easy was it for John Elway to win back to back Superbowls?

Think about being the guitarist asked to replace Eric Clapton in the Yardbirds.  Then, after Jeff Beck did such a good job, he leaves, and you're the next guy.  You're Jimmy Page.  You leave to form Led Zeppelin...and what happens to your former bandmates?

What was it like to run for President of the USA after George Washington?  After Thomas Jefferson?

And so forth.

Now think of all the people in similar situations who DIDN'T succeed.

The point is, whenever you're competing against massive successes- even your own- there are all kinds of pitfalls and traps.  Many are internal (self-doubts), but others are the problems with selling a new product to a previously happy audience.


----------



## Zil (Feb 5, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> I understand your point.  But I think there is one aspect that you might be overlooking. Now this is with hindsight, but lets just say Paizo would have gone with 4E at first. And then, when the deition war storm broke loose, they would have realized that there are a lot of people who just do not like 4E because of the design, which these people think sucks big time.
> This is a target group that WotC did not reach anymore and taht would have been looking for somebody to pick up the 3rd edition stick and march on with it. And I am 100% sure that Paizo would have done that. It is just too big of an opportunity, too many business chances there.




If Paizo they had become heavily invested in 4E via a 4E OGL, then they would be less likely to suddenly change tack.   If the the OGL 4E market share was declining sharply and people were clamouring for 3E support, then sure, they might start to slowly change course doing a few OGL things at first and then more if those were successful.  

However, if a lot of people strongly dislike 4E mainly because of the design, then they aren't going to keep playing it,  period.  It doesn't matter if the OGL is around or not.   Why play a game you don't enjoy?   If the game isn't enjoyable to your customers, then you have much bigger problems than a game industry rival that you helped to create.

What a 4E OGL would have done is give 4E players more options beyond those WotC comes up with : new settings, adventures, alternate classes,  powers with a niche theme, etc.   This might have helped keep players who were bored with what Wizard's putting out and perhaps drawn new players in because it's a bigger ecosystem appealing to a wider range of gamer tastes.  



> As I posted above, in my opinion this could have been avoided with some sort of other legal agreement. Something that gives the right to use the rules to a company but retains the rights to stop that usage with WotC. Combine this with a lower fee than the 5000$ (was that the OGL fee, I do not remember) and I gues WotC would have been good to go.
> I would say, same effect as the OGL, no loss of IP.




I believe the $5000 number you are referring to is tied to 4E.  There is no fee to use the OGL.  If they had used a more restrictive expiring license, you would not have had that vibrant d20/OGL ecosystem and D&D would have been the poorer for it.  



> I do not think they were doing well, because they build up competing products within the company that people could buy. But the fact that they were able to create all these worlds shows that you had a lot of design potential which could have been used to satisfy by far the most DnD players.




Yes, even though it may have contributed to TSR's demise, I loved all those 2E settings.  To me, that was the D&D Golden Age.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2011)

Zil said:


> I believe the $5000 number you are referring to is tied to 4E.  There is no fee to use the OGL.  If they had used a more restrictive expiring license, you would not have had that vibrant d20/OGL ecosystem and D&D would have been the poorer for it.




Yep, the OGL is free. No fees at all. 
The $5000 number was for 3rd party publishers to get into the GSL early, before its general release. I assume it was to enable the publishers willing to pony up the cash to have something at 4e's launch to sell. Needless to say, that didn't work out.


----------



## Henry (Feb 5, 2011)

Zil said:


> What a 4E OGL would have done is give 4E players more options beyond those WotC comes up with : new settings, adventures, alternate classes,  powers with a niche theme, etc.   This might have helped keep players who were bored with what Wizard's putting out and perhaps drawn new players in because it's a bigger ecosystem appealing to a wider range of gamer tastes.




Even moreso, it would have meant different systems altogether, hybrids of 4E and 3E that incorporated the coolest aspects of both, so that the spectrum was across the board for people who wanted a specific flavor of "D&D". Heck, Essentials might have come out a year earlier, with another company creating it, basically, a 3.95, if you will - likely, someone like Paizo.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 5, 2011)

Henry said:


> Even moreso, it would have meant different systems altogether, hybrids of 4E and 3E that incorporated the coolest aspects of both, so that the spectrum was across the board for people who wanted a specific flavor of "D&D". Heck, Essentials might have come out a year earlier, with another company creating it, basically, a 3.95, if you will - likely, someone like Paizo.



And that, I think , is the reason why Wizards did not go OGL for 4e.
The core 4e engine is very friendly for all sorts of alternative approaches.
It supports the Ravenloft game and Gamma World and you could easily do a rules light retro-clone by abandoning the powers, just keep the skills, the basic attacks and rituals. Then add in a new monster design paridigm for fast combat and combat spells for the MU/Cleric. 
I also think that a lot of the water treading we are witnessing now is a consequence of the initial failure of Gleemax 3 years ago not on 4e per se.
I think that Gleemax was a result of a desire by Wizards to shift their role in the TTRPG ecosystem. The technoligical failure did not change the strategic aim but has affected the timeline and the resources available.


----------



## Wicht (Feb 5, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Yep, the OGL is free. No fees at all.
> The $5000 number was for 3rd party publishers to get into the GSL early, before its general release. I assume it was to enable the publishers willing to pony up the cash to have something at 4e's launch to sell. Needless to say, that didn't work out.




As I remember, they never actually got around to charging the fee. It was just one of those many things they threw out there about the GSL that never actually happened. Even though there were some 3pps ready to pay the fee (including Paizo) in order to get the look at the rules. But I don't believe that any 3pp ever got that early look at the 4e rules.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2011)

Wicht said:


> As I remember, they never actually got around to charging the fee. It was just one of those many things they threw out there about the GSL that never actually happened. Even though there were some 3pps ready to pay the fee (including Paizo) in order to get the look at the rules. But I don't believe that any 3pp ever got that early look at the 4e rules.




Right, because they totally fumbled the licensing. GSL never made its deadlines.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 5, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> And that, I think , is the reason why Wizards did not go OGL for 4e.



You might be right.  But if you are, Wizards made a short sighted mistake.

Who knows, maybe if someone had re-tooled a 4E mod that fit my tastes, I'd be buying WotC stuff today to play through that.  I admit, that is a big stretch in my case.  But I'm certain that they could have seen the same synergy they saw with 3E.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 5, 2011)

Zil said:


> However, if a lot of people strongly dislike 4E mainly because of the design, then they aren't going to keep playing it,  period.  It doesn't matter if the OGL is around or not.   Why play a game you don't enjoy?   If the game isn't enjoyable to your customers, then you have much bigger problems than a game industry rival that you helped to create.



Exactly right.

This is the elephant in the corner.


Wulf Ratbane's Trailblazer is clearly named as a reference to Pathfinder.  But I was involved in some of the development of that long before we heard of Pathfinder, we were just calling it 3.75, for lack of a better name.  

I may not have known I was going to end up playing Pathfinder, but I'd known for a while that 4E was off the table.  (no pun intended)

A lot of people don't find 4E enjoyable.  Everything else is noise.
Yes, there are people who love it and hate 3E/Pathfinder.  No argument. 
But the overall balance of popularity is not close to the same.
In the end, it is as simple as that.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 5, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Exactly right.
> 
> This is the elephant in the corner.




If only the world was black and white like that.

But, as we all know, there are many more very relevant reasons why people play DnD. 

One, there are people who spent a lot of money on 3.x and are unwilling to pay more on 4E, because they know they have the full system support (adventures and supplements) from Paizo.
So, no OGL, no system support. no Paizo-DnD.

Second, there are people who like to play DnD for the kind of fantasy it provides. You know, mind flayers and beholders and drow instead of skaven and warpstone and chaos warriors. Paizo creates products with this kind of fantasy because of the OGL. No OGL, no Paizo DnD, only WotC-DnD.

Third, there are people who like to play with the people they know regardless of the system. Provided there is enough stuff to play. Sure, there was a lot of stuff under 3.x. But eventually, old stuff gets, well, old. But if Paizo can continue to produce DnD-stuff.... you know what I am trying to say.

Fourth, and that is very specific for the german market, a lot of people want german rules. There were a lot of german WotC books under 3.x. Paizo can build around that, produce adventures, translate them into german, and voila! All because of the OGL and what WotC did with 3.x. No OGL, no Paizo-DnD, etc., etc.

But I see that we disagree on all that. You think the OGL was a splendid idea for WotC. Without the OGL, 3rd edition would not have been as successful. WotC should have done the same with 4E and there would have been less problems. 

I am saying that WotC should not have done the OGL. They should have allowed other companies to use the rules under an easy access liscense for a cost. That would have been revolutionary for the biggest RPG company back then and people would have liked that, too. People played 3rd edition because they were ready for the new, more streamlined version and would have played it anyways. Giving away the IP was a major mistake, a bad management decision. I think that Mr. Dancey was incorrect back then and his decision is one of the reasons why he can now claim that "DnD is in a death spiral".
Without the OGL, WotC would not have to face the competition it is facing now with Paizo. 
WotC would still have sucked at publishing 4E stuff as it does today. But 4E is not bad and, most importantly, there would not have been another heavily supported version of DnD out there. Which makes a huge difference.

We disagree here. And that is ok.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 5, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> But I see that we disagree on all that. You think the OGL was a splendid idea for WotC. Without the OGL, 3rd edition would not have been as successful. WotC should have done the same with 4E and there would have been less problems.
> 
> I am saying that WotC should not have done the OGL. They should have allowed other companies to use the rules under an easy access liscense for a cost. That would have been revolutionary for the biggest RPG company back then and people would have liked that, too. People played 3rd edition because they were ready for the new, more streamlined version and would have played it anyways. Giving away the IP was a major mistake, a bad management decision. I think that Mr. Dancey was incorrect back then and his decision is one of the reasons why he can now claim that "DnD is in a death spiral".
> Without the OGL, WotC would not have to face the competition it is facing now with Paizo.
> ...




If that is what he is saying, then I would agree with him, not you personally.

Taking the OGL as a good thing it should have pushed improvement in design as such all other industries have when a competitor comes along. It seems the OGL probably backfired a bit, and one reason was because the quality of product found for the system was better at other places than from the originator WotC.

That is good for WotC considering the root system was popular enough for so many to take it on and increase the size of the people using the system and playing RPGs so that more would be likely to buy WotC products.

Again the problem was the quality of WotC products was not as high for many as the others. Which is to be expected to an extent since you cannot cater to everyone's tastes. Those niche corners for specific things could be handled by 3pp while WotC focused on their own focused projects and the core.

The niche products won because they weren't as generic and of better quality than the WotC ones.

It was good for WotC, but they never took full advantage of increasing the quality of material since they didn't really perceive anyone as being competitive with them.

WotC had what you suggested in the form of the STL, and still OGL material was just as good if not better than that paid for licensed material.

Had their only been the STL then the player population wouldn't have advanced to be able to the numbers it had under the OGL edition. There just wouldn't have been enough of those niches covered.

That is the thing with closed and open systems. The closed system strives to control itself by closing it off from others. It works. The open system strives to increase performance by competition.

The open system would have worked better for WotC had they fully understood it and actually viewed others as competition. When they found out it was too late and people using the OGL had already taken a strong foothold and WotC needed 4th edition in order to make a stand again.

IF the 4th edition 3pp license for a cost exists now to where people use it, then WotC now has the closed system you say should have been done for the OGL edition.

It seems that closed system isn't working out so well, or at least not as well as the open system of the OGL.


----------



## Wicht (Feb 5, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> One, there are people who spent a lot of money on 3.x and are unwilling to pay more on 4E, because they know they have the full system support (adventures and supplements) from Paizo.
> So, no OGL, no system support. no Paizo-DnD.




I'm afraid I never understood this sort of reasoning: Because I am invested in 3e I will refuse to buy 4e but I will spend hundreds of dollar a year on Pathfinder (and some more besides on other game systems like Warhammer, Dragon Age, etc.)? Whatever Paizo's monetary success is built on, it cannot be built on the desire of people not to spend money.


----------



## Wicht (Feb 5, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> Second, there are people who like to play DnD for the kind of fantasy it provides. You know, mind flayers and beholders and drow instead of skaven and warpstone and chaos warriors. Paizo creates products with this kind of fantasy because of the OGL. No OGL, no Paizo DnD, only WotC-DnD.




Whatever else Pathfinder might have, it does not have beholders and illithids. Anyone who wants those things has to look elsewhere.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 5, 2011)

You are talking two different points.  Which is fine, but it is important to note.

You list four examples of types of people.  I don't dispute any of those.  But I would point out that none of the really contradict the idea that system preference is key.

I don't remotely claim it is the one and only issue.  But it is the 800 pound gorilla of the issues.  The world ain't black and white, but sometimes certain issues come pretty close, and this is one of them.

The OGL is another matter.

I agree that without the OGL Wizards would not face the current Pathfinder competition.  I do not then leap to the conclusion that PF fans would instead play 4E.  I think that is a wild, unfounded, and even unlikely presumption.  Again, I know a lot of people who knew they were not going to go to to 4E before they knew PF was an option.  So clearly PF had zero impact on their selection.  And I also know people who have left 4E because they decided it didn't hold their interest.

At best you are claiming a lack of OGL would simply make people play a second choice by denying them their best choice.  Perhaps a good market move, but as a gamer, that sucks.  Do YOU want to deny choice to other gamers?

But even all that aside, roll the clock back to 1999.  WotC made a ton of money on 3E.  And OGL was part of that.  Yeah, we can argue if they would have made more or less, but the facts are it was there and they did well.  So it is very hard for me to see how you can justify that it was not a great choice at that time.

Now, when they did 4E they choose to reject the OGL.  I think THAT was a mistake.  (To be clear, I think the markt they choose to target with the design philosophy was the BIG mistake, but fighting the OGL was also a mistake.)  A choice that had been made nearly a decade earlier was now simply part of the market reality.  I think WotC may have over-rated their position and assumed they could just bully the market using the D&D brand name.  They were wrong and THAT was a mistake.  Just because the OGL was there did not mean they were obligated to throw themselves into its teeth.  They had good business choices available and they did not make them in this case.

But, I think people will play the game they like.  
And I don't think trying to wave that away with simple accusations of being "black and white" change it.

But, we can disagree.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 5, 2011)

> I agree that without the OGL Wizards would not face the current Pathfinder competition. I do not then leap to the conclusion that PF fans would instead play 4E. I think that is a wild, unfounded, and even unlikely presumption. Again, I know a lot of people who knew they were not going to go to to 4E before they knew PF was an option. So clearly PF had zero impact on their selection. And I also know people who have left 4E because they decided it didn't hold their interest.




By way of example, I offer my group: a largeish rotating group with a solid core of 8, most had pretty much decided not to adopt the game based on the Core 3 and previews/leaks. 

As of today, we ARE playing a 4Ed game- which I'm enjoying, FWIW- but it's only because the guy DMing the 3.5Ed game needed a break and _ONE_ guy felt like giving it a whirl...and so far, only 5 of the group have played in the majority of the sessions.

And as for the standard-bearers of post-4Ed 3.X games?  I am the ONLY to have purchased/read AU/AE, True20, Fantasy Craft, Pathfinder, W&W (and M&M) to date.  Though I'd like to run something in Pathfinder or AU/AE, there is currently no interest in the 3.X games.

IOW, in our group, 4Ed was judged and found wanting entirely upon it's comparison to 3.5Ed- the other games mattered _not at all._


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 5, 2011)

And some, quite frankly, comes down to 'What Does the DM Want to Run?'

I currently have three groups. Of them one plays a Steampunk/Spycraft game, because it is what _I_ wanted to run. _However_, the PCs are all playing Gargoyles because one of the players is a huge fan of the Disney show Gargoyles, and talked _everyone_ (including me) into it. But Jen could not have convinced me to run Forgotten Realms in Spycraft.

My Teens & Tweens game is Pathfinder because, umm, I got hired to run a game for some of my players' kids, and it stuck - I had fun and continued running, unpaid. (The first few games were birthday and Christmas presents from their parents). I ran Pathfinder because some of the kids were familiar with 3.X.

My third game, alternating weeks with the kids' game, started as Spycraft/Delta Green, and switched to Pathfinder because the parents kept hearing wonderful things about the game from their kids. But I would not have run 4e.

A lot of times one of the deciding factors is simply 'What game does the guy who is gonna run the game wanna run?' In my examples it is pretty obvious that the players had input, but it came down, in part, to what _I_ was and am willing to run.

Mind you, _none_ of them have tried to convince me to run 4e, and none, as far as I know, wanna play 4e.

4e needs to pull in more DMs, some argue that it does, that speed of adventure creation and the ease of balancing treasure, XP, and difficulty makes this a game for the DMs, but, in my experience, the loudest voices _against_ 4e, including my own, are also from DMs.

WotC lost a large number of DMs, and the DMs took their groups with them. Large number does not mean 'all', and may not even mean 'most' - it means just what it says, there are a lot of DMs who decided to stay on a sinking ship, patched the holes, made it to port in the Paizo Shipyards, and discovered that the ship didn't need to sink after all. As a result they go back to that port and tell other sailors about the good taverns and the saucy tavern wenches. And more ships are pulling into port, sheltering from the storm and laying on provands. 

It is possible that I stretched my metaphor a bit, there....

The Auld Grump


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 5, 2011)

BryonD said:


> At best you are claiming a lack of OGL would simply make people play a second choice by denying them their best choice.  Perhaps a good market move, but as a gamer, that sucks.  Do YOU want to deny choice to other gamers?



I think that WotC does NOT want people to be able to choose between two kinds of DnD - Pathfinder and 4E, no.
For me personally, you can choose whatever you like. I am not even sure if I would like you to prefer 4E the way I do, be through with 3.x the way I am or resent the OGL as a business decision. Because that would mean that we would not be having this conversation, but be like: "Yeah, isn't 4E wonderful? Yes, it is. Wasn't the OGL a bad idea for WotC? Oh yes, it was. Now, what can we talk about next?" Boooring.



> But even all that aside, roll the clock back to 1999.  WotC made a ton of money on 3E.  And OGL was part of that.  Yeah, we can argue if they would have made more or less, but the facts are it was there and they did well.  So it is very hard for me to see how you can justify that it was not a great choice at that time.



It was a bad business decision because they gave away their IP. Even worse because they gave the brand itself to Paizo as well. For a new edition, which would eventually come out, that would obviously be a problem. Legally, they could have easily provided other companies with the very easy chance to produce stuff without giving away their IP. Trust me, it is really that simple.



> But, I think people will play the game they like.
> And I don't think trying to wave that away with simple accusations of being "black and white" change it.



I did not write that to accuse you. My apologies if it came across that way. 

But "game" does not equal "rules". There are many reasons to play the "game" that have nothing to do with the "rules".
But "game" has much more to do with "system support". And because Paizo is able to keep the Pathfinder-DnD system supported through the OGL, they can be successful. Which is something WotC cannot want.



> But, we can disagree.



Yes, we can. And looking at the situation in Egypt at the moment, that is a wonderful thing. I am glad, there is no RPG-Mubarak here.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 6, 2011)

TheFindus said:


> <snip>
> 
> It was a bad business decision because they gave away their IP. Even worse because they gave the brand itself to Paizo as well. For a new edition, which would eventually come out, that would obviously be a problem. Legally, they could have easily provided other companies with the very easy chance to produce stuff without giving away their IP. Trust me, it is really that simple.
> 
> <snip>




The OGL didn't really affect their IP since you can't protect game rules with copyright.  There are companies producing content for 4e without using the GSL because they know what side of the IP line to stay on.  OSRIC and other OD&D and AD&D retro-clones are further examples of people producing content for game systems without infringing on IP because they stick to rule reproduction.

WotC IP is still fully protected -- that's why Pathfinder doesn't have illithids, githyanki, umber hulks, and spells named after Greyhawk wizards, for example.

It DID provide a safe harbour that clarified what can be used without threat of litigation by accepting some relatively light additional licensing requirements.  That safe harbour encouraged others to construct complementary, and in some case competitive, works. 

The safe harbour may have emboldened some game producers who otherwise would steer clear of anything that smacks of potential litigation, but the success of OSRIC would suggest a supporting system would have been created anyway since a large audience was apparent even before 4e was released.  The reaction to the previews certainly made it clear that a proportion of the audience was not impressed with the new system.


----------



## TheFindus (Feb 7, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The OGL didn't really affect their IP since you can't protect game rules with copyright. There are companies producing content for 4e without using the GSL because they know what side of the IP line to stay on. OSRIC and other OD&D and AD&D retro-clones are further examples of people producing content for game systems without infringing on IP because they stick to rule reproduction.
> 
> WotC IP is still fully protected -- that's why Pathfinder doesn't have illithids, githyanki, umber hulks, and spells named after Greyhawk wizards, for example.
> 
> ...




I had already given up on this thread, and I just wanted to write this note to respond.

I find your post to be somewhat dishonest. You are jumping at the sentence “They gave away their IP” and then go on to lecture me on the fact that in most countries, the BCC has been adopted and that game rules are not subject to IP-protection. 

Well, the text that describes the rules usually is subject to copyright. And copyright is a form of IP, of protecting the rights you have to that text. And that makes all the difference to the problem here.

Now, the laws here in Germany in the Urheberrecht are a little bit different than the laws in the US. And the commentaries I have here are in german. But you might want to check this link here, to find out more about that, the site is in english:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

The WotC 3rd edition OGL content is vast and, with only small exceptions, provides 3rd party publishers with a lot of (usually) copyrighted (sp?) material they could not normally use, distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate, etc without risking litigation.
You might want to check this site, to find a very good explanation of what the OGL-liscense contains and what it’s uses are:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d

Now, I did not write: “They gave up their IP” or "They lost the copyright". I wrote “They gave away their IP”. And if you read my posts in this thread, you cannot honestly - in no way - come to the conclusion that with this sentence I am saying anything else but this: that WotC let other companies use a vast amount of (copyrighted) material, the basic stuff that 3rd edition is made out of in fact, without being able to stop them before introducing a new edition. Which is what they did. I was clearly talking about the practical implications of the OGL and what could have legally been done to provide an acceptable alternative back in 1999/2000.
So, just in case you missed that point: it does not really matter if WotC has any rights to the text of the rules or the rules themselves, because the OGL lets anybody use that text in the 3rd edition OGL content for their own products. And if that is not “giving away” IP, I do not know what is. 

But you either did not read this thread thoroughly enough or you were unable to understand the content of this thread. Or you are trying to pull a rhetorical rabbit out of your hat to prove some point. The point probably being, if I understand the rest of your post correctly, that we would have seen Pathfinder anyways, because Paizo would have gone the OSRIC route. Well, I do not agree with that as I do not think that the system you describe can be called “successful” in the sense it has to be for a company like WotC to operate properly.

But I thank you for staying polite. The person who gave you XP for your post would have probably insulted me. I would have really been annoyed by that.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 8, 2011)

_I_ am the person who gave him the XP.

At no time in this thread have I insulted you. And in fact find your assertion that I would in turn insulting. I would have been blunt, but I tend to avoid insulting the person rather than his posts.

Good day.

The Auld Grump


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 8, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I agree that without the OGL Wizards would not face the current Pathfinder competition.




I think without the OGL, we might not have had 4e. For one thing, who would have designed it? One of the things Wizards has done that has earned ill will from me is to profit from the OGL, then try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 8, 2011)

I think that most can agree that, whether or not creating the OGL was a good idea, creating it and then abandoning it was a poor one. The OGL created a deep reservoir of good will, but that has now been lost.

Personally, I would not have played as much 3.X if there was no OGL - as I think I have stated I treated the entire OGC library as an enormous smorgasbord. I sampled from many more dishes and treated the section detailing where OGC had been borrowed from as a shopping list. (In particular Swashbuckling Adventures had a list that suited many of my tastes.) Having so much made me greedy for more.

Having that vast, if sometimes ill lit, kitchen broadened the possibilities I could use in my game, and allowed me to give sources to my players.

It meant that 3.X had an enormous stable of writers producing material, and shaping the raw materials in new and interesting ways. The game avoided the same-same feel that some systems have fallen prey to, in part because so many people were trying to do so many different things with it.

I own a good deal of 3.X material, and an even greater amount of OGL material that I used to compliment my D&D games.

I own no 4e material, by WotC or others, but do own Pathfinder and have started, slowly, to broaden my collection with 3PP material created to compliment Pathfinder, as once I collected D20 material. And I find a use for much of the 3PP and WotC material with the new game.

I do not think myself unusual in this, but I do think that WotC has closed off their market by excluding so much from their current license. The horses have escaped and closing the barn door is only going to keep them outside.

The Auld Grump


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 8, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I think without the OGL, we might not have had 4e. For one thing, who would have designed it? One of the things Wizards has done that has earned ill will from me is to profit from the OGL, then try to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.




While I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the OGL, assuming that there would be no new designers without the OGL is incredibly shortsighted.  Almost all the new hires in the D&D world came from any sort of smaller publisher or fan work.  People like Monte Cook, Warren Spector, Ed Greenwood, etc., a lot of them came from either writing for the publications, the fanzines, or working for one of the smaller companies.  

Just because Mike Mearls--who is the one who gets brought up the most--got to work with an OGL system it does not mean the OGL itself was a direct influence, and without him we would have nothing.  Mearls was lucky enough to work under Monte Cook, who was a popular 3pp at the time with Malhavoc press.  It wasn't the OGL that got him, it was his talent and where he worked and what he did.

So, even if 3e didn't have an OGL, based on how game designers ascended to the top in RPG tabletop publishing (now WoTC--although now that the low end of gaming if you take into account computer/video games), it was the talent of the individual and the opportunities of the marketplace that allowed it.  If there wasn't a 3e, Mearls might have worked with another competing game system, or worked as a contributor to Dragon and Dungeon and the RPGA.  

Saying the OGL is the reason we have a 4e is over-inflating the role of the OGL as well as not paying attention to the past marketplace.


----------



## Wicht (Feb 8, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I think that most can agree that, whether or not creating the OGL was a good idea, creating it and then abandoning it was a poor one.




Exactly.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> Mike Mearls without him we would have nothing.




Curiosity...is this what that passage is saying?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 8, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> While I don't want to argue the pros and cons of the OGL, assuming that there would be no new designers without the OGL is incredibly shortsighted.  Almost all the new hires in the D&D world came from any sort of smaller publisher or fan work.  People like Monte Cook, Warren Spector, Ed Greenwood, etc., a lot of them came from either writing for the publications, the fanzines, or working for one of the smaller companies.
> 
> Just because Mike Mearls--who is the one who gets brought up the most--got to work with an OGL system it does not mean the OGL itself was a direct influence, and without the OGL we would have nothing from him.  Mearls was lucky enough to work under Monte Cook, who was a popular 3pp at the time with Malhavoc press.  It wasn't the OGL that got him, it was his talent and where he worked and what he did.
> 
> ...




ETA--Fixed a bad typo.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> ETA--Fixed a bad typo.




 Ok that makes a bit more sense then with the rest of it.


----------



## carmachu (Feb 8, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> Just because Mike Mearls--who is the one who gets brought up the most--got to work with an OGL system it does not mean the OGL itself was a direct influence, and without him we would have nothing. Mearls was lucky enough to work under Monte Cook, who was a popular 3pp at the time with Malhavoc press. It wasn't the OGL that got him, it was his talent and where he worked and what he did.
> 
> So, even if 3e didn't have an OGL, based on how game designers ascended to the top in RPG tabletop publishing (now WoTC--although now that the low end of gaming if you take into account computer/video games), it was the talent of the individual and the opportunities of the marketplace that allowed it. If there wasn't a 3e, Mearls might have worked with another competing game system, or worked as a contributor to Dragon and Dungeon and the RPGA.
> 
> Saying the OGL is the reason we have a 4e is over-inflating the role of the OGL as well as not paying attention to the past marketplace.




Dismissing the OGL is under-inflating it. Sure someone else, might MIGHT have come along. But someone else didnt work in the OGL on a product called Iron Heros which one can argue is more akin to a proto-type to 4e then it was to its forebearers.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 9, 2011)

carmachu said:


> Dismissing the OGL is under-inflating it. Sure someone else, might MIGHT have come along. But someone else didnt work in the OGL on a product called Iron Heros which one can argue is more akin to a proto-type to 4e then it was to its forebearers.




Prior Evidence proves that it's a lot more likely that even without an OGL there was still a good pool to choose from, as there has always been.   You may be able to say Mearls was able to use his prior OGL knowledge to improve the game, but you can't say "without the OGL there would be no 4ed", as there would have been a new edition in the future, or that Mearls would have not come up with the same style of game sans OGL.  He could have done it in a fanzine.

The game exists separately from the OGL.  The OGL is a simple license, not a philosophy or even a game.  D&D exists outside of the OGL.  People have been tinkering with the game since 1974.  All the OGL does is make it easier to publish, that's pretty much it.  Was the OGL a factor, yes?  Is the OGL the sole reason 4e is the way it is, I doubt it.  

It's a license, not a philosophy or a religion.  The creative interest in game design has existed outside of the licenses.


----------



## ssampier (Feb 9, 2011)

The article was a bit disappointing to me. I was hoping for some real insights and I felt like the author was either holding back information or felt rushed to write the article. All we really learned is that Wizards did not communicate the minature cancellation to their retailers directly.

I see a couple of options why this is:

1) Wizards retailer support is stretched too far and too thin (cutbacks and layoffs can do that)

2) Wizards supports the retail channel only minimally. It sees the future in DI and other electronic products

3) It never occurred to Wizards management to do otherwise

I'm thinking all possibilities could be partially true.

An interesting possibility is that Wizards is finding that it is competing with itself. The _true_ 4e gamer probably has a DI subscription and sees little reason to buy more books. Since Wizards is still making money with paper books it continues to print them, but Wizards is gradually reducing the focus (e.g. a swimming pool with a tiny hole will eventually be empty).

In contrast your Pathfinder fan is probably a little older, having played 3.0/3.5 and other games before and not only prefers books demands them. They either dislike online resources or use them sparingly. Paizo is smart, though, to offer their products digitally for a large discount to capture the "Maybe I'll use it, maybe I won't" crowd.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 9, 2011)

ssampier said:


> The article was a bit disappointing to me. I was hoping for some real insights and I felt like the author was either holding back information or felt rushed to write the article. All we really learned is that Wizards did not communicate the minature cancellation to their retailers directly.
> 
> I see a couple of options why this is:
> 
> ...




Actually, I would argue that the average Pathfinder fan wants online resources and tools that *complement* (but do not necessarily replace) their gamebooks. I also think Paizo has done a way better job of balancing these two spectrums of their business than WotC has with Gleemax and DDI along with their pulled PDF's.

IMO, WotC continues to split it's fanbase more and more... we had the 3.5 to 4e split... the 4e to 4e essentials split... and now it seems WotC is gearing up to produce a print product/digital subscription model split... and while I realize there are those who overlap in each of these categories... there are still consumers being left behind with each of these divides.   

I was one who jumped back onto 4e with the essentials products (hoping to have a self contained game without the need for DDI) and was happy until the announcement of the cancellation of the magic item book. I can only assume they are going to put that info on DDI and I personally do not want to get a subscription for the magic items to flesh out an essentials game, this added to the fact that they haven't updated the old magic items to the rarity scheme they've set up has left me once again dissapointed in WotC... so I am finally out of 4e for good and starting up a Pathfinder game. I honestly don't think WotC is savy enough in the digital department yet to succesfully pull off what they are aiming for (IMO, a fully subscription based rpg with minimal book sales/support that is profitable enough for Hasbro)... but time will tell.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

And WotC's savvy notwithstanding, there is the real question as to how many people want online content to replace rather than supplement physical gaming products.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 9, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And WotC's savvy notwithstanding, there is the real question as to how many people want online content to replace rather than supplement physical gaming products.




Agree here as well. Their loss of marketshare, at least as far as books go... as well as the flip flopping of both the direction and design of their products has me doubting that WotC even knows what their fans really want or rather if that is what is actually driving their decision making process.

I know their fans certainly wanted/want PDF's. The funny thing is having the 3.5 PDF's *might* have stopped or at least slowed down many people's migration to Pathfinder... but with the 3.5 books (especially core) skyrocketing in price... the Pathfinder corebook, which acts as PHB and DMG (and is only around $30 on Amazon), became an even more attractive way to continue with the 3.5 rules.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 9, 2011)

I think we're in an interesting period of transition with regard to print vs. digital content delivery - and I'm not only referring to RPGs.

With devices like the kindle, iPad, etc., I think all publishers are going to have to make content available in multiple ways.

I don't think the technology is quite there yet (though it's close), but I will be much happier bringing a better 1lb iPad (for example) to a gaming session than 10+ lbs. of books - once the digital eReaders provide a superior experience (for me), and they are very, very close to doing so.

I like how as a Paizo subscriber I get both a hard copy and PDF so that *I* get to choose (at no additional charge or effort) how *I* want content delivered and used in particular circumstances.


----------



## carmachu (Feb 10, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> but you can't say "without the OGL there would be no 4ed", as there would have been a new edition in the future, or that Mearls would have not come up with the same style of game sans OGL. He could have done it in a fanzine.




I certainly can. Without OGL 4e would probably not look like it does now. A new edition coming alont? Absolutely. New editionthat look slike 4e? Probably not.

You have ZERO evidence that Mearls would have done so via a fanzine. In fact I'd hazard to say less then zero. Your just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks in that particular case.



> The game exists separately from the OGL. The OGL is a simple license, not a philosophy or even a game. D&D exists outside of the OGL. People have been tinkering with the game since 1974. All the OGL does is make it easier to publish, that's pretty much it. Was the OGL a factor, yes? Is the OGL the sole reason 4e is the way it is, I doubt it.
> 
> It's a license, not a philosophy or a religion. The creative interest in game design has existed outside of the licenses.




the license allowed unparallel items to come about.  It most certainly could be argued that its alo a philosphy for the game, that allowed more creativity and diversity to happen then any other point in gaming. Even more so then "tinkering with the game since 1974"

Sole reason? No. But dismissing it had nothing to do with it is rather foolish.


----------



## ssampier (Feb 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And WotC's savvy notwithstanding, there is the real question as to how many people want online content to replace rather than supplement physical gaming products.




Good point. I do consider Paizo Pathfinder's PDF products to be a different product than DI, though. That's why I wasn't quite ready to say to argue paper versus digital.

To me the current focus on DI has Wizards management spell-bound, but at the same time a bit lost. To really do DI right they should partner with a company that really understands electronic products. Their license for D&D games, however, hasn't been going well so far, so I can somewhat understand their reluctance.

Wizards has back-pedaled from DI a bit, making those random, semi-collectible cards _mandatory_ for tournaments. That just confuses me. I am not quite sure how that fits in with the whole electronic & book thing. Do they really expect people to buy all three?


----------



## Matt James (Feb 10, 2011)

ssampier said:


> Wizards has back-pedaled from DI a bit, making those random, semi-collectible cards _mandatory_ for tournaments. That just confuses me. I am not quite sure how that fits in with the whole electronic & book thing. Do they really expect people to buy all three?




Wait. What? What tournaments? Fortune Cards are optional content for the system. If you're talking about the _D&D Encounters_ organized play events, that's just a way to get people into the store to learn D&D and hock the new products--nothing close to a tournament.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 10, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> I think we're in an interesting period of transition with regard to print vs. digital content delivery - and I'm not only referring to RPGs.
> 
> With devices like the kindle, iPad, etc., I think all publishers are going to have to make content available in multiple ways.
> 
> I don't think the technology is quite there yet (though it's close), but I will be much happier bringing a better 1lb iPad (for example) to a gaming session than 10+ lbs. of books - once the digital eReaders provide a superior experience (for me), and they are very, very close to doing so.



Yep.  
A lot of people who swore they would never give up on vinyl are walking around with their entire music library on an IPod.


Digital WILL replace paper and in the not so distant future.  
And, assuming cloud based technology also evolves to keep up, the distinction between a PDF on an IPad and a DDI-type service may be very hard to identify.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Wait. What? What tournaments? Fortune Cards are optional content for the system. If you're talking about the _D&D Encounters_ organized play events, that's just a way to get people into the store to learn D&D and hock the new products--nothing close to a tournament.




No. Fortune cards will be a required component/purchase for more advanced players, beyond initial introduction to the game. This was mentioned specifically on the product page FOR Fortune Cards.

These will be "organized play events" ran in stores but not for new players, for more "experienced" as the product information page proclaims.

Wizards Play Network Official Home Page



> For some Wizards Play Network programs aimed at experienced players, Fortune Card purchase will be a requirement to participate,


----------



## Nagol (Feb 11, 2011)

Matt James said:


> Wait. What? What tournaments? Fortune Cards are optional content for the system. If you're talking about the _D&D Encounters_ organized play events, that's just a way to get people into the store to learn D&D and hock the new products--nothing close to a tournament.




There's a new in-store play program starting in September that seems designed specifically to use the cards.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (A New D&D In-Store Play Program)


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 11, 2011)

carmachu said:


> I certainly can. Without OGL 4e would probably not look like it does now. A new edition coming alont? Absolutely. New editionthat look slike 4e? Probably not.
> 
> You have ZERO evidence that Mearls would have done so via a fanzine. In fact I'd hazard to say less then zero. Your just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks in that particular case.




You're making the classic _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_ statement.  I'm not "throwing stuff against the wall".  You are implying that there is a DIRECT, rather than INDIRECT, link between 4ed and the OGL.  This is what you are saying.

Mearls works on Iron Realms, which seems to be a prototype for 4e
Iron Realms used the OGL
Therefore, the OGL is responsible 4e.

You are also ignoring the traditional means of how others in the gaming field got their jobs.  You are ignoring plenty of other considerations.

Mearls worked under Monte Cook, a popular 3e publisher which probably got a lot more attention and may have opened up enough doors for him.  Monte was akin to (in the per OGL days) a major publisher.

It was the talent of Mearls that was the primary draw, and I suspect had there been no OGL, Mearls would have eventually ended up at WoTC.  

I would have to say my "evidence" is greater than yours, as I am at least looking at the history of how people got their jobs.  



carmachu said:


> It most certainly could be argued that its alo a philosphy for the game, that allowed more creativity and diversity to happen then any other point in gaming. Even more so then "tinkering with the game since 1974"




I don't dismiss it totally, but I dislike the whole "OGL Worship" I see where the license becomes more important or just as important as the game.  And I think one negative of the OGL is that we've ended up going backwards.  Instead of being creative the largest game publishers now sort of use a single base.  I think if the 3e system didn't dominate we would have had stronger alternatives to the D&D system, like we had in the 80s and 90s.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 11, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Yep.
> A lot of people who swore they would never give up on vinyl are walking around with their entire music library on an IPod.
> 
> 
> ...




While I doubt paper will "disappear", I do think there's a lot of people who say "there will always be X" as being somewhat myopic.  

Lots of popular forms of entertainment expressions have either died or changed over time, as either technology or culture evolved.  Here are some examples:

Vaudeville.
Medicine Shows
Minstrel Shows
Music Halls/Concert Saloons.
Jukeboxes
Tab Shows
Silent Film

It stands to reason that any form of entertainment is not immune to changes in civilization, technology, or culture.

That's why I think there will be major changes in the RPG as we know it over the next few decades, and in other forms of entertainment (newspapers are dying, and I have a feeling the regular comic strip as well as the traditional [Western] comic book will disappear in the next decade or two).


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 11, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> It stands to reason that any form of entertainment is not immune to changes in civilization, technology, or culture.
> 
> That's why I think there will be major changes in the RPG as we know it over the next few decades, and in other forms of entertainment (newspapers are dying, and I have a feeling the regular comic strip as well as the traditional [Western] comic book will disappear in the next decade or two).




In the months leading up to the release of 4E, the designers stated that they borrowed/stole/derivatized things from games/culture that had emerged since the release of 3E. Things like WoW, eurogames, as well as the large number of indie RPGs (*cough*savage worlds*cough*) are all places that influenced 4E.

Just the same way, the things that are being released today (Dresden Files RPG/FATE system for example) will have a large influence on the next edition of D&D.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 11, 2011)

True, and that's also why I made my statements about the OGL, because the license has little direct influence on the game.  Techniques and ideas for rules come regardless of the legal means around it.  I don't see that license as a major factor to influence creativity.

Although I see the RPG evolution coming as perhaps games that either have a lot of physical accessories (cards, tokens, board-game hybrids), or games that increase their on-line status as virtual table-tops, or more complex multiplayer games are developed.  That's why I think the RPG will increasingly evolve into new formats, and depending on your POV, I think the stuff with just a rulesbook and dice could either fade or become an isolated niche, depending on how the new forms influence the new generation.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> In the months leading up to the release of 4E, the designers stated that they borrowed/stole/derivatized things from games/culture that had emerged since the release of 3E. Things like WoW, eurogames, as well as the large number of indie RPGs (*cough*savage worlds*cough*) are all places that influenced 4E.
> 
> Just the same way, the things that are being released today (Dresden Files RPG/FATE system for example) will have a large influence on the next edition of D&D.




I wonder how long before this change creates something new entirely that is unrecognizable, in which the original thing is lost, and to gain it back as an option for people, you just have to release it again when it is found wanted?

"The more things change, the more change stays the same" as opposed to "the more things change, the more things stay the same".


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I wonder how long before this change creates something new entirely that is unrecognizable, in which the original thing is lost, and to gain it back as an option for people, you just have to release it again when it is found wanted?
> 
> "The more things change, the more change stays the same" as opposed to "the more things change, the more things stay the same".




But, when this change happens, will there be any significant amount of an audience that wants (or even knows) of the original thing anymore?


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> But, when this change happens, will there be any significant amount of an audience that wants (or even knows) of the original thing anymore?




Was there a need to make the original not known anymore then, or did it happen on its own?

So was the original forced out by the change, or the people the change was made upon?

or

Who/what needed the change if anyone needed it as opposed to one or some just wanting it?


----------



## Matt James (Feb 11, 2011)

Nagol said:


> There's a new in-store play program starting in September that seems designed specifically to use the cards.
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (A New D&D In-Store Play Program)




We're talking about one sub-event of the entire game. I'm still confused on how people are saying these are required for the entire game-system.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Was there a need to make the original not known anymore then, or did it happen on its own?




My assumption is that it happened on its own. That the people who were interested in keeping it there became an insignificant part of the customer base as compared to those that had no interest one way or another or who preferred something different.



> So was the original forced out by the change, or the people the change was made upon?




I am wondering if that should be "the people the change was made for"? The phrase makes more sense to me when phrased that way.



> Who/what needed the change if anyone needed it as opposed to one or some just wanting it?




Or, was the intended audience simply not interested in the thing that was changed anymore?

There is no one reason why something is changed. Sometimes it is changed because the people that were making the product decided to change it. Sometime it is because the buying public decided that it was no longer a desirable feature. Sometimes economics makes it no longer viable.

What is desirable or wanted goes in cycles. Eventually, what is considered "old fashioned" and "outdated" will be considered in-style again.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> My assumption is that it happened on its own. That the people who were interested in keeping it there became an insignificant part of the customer base as compared to those that had no interest one way or another or who preferred something different.




Did they become insignificant or were made to be insignificant?

It seems to be the attempt to make them appear insignificant is what happened in light of the "retro clones" and continued existence of OGL material and even full versions of OGL games.

So one or a group, purposefully tried to make them become hidden from view in order to gain more themselves.



> I am wondering if that should be "the people the change was made for"? The phrase makes more sense to me when phrased that way.




Or does it work both ways? Some the changes were "made for" while others it was "forced upon".

The sense in the question really comes form what you are trying to ask with it correct? 

This is because all didn't require the change, so again why did the change occur to begin with?



> Or, was the intended audience simply not interested in the thing that was changed anymore?
> 
> There is no one reason why something is changed. Sometimes it is changed because the people that were making the product decided to change it. Sometime it is because the buying public decided that it was no longer a desirable feature. Sometimes economics makes it no longer viable.
> 
> What is desirable or wanted goes in cycles. Eventually, what is considered "old fashioned" and "outdated" will be considered in-style again.




The problem is the concept of "old-fashioned" and "outdated" isn't always held by all. Some view it and "move on" to newer things, while others see the "old-fashioned" things working perfectly well still and need not be changed, nor a new thing to replace them.


----------



## Wicht (Feb 11, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> True, and that's also why I made my statements about the OGL, because the license has little direct influence on the game.  Techniques and ideas for rules come regardless of the legal means around it.  I don't see that license as a major factor to influence creativity.




I won't quibble about creativity. There's no way to verify it either way. On the other hand, the OGL greatly aids Productivity and that is something I think it would be wrong to leave out of the discussion. 

Moreover, the increase in Productivity allowed by the OGL also directly influences how many people have an opportunity to contribute to the hobby. 

So sure, maybe Mearls would have found doors open to him without the OGL, but on the other hand, having more doors available makes it far more likely that any one person can gain the recognition necessary to rise to the top.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Did they become insignificant or were made to be insignificant?




Yes. 



> It seems to be the attempt to make them appear insignificant is what happened in light of the "retro clones" and continued existence of OGL material and even full versions of OGL games.




Or could it be the start of a resurgence in some of the tropes and conceits that are prevalent in retro-clones? Is it possible that in 5E/6E we see a swing away from 3.X/4E towards OD&D/BECMI/AD&D??



> This is because all didn't require the change, so again why did the change occur to begin with?




Because those that wanted the change outnumbered those that didn't? Either amongst the consumers or amongst the developers. Of course, because the company thinks that it will make a better (*cough*profitable*cough*) game.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> Yes.




D'oh! smart-ass. 



> Or could it be the start of a resurgence in some of the tropes and conceits that are prevalent in retro-clones? Is it possible that in 5E/6E we see a swing away from 3.X/4E towards OD&D/BECMI/AD&D??




Or it could be an acceptance of failure of 3.X/4e that the change was never really welcomed to begin with. 



> Because those that wanted the change outnumbered those that didn't? Either amongst the consumers or amongst the developers. Of course, because the company thinks that it will make a better (*cough*profitable*cough*) game.




Yes, a word to get choked on, because that one word you had to cough out, is likely the root cause of the change, ABOVE all other reasons for it. 

Ah, the good old days of me and you arguing totally opposite positions...where is Mike at to tell us somehow we are both wrong and right, when we both already know that?


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Feb 11, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Digital WILL replace paper and in the not so distant future.










We WILL have flying cars.   
We WILL have paperless offices.  
We WILL have our own robot servants.  

And all in the not so distant future!


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Feb 11, 2011)

double post


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> D'oh! smart-ass.




When you throw the pass so that the receiver has to jump 3 feet in the air to catch it, do you expect me to not go for the tackle??



> Or it could be an acceptance of failure of 3.X/4e that the change was never really welcomed to begin with.




For some people, the shift of the pendulum towards 3.x/4E is a large failure. For others, it is a success.



> Yes, a word to get choked on, because that one word you had to cough out, is likely the root cause of the change, ABOVE all other reasons for it.




More than likely. Diminishing returns, blahblahblah. (Not to dismiss the argument as being insignificant, but it has been beaten to death so many times that I don't think that it is really worth it to go down that rabbit hole.) When you boil everything down to the basics, the people in charge of D&D at WotC decided that it was time for a change. 

Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision will be one that we are too close to (in terms of time) to determine. However, when considering whether it is good or not, I think that it is important to also look at the impact of the change on other companies who were in the right place at the right time with the right expertise to take advantage of that change. (cough*Paizo*cough*)

For example, if WotC *had* decided to stay with 3.X, would Paizo have the same importance in the RPG sphere as it does now?



> Ah, the good old days of me and you arguing totally opposite positions...where is Mike at to tell us somehow we are both wrong and right, when we both already know that?




It's refreshing, actually. A discussion where both people are actually *discussing* as opposed to insulting and/or setting up straw men to attack.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> When you throw the pass so that the receiver has to jump 3 feet in the air to catch it, do you expect me to not go for the tackle??




Of course you don't go for the tackle when they are already in the end zone. 



> For some people, the shift of the pendulum towards 3.x/4E is a large failure. For others, it is a success.




And until it comes to a full stop, it will always swing back. 



> More than likely. Diminishing returns, blahblahblah. (Not to dismiss the argument as being insignificant, but it has been beaten to death so many times that I don't think that it is really worth it to go down that rabbit hole.) When you boil everything down to the basics, the people in charge of D&D at WotC decided that it was time for a change.
> 
> Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision will be one that we are too close to (in terms of time) to determine. However, when considering whether it is good or not, I think that it is important to also look at the impact of the change on other companies who were in the right place at the right time with the right expertise to take advantage of that change. (cough*Paizo*cough*)
> 
> For example, if WotC *had* decided to stay with 3.X, would Paizo have the same importance in the RPG sphere as it does now?




OH don't hide it, even as one of the VCLs or whatever you are called over there now WotC and HASBRO both has to take note of Paizo.

But that is still all based on your first cough...profitability.

Paizo, nor profit, will actually help D&D with any changes, only reduce the amount of red ink needed to create (if WotC stops using 3/2 page artwork they could reduce their red ink usage even more.  )

I think Erik et all were pretty much going to release their version of OGL no matter what WotC did. I don't think, after the magazine fiasco, Erik was just going to sit happy to ride on WotC coattails. I always felt and expected something of a system from him even back during the days of The Dragon.

Wasn't quite sure what to expect, but expected something none the less.

Just so happens that project may have gotten pushed forward or to the top of the heap much quicker than was suspected by WotC's own actions that has put WotC in the position they are now in.

4th or not, I knew, felt it in my gut, something was going to come from Erik Mona in the way of a game system. There was just too much creativity there to keep it caged up.

I don't use Pathfinder, but glad that creativity didn't just go to waste and had an outlet to be put too, and happy other enjoy it.



> It's refreshing, actually. A discussion where both people are actually *discussing* as opposed to insulting and/or setting up straw men to attack.




Is that all that still goes on over there?


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 12, 2011)

shadzar said:


> And until it comes to a full stop, it will always swing back.




Yup. At some point in time, the "next big idea" will be old and tired, and the idea that is old and tired now will be "the next big idea".



> OH don't hide it, even as one of the VCLs or whatever you are called over there now WotC and HASBRO both has to take note of Paizo.




I am certain that they do. WotC knows their weaknesses and knows their strengths, as does Paizo. They also know that they are not the only source of talented RPG designers out there. I am sure that they look at what Paizo is doing with PFRPG and go "that is really cool" or "that's an interesting way to do that" or "meh".  They know that D&D 5E will show up eventually, as will PFRPG v2.0 or some other game, and it would be phenomenally stupid of them to ignore that.



> I think Erik et all were pretty much going to release their version of OGL no matter what WotC did. I don't think, after the magazine fiasco, Erik was just going to sit happy to ride on WotC coattails. I always felt and expected something of a system from him even back during the days of The Dragon.




I got the impression (this was only based on the various blog posts he wrote, not of any insider knowledge or anything) that if WotC would have gotten the GSL out in a reasonable time limit, and with reasonable terms (in the view of 3pps), that he would have jumped both feet into 4E. But they didn't, and neither did he. (Personally, while it may have been a loss for D&D for Paizo to not be working on 4E, I think that it was/is good for RPGs as a whole. Now all we need is a kick-ass sci-fi RPG)



> I don't use Pathfinder, but glad that creativity didn't just go to waste and had an outlet to be put too, and happy other enjoy it.




Agreed.



> Is that all that still goes on over there?




The signal to noise ratios between here and there are dramatically different.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> I got the impression (this was only based on the various blog posts he wrote, not of any insider knowledge or anything) that if WotC would have gotten the GSL out in a reasonable time limit, and with reasonable terms (in the view of 3pps), that he would have jumped both feet into 4E. But they didn't, and neither did he. (Personally, while it may have been a loss for D&D for Paizo to not be working on 4E, I think that it was/is good for RPGs as a whole. Now all we need is a kick-ass sci-fi RPG)




1- Erik is another gamer like the rest of us. Our own game is what every gamer has at least once thought about having and holding the reigns to.

2- I think that GSL had to be PERFECT for that to happen though. "Either 3rd OR 4th", was never going to be allowed by 3PPs. Clark tried to get that passed through Linea and Scott on to WotC and/or HASBRO at the forefront of all other 3PPs as to be something that had to be addressed AND removed.

The GSL revoking rights to use the OGL just wasn't going to work.

Then I don't think Paizo would have been solely 4th edition. Paizo doesn't try to play "one true edition", and think they were the ones publishing my last in print Dragon 3 issues into introducing 3rd edition....not sure.

But even if starting heavy with 4th when 4th first came out, I can see Paizo would not have left the OGL arena if the OGL and GSL were compliant. There is just too much opportunity to capitalize on...monetarily and creatively speaking.

3- I forgot...so NOOOO to space opera RPGS! Just play RIFTS or Spelljammer, cause there has been way to many other bad ones to come and go. Well....with two more installments coming out, it might be a good time for someone to pitch an RPG to James Cameron set on Pandora. I know minis from that game and race would likely sell quicker than a Maralith in a wet t-shirt contest.



> The signal to noise ratios between here and there are dramatically different.




Glad my browser can't even access it due to some "Whoops" error that still exists and was never fixed then when it was moved...not that the forums software itself is very welcoming.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 12, 2011)

shadzar said:


> 2- I think that GSL had to be PERFECT for that to happen though. "Either 3rd OR 4th", was never going to be allowed by 3PPs. Clark tried to get that passed through Linea and Scott on to WotC and/or HASBRO at the forefront of all other 3PPs as to be something that had to be addressed AND removed.
> 
> The GSL revoking rights to use the OGL just wasn't going to work.




I agree. I think that the current GSL (as compared to the OGL) is the result of management changes, and difference in vision on where they (the managers) want D&D to go in the future. I would have loved to see it (4E) more open. Some of my favourite 3.X books are the Midnight Campaign setting and The Book of the Righteous, both of which are possible due to the OGL. At the same time, I don't begrudge WotC for doing what they felt was necessary to protect their IP.



> But even if starting heavy with 4th when 4th first came out, I can see Paizo would not have left the OGL arena if the OGL and GSL were compliant. There is just too much opportunity to capitalize on...monetarily and creatively speaking.




Agreed.



> 3- I forgot...so NOOOO to space opera RPGS! Just play RIFTS or Spelljammer, cause there has been way to many other bad ones to come and go. Well....with two more installments coming out, it might be a good time for someone to pitch an RPG to James Cameron set on Pandora. I know minis from that game and race would likely sell quicker than a Maralith in a wet t-shirt contest.




Not Space Opera, but a good, hard sci-fi RPG.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 12, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> We WILL have flying cars.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.
But those examples were wildly speculative.
I can already show you people using e-readers and PDFs on IPads.


I'm not saying something that doesn't exist will spring into being.  I'm saying something that is happening, as a reality, right now, will happen even more in the future.

Someone could have talked 25 years ago about flying cars as being an example of how they would never stop listening to their music on vinyl.  And yet their example didn't stand in the way of reality.

An equivalent to your flying cars would be virtual reality and/or hologram based online shared space gaming.  That would be awesome.  But they may never happen.  

virtual reality  <=> flying cars
digital media replacing books  <=> digital music replacing vinyl and CDs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 12, 2011)

Side note: Actually, flying cars are real and have been around for some time.  They just are not and will never be a commercial success in our lifetime.

After all, we have enough accidents with regular cars now- imagine a city with an appreciable number of aircars, and one has an accident.  Where is that debris going?

And imagine being an air traffic controller in that city!


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Feb 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> virtual reality  <=> flying cars
> digital media replacing books  <=> digital music replacing vinyl and CDs.




(Shrug)  All I know is people have been predicting the death of paper since at least the 1960s.  I'll believe it when I see it, no matter how many 20-year-olds confidently predict the book's demise.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 13, 2011)

mudbunny said:


> Agreed.




Agreed.

 Wow good discussions die fast....only the good die young.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 13, 2011)

I'm 41 and have no reason to be in a hurry for you to believe it.


----------



## carmachu (Feb 13, 2011)

JohnRTroy said:


> You're making the classic _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_ statement. I'm not "throwing stuff against the wall". You are implying that there is a DIRECT, rather than INDIRECT, link between 4ed and the OGL. This is what you are saying.
> 
> You are also ignoring the traditional means of how others in the gaming field got their jobs. You are ignoring plenty of other considerations




And your ignoring evidence in front of your eyes.

 [quout] 
It was the talent of Mearls that was the primary draw, and I suspect had there been no OGL, Mearls would have eventually ended up at WoTC. 

I would have to say my "evidence" is greater than yours, as I am at least looking at the history of how people got their jobs. 
 [/quote]

You can suspect whatever you like. Evidence, you have not provided. So the answer is none. The very fact that Mearls DID work for a popular OGL author shows exact that his talent did get noticed. 

Prior to that it wasnt easy to get noticed. OGL changed that.



> I don't dismiss it totally, but I dislike the whole "OGL Worship" I see where the license becomes more important or just as important as the game. And I think one negative of the OGL is that we've ended up going backwards. Instead of being creative the largest game publishers now sort of use a single base. I think if the 3e system didn't dominate we would have had stronger alternatives to the D&D system, like we had in the 80s and 90s.




Sure you are. You've pretty much dismissed it out of hand. 

If we went "backwards", that isnt the fault of the OGL. One can lay it clearly at WOTC's feet for failure to both take advantage of the OGL when it was around, and then for trying to release the GSL as a replacement.

The fault isnt in the license, but in the publisher.  Instead of panicing and trying to hit a reset, they should have used it and taken advantage of what it brought.


----------



## GreyLord (Feb 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Fair enough.
> But those examples were wildly speculative.
> I can already show you people using e-readers and PDFs on IPads.
> 
> ...




I know it's already been stated, but it needs restating.  Flying cars have existed for decades now.  They've been around since at least the late 80s when there were at least around 3 on the market (though the each cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and weren't sports cars that went fast...but they didn't have wings either and two of them could take off vertically out of traffic if you wanted.  You also needed a PPL in order to fly them out of traffic I think...it was a limited number of people that actually wanted it...most preferred the sports car).

I think it's a century or more till paper goes away...IF it goes away.  In the Western world it may go away for a while...until some major catastrophe destroys the digital age and we go back to the old fashioned forms of storage which are more durable and long lasting.  In other nations...since the digital age hasn't really been strong there in regards to storage devices and other arenas...I imagine paper will be around even when the most of the Western world has gone to something else (IF they go to something else...like digital).

This has gone off topic now...hasn't it.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 13, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> I know it's already been stated, but it needs restating.  Flying cars have existed for decades now.
> 
> This has gone off topic now...hasn't it.




Yes, we are way off topic.
But it is also not relevant to the tangent even.

Chainsaw Mage did not claim electronic media products do not exist, he claimed they would not replace books (actually he just inferred, but whatever), just as flying cars have not replaced conventional cars.  The existence, much less how long that existence has been in place, has zero bearing on the actual question.
Everyone agrees ebooks and flying cars both exist.  



Also, I don't think paper will go away any time soon.

I think e-books will replace books over time and I think it will happen faster in RPGs than in books at large.  But people will still be printing out particular selections, character sheets, references, whatever, for a very long time to come.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 13, 2011)

carmachu said:


> And your ignoring evidence in front of your eyes.
> 
> 
> You can suspect whatever you like. Evidence, you have not provided. So the answer is none. The very fact that Mearls DID work for a popular OGL author shows exact that his talent did get noticed.
> ...




No, it WAS easy to get noticed, as long as theres a market for gaming.  There was always the equivalent of the farm team or the minor leagues when it came to game design.  Dragon Magazine lead to a lot of people accepting jobs at TSR.  Smaller game shops ended up providing a body of work that would allow people to get hired at TSR or WoTC.  I can give you many examples like I did with people like Warren Spector, Roger Moore, etc.  

The only single thing the OGL did was make it easier to both produce a more exact clone of D&D (with permission) or make supplemental products, and for existing WoTC staffers to branch out on their own.  But the farm team or minor leagues *already existed*.  The OGL in itself did not increase the number of people taking part in these markets, just shifted the locations and make-up of them.

I have yet to see solid evidence that the gaming market expanded under the OGL, in terms of numbers.  From what I saw a lot of new publishers showed up but other publishers folded and some flamed out fast.  Was the market for the RPG under the OGL bigger than it was in the 1970s-1990s?  Again, the OGL is just a legal license.  Most people don't give a crap about it, they either contribute to gaming as a hobby because they love it and/or want to make money writing for it.  That's always existed, beyond the licenses.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> I think e-books will replace books over time and I think it will happen faster in RPGs than in books at large. But people will still be printing out particular selections, character sheets, references, whatever, for a very long time to come.




It's not a question of whether "print will die", but which areas of print will be replaced.  Clearly paper is being replaced in areas where it is conveinent--e-mail has replaced much correspondence, and newspapers are moving to on-line formats.   You can also expect low-selling niche hobbies to move more towards on-line than you can with bestsellers--or to become extinct.  And it will also depend on what new technologies come out that make it easier to read digital copies instead of printing out sheets.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2011)

> It's not a question of whether "print will die", but which areas of print will be replaced. Clearly paper is being replaced in areas where it is conveinent--e-mail has replaced much correspondence, and newspapers are moving to on-line formats. You can also expect low-selling niche hobbies to move more towards on-line than you can with bestsellers--or to become extinct. And it will also depend on what new technologies come out that make it easier to read digital copies instead of printing out sheets.




Currently, I'm part of a team helping an MD discuss the costs of going 100% paperless.  It ain't gonna be cheap.

In the RPG industry- as with any kind of publishing- going paperless will lower the cost of entry for small companies or self-publishers.  For all companies, it will reduce shipping costs, especially to remote areas.  If someone in Ulan Bator, Mongolia has a connection capable of handling a pdf or other digital media format, it will be a LOT cheaper to get him your RPG via that pipeline.

However, digital-only changes the power of "browsing".  I can't tell you how many RPGs I've picked up from hanging out in a store and looking over the product.  I can tell you how many I've done the same way digitally- ZERO.  Now, there are some retailers that let you "look inside" a digital book offering, but, to date, they depend upon someone else's idea of what they think would sell the book, which isn't necessarily what I'd look at.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Currently, I'm part of a team helping an MD discuss the costs of going 100% paperless.  It ain't gonna be cheap.



I absolutely agree.  I'm not talking about a paperless society.

But I think recreational reading will continue the already happening shift to emedia and I think gaming will be on the front edge of that curve.

Society at large, and businesses are a different matter. 

Obviously the big "paperless" office push of the 1990s was an absolute bust with virtually everyone (apparently) seeing the same result I did.  That being that e-mail in particular just resulted in that much more stuff to print, whether you really needed it or not.  Rather than reducing paper use, electronic communication sent it into hyperdrive.

But, in the past two to three years, as a consulting engineer, I have seen a clear decline in our paper usage.  We still use a ton.  But we are seeing a drift toward more and deliverables in pdf format.  Regulators usually still want a dead tree copy.  But most have gone from three copies to one copy and pdf.  And many clients strongly prefer pdfs.  Mostly because it just vastly more convenient to keep up with dozens of pdfs in a clean file system than it is to keep up with dozens of 4 inch binders.  And you are not paying square footage costs for paper to sit on a shelf.

But, I do find myself printing the same 8 pages every six or eight weeks when a question comes up.  

Paper will be around for a long long time.

And still, gaming will shift to more and more emedia sooner rather than later.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 14, 2011)

Browsing books is a great way to sell books, and bookstores have been using that fact for a long time. With pdfs, the back blurb is good, but books have that also. And the back blurb rarely sells anything to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2011)

> I absolutely agree. I'm not talking about a paperless society.




Neither am I.  There are just too many things that paper does well and cheaply that we can't quite replicate with electronic equivalents.

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are all kinds of economic and environmental factors linked to the infrastructure of electronic media that are still not where we need them to be for mass adoption.  We need to be able to make plastics out of something other than petrochemicals, for instance, and to be more efficient about recycling and refining the metals and other elements used in the manufacture of electronic devices and their batteries.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Browsing books is a great way to sell books, and bookstores have been using that fact for a long time. With pdfs, the back blurb is good, but books have that also. And the back blurb rarely sells anything to me.



I think Amazon would tell you that people will buy books after simply looking at the on-line write up.  The brick and mortars where people browse actual books are in self preservation mode.

It is true that Amazon still sells more dead tree books.  But the browsing aspect is irrelevant to format for any on-line retailer.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Neither am I.  There are just too many things that paper does well and cheaply that we can't quite replicate with electronic equivalents.
> 
> And as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are all kinds of economic and environmental factors linked to the infrastructure of electronic media that are still not where we need them to be for mass adoption.  We need to be able to make plastics out of something other than petrochemicals, for instance, and to be more efficient about recycling and refining the metals and other elements used in the manufacture of electronic devices and their batteries.




I agree.  To elaborate a bit on the above, my degrees are in chemical and environmental engineering.  I know, and agree, with what you are saying.

But if we just focus on gaming, kindles and IPads already exist, and are doing quite well.  Competition and technological progress will do nothing but improve them, while books just keep being books.  

Right now kindles pretty much suck for most gaming books.  IPads work well, but are a bit over the top for now.  But you can see the future with no required significant innovations, just minor tweaks and getting over the hump of the cost curve.

Once gamers start being able to have entire collections of books in instantly searchable formats, all in one coat pocket, managing a shelf of pages of paper will seem as obsolete as having a wall dedicated to vinyl discs.

But yeah, for broader application there are huge issues still ahead.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2011)

> Right now kindles pretty much suck for most gaming books. IPads work well, but are a bit over the top for now. But you can see the future with no required significant innovations, just minor tweaks and getting over the hump of the cost curve.




That's good to know...I've been thinking about some kind of e-reader or tablet.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

I have a kindle and I really like it for reading.  And pdfs do work fine on it.

But game book formatting tends to be a hassle.

I do not have an IPad.  But I can't get my mind around spending that cash for a game book storage device.  Whenever I do eventually buy a tablet type device, I'm certain my game pdf collection will be there in short order.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2011)

Were I to buy a tablet, its ability to handle gaming stuff would be but one consideration...partly because I own no gaming pdf and have no expectations of buying any.

However, the ability to make a multimedia character sheet appeals to me...


----------

