# 4 Hours w/ RSD - Escapist Bonus Column



## kitsune9

Nice article.

I've kind of had the opinion that D&D will continue to see more board games for their IP. I wish there was a cheaper alternative though as I would collect such board games if they fell in the $20-$30 range for the actual game store, not Amazon.com. A 32 page rulebook, some tiles, some cheap minis and dice and I would be ready to rock-n-roll. Expansions could add more rules, tiles, and such.


----------



## Klaus

As a gamer who lives outside the US/Canada, I see a lack of a more involved international licensing/distribution, which would help the market by increasing the overall size of the pie.

And what you said about TRPG as family games reminded me of the D&D series of boxes. Maybe if you pack the entire game (rules, characters, monsters) for a certain level range (say, 1-5/6-10/11-15/16-20/20-30), you could have customers pay for "upgrades" or stay with the range they like best.


----------



## GreyLord

I would counter that I am of an opposite opinion of the article in some ways, though on the front it would appear to be in parallell.

First, I think the OGL was genius.

That stated, I think TRPG is a misnomer, and it should all be grouped into one single thought of RPG.

With that I think RPGs are going through a renaissance and are more popular then ever before.  It's the FORM of which they are changing.  I think the audience for RPGs is actually expanding, not contracting, but it's how they are playing as opposed to what they are playing.

I think Neverwinter Nights was actually the first big example of this.  You had people given the creativity to make their own RPG game, and in many cases be a DM over massive worlds.

In World of Warcraft you have those who are part of "RPG" guilds and groups which are specifically more into the role portion than simple hack and slash.

I think that RPGs are getting more into the integration of electronica and the RPG itself.  Those arenas which can successfully integrate those two are doing better then those that cannot.

In that light, I think Paizo actually has done a better job of the integration of the two thus far than many others.

It also spells a difference between a TTTRPG (so more than just Traditional, that would be Traditional Table Top Roleplaying Game) and current Roleplaying games.

The bigger question is what businesses can make that leap into the integration of the market.  That may not necessarily mean a Virtual Table top, it could mean a game like World of Warcraft, but with the entire DM toolset at a Player's fingertips.

I think the RPGs that are electronic or combine electronica into it's way of playing will gain more and more marketshare and that RPGs will expand.

In fact I think Mr. Dancey himself is part of this entire idea that RPGs are expanding in this way and even has hedged his bets in business upon it in some ways.

Just my two copper.


----------



## nedjer

"effective acquisition engine" pretty much hits the nail on the head imo. The core problem of the difficulty in seeing and bridging the skills gap between expert and novice is well-known across education and learning. RPGs are no different from any other kind of learning in this respect - if we don't model and scaffold new player's participation (in-game and out) it's not just likely, but inevitable, that most potential players will walk away


----------



## Ahnehnois

First, thanks for posting. Whatever information was witheld, there is a lot of substantive analysis there.

Second, with regards to the collapse of retailers, it seems to me that this affects a lot more than the D&D brand, and compensatory mechanisms will evolve that affect far more than the D&D brand.

Third, I tend to agree with the point on VTT. D&D's distinguishing factor is that it is played in person, with people. That's not likely to change, even when technology does.

Fourth, I'm not sure about MMOs. It seems to me there is or ought to be some synergy there, as well as competition between them and tabletop RPGs.

At the end of the day, I conclude (as many others have) that the OGL is a very, very good thing.


----------



## Cergorach

Thanks for sharing your insight!

What would you designate as an "acquisition engine" besides a starter box?


----------



## JoeGKushner

IN terms of collapse of retailers (hell, I thought Borders was finished), where does Amazon fall? How many retail stores is one Amazon worth?

How does that handle things like the DDI with a constant stream of revenue that allows instant data mining on an unprecedented scale for WoTC or the subscription model that Paizo is using with the free PDF for those who subscribe?


----------



## Argyle King

I agree with some others have said; I feel that interest in the idea of rpgs is growing; not dying.  Heck, even Lego has a rpg game out now.  It's a very simple one due to their target audience, but it's still an rpg.  

As for Waldens and Barnes & Noble?  To be quite blunt, I'm a former Waldens employee; part of their problem was just making poor business decisions.  As an occasional customer of Barnes & Noble, I think their problem is expecting someone to pay the prices they charge.  

...anyway... I'll cut myself short and try to sum things up by saying that I completely disagree with Ryan.  Yep, he has numbers; numbers which I cannot refute with numbers of my own.  However, what his numbers prove to me is not that tabletop gaming is dying, but instead that the 'establishment' (for a lack of better words) is dying.  I think that's a great thing because I believe that a lot of the bigger companies are out of touch with what the gaming community wants.

I believe that because while some of the big names the OP throws out there are indeed having trouble.  However, at the same time, there are plenty of people and companies out there who are listening and delivering; evolving with the fanbase.  It's time for a changing of the guard; that may look like death to some of the people who live at the top, but it's not.  It's evolution.  I believe it's time for someone else to have a shot at the top of the mountain.

I'll start to wind down my post by saying I've recently had a conversation with the owner of one of local gaming stores.  It's an independently owned store.  The store is now completely free of debt (some of it from loans and such when the store was first opened.)  It's making a profit.  When I go there, I see more and more new faces all the time.  I even had a joking conversation with the owner a few months back in which I asked him what he was doing to lure so many girls into his store (seems to be a big surge of females interested in gaming here as well.)

Maybe that one store is a fluke; just maybe.  However, there is a Barnes & Noble here in town, and -as the OP suggests- they are not doing well.  I know they are not doing well because I've asked; I've also observed the large mound of D&D books which seems to virtually never move.  The driving time between the local gaming store and where Barnes & Noble is at is probably 10 minutes at the most - my point being going to one is just as easy as getting to the other.  So why is it that people choose the small local gaming store over the large powerhouse chain retailer?  More importantly, do you feel this indicates a problem with the hobby as a whole or does it indicate failure on the part of the 'big names' in the industry? 

I'm not sure if anyone else is familiar with professional wrestling or the business behind it, but my view is that WoTC and some of the large retailers are slowly turning into the WCW of the community.  Loads of talent, but no idea what to do with it... still, since they have money, they're going to continue to ride high for a while.  Plenty of people at Turner Broadcasting who know what makes a good business model, but who are completely out of touch with what makes a good pro-wrestling business.


----------



## IronWolf

Excellent article! I really enjoy reading the additional insight into the business world of RPGs. Very interesting.


----------



## OnlineDM

My only comment is that MapTool at least is a virtual table that seems to have found success. Not commercial success, of course - it's a free program! But success in letting friends play RPGs online? Yep. My game is a year and a half in and going strong, and I have a secondary game I play online with family.

I might just be an outlier, though, in liking the pen and paper RPG experience enough online to prefer it over the MMO option, which has never interested me.


----------



## IronWolf

OnlineDM said:


> My only comment is that MapTool at least is a virtual table that seems to have found success. Not commercial success, of course - it's a free program! But success in letting friends play RPGs online? Yep. My game is a year and a half in and going strong, and I have a secondary game I play online with family.




I tend to agree with you. VTTs are still finding their place I think, but they certainly offer a viable way to play for those without a local group. I know if I didn't have a local group I would be playing in a regular VTT game.


----------



## Argyle King

_"I define a Hobby Game as one where (at least one person)  spends more time preparing to play the game than actually playing it.   For TRPGs that is usually the GM, but often it is players as well.  This  “out of game time” may be the biggest obstacle to overcome to keeping  the TRPG platform competitive."


_While I see the logic behind this statement, and in some ways might agree with it, I find myself disagreeing overall.  Look at what some of the most successful Facebook games are.  Things such as Farmville, YoVille, and others have been successful; extremely so.  A lot of people enjoy a game where they can spend hours upon hours customizing every fiddly little detail about a farm or their virtual restaurant or make believe house.  

What do they do after that?  They invite friends to visit their creations and share in the experience.  I believe evidence shows that there is a market for a more robust rpg experience.  While I completely understand having less time when you're 30 and have a job, kids, and bills versus being 15 and simply needing to get your homework done and finish up football practice, I still believe there are people who crave that creative outlet.  I believe there is a want to put a mark on the world; even if that world is a make believe one.  

Look at how robust video games such as WWE 12 are with options to create a wrestler.  In the newest game, you can now even create your own wrestling arena.  The designers saw that people wanted more detail; more control; more ability to put their own mark on a product.  Isn't that exactly what one of the strongest selling points of a tabletop experience is?  The ability to break free of restrictions set by a WoW server's programing; the ability to build your own character rather than being stuck with a wheelbarrow, thimble, or dog; the ability to create your own world and live your own fantasy.  That's what brought me to rpgs.

When I look at how the world around me and non-gaming community is evolving, I see people who are more open to that kind of experience than ever.  Yes, by all means, if you can, make the job of being a DM easier.  Create products which will help out the guy who is busy with a full time job and kids.  However, you need not chop the game down and turn it into something else.  When I teach people to play, I don't see eyes light up when a person moves 3 squares and plays a card to do 5 damage in the same way that I see when someone realizes that they can tell their story, and that their character is their canvas to paint in whichever way they want (quite literally if you enjoy painting minis.)

Am I completely off base?  If I am, fine, I can live with that.  It sure wouldn't be the first time I've been in the minority (I don't enjoy WoW at all) when it comes to my gamer friends and/or the gaming community.  I simply feel as though I must be living in a completely different world when I read articles of this nature.  Apparently, I must also be wanting to play a completely different game.  Once again, I do not have the numbers nor the inside information of the OP, so I can only defer to his experience, but I will argue that I feel those numbers can be attributed to the failure of the people producing some of the struggling games more so than to society as a whole having less interest in the concept of rpgs.


----------



## TheFindus

Interesting post.

My two cents, actually three.

First, the OGL succeeded in legally creating an everlasting version of the game, which is 3rd edition. That this version of the game would be everlasting seems to have been the goal, which was achieved.
I am not sure, though, that this was such a wise business decision for WotC back then, because I think it is bad for a company that wants to keep selling stuff in the future to create a product that can go on forever. There is a reason why you cannot still buy new models of the Mercedes-Benz 300S Coupe from 1951. Great car, though. Also, legally, WotC would have been able to allow 3rd party publishers to use the 3rd edition rules for non-WotC-products without letting them use the rules forever. A free liscense to use the rules, not just core, that has to be renewed every 4-5 years, for example. 
In addition, an RPG is dissimilar to software, which eventually becomes "better" as technology progresses. Plus, roleplayers seem to be a conservative bunch and seem to stick with what they know and play. So the thought that "if we produce a new version of the game that is sooo much better and people will buy it voluntarily" is therefore not so easy to follow. Because, what is "better" in a roleplaying game? This forum is proof of the fact that when 2 roleplayers are talking about the quality of the game and what makes it "better" than the other game, you have at least 3 different opinions. And why should I buy new books if I have a shelf full already?
So the decision to create the OGL back then is one of the reasons why WotC is less strong than it could have been. All the positive effects could have been achieved with a legally different version of the OGL. 3e would not have been everlasting, though.

Second, the OGL does not only make it legally easy for the main competitor of WotC, which is Paizo, but for all other companies as well. And that is what I consider to be the main reason why there is more support by the market for the 3rd edition version of d20. This is the real legal monster that Mr. Dancey and others created as WotC representatives 12+ years ago. Which serves some of those others, that have left WotC long ago, very well today. Which is, so that I am being understood the right way, fine with me, because if a company lets its managers basically (not legally, I know) give away their IP, it is only normal that the competition will blossom. You cannot blame the competition of today for that. And neither do I.

Third, I think Mr. Dancey is right about what RPGs will move to be to attract new players - family games instead games you have to prepare for intensly. When talking about PF though, one has to remember in my opinion that this version of the game encourages rule mastery to a very high degree. The better you know the rules and every aspect of the game, the better your character will be. If you do not, your character will mostly suck. I speak of experience because I used to optimize the hell out of my 3e characters and played with people who did not. Together with the issue of game and class balance, this does not suit the character of a family game. Therefore, 5e will look nothing like 3e. And I am not sure if Paizo can deliver a family game.

Very interesting post, though.


----------



## kmdietri

I think I agree with that article's statement that VTT's are an option where TRPG's can compete and recapture some of the market of MMO's.

Unlike the author though, I believe they can succeed, and not be a white whale for the industry.

I think there is a general fear amongst traditional TRPG players that a VTT is no better then just staring into the computer like a zombie, akin to what you do while playing an MMO, but I can say from experience it's not, if anything it's much more enjoyable than traditional pen and paper games.

I currently play via VTT, but we play with it in-house meaning we're all around the table using laptops and a projector for mapping.

It has made our games far more interactive and interesting then they have ever been.

As the DM it's marvellous, so much freedom to use your imagination again as you're not strapped to just trying to keep track of everything, durations, conditions, effects.

Out of combat is virtually unchanged.  People still get into character as easy as before but as the DM sharing maps, pictures, notes, is so easy.

For combat there's no more fiddly book-keeping, stat tracking, effect tracking, durations... the computer does all that, all you have to do is think up fun stuff.

It gets you more involved in everyone's action, you get to see the results right there in an split second click of the mouse.

I am so excited to think of what kind of a VTT a large company with tons of cash could come up with.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I hope, that the information you withheld are what I believe them to be...

i just believe, RPGs are not going to die. Maybe they are having a hard time now. Maybe D&D 4e is less profitable than it should be (I doubt, that it is producing losses).
Ironically it was baldur´s gate, a compter game, that brought a lot of people to the hobby... maybe we see a new game that does so. The most interesting thing in the escapist article was the fact, that D&D computer game license is now in wizards hands... lets see, how they are using it!

I also see the same issue with 4e as Klaus:
localisation failed totally. Where I got 3rd edition stuff here in germany everywhere, I find none for 4e. And the game is written in a way, that it hardly translates.

I honestly don´t believe, that pathfinder is the future. Right now I see it as a possibility for people to play their old favourite. Ready to be dropped, when 5e hits the shelves. Maybe this won´t happen, because 5e is crappy. Maybe it will happen, because it is a lot better than 3e and 4e put together.


----------



## Ahnehnois

UngeheuerLich said:


> I honestly don´t believe, that pathfinder is the future. Right now I see it as a possibility for people to play their old favourite. Ready to be dropped, when 5e hits the shelves. Maybe this won´t happen, because 5e is crappy. Maybe it will happen, because it is a lot better than 3e and 4e put together.



I wouldn't go so far as to say that PF is 'the future' either.

But some version of 3e D&D is.

As the OP pointed out, the OGL changed the business world. Now, to make a (financially) successful rpg, you have to convince people that your costly product is better than what they could get for free. 3e, while not perfect, has wide appeal and the core rules are easily available for free. 4e reached plenty of people, but it in many ways isn't a direct competitor to 3e because it isn't free (and because it's substantively very different as well). No matter how well-designed or well-marketed 4e was, it would never have displaced all the 3e fans because of that. 3e (or PF, or something else) is likely to maintain a significant presence through some company or fan support until someone releases a game that is both clearly better for most people and free.

What are the odds of that happening?


----------



## Mark CMG

RyanD said:


> Today, the best data I have been able to assemble leads me to believe that there are less than 1,000 full line hobby gaming stores left, and there may be as few as 500.





May I ask how this info was gathered, please?


----------



## Rechan

I just want to point out that I have clocked more hours gaming on VTTs and online mediums then I have in person. In fact, I'd say I've spent four times as many hours. 

I don't think VTT will fail, and being online doesn't cut down on the 'it's with people' aspect.


----------



## Leif

Mark CMG said:


> May I ask how this info was gathered, please?



A related question also:  Does your analysis take into account online merchants such as RPGnow?  I submit that the changes are not necessarily indicative of the declining health of the industry segment, but rather, could possibly be harbingers of the emergence of a new business model.


----------



## Mark Morrison

Thanks for taking the time to assemble this, Ryan; it's a fascinating overview.

It reminds me of my resolve that we are all the best people to introduce new folks to this fascinating hobby. I'm busy ushering in the next generation, one nephew at a time!

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Tallifer

These articles are being closely examined and discussed over in the Wizards' forums as well. I posted there my opinion that massively multi-player on-line roleplaying games can never truly replace tabletop roleplaying games:

"I think Tabletop Roleplaying Games will continue to survive and find new players. This is because they alone offer the fullest scope for roleplaying and the imagination. 

"I played one Massively Multiplayer On-line Roleplaying Game, Dark Age of Camelot, for about four years. The world felt incredibly real and it was exciting to intereact with so many other people. However, the very nature of computer games meant that the vast majority of the player base was decidely not roleplaying. They were just people playing a PvE or PvP game with various "toons." Roleplaying guilds had tiny memberships. Furthermore, there was very little real interaction with the fantastic world:unlike in D&D where the players talk with the unpredictable inhabitants of a world through the dungeon master, the inhabitants of Camelot could only utter packaged blurbs of inane text about a quest. This took all the wind out of the sails of anyone trying to take a voyage into an imaginary world.

"It does not matter whether I play OD&D, Fourth Edition or Aces & Eights, tabletop roleplaying offers a different environment which has yet to be matched by the MMORPGs. Part of the problem is that MMORPGs are extremely expensive to create and manage, so they can only appeal to the broadest base of players, those uninterested in roleplaying."

Since writing that, I have had an additional thought. Both players and dungeon master can dynamically and easily change their fantastic world in a tabletop campaign.

In Dark Age of Camelot, the company in charge added a substantial expansion at the end of the game's second year. The necromancer class was introduced into Albion. Albion was hitherto the realm of the good guys, the Arthurian paladins, clerics and shining knights errant. Many roleplayers were aghast at having necromancy as part and parcel of their Tennysonian Idylls. Now of course many roleplayers disagreed, but the point was that there was no working around it. Necromancy was henceforth part of Albion: hunting parties and guilds and warparties almost all had necromancers. The next expansion introduced the Heretic. All of these things added to the roleplaying options for some, but UNLIKE in a tabletop campaign, roleplayers who did like Shadow-peanut butter in their White Knight-chocolate had no way to opt out.


----------



## Hussar

I've always been kinda surprised when people draw lines between VTT's and MMO's.  They really aren't anything alike.  An MMO is a complete game - with all that that entails:  Rules, mechanics, play styles, etc.  A VTT is only an attempt to recreate a gaming table in a virtual setting.  There are no inherent mechanics, gameplay or playstyles in a VTT.  The difference between a tabletop session and a VTT session is the same difference as a conversation around a table and a teleconference.

Are they the same?  Nope.  Of course not.  But, they're pretty close.  

I think that the future of RPG's is going to be indelibly tied to a VTT.  It utterly blows my mind that larger RPG companies aren't banging out VTT's specifically for their system as fast as they can.  The largest impediment to introducing new players is geography.  A VTT bypasses geography entirely.

Imagine something like Paizo's or WOTC's organized play supported by weekly sessions on a VTT that is specifically designed for their systems.  What a fantastic way to train new DM's and prostelytise your system.  It utterly buggers my mind that these companies are not all over this idea.  It's not like developing a VTT is all that complex - most of the things you need are available over the shelf.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Leif said:


> A related question also:  Does your analysis take into account online merchants such as RPGnow?  I submit that the changes are not necessarily indicative of the declining health of the industry segment, but rather, could possibly be harbingers of the emergence of a new business model.




Kinda where I was going with my question of Amazon but yeah, the whole emergence of PDF as a viable selling format, at least for some business models, is real and is continuing to expand.

Not to mention that many places that sell things like miniatures, also sell RPGs such as the Warstore or Miniaturemarket among others.


----------



## IronWolf

Hussar said:


> Imagine something like Paizo's or WOTC's organized play supported by weekly sessions on a VTT that is specifically designed for their systems.  What a fantastic way to train new DM's and prostelytise your system.




There are already several PFS games that take place on VTTs on a semi-regular basis. A fair portion of my PFS games have been via VTT. It is a great option and I agree with VTTs being more of a people type game than they often get credit for.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> It's not like developing a VTT is all that complex - most of the things you need are available over the shelf.




Eh, not sure I agree with you there. Pieces or not you still have to put them together in a clean, usable fashion and support it. I wouldn't say it isn't complex.

I think they best thing for small companies to do is to develop a clean framework for an existing VTT. No need to reinvent the wheel at this point, frankly MapTool is a very full featured VTT and can be enhanced via a framework. This would be less complex to develop and then you get to piggyback on top of an already established and active community.


----------



## IronWolf

JoeGKushner said:


> Kinda where I was going with my question of Amazon but yeah, the whole emergence of PDF as a viable selling format, at least for some business models, is real and is continuing to expand.




PDFs are certainly a viable selling format, but a couple of things. One, even with my growing collection of PDFs I find myself buying physical copies of certain books that duplicate ones I already own in PDF. Why? It makes loaning and sharing with others easier. 

IronPup has an interest in gaming at the moment. A good portion of my stuff is PDF these days. It would be much easier to let him browse the physical bookshelf to see what piques his interest and grab that off the shelf than it is to use the PDFs on my tablet or computer.

Same for when friends come over or if I want to lend a book to a friend for a week so they can work on their monk or some such.

I find PDFs great for someone already interested in the hobby, but not so much for someone that hasn't been exposed to the hobby.

While I make heavy use of online resellers I don't think they do as good of a job exposing someone to the hobby. It is hard to casually browse online stores. They seem to be more of a destination site than a browse and let me see what catches my eye type site.

So I think they certainly contribute to sales, but possibly at the risk of increasing the hurdle to "wandering" into the hobby.


----------



## Klaus

UngeheuerLich said:


> I hope, that the information you withheld are what I believe them to be...
> 
> i just believe, RPGs are not going to die. Maybe they are having a hard time now. Maybe D&D 4e is less profitable than it should be (I doubt, that it is producing losses).
> Ironically it was baldur´s gate, a compter game, that brought a lot of people to the hobby... maybe we see a new game that does so. The most interesting thing in the escapist article was the fact, that D&D computer game license is now in wizards hands... lets see, how they are using it!
> 
> I also see the same issue with 4e as Klaus:
> localisation failed totally. Where I got 3rd edition stuff here in germany everywhere, I find none for 4e. And the game is written in a way, that it hardly translates.
> 
> I honestly don´t believe, that pathfinder is the future. Right now I see it as a possibility for people to play their old favourite. Ready to be dropped, when 5e hits the shelves. Maybe this won´t happen, because 5e is crappy. Maybe it will happen, because it is a lot better than 3e and 4e put together.



Let me clarify: even during the 3e era, few D&D products (most of them FR setting material) were released here, and pretty much none of 3.5. After 3 years, only 11 4e products have been released in Brazil (the three core books, PH2, PH Races: Dragonborn, Martial Power, DM Screen, the 2 FR books and the first 2 adventures).

As regarding VTT/MMO: I think a VTT that works pretty much as a human-controlled PMORPG (Private Multiplayer Online RPG) could fly. You have to create an easy way for the DM to create the environment, upload to the server and alter as the game goes along.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Let me clarify too: 3.0 and 3.5 were localized here in germany. The only german books of 4e were the big 3... and to be honest, i am only sure about the PHB1 
and I have a lot of trouble playing with younger kids, as there are no entry books they can read...
essentials was a chance to start with support in germany again. they missed it.
A big mistake, IMHO, as i know many young roleplayers...

They play DSA. It should not be that hard to compete with it, if you have a solid starting box.


----------



## Cergorach

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]
If developing a VTT isn't that complex and most things are available 'over the shelf' then developing such an application shouldn't be all that expensive. But expensive compared to what? To an AAA game or a MMO, sure, compared to most graphical crpgs, sure, it's cheaper then that as well. BUT not as expensive as those doesn't mean cheap, the problem is how you get a return on your investment and how to make a profit, the key to that is subscribers. LOTS of subscribers and I (and many with me) think that getting enough subscribers to cover development, continued support, and a decent profit is difficult and very risky. You have a pretty massive upfront investment in time = money, continued support for a year+ at a minimum (if you sell a years subscription you better provide it or you might get in serious legal troubles).

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and finance this TRPG saving VTT? Or learn how to program and program it yourself?

I've been looking into 'investing' my IT freelance overflow money into something profitable and the gaming industry is a lot more fun then your average IT project. But a VTT isn't the most effective use of that investment, it might be eventually useful as a supporting product, but it certainly is not a core product. And imho the same goes for RPG products or even other tabletop games, the investment is large, the return risky. There are other, less risky products in the gaming industry and even those are still a risky proposition (less investment, possibility of a bigger return on investment). TRPG are no longer core products imho, they are supporting products, Pathfinder is a big exception. But as RD explained it, PF is soaking up a load of customers that WotC shed when they went for 4E and kept shedding when they made the mess of what 4E is now.

Don't get me wrong, 4E might be a tight system, but if it doesn't make enough of a profit it is a failure in a commercial sense. There are a lot of great ideas out there, but some are just not commercially viable, and what is commercially viable differs from person to person (or company to company). Just look at Dungeonaday.com, Monte Cook sold it to Super Genius Games because it didn't make sense for him to continue with it, but SGG supported it for a while, but now even they had to stop supporting it. Great concept, huge potential, but there just weren't enough subscribers to make it worth their while. The same goes for VTTs as a core product, as a supporting product it doesn't have to directly generate a profit, it has other uses (as a gateway to selling other products, expanding your customer base, etc.).

[MENTION=21076]IronWolf[/MENTION]
PDFs are great, especially since I got my iPad I buy very little physical gaming books, part of the reason is because my book cases are full and expanding those isn't an option. But I also recognize that a lot can still be very expensive and continue to be so over time, and the pirate 'industry' is still easily available and has little to no drawbacks. When you compare that to the computer game industry you have little to no online play, issues with updates, and the potential for getting a virus/trojan when you install the game (or use the keygen). When I can get older, but still great titles like Mass Effect 1&2, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 for $5 a piece I just buy it, even if my Steam games already contain 200+ games I haven't finished (or even started with). I am currently a loyal follower of the Dreampod 9 Heavy Gear pdf products, at this time I have bought everything since the Blitz! era, I might even buy more (older products) if it was available in it's original format instead of scans. A $1 full titel (and not a few pages product) I can buy without much thought, but at $0.15-$0.20+ per page things stop being impulse buys, often the PDF is (a lot) more expensive then what I would pay for the physical product (discounts can add up). What I'm trying to say is that the pdf TRPG market still needs a long way to go before it's as popular as computer game equivalents like Steam.


----------



## kunadam

I loved the article. RPG goes through live phases like all of us does. I would say it is natural.

It is a geek hobby. It won't cater to as many people as video games, card games or board games. I think RPG should not be compared to these areas.
RPG should not be confused with fantasy and/or sci-fi as a genre. There are novels in these genres and they are a bigger market, than RPG. Even RPG based novels are a bigger market than RPG. There is a constant stream of RPG novels (FR, Battletech, Dragonlance, WoD, etc.) that are translated to Hungarian, which is a testimony that they sell, however no RPG core rule book was a real financial success here. Supplements are out of questions.
In similar veins I see fantasy themed video games as just video games with a genre. War in the North is just a shoot-em-up game (and the CoD or Battlefield series are better shooters). Some can give one a good story, like a good novel. I think the key to the success of Planescape Torment was the good story. I loved the game, even thought I never liked the Planescape setting.
In similar veins fantasy themed boardgames are not real RPGs. And while most are not as complex as a full RPG, their 20+ pages of rules are as intimidating as a 300+ page RPG core book is. And one needs as much time an as many people to play a session of these as to play a session of RPG.

The key - I think - in Mr. Dancey analysis were the lack of "effective acquisition engine". While kids hear a lot of fairy tales, thus they are familiar with the genre. I do not know of any (due to lack of overview) RPGs that are targeted to the very young audience and their geek parent(s). I would love to get my kids involved, but they are too young for D&D or any of the more widely available RPGs (being 6.5 and 7.5).


----------



## Klaus

D&D could have a better acquisition machine in place, based on this:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Heroes of Hesiod)

Why isn't Monster Slayers: Heroes of Hesiod available in toy stores worldwide, alongside Monopoly or Mousetrap?


----------



## Aberzanzorax

The one thing I'll say about the OGL model is that it's one you can't go back from.


If WotC wanted an expanded market, then it was a great idea! If they wanted a large percentage of an existing market, not so much.


Once it was out, that was it though. I remember when 4e was launched, they tried to put the cat back into the bag...and failed. From bringing all their licenses in house, to dropping prior edition pdf sales, to saying 4e was a better game than 3e (and hinting that maybe 3e was never really all that good)...there was an attempt to kill 3e.

The problem was _only partly_ that they did not realize that 3e could live on outside of their hands.

The bigger problem was that they did not recognize the niches that other 3pp companies did better than them (Adventures and adventure paths, mainly, but also the proliferation of niche products, e.g. support for the binder for 3e by a small company/one person who loved the concept and brought it to bore). 4e had WotC support, certainly, but there was not the expansion and creative talent driving a larger market like there was for 3e. 

If anything, WotC's release of 4e, the GSL debacle, and their own (within their rights, to be quite fair) desire to be the big dog, keeping as much of 4e in house as possible, was what caused the splintering of the market. _The OGL only made it possible...it did not cause it to occur._


I remember the big question asked at just about every existing 3pp at the time prior to 4e release "are you going to switch?". The answer was usually either "yes" or "we're going to wait and see" or, in the fewest of cases "we're going to make our own system" (e.g. Paradigm for Arcanis).

Paizo, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, Mongoose, and others were set to support 4e. But WotC didn't want them to (some in WotC did, others did not, hence the slow release of the initial unfavorable GSL and then a later release of a still fairly restrictive GSL). Too little happened too late, and publishers were left with going dormant (Necromancer), "bliping" a bit outside of the GSL and then struggling to support 4e (Goodman, Mongoose, maybe Green Ronin?), or sticking with 3e and making it their own (Paizo). 

Add to that the character builder and its inability to work with/support 3pp products, and if you wanted to play 4e, it required serious devition to the 3pp market (and research into the best adventures and products out there as well as work to incorporate character options not in the builder).


I'll say this:
_It wasn't the OGL that hurt 4e...it was the LACK of a good OGL and 3pp support for 4e that did._


Had we seen a different, more inclusive launch for 4e, we'd have 4e Dragonlance, Paizo adventure paths for 4e, more robust support from Mongoose and Goodman, and likely the same number of people playing 3e or its derivatives that we see playing old school revolution games.

And there would be no Pathfinder.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal

kunadam said:


> I do not know of any (due to lack of overview) RPGs that are targeted to the very young audience and their geek parent(s). I would love to get my kids involved, but they are too young for D&D or any of the more widely available RPGs (being 6.5 and 7.5).



On a side note I'd suggest you track down the rules for an OOP game called Hero Quest. I got it when I was seven and actually played it last week with my 7-year old niece and the family.

If you take some time to learn the rules which are probably posted on the internet you can probably play it with regular gaming materials, rather than the actual box. It may help to make your own dice out of a wood cube and paint or home-made stickers.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'll say this:
> _It wasn't the OGL that hurt 4e...it was the LACK of a good OGL and 3pp support for 4e that did._
> 
> Had we seen a different, more inclusive launch for 4e, we'd have 4e Dragonlance, Paizo adventure paths for 4e, more robust support from Mongoose and Goodman, and likely the same number of people playing 3e or its derivatives that we see playing old school revolution games.
> 
> And there would be no Pathfinder.



As a 4E (I tried so hard to like this game) to PF convert I must say it was not the lack of DL/Ravenloft/Third party support that caused me to jump ship. People were edition-warring hardcore in the summer of 2008, long before the settings had time to blossom. Lots of the criticism centered around debates about "gamism" and a fundamental desire for a different approach to RPG design (if you dig through the layers of nerd rage I think this was at the center of their issues). So while I think 4E would be much stronger I definitely don't think Pathfinder wouldn't exist.

Also since the Ravenloft and Dragonlance settings are owned by third parties what's stopping them from publishing Pathfinder books?


----------



## Shemeska

GregoryOatmeal said:


> Also since the Ravenloft and Dragonlance settings are owned by third parties what's stopping them from publishing Pathfinder books?




They aren't owned by 3rd parties though. WotC owns them, and licensed them out during 3.x. In the period leading up to the 4e announcement, WotC recalled those licenses and brought them back in-house (and promptly have done nothing with them).


----------



## c0c0c0

*Dead Book Stores*

I'm not sure why this is listed as proof of impending doom.  I haven't gone into a bookstore in a decade, but I still buy books.  Just bought a bunch of 4e books, in fact.  Online, where everyone I know gets books.

Do you know any gamers without PCs?  If they exist, it's they who are the dinosaurs, not the RPGs.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hmmm, yeah, I dunno. I don't see PF as a very effective entry product. In fact I see it as exactly the opposite, a very elaborate and obtuse system that is the culmination of 3 decades of ever more convolved rules systems. Even the BB is very complex system by RPG standards. It's a very time intensive and mastery rewarding system, not at all suited to be standard around which to build a revitalized TT RPG industry. 

IMHO any such game is going to have to be more at the level of a Basic D&D. Tiered complexity, as Mike Mearls seems to be advocating these days, might be one approach. I'm sure either WotC, Paizo, or any number of other people could build such a system. It really isn't rocket science. Given that 3PPs have done that sort of thing already I'd venture that they lack the market clout and brand recognition to do anything to take advantage of it. Hasbro has the deep pockets, distribution, and most importantly the brand. Paizo has a good chunk of mindshare and is in pretty good shape. It remains to be seen if they can compete in the long run (or if perhaps Hasbro really would just withdraw from the market). Perhaps. Either company could use the OGL. Honestly if there's going to be some sort of last man standing there I'd bet on the larger stronger company. If a tiered game approach and digital tools etc are the wave of the future WotC so far is ahead there. 

I think the other part of that question too is really who's property is more valuable? I see a lot of people say '4e is a market failure', but really, is that true? I am not at all convinced. I buy the argument that it isn't what Hasbro wants it to be, but it is a game with a large enthusiastic following and seems pretty amenable to being recast into this tiered sort of form, or even just stripped down and simplified. You could build a simplified d20 game too (they're all over the place for free), but I'd argue that the PF audience doesn't want Microlite d20. 4e is just a simpler and easier engine. Even if you dislike the gameplay of 4e itself it's still a better GAME.


----------



## _NewbieDM_

You know, if the rpg industry is having troubles getting newer players, well, i blame them for it. How many are truly trying to cater to kids, for example? Not many, if any.

There is a market out there for kids and rpg's... Parents that roleplay *want* to teach their kids about the hobby and play with them, but complex games with 160 pages worth of rules isn't the way.

I dont get why the "industry" doesnt see this. Boggles my mind.

I self published a game called rpgkids that caters to young kids, 5, 6, 7 years old... It has been a strong seller for me and has been at the top of the charts at rpgnow for a reason... Parents WANT to game with their kids!!!

If the industry isnt willing to tap into this market, too bad, but at some point they may have to if they want future addicts. Just sayin'.


----------



## kunadam

My very thought! Kids should be the target audience, who could be introduced to the hobby via their geek parents.
If they are hooked, then they can go to the 160 page core book (maybe start with a less daunting one).

_GregoryOatmeal_ I will check out HeroQuest, albeit it is a boardgame.

I'm searching for an RPG where my daughter can play a princess, or my son a mechanic that can fix any car. Or they can be both bay dragons who are looking for a magical fruit. Whatever can be the basis of a good story. And it don't have to involve combat or slaying of monsters.


----------



## tuxgeo

Ahnehnois said:


> < snip >
> Third, I tend to agree with the point on VTT. D&D's distinguishing factor is that it is played in person, with people. That's not likely to change, even when technology does.
> 
> Fourth, I'm not sure about MMOs. It seems to me there is or ought to be some *synergy* there, as well as competition between them and tabletop RPGs.



[Emphasis added.] 

Combining those two points: 
What if WotC were to produce an MMO with rules interchangeable with the rules in the online Character Builder, connected to the VTT? 

Would it be possible for a player to generate a PC within the MMO and run that PC through a few quests there; but then export that same PC to the Character Builder and play that PC with a group on the VTT, running quests not available within the MMO (quests created by a DM)? 
(Or even the other way around, from CB to MMO?)

That would be synergy, indeed.


----------



## IronWolf

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Hmmm, yeah, I dunno. I don't see PF as a very effective entry product. In fact I see it as exactly the opposite, a very elaborate and obtuse system that is the culmination of 3 decades of ever more convolved rules systems. Even the BB is very complex system by RPG standards. It's a very time intensive and mastery rewarding system, not at all suited to be standard around which to build a revitalized TT RPG industry.




The Beginner Box really brings the rules down to a basic level and makes it very easy to learn. It walks you through everything you need and it quite clear cut. It is certainly seems easier to learn than the Basic Set I learned so many years ago. Granted, my perspective could have changed - but the Beginner Box is a very solid offering for entry into RPGs. 



			
				AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> Even if you dislike the gameplay of 4e itself it's still a better GAME.




For you. We've been through this so many times on these boards, yes 4e is a better game for you, but that is not an unequivocal statement.


----------



## IronWolf

_NewbieDM_ said:


> There is a market out there for kids and rpg's... Parents that roleplay *want* to teach their kids about the hobby and play with them, but complex games with 160 pages worth of rules isn't the way.




It seems to work fine for me. I've played pathfinder in some form with IronPup for quite some time. I just adapted the core rules on the fly and have been able to send him on many stories and such over the past year. The Beginner Box makes this even easier.


----------



## Erdrick Dragin

RyanD said:


> For now I’ll just end by saying that I hope with all my  heart that the folks at Wizards of the Coast figure out how to get that  franchise righted and back on track, because it would be good for the  hobby in general for D&D to become a strong brand again.




It's actually much simpler than one would think. 

WotC's mistake was doing 4E in the first place when they should've  continued 3.5 for a few more years, if not make it the final edition  entirely and just offer support in other areas that the game needed after saturating the game with enough material the majority wanted. Because all new editions do is split the base. 

 An unrealistic proposition, but here's a better one that should seriously be considered by WotC. 

 1) Clean up 1e, 2e, and 3.5e. As in streamline those rules the way the customers always wanted it and then leave it alone.

 2) Reprint the core books to these cleaned edition rulebooks, then add a supplement for each. Gamers from all editions will empty the warehouses in a  matter of days if they knew their edition was alive again and also given a  little support with a small supplement here or there.

 3) Continue giving support, maybe about 80%, to 4E. But give new material and support to the previous 3 editions, too, with the remaining 20% of the resources. Personally, an annual book adding new material for the 3 previous editions, and converting a few 4E material to the older editions, sounds like a good plan. Maybe better for there to be 3 small products for each edition instead of squeezing them all into one book. Using Dragon Magazine articles is another sure bet. 

4) The most important of them all; STOP MAKING NEW EDITIONS! It just doesn't work with this kind of hobby, clearly! 3E and 4E should've been all the signs you needed to know that as fact!

 Doing this will make everyone happy and will rake in cash like you  wouldn't believe. Because now you have gained back the interest (and  wallets) of almost everyone from the past 35 years! The split customer demographic will be whole once again.

 WotC needs to stop trying to please gamers of all editions with just ONE edition. Keep it at 4 editions and just support all FOUR editions. Simple.

 When Diablo 2 was released, were the servers for Diablo 1 shut down? No.

 When FF14 was released by SquareEnix, was FF11's servers shut down? No. 

 Can people on Windows XP still go to the same websites as those with Windows 7? Yes. 

 And all of those have continued support and updates. 

 It'll be a pipe dream to see that happen, but that's how I'd run D&D at this point were I in control.


----------



## OpsKT

Can't argue with your numbers (except a lack of documentation, as neither you nor Lisa Stevens has ever shown the research, much like the Golden Tablets we have to take your word for it), but there are a couple of specific points... 



RyanD said:


> We looked around the industry and saw the same problem at virtually every company that had become successful: White Wolf had 5 World of Darkness games which were all slightly different, surrounded by a more diffuse constellation of games somewhat related to the Storyteller system but designed to be mutually incompatible.




Except they changed that with the nWoD. While anyone who has actually used the new rules can attest they work _worlds_ better, they also changed the flavor of the settings (going so far as to actually END THE WORLD® of the previous settings), which plagued them with their own version of the Pathfinder/4e Edition wars. Then, after they were acquired by CCP, they had a problem with a much lower production schedule (in favor of the MMO development, that still hasn't even hinted at a Beta)  that made people think that White Wolf was having problems. You should know this, you were associated with White Wolf (via CCP) during much of this. They also fail to communicate with the retailers that well, as many believe they are dead and gone as opposed to on a Print on Demand format. Not that they'd care anyway, as they don't get those sales, but that kind of rumor does not help. 



RyanD said:


> Some of those companies continue to publish as secondary sources of income for their owners:  Green Ronin and Pinnacle Entertainment Group are great examples of this phenomenon.  But that seems to me to be a very precarious place to operate - the margin for error (or accident) is razor thin.




Or, as I see the case with Pinnacle in particular, that allows them to really listen to the fans, and produce fun games that are fun to play, instead of an exercise in marketing. Savage Worlds is hands down the best game I have ever played. This is a subjective opinion, sure, but considering they keep selling out of print runs I'm clearly not the only one. It works with my group because of the fact that it plays fast, learns fast, is very flexible, and doesn't take me the time to prep games that v3.5 did, or 4e still does. 

Who cares if it is a _secondary income_ source? You say that like it's a bad thing. As gamers, if we're playing it, we're having fun, they are getting to write and sell the kind of games they like, and it at least breaks even so they can keep doing it, what's wrong with that? 

This is about gaming in general, not if you're going to get rich at it. It's always been a market and hobby that you do because you enjoy it, not to make tons of cash. If you want to make better money, you can probably do so by applying those math skills to the finance or insurance industries. 



RyanD said:


> Any time a market contracts, a phenomenon is observed which is called a “flight to quality”.  This means that the people who remain in a contracting market tend to concentrate their business around the most successful parts of the market, hoping that they’ll be able to ride out the collapse and make it to a future expansionary period.  This is what is happening right now with _Pathfinder_.




Except for the part of the population, who being gamers in their own networks (and in places like EN World) outside of the RPGA and Paizo boards and similar _marketing_ tools that still pick out games based on their preferences, and are turned off of both 4e and Pathfinder due to the Edition Wars. It doesn't matter what 'the industry' wants to try to pick as the winner, for many gamers they will pick games based upon what they want to play and to hell with what the 'big boys' marketing divisions want to push on us. 

For us, our flight to quality is those smaller publishers that you took so lightly in your article. My personal flight to quality is Savage Worlds. Since I first played the Explorer Edition (sold out of print runs twice, I might add, and the Deluxe is already gearing up for printing 3 according to their own people on their forums) I have spent more on their books than I have on 4e and Pathfinder combined (and I don't have to spend that much on Pathfinder because the same rules that let you publish other people's IP also allow me to get it for free). They also have a more community minded set of forums and one hell of a good sense of public relations as opposed to fueling vitriol and edition wars with putting out press releases that amount to, _"Look, we're outselling the guys whose IP we republished!"_ 

We're a small segment, sure, but not one to ignore in a niche market because we're the GM's that have income to buy and run this stuff. We're the guys who are deciding what games (and their related culture) we want to teach our kids, nephews, and others. Regardless of a company's size, when they operate in a niche market they ignore gamers like me at their own risk. Even if we're only 10%, can even Paizo afford to turn away 10%? 

And then there are the ones that the edition wars have drove away from current publishers entirely. Their flight to quality was _back to the print books of games they already had, played, and enjoyed._ Two of the colleges near me have gaming clubs. In each one, I see various groups play when I visit, and sit in on games. The smaller college has about 3-4 tables a week, and they play BESM2, L5R, Shadowrun, and Star Wars Saga. Note only 2/4 of their games _are in print and currently earning money for a pubisher._ The larger college's gaming club usually ends up with about 8 tables a week. They rotate games a lot, and I haven't seen them play 4e or Pathfinder in over a year. In fact, the only currently published one they are running is Dragon Age. They don't give a crap what you and your 'big boys' and 'market research' say they should play. They play what they like. They play games written by other gamers, not by lawyers and people in marketing. 

And that's the way _that the hobby should be._ You spend so many words on the shared experience, but forget in your analysis that it used to be that the _publisher, and the writers, and the designers, were part of and in on that experience._ But no more. Now it's all market research, and focus groups, and data mining, and the *soul of the hobby* is being left to die, as the companies that used to share writers and ideas and their customer base now take shots at each other and tear what used to be *OUR* Big Tent to shreds. 

That's what is killing the hobby.


----------



## IronWolf

OpsKT said:


> Or, as I see the case with Pinnacle in particular, that allows them to really listen to the fans, and produce fun games that are fun to play, instead of an exercise in marketing. Savage Worlds is hands down the best game I have ever played. This is a subjective opinion, sure, but considering they keep selling out of print runs I'm clearly not the only one. It works with my group because of the fact that it plays fast, learns fast, is very flexible, and doesn't take me the time to prep games that v3.5 did, or 4e still does.




Yep, I hear good things about Savage Worlds. Glad to hear they seem to be having continued success.



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> Who cares if it is a _secondary income_ source? You say that like it's a bad thing. As gamers, if we're playing it, we're having fun, they are getting to write and sell the kind of games they like, and it at least breaks even so they can keep doing it, what's wrong with that?
> 
> This is about gaming in general, not if you're going to get rich at it. It's always been a market and hobby that you do because you enjoy it, not to make tons of cash.




Well, the article definitely dives into the business side. Not sure one should draw the conclusion based on a business focused article that the industry still isn't about the fun. If a company can't make money they can't put out a product, no matter how fun the game is. I appreciated the business insight.

As for the secondary income, I took that to mean that these companies that used to be bigger in the industry are working on a much tighter line now. Being a second income they likely don't make enough money to support themselves on it alone. That usually means you are one "bad" product or two from the company folding. I didn't take it as anything about getting rich, it was about having a company that supports even getting product out the door and into the fans hands.



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> Except for the part of the population, who being gamers in their own networks (and in places like EN World) outside of the RPGA and Paizo boards and similar _marketing_ tools that still pick out games based on their preferences, and are turned off of both 4e and Pathfinder due to the Edition Wars. It doesn't matter what 'the industry' wants to try to pick as the winner, for many gamers they will pick games based upon what they want to play and to hell with what the 'big boys' marketing divisions want to push on us.




I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to play a game they don't want to play. Choose your game and be happy with it! Switch games when you need a change. It is great that their is a choice for us gamers out there. Not sure why the hate on "marketing".



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> Since I first played the Explorer Edition (sold out of print runs twice, I might add, and the Deluxe is already gearing up for printing 3 according to their own people on their forums) I have spent more on their books than I have on 4e and Pathfinder combined (and I don't have to spend that much on Pathfinder because the same rules that let you publish other people's IP also allow me to get it for free).




Sort of the point of the OGL, to allow the fans to keep an edition alive and able to be re-used by 3rd parties. In the meantime Pathfinder has added a huge amount to the game since its initial release and continued to release their own material to the public for free. 



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> They also have a more community minded set of forums and one hell of a good sense of public relations as opposed to fueling vitriol and edition wars with putting out press releases that amount to, _"Look, we're outselling the guys whose IP we republished!"_




The Paizo community is pretty darn cool. Are there bad apples on their forums? Yep. Are there bad apples here? Yep. Are there bad apples on the Savage World forums? Probably.

And a company isn't supposed to announce positive things for their company? They release many press releases that aren't touting various sales reports and numbers. You seem to be picking on a very select few.



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> We're a small segment, sure, but not one to ignore in a niche market because we're the GM's that have income to buy and run this stuff. We're the guys who are deciding what games (and their related culture) we want to teach our kids, nephews, and others. Regardless of a company's size, when they operate in a niche market they ignore gamers like me at their own risk. Even if we're only 10%, can even Paizo afford to turn away 10%?




Frankly, you seem to have a pretty big distaste for WotC and Paizo. You seem to have a game you enjoy, not sure why they would come after you or after your sales dollars. 



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> And then there are the ones that the edition wars have drove away from current publishers entirely. Their flight to quality was _back to the print books of games they already had, played, and enjoyed._ Two of the colleges near me have gaming clubs. In each one, I see various groups play when I visit, and sit in on games. The smaller college has about 3-4 tables a week, and they play BESM2, L5R, Shadowrun, and Star Wars Saga. Note only 1/4 of their games _are in print and currently earning money for a pubisher._ The larger college's gaming club usually ends up with about 8 tables a week. They rotate games a lot, and I haven't seen them play 4e or Pathfinder in over a year. In fact, the only currently published one they are running is Dragon Age. They don't give a crap what you and your 'big boys' and 'market research' say they should play. They play what they like. They play games written by other gamers, not by lawyers and people in marketing.




Sounds like a fun college club in regards to their variety of games. Nothing wrong with that, 4e and Pathfinder certainly aren't the only games in town. People should definitely play what they like.

As for games written by other gamers, really? Yeah, Mike Mearls, Monte Cook, Erik Mona, Jason Buhlman don't play games.... Again, you seem to have a severe distaste for anything WotC or Paizo - totally cool, but lets not go saying these games aren't designed by gamers.



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> And that's the way _that the hobby should be._ You spend so many words on the shared experience, but forget in your analysis that it used to be that the _publisher, and the writers, and the designers, were part of and in on that experience._ But no more. Now it's all market research, and focus groups, and data mining, and the *soul of the hobby* is being left to die, as the companies that used to share writers and ideas and their customer base now take shots at each other and tear what used to be *OUR* Big Tent to shreds.




This was a business focused article, intentionally. And while fans may debate editions regularly and get heated by it I don't think I have seen any of the industry players at WotC or Paizo taking shots at each other. Talk about their successes, yep! But make slams at each other, no, I don't think that is occurring with the regularity you are trying to imply.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

GregoryOatmeal said:


> Also since the Ravenloft and Dragonlance settings are owned by third parties what's stopping them from publishing Pathfinder books?




Sigh...


...if only people educated themselves BEFORE they formed their opinion.



That's not an attack on you, MR. Oatmeal....but an attack on the phenomenon of "I disagree...therefore it must be so!"


Research, learn, and THEN object. There are a few great posters on these forums who I regularly disagree with....but none of whom I consider uninformed. I consider it a quality debate to give attention to the perspectives of <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@Hussar <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]....but at least (even though I don't share their favorite edition) I know they understand what we're all talking about.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Wow a lot of venom in that post right above mine. I especially love how he basically calls Dancy and Lisa Stevens both liars for failing to produce research that's probably over 10 years old. If the research DID still exist it probably would be in the hands of their competitors WOTC. But let's not have common sense and civil discourse get in the way of a good edition(?) system war.

I'm glad that Savage Worlds is doing well. Not my cuppa tea but more power to it's players and Pinnacle. They've sold out of several print runs GREAT. You know who else is on thier FIFTH print run? A game that was pretty much crapped on by a fair amount of people on these boards? PATHFINDER. You want to know what other game has probably gone through several print runs? D&D 4E. 

The very insinuation that people who are playin those two games don't have the wherewithal to have decided for themselves that they wanted to play those games comes across as a level of condescension and arrogance that I havent seen since the ENWorld Edition wars of '08 - '09. 

Nobody told me to play Pathfinder. I'd been supporting Paizo since Dungeon & Dragon. When WOTC went 4E, I didn't care for it I continued to play 3.5. When Pathfinder came out that was exactly my speed. So I support their products because it's a game that I want to play. Just like Savage Worlds is the game for you apparently, that's Pathfinder for me. The mere fact that you're in here taking a steaming crap ( a politely worded steaming crap) over Pathfinder and 4E while touting the virtue and purity of Savage Worlds kind proves that you're missing you're own fricking point. 

PEOPLE PLAY WHAT THEY WANT TO. NOT WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS OR SAYS THEY SHOULD BE PLAYING. Whether its a small publisher game or a big publisher game. I play Pathfinder because it's a game I'm passionate about. I love HERO SYSTEM. I LIKE M&M. I played red box, 1st ED and 2nd ED. I don't play them anymore nor do I want to. I not begrudge the people who still play those games or look down on them. They're having fun.

The RPG industry is a buisness and buisnesses are in the buisness of making money. If they can make money doing what they love doing (which I'm pretty sure is the case for designers at Pinnacle, Paizo and WOTC), then great. So I'm not even sure what you're trying to say when you're blasting the RPG industry for taking actions to ensure that they can make money TO CONTINUE PAYING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CREATING AND DESIGNING THESE GAMES.


----------



## OpsKT

IronWolf said:


> This was a business focused article, intentionally. And while fans may debate editions regularly and get heated by it I don't think I have seen any of the industry players at WotC or Paizo taking shots at each other. Talk about their successes, yep! But make slams at each other, no, I don't think that is occurring with the regularity you are trying to imply.




Perhaps you have forgotten things like White Wolf's poor taste attempt to market Exalted 2nd edition with the 'Graduate your Game' promotion, done during Mr. Dancey's time at White Wolf/CCP no less? While clearly the most 'cheap shot' out there, it is far from the only one ever done, and is something that happens more and more frequently.

Part of this is driven by the fans, who want to feel like their game is 'winning' and is part of human nature, not some evil plot. But it is the folks in Marketing who choose to exploit this weakness of human nature. And they are doing it.


----------



## Cergorach

Aren't both L5R and Shadowrun in print? Whether they are 'making any money' for their publishers is the whole point of this blog entry/thread. If there was much money in TRPGs, the other two would be in print as well ;-)

Imho any business needs to objectively look at if the money that is invested is the best investment they can make. What is wrong with the hobby is that it's customers don't spend enough money on the hobby, but demand top quality. That's of course the consumer's right, but it's the business that actually provides the products. Magic Eight Ball says 'sales poor compared to investment'.

And supporting multiple editions is just insane, not doable and totally unprofitable for a property such as D&D. Selling new books to customers is what keeps game companies in business, ideally they would want to sell you each book multiple times. Core books sell best, every expansion sells a little less well, and eventually you've sold all the core books your likely to sell, expansion sales tapper off. Then it is time for a new edition. But new editions are tricky, White Wolf screwed up with their nWoD, WotC screwed up with D&D 4E (or they wouldn't have lost so many customers to Paizo), FFG screwed up with WFRP 3E (imho), even Shadowrun isn't what it used to be (4E). Companies don't need a better game, they need a sellable game that makes a decent profit. Listening to customers on the Internet might work for small publishers who's focus group is on the Internet, but it generally doesn't work for companies who's customers have never been to ENworld and don't read/post on the WotC boards.

Companies like dp9 and PP are going to be releasing their own RPGs again (Heavy Gear RPG and Iron Kingdoms RPG), both their core businesses aren't RPGs. Both are back to their own systems after going D20. Hell PP got started as a D20 company before they launched their successful Warmachine. The only reason why there is a 40k RPG series and a WFRP game is because there is a miniatures game. The reason that there still is a D&D brand is imho not because of the TRPG, it's because of the CRPGs and the novels. If I day D&D there will be more folks thinking fondly of Eye of the Beholder, Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights then folks thinking of the TRPG. The same goes for the novels...

Just look at what it costs to develop an RPG (line), write, edit, illustrate, print, transport, etc. How many copies would you need to sell to earn back that investment and compensate the hours you've spend working on it. If your used to an IT professional freelancers hourly wage, you need to sell a LOT of copies, and most  IT professional freelancers don't have a significant money investment like RPG lines have. If you don't do that, your not working for a business, your working as a hobby. Working as a hobby is fine, but not exactly a stable business and certainly not doable for properties like D&D, 40k, Mechwarrior, etc.


----------



## Incenjucar

The thing with the marketing and focus groups isn't so much that they're involved... it's that they're _bad_. Both, done well, can be amazing tools, like anything else, but the better marketing and research resources clearly aren't being spent on D&D, similar to how Magic gets the best artists (not that D&D's artists are bad).

There are ways to do these things that would benefit the hobby, but it takes a lot more resources than D&D has ever had the clout for, even at the height of its success.


----------



## OpsKT

ShinHakkaider said:


> PEOPLE PLAY WHAT THEY WANT TO. NOT WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS OR SAYS THEY SHOULD BE PLAYING. Whether its a small publisher game or a big publisher game. I play Pathfinder because it's a game I'm passionate about. I love HERO SYSTEM. I LIKE M&M. I played red box, 1st ED and 2nd ED. I don't play them anymore nor do I want to. I not begrudge the people who still play those games or look down on them. They're having fun.




*shakes head* No, you're missing the point. Mr. Dancey went on about how the industry tries to pick winners based on the flight to quality, but he forgets that in a niche market (as opposed to mass merchandise) that contraction by the industry players can alienate as much as 10% of the market. And with niche numbers, 10% is a big deal. 

And I don't see how using my (clearly worded as personal opinion) take on my home games and the results I see in my local markets are 'laced with venom' but okay, whatever makes you feel better about your game choices, I guess. If you bothered to check my profile, you'd see I'm interested in playing both 4e and Pathfinder, I just have no desire (or time for the game prep) to run them. 

As for the issue you have with my take on Steven's and Dancey's numbers, that is not calling them liars. I don't _expect_ them to share confidential data like that. So, I have to take them at face value because I can NOT see the original research. That's a pretty basic academic idea, that you have to take data you can't verify with a grain of salt.


----------



## pemerton

kunadam said:


> I'm searching for an RPG where my daughter can play a princess, or my son a mechanic that can fix any car. Or they can be both bay dragons who are looking for a magical fruit. Whatever can be the basis of a good story. And it don't have to involve combat or slaying of monsters.



You might want to take a look at HeroQuest Revised (the Robin Laws RPG published by Issaries, I think - no relation to the boardgame of the same name).


----------



## Leif

What would surely be a more instructive statistic to observe is the sales figures reported by publishers, both electronic [.pdf] and paper/ink both through retail outlets and mail-order, as opposed to just sales made in stores.  Then, not only could an overall snap-shot of industry-wide sales be obtained, but these figures could either substantiate or belie the supposed move away from printed media to electronic format.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

IronWolf said:


> The Beginner Box really brings the rules down to a basic level and makes it very easy to learn. It walks you through everything you need and it quite clear cut. It is certainly seems easier to learn than the Basic Set I learned so many years ago. Granted, my perspective could have changed - but the Beginner Box is a very solid offering for entry into RPGs.



Clearly a matter of opinion. I mean frankly I think people often underrate the ability of new players to handle mechanically more elaborate games. Still, I found it rather more complex than many full systems, yet still it was necessary to leave of some rather basic parts of the system to get there. 3.5 is a COMPLICATED system.



> For you. We've been through this so many times on these boards, yes 4e is a better game for you, but that is not an unequivocal statement.




I'm sure I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't 'edition warring' here. In terms of what people are going to find preferable to play 'better' and 'worse' are ALMOST meaningless (I think we can agree that there are a few infamous 'horrible games' but since nobody plays them they're really not relevant). I'm saying as a mechanical platform to build games of varying complexity or style on the 4e engine is simply a more refined platform and in a vacuum you'd rather build on its basic mechanics than those of d20. Of course d20 has a LOT of existing material to work with and a workable license, so in a sense it doesn't matter. Unless of course you're WotC competing with whomever, in which case it IS an advantage. Of course I suppose someone could probably effectively clone it under OGL, it really isn't much more different from straight d20 than many d20 games are.


----------



## Hussar

[MENTION=725]Cergorach[/MENTION] 

I believe you are misunderstanding me.  I never said anything about a VTT being the core product.  That would be a bad idea.  OTOH, how expensive is it to take a text based chat program, wed it to some sort of graphical interface to allow shared images, and then add on the various bells and whistles for running a D&D character?

Good grief, we're talking about an mIRC client with a map window and some extras.  Massive upfront investment?  Really?  There's people out there developing this stuff in their basement in their free time.  I mean, look at something like EpicTable RPG Virtual Tabletop .  You're telling me that a couple of decent programmers couldn't have something specific done up for a version of D&D in a matter of weeks?

I really don't think people have much idea what a VTT really is when they start comparing it to MMO's.  There's no animation to speak of.  There's no inherent gameplay.  A VTT is just a glorified chat client.  

Can I program it myself?  Nope.  Not my field.  I admit that.  But, having used VTT software for about a decade now, I have some idea what's needed for a VTT.


----------



## IronWolf

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Clearly a matter of opinion. I mean frankly I think people often underrate the ability of new players to handle mechanically more elaborate games. Still, I found it rather more complex than many full systems, yet still it was necessary to leave of some rather basic parts of the system to get there. 3.5 is a COMPLICATED system.




I agree with people tending to underrate the ability of new players. Also agree on the matter of opinion, people's thoughts will vary on how complex a system is.



			
				AbdulAlhazred said:
			
		

> I'm sure I didn't make myself clear. I wasn't 'edition warring' here.




Sorry - I likely misread the tone, a hazard of forum posts!


----------



## Hussar

Aberzanzorax said:


> The one thing I'll say about the OGL model is that it's one you can't go back from.
> 
> /snip
> 
> I'll say this:
> _It wasn't the OGL that hurt 4e...it was the LACK of a good OGL and 3pp support for 4e that did._
> 
> 
> Had we seen a different, more inclusive launch for 4e, we'd have 4e Dragonlance, Paizo adventure paths for 4e, more robust support from Mongoose and Goodman, and likely the same number of people playing 3e or its derivatives that we see playing old school revolution games.
> 
> And there would be no Pathfinder.




The one thing that OGL supporters have never been able to answer though is how you can have a 4e OGL and a DDI subscription base exist side by side.  Like it or not, the DDI is a major source of income for WOTC.  Anything that bites into that income is a bad thing.  If you did a 4e OGL, where the basic rules are wrapped up in an SRD, a la 3e/3.5, then it would be days after the release of that SRD that we'd have a 4e Hypertext SRD.

Suddenly you have lots of potential subscribers of the DDI simply choosing the free version - particularly in the early days when there weren't that many supplements to differentiate the DDI from a free Hypertext SRD.  

I really can't see how you can have an SRD and a DDI existing side by side.


----------



## Ettin

So, Dancey predicts doom for D&D and success for the company who employs him.

Is it 2008 already?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

IronWolf said:


> Sorry - I likely misread the tone, a hazard of forum posts!




No need to apologize at all. We've all been through THOSE ridiculous debates far too many times. lol. 

I can't help feeling though that 4e really has gotten shafted as a game. WotC blundered in many ways with it. I think it would be interesting to see something equivalent to the BB done with it. Their Red Box really isn't equivalent. Seems like with a simplified combat system and removing a few subsystems you could have something as simple as Basic without a ton of work. Actually sort of seems to me like for them it would be the obvious way to segue into whatever it is Mearls seems to want to do.


----------



## Cergorach

Hussar said:


> [MENTION=725]Cergorach[/MENTION]
> 
> I believe you are misunderstanding me.  I never said anything about a VTT being the core product.  That would be a bad idea.  OTOH, how expensive is it to take a text based chat program, wed it to some sort of graphical interface to allow shared images, and then add on the various bells and whistles for running a D&D character?
> 
> Good grief, we're talking about an mIRC client with a map window and some extras.  Massive upfront investment?  Really?  There's people out there developing this stuff in their basement in their free time.  I mean, look at something like EpicTable RPG Virtual Tabletop .  You're telling me that a couple of decent programmers couldn't have something specific done up for a version of D&D in a matter of weeks?
> 
> I really don't think people have much idea what a VTT really is when they start comparing it to MMO's.  There's no animation to speak of.  There's no inherent gameplay.  A VTT is just a glorified chat client.
> 
> Can I program it myself?  Nope.  Not my field.  I admit that.  But, having used VTT software for about a decade now, I have some idea what's needed for a VTT.




Oh your talking about the 'classic' VTTs and a specific VTT like this:
RPG Virtual Tabletop

It's still in beta and I don't know what the development status is for this thing, but it's certainly a extensive product and isn't done in a 'few weeks' by a 'couple developers'. $71.40 a year for DDI subscription (includes more tools and content)

There's already Fantasy Grounds II out, should work for 4E. Although quite pricey at $150 for the a DM client and unlimited players, but if you use it a lot, more then worth the money.

There are of course free options, MapTool seems popular and TTopRPG seems promising.

But I wouldn't call those commercial successes, more like labors of love (except the official 4E version that is still in beta after more then a year). Look at the hourly wage of a freelance programmer, you need a project leader, you need testers and test managers (and I don't mean gamers trying the software in beta), database specialist, graphical designer, servers, folks that act as sysadmins for those servers, etc.

It's a shame that most of the workable solutions are either dedicated Windows/MacOS clients or require JAVA (like the official 4E app) ack! I would love to see a html5 version that works in most if not all html5 capable browsers.

As for the basement comment, when I give advice or troubleshoot on some computer or gaming forum, I don't charge a thing. When I give advice or troubleshoot for a paying business I charge $62.50 (excl. VAT) an hour and I'm no programmer (I can program, but not at a speed that would make it a viable profession). I do both in my attic, the same place I'm typing this comment, behind two 30" monitors, connected to a powerful workstation, at my business/hobby desk.

There's a big difference between a business and a hobby, sometimes folks have a dream and want to build their dream for themselves. Often such small operations burnout after a while, RolePlayingMaster is a good example of this. A program with great potential, but was eventually abandoned by the developer (2001-2006), a shame because I spent a lot of time working with/on it (and the developer) hunting bugs.

It is of course ridiculous that after 3.5 years after the 4E release the 4E VTT is still in beta, something like that should have been available at launch.


----------



## Morrus

There's some vitriol creeping into some of these posts.  Please remember where you are.  Disagree politely and address the argument, not the character of the poster.


----------



## Stalker0

A very well written and thoughtful article.

There are two points that I agree with Mr. Dancey and wanted to highlight:

1) Dnd's strength lies in the social network of its players. The more unified the player base, ultimately the stronger the RPG market becomes.

2) MMOs are attracting kids/teenagers before they are hitting RPG age, and so is pulling their attention away from those avenues.


With those in mind, I see two major issues for the future of DND:

1) Moving away from the new edition model to generate revenue. Even 2nd edition designers noted the difficulty in selling a new edition without fragmenting the base into 1st and 2nd editioners.

Each edition has showed an initial period of strong revenue followed by diminishing returns as players buy less and less of the "non-core books".

A new edition counters this by introducing new core books and results in increased sales, but also generates fragmentation in the industry which hinders long term prospects. Taken to the extreme, it could result in a market where the majority of players play an old "favorite edition", and a new edition is only sellable to a much smaller group, a phenomena that I think we are already starting to see now.

Ultimately, the business model has to change to prevent that. And I think WOTC answer to that is the DDI. While I don't always agree with how WOTC implements the DDI, I think its a good business direction to take.

When you look at products like the characters builder and monster builder, players aren't so much buying "product" as they are buying "services". We are buying tools to enhance our RPG experience.

While I may only pay a single fee for a product, I will pay much longer to maintain a service that I enjoy, which is done correctly provides WOTC a continuing revenue stream without the need to generate constant new product, and ultimately new editions.



2) DND has to continue to try and market outside of its market. This to me is a two fold process: You have to market to kids before they get into MMOs and other competing products, and you have to market to them in a way that can pull them away from competing products.

Someone mentioned a new DND video game as a great marketing tool, and I completely agree. As a video game, it hits the MMO style markets, but its just DND enough to perhaps expose them to more traditional roleplaying.

I think this is DND greatest remaining strength as a brand. Even people who have never played RPGs have at least heard of DND. Used correctly, it might provide the influx of new players the industry needs to grow.



Now, all of that gives me a bit of hope. But when looked at from a big picture standpoint, this is a TOUGH PROBLEM, one that has not been solved yet. I would like to credit Mr. Dancey for highlighting the problem in a very elegant way.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Cergorach said:


> Oh your talking about the 'classic' VTTs and a specific VTT like this:
> RPG Virtual Tabletop
> 
> It's still in beta and I don't know what the development status is for this thing, but it's certainly a extensive product and isn't done in a 'few weeks' by a 'couple developers'. $71.40 a year for DDI subscription (includes more tools and content)
> 
> There's already Fantasy Grounds II out, should work for 4E. Although quite pricey at $150 for the a DM client and unlimited players, but if you use it a lot, more then worth the money.
> 
> There are of course free options, MapTool seems popular and TTopRPG seems promising.
> 
> But I wouldn't call those commercial successes, more like labors of love (except the official 4E version that is still in beta after more then a year). Look at the hourly wage of a freelance programmer, you need a project leader, you need testers and test managers (and I don't mean gamers trying the software in beta), database specialist, graphical designer, servers, folks that act as sysadmins for those servers, etc.
> 
> It's a shame that most of the workable solutions are either dedicated Windows/MacOS clients or require JAVA (like the official 4E app) ack! I would love to see a html5 version that works in most if not all html5 capable browsers.
> 
> As for the basement comment, when I give advice or troubleshoot on some computer or gaming forum, I don't charge a thing. When I give advice or troubleshoot for a paying business I charge $62.50 (excl. VAT) an hour and I'm no programmer (I can program, but not at a speed that would make it a viable profession). I do both in my attic, the same place I'm typing this comment, behind two 30" monitors, connected to a powerful workstation, at my business/hobby desk.
> 
> There's a big difference between a business and a hobby, sometimes folks have a dream and want to build their dream for themselves. Often such small operations burnout after a while, RolePlayingMaster is a good example of this. A program with great potential, but was eventually abandoned by the developer (2001-2006), a shame because I spent a lot of time working with/on it (and the developer) hunting bugs.
> 
> It is of course ridiculous that after 3.5 years after the 4E release the 4E VTT is still in beta, something like that should have been available at launch.




Yeah, on the subject of VTTs, I do actually run a business writing both client and server applications and web apps for line of business applications. I've also talked a bit with the MapTool people and looked at the source code. It is a huge complex piece of software which has easily consumed quite a few man-years of programming effort. Having played with it I'd say it is still in many ways far from ideal as something you would base a product on. It certainly COULD become that product, but it would require yet more man-years of work. I'd say as a 'back of the envelope' estimate on what something like that would take as a project starting from scratch, probably 10 man-years, which means you're talking something in the 1-2 million range for development. I think this is probably FAR beyond the range of any game company besides possibly WotC, and even then it would be a pretty large investment and I strongly doubt they would be able to pitch that to their management. 

Now, eventually these things might become reasonably inexpensive, say basically if MapTool 2.0 (which will probably take a couple more years to complete) had full plug-in capability and a much improved macro language and other improvements. Even then, running games requires the DM to do a lot of work. I found running 4e on MapTool required 2-3 times more prep work than running at the table. It does get somewhat easier with time, but at a bare minimum you've got to assemble large libraries of artwork, master a complex macro framework, write macros for each new monster, test them, etc. Being able to share with the rest of the community and having a more professionally designed framework, etc could bring that down to a more reasonable level, but it is overall going to be a few more years before we get there. 

However, I think I agree with people who say this COULD eventually be a really serious way forward. I could see a DDI with a REALLY polished VTT, packaged adventures you can run, easy sharing and categorizing of user content, and even features to allow cooperatively developed settings and etc. There could even be 'pay events' or at least special online promo games and whatnot with popular DMs, etc. I think a community like that which was really advanced COULD compete with MMOs etc. There's no way that the sort of generic automated content that exists in MMOs can ever give you the same sort of game that a custom made human DMed game can. There are trade-offs of course, but then if a game like D&D had such a VTT, an MMO, and a CRPG and the ability to move content from one to another, then you start to see a future that would be pretty cool. 

The real question is does anyone actually have the money to make it happen and can they make a good enough business case for it to get it done? Maybe, maybe not. Again, WotC is probably the only organization that is even close to plausibly doing that. Even if they could get the funding one has to ask if they could actually execute. It wouldn't be an easy project, and more projects fail than succeed. We can dream though!


----------



## RyanD

*Many replies!*



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> What would you designate as an "acquisition engine" besides a starter box?




The brand team under my leadership from 98-2000 developed a comprehensive plan to bring new players in the hobby.  This plan was backed by data we received in consultation with a specialist in child developmental psychology.  It had 4 main components.

The first was a series of simple games for kids 6-8 years old to introduce them to the idea of RPGs.  The only game that was ever produced was the Pokemon Jr. Adventure Game, which has the distinction of being the best-selling TRPG of all time (on release).

The second was a series of games for kids 9-12 years old that were to be based on various popular brands.  We had a Pokemon game in development (essentially finished) and a Harry Potter RPG in development (partially finished) before terminating this project due to licensing issues.

The third was a more traditional boxed introductory product for both D&D and Star Wars.  The goal was something that could be sold in mass market toystores, targeted kids 12-14 years of age, and would cost less than $20.  The 3rd Edition Intro box was the first of these products, though never got more evolution over time as was intended.

The fourth were a series of one and two book RPG series linked to popular licenses like Wheel of Time (which got produced) and Dune (which didn't).  The plan was to have a very broad, but shallow net of RPGs that we could use to target selected groups of fans with a tailored offering.  None of the expected development was done on these products either.

While we left behind a very detailed 10 year plan for the RPG business, those who followed after our team chose not to use that plan.

This was in 2000.  I would not use this plan now.  My plan now would be a series of iOS apps that were interactive and could be used solo as well as in groups.  I would never plan on selling these kids physical products but would instead get them into a microtransaction based, repeat purchase model business that would scale with their interest levels and age and eventually lead to a whole ecosystem of RPG products driven via digital technology (not VTT, not MMO).



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> IN terms of collapse of retailers (hell, I thought Borders was finished), where does Amazon fall? How many retail stores is one Amazon worth?




It's effectively worth nothing in terms of opportunity to grow the market.  Every sale earned at Amazon could be earned instead by Wizards if they chose to do more direct marketing (and probably more than that since they'd be doing much more than Amazon does).  Amazon is primarily a convenience reseller of hobby gaming products for those who lack other access or who wish to obtain the discounts offered.  While Amazon tries mightily to induce you to buy things other than that which brought you to the site in the first place, I strongly doubt that it works well for lines like RPGs.  At best, it may induce someone to notice a niche RPG that they were not otherwise aware of and give it a chance, but I can't see many people being shown D&D as an offer and suddenly deciding to buy it without prior intent.

In terms of volume, it's probably 10-20 quality FLGS worth of product.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> How does that handle things like the DDI with a constant stream of revenue that allows instant data mining on an unprecedented scale for WoTC or the subscription model that Paizo is using with the free PDF for those who subscribe?




DDI is a great way to monetize D&D fans, especially those who don't intend to buy any physical product.  I'm certain that Wizards is reasonably pleased with the income, but I'm also reasonably sure its far less than forecast when it was pitched to Hasbro.  Not having DDI up and running with the release of 4e and not directly tying 4e to DDI were both strategic mistakes that I'm sure they recognize and would have addressed if at all possible.

Paizo's situation is a bit different, since they're not (yet) adding a lot of added value to the books they sell via the subscription process, they're just offering a tremendous amount of convenience and a great community.  Still, having that revenue flow direct to the publisher without all the middlemen makes those books vastly more profitable on a per-unit basis than anything Paizo sells through the distribution channels.  It's a great system for both buyer and seller and from what I can tell, people really like it.  I'm certain Paizo will keep adding bells and whistles so that eventually the value proposition will be very hard to ignore.  



			
				TheFindus said:
			
		

> I am not sure, though, that this was such a wise business decision for WotC back then, because I think it is bad for a company that wants to keep selling stuff in the future to create a product that can go on forever.




It was already obvious in 1999 that eBay and Craigslist meant that the genie was already out of that bottle.  Easy access to 1e and 2e product was going to be a mass-market phenomenon, no matter what Wizards did.

I believed then, and believe now, that the only thing uniquely valuable in a go-forward basis to Wizards of the Coast is the Dungeons & Dragons brand.  Wizards is the only company that can put that brand on a book and sell it.  And if managed correctly, that brand alone should allow Wizards to charge a price premium -- even against people selling the exact same content under a (lesser) brand identity.

The game rules aren't valuable.  The brand equity is the value, connected to the huge social network of folks who want to tap that equity.

Let me give you an example.  You could easily make your own cola.  You could make it taste exactly like Coke (the "secret recipe" isn't that hard to find, just Google it).  You can't sell it in any meaningful commercial volume.  The reason isn't the contents inside the can, it's the memories and emotions conjured up by someone drinking something they know as "coke" (which is why the "New Coke" thing failed too - it was too new and didn't trigger those memories and emotions).  The ability to use that red & white can and call the product "Coke" or "Coca-Cola" is *all the value in the whole product*.

That's what D&D is.  And just like New Coke, if you put something in a book and call it D&D, and it doesn't generate those emotions and memories in your target audience, they won't buy it (or at least they won't buy enough of it to hit your sales goals). (Please don't take me as saying 4e is New Coke either -- that's extending this analogy past the point I want to take it.)




			
				Mark CMG said:
			
		

> May I ask how this info was gathered, please?



 (in response to my citation of the number of FLGS left in the North American market).

Yes, certainly.  I was paid by a client while I ran my consulting business to reach out to as many such stores as could be located.  To build the necessary database I compiled information from SIC codes and from on-line yellow pages and by doing state by state searches of business licenses.  I added in the retail lists I had been keeping for years for my own businesses, as well as contacts screen scraped from many publisher sites.  I think GAMA may have distributed a retailer list after one of the GTS shows (but I honestly don't remember at this point).  Then I hired an outsourced firm overseas to call all of the phone numbers we were able to generate and we had our outsourcers ask the people who answered a series of simple questions to see if they were brick & mortar stores and if they sold hobby game products beyond just D&D and Magic.  Given the time that has passed since that work was performed (more than 5 years) I'm saying the number is likely 750 FLGS +/- 250.



			
				_NewbieDM_ said:
			
		

> There is a market out there for kids and rpg's... Parents that roleplay *want* to teach their kids about the hobby and play with them, but complex games with 160 pages worth of rules isn't the way.
> 
> I dont get why the "industry" doesnt see this. Boggles my mind.




It's hard to write for new players.  Most people in the industry have never done it.  They write for players assumed to know a lot about RPGs (even when they _think_ they're writing for new players.)  They also have never written for kids.  Wanna see something interesting?  Find a kid who hasn't played many games and ask them to "draw a hand of cards".  If there's paper and pencil nearby, you'll likely get a funny illustration.  We take so much terminology for granted.

It's also not career enhancing.  For the most part, nobody wins an Orgins award or gets noticed by other publishers for working on intro products.  By and large, its the flashy top-end game stuff that builds your industry cred.  Most people in the industry, if given the choice, will work on something "fun" rather than an intro box.

They usually don't make much money.  At best, your intro product is going to have a lower margin than your core books.  Especially if you sell it in a box, and sell it at a price that's competitive with the other stuff its on the toy store shelves with - like $9.99 Monopoly.  At worst, you might actually lose money on each unit, which means that people who don't understand it are likely to cancel it because viewed in isolation, it's a loser.



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> Much stuff edited for brevity




Not gonna go into all that  in detail - not constructive.  Some quick summary responses:  The senior leadership at White Wolf decided to transition to the MMO field partly because of what they observed when they did nWoD.  That was long before I came to the company.   They looked for the best partner, had many offers, and chose the company they felt was the best cultural fit and had the right tech and vision to do what they wanted to accomplish with the World of Darkness MMO.

"Flight to Quality" isn't something publishers do.  It's something consumers do.  And it's an emergent behavior, not a planned or scripted thing.  It just happens because most people are rational, and in a shrinking market, the rational thing is to go where most of the other people are going.  Once it starts, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.  In Pathfinder's case, it's well past the starting point.

You've got a twisted and mistaken idea about the people who make RPGs (D&D, Pathfinder, etc.) if you think they're driven by automatic response to market research and focus groups.  By and large they're ad hocing it just like they always have.  In fact, I'd bet that by far there's more tension as the market research folks try to convince designers not to do something than there is effort expended trying to get them to do something based on research.  It's a hair pulling experience to convince a designer who *knows* they're right about something that the data shows they aren't.

By and large these are creative folks (intelligent, creative folks) who are trying their best to make stuff that will sell.  They rarely, if ever, make something just because they're told to do it - and even when they do, they usually have enough pride in their work to try and make it awesome.  Behind 99.99% of every RPG product you've ever purchased is one or more people who had a burning passion about the product and got it through all stages of approvals and development before it landed on your bookshelf.



			
				OpsKT said:
			
		

> Perhaps you have forgotten things like White Wolf's poor taste attempt to market Exalted 2nd edition with the 'Graduate your Game' promotion, done during Mr. Dancey's time at White Wolf/CCP no less?




Fair enough - it was done by my marketing department.  It's only fair that I take the shot for it.  It was in bad taste, I wish it hadn't been done, and if I had the chance to do it over again, I'd have intervened to stop it if I had the chance to do so.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The one thing that OGL supporters have never been able to answer though is how you can have a 4e OGL and a DDI subscription base exist side by side.




What?  That's easy!

The DDI should not be a hypertext version of the rules.  That should be free anyway.  DDI should be tools to help you manage your game and your characters.  It should be editorial content to help you enjoy your game session more.  It should be lore and backstory for campaign settings.  It should be a library of content not published in books that you can access for a small fee - stuff that's got too small an audience to be worth printing, but that *YOU* might find really helpful (like for example a few dozen more Fey creatures).

DDI should also be a community organizing tool that helps you find groups, form groups, and gather groups into larger groups so that folks have a sense of a real-world social network.

DDI should also be a place for playtesting and feedback, where the designers can get immediate and real-world input on the work they're doing.

And obviously it should be a portal to content:  All the content that TSR/Wizards has ever published (and that they have rights to) should be available for a reasonable fee.

Why can't I browse a list of monsters (thousands and thousands), select any number I wish, and have a POD version of a Monster Manual custom built to my specifications sent to me (electronically or in print)?  Why can't I build my own spell books for my campaign from a list of spells (thousands and thousands) and do the same?

Wizards has all the data necessary to enable a whole new way of formatting the game - customized directly for *YOU*, as opposed to generically.  DDI could be the portal to that.

The material released as Open Game Content is just the tip of the iceberg of value that Wizards controls.


----------



## Argyle King

not sure if this will add anything, but just a thought....

I completely credit the Dragonlance novels with getting me into roleplaying games.  At the time, I had no concept of what D&D or rpgs were.  At the time, I was a kid who saw some cool looking books on a teacher's shelf.  I asked to borrow them and loved them.  At the back of the book I found an advertisement for D&D.

Unfortunately, I never did get to buy D&D (I think it would have been 2nd edition at the time) because the same day I saved enough money from mowing lawns and doing choirs to buy the game was the same day Toys'R'Us told me they could no longer carry D&D due to complaints from parents.  It would be years later when I played Rifts as my first rpg experience, and a year or so after that until I played D&D for the first time, but the fact is that I would have never made any effort to seek the game out had it not been for those books sparking my interest.  

While the mediums may have changed, I think there are still probably kids somewhere today who have seen a book or a tv show or something else and have their interests sparked.  I wouldn't be surprised to find there are people playing WoW thinking,"wouldn't it be cool if there was more to the game than DPS, raids, and collecting squirrel skins?"  There might be someone playing Skyrim for the first time and being amazed at how in depth you can get involved with the world and some of the customization options to make your character your own; enjoying a non-linear experience.  

As I've said elsewhere, I believe society as a whole today is more open to rpg elements than they have been in a long time.  Many modern video games have character customization utilities, Facebook has plenty of games based around the idea of building your own unique farm or virtual apartment; things such as Harry Potter, the movies based on Tolkien's works, and the plethora of comic book movies are fresh in the collective minds of the world we live in.  Story telling is one of the oldest human traditions; even cave men painted on walls and told stories around the camp fire.  

So why is the industry doomed?  I don't understand the mindset of the industry and the hobby dying.  Not only does the rpg hobby hold dear some of the ideals which one of humanity's oldest traditions is based around, but it also has ties to many of the forms of entertainment which are popular today.  I think too often we fall into the mindset of being afraid to introduce people to the game because we think others will find it strange or call us dorks or whatever.  You'd be surprised how open people are to playing if approached the right way.  

Likewise, I see a lot of posts which seem to indicate new players having an inability to understand things.  I myself at times buy into the idea of certain games being too complex.  However, I find myself being proven wrong quite often when I do buy into the idea.  I was pretty surprised to find that my 3 old (he'll be 4 in February) has a pretty good idea about how the games I play work from watching when I have people over to game.  

He's still learning to count and read, so -obviously- he does not have the understanding that would come with reading the books and being able to do some of the more complex math, but, at the same time, I was amazed at how well he understood the concept of what a rpg was.  His terminology is different than what mine is due to his age, but he seems to get it.  (After he had shown interest, I have used dice and other game related things to help teach him to count and do some basic math.)

I'm not really sure where I was going with any of this.  I suppose part of what I'm getting at is the rpg community seems to want to attract people to the hobby so as to maintain the health of the hobby.  However, quite often, I find that we create assumptions and/or barriers to keep people away.  

I'm still not quite sure what my point with the books was though.  I guess that I was introduced to D&D and rpgs in a way that did not require me being in a game store, and in a way which did not require me to already be part of the target audience.  That was at a time when society was actively trying to ban the game.  Today, there are indications that society has embraced some of the concepts of rpgs and the immersive entertainment experience.  So why does it seem as though there's such a willingness to throw in the towel now?

I don't buy the doomsday scenario.  If it happens, I do not believe it will be because the market is not there.  I believe it will be because of the currently established industry leaders not engaging the market with enough proficiency to survive.


----------



## RangerWickett

Excellent stuff, Mr. Dancey. You have plenty of ideas that I think ought to be tried. But if the will does exist to try it, does WotC have the money and manpower?


----------



## GregoryOatmeal

kunadam said:


> _GregoryOatmeal_ I will check out HeroQuest, albeit it is a boardgame.
> 
> I'm searching for an RPG where my daughter can play a princess, or my son a mechanic that can fix any car. Or they can be both bay dragons who are looking for a magical fruit. Whatever can be the basis of a good story. And it don't have to involve combat or slaying of monsters.



It is technically a board game and features no rping, but if you've played RPGs it's really intuitive to use dungeon tiles/gaming mats/incorporate miniatures/have NPCs and monsters negotiate and talk with the PCs. So while it technically includes a board I just threw it out and played it like D&D. It would probably be really hard to play without some form of minis and a grid.

I can't help you with a game for being a mechanic or a princess...best of luck to you.


----------



## Alphastream

_NewbieDM_ said:


> You know, if the rpg industry is having troubles getting newer players, well, i blame them for it. How many are truly trying to cater to kids, for example? Not many, if any.




There is clearly a demographic of parents bringing up their kids on D&D, but it is relatively new. Gen Con has been catering to it for two years (with their Kids Alley or whatever they call it in the dealer's room, as well as programming) and you can see the success. You also see schools bringing scores of kids in for mini painting competitions outside Sagamore, parents in Sagamore doing learn to play, D&D board games, and Red Box. 

But, realistically, it is because there is very little experience with selling to young children. You also have the 80's mothers against D&D issue that highlights how there can be legal ramifications if you get it wrong. The column by Uri that was canceled is further indication of the cost of getting it wrong. Rpgkids is great (it really is!), but to fully publish a D&D for kids by a major company... that takes planning and resources that takes away from other areas. Worth it? I think so, but it isn't a no-brainer... there really are issues to consider and reasons to focus on a slightly less young demographic.

Along those lines, Encounters has done very well with kids that are 9 and up. I've seen real success there from the program by being accessible to all casual players. They don't lose anything (other than the hardcore, but the program isn't for them) and aren't just creating something for kids. Again, I'm all for D&D for kids (I created a version myself), but there are valid reasons for WotC and other RPGs to be cautious and aim for older players.

All of that said, I disagree with Ryan Dancey that our demographic is forever aging. I felt that way back in 2008, but 4E really has brought in diversity. I see much greater gender and age diversity at tables. I also see much more recognition. These are geek times and we are in a great position to bring increasingly young audiences to D&D. Sure, MMOs are huge, but both parents and kids want other alternatives. I question the idea that we have to abandon or shrink the tabletop, especially in an era where board games have recently been strong. Yes, there are challenges, but there are many reasons why RPGs can grow.


----------



## GreyLord

> I believed then, and believe now, that the only thing uniquely valuable in a go-forward basis to Wizards of the Coast is the Dungeons & Dragons brand. Wizards is the only company that can put that brand on a book and sell it. And if managed correctly, that brand alone should allow Wizards to charge a price premium -- even against people selling the exact same content under a (lesser) brand identity.
> 
> The game rules aren't valuable. The brand equity is the value, connected to the huge social network of folks who want to tap that equity.




I disagree.  Take for example your Coke idea...well another company DOES sell coke products and has been rather successful...even with Coca Cola still the best selling drink out there.  Pepsi does pretty darn well...and though Americans and a few others will swear about the difference of taste between Pepsi and Cola (and there are slight differences) to those who don't drink them regularly...they sure taste very similar.  The same could go for differences between Mug rootbeer, A&W Rootbeer, or Big K rootbeer.  How about Sprite and 7-Up.  

Entertainment has this all the time. Think about how movie studios copy each other...many times you can see a movie and say...Hey, this is simply a rip off of another movie!

Sometimes they are competing and the one who has the ripoff brings the movie to the theater sooner then the original, other times the themes of movies are so similar as to be apparant that they are copies of the same theme though different characters and movies (Dante's peak/Volcano, Armageddon/Deep Impact, Rocky/Real Steel).

In electronics this gets even more nefarious...unless you are an expert into certain electronics...how big are the actual differences in two flat screen T.V.'s with the apparant same additions and conveniences, but two different brands going to appear to you?

Take Video games as another...how big is the difference between Battlefield 3 for Xbox 360 and Battlefield 3 for Playstation 3?

People buy rebranding all the time with RPGs in electronica...a recent one that comes to mind would be the Wizardry series...though it has a similar release on the Nintendo DS as Etrian Odyssey and PSP as Class of Heroes.  All different games but VERY reminescent of the original.

Even better, some products (like furniture and sometimes food items) really ARE the same product as predecessors of another brand in some cases, but not by the same company.

The first problem WotC made I think was tossing away the entire heritage in favor of their OWN game.

Brand isn't all there is too it.  By tossing the older AD&D and releasing WotC's D20 version of D&D, they set a precedence of being able to do away with an old rule system and replace it with something different.  

This was basically almost exactly the same model followed by WotC/Hasbro with the release of 4e.  Those who didn't like it need only see the example set less then a decade prior with 3e.

Of course they didn't have Mr. Dancy (and some particularly notable allies in key places) to keep the manianical money grubbers back, so instead of the OGL and some other items that helped with 3e, it was released to a much starker and sterner control of the system when 4e was released (seen soon after with the taking back of PDFs, the GSL which was a miracle it even saw the light of day, and followed up with the ensuring of the online only DDi).

At the same time you have the rise of the Retro movement which if they weren't all fighting over the same scraps (D&D and AD&D, even different editions of 1e and 2e AD&D, and multiple D&D editions...were HIGHLY compatible with each other and in that effect could be seen as basically the same game/same audience) probably could be doing some pretty serious financials.

As it is, most of those financials are hidden as a majority of those transactions and downloads are from ONLINE rather than a more measurable hardcopy offline.

So I think that in fact, if given a single solitary player that released all of the AD&D/D&D materials from 2e on back...that they COULD be successful.

In fact, in direct relation to WotC...look at Paizo now...and in effect that's exactly what they are doing with the 3.X game....just with their revision of it.

Game rules ARE important...and it's not necessarily the brand.

IMO of course.  

PS:  Then again...as long as the business makes money...that's probably whats important in the end.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal

Aberzanzorax said:


> Sigh...
> ...if only people educated themselves BEFORE they formed their opinion.
> That's not an attack on you, MR. Oatmeal....but an attack on the phenomenon of "I disagree...therefore it must be so!"



The only thing I disagreed with was your statement that Pathfinder wouldn't exist. My experiences suggested PF would exist and be doing pretty well (albeit not as well) if 4E supported all of the old settings. But we really can't do much more than speculate.

"Why doesn't DL/RL material exist for PF?" was a question, not an opinion. Why did you think I was presenting my question trying to obtain information I clearly didn't know as something I was right about? I had no idea WOTC reacquired those brands - I just kept seeing third party logos on those old books and people around me kept saying third parties owned them. I'm not inclined to research facts I don't know that I don't know. And even then if you google "WOTC acquires Dragonlance brand" or "Ravenloft intellectual property owners" you still don't get any press releases or definitive answers, so frankly that's some pretty obscure information to expect someone to know.

And I know WOTC published some Ravenloft stuff...I was incorrectly told they had a limited license to utilize a few aspects of Dragonlance and recreations of the original Ravenloft module.


----------



## Argyle King

GregoryOatmeal said:


> The only thing I disagreed with was your statement that Pathfinder wouldn't exist. My experiences suggested PF would exist and be doing pretty well (albeit not as well) if 4E supported all of the old settings. But we really can't do much more than speculate.
> 
> "Why doesn't DL/RL material exist for PF?" was a question, not an opinion. Why did you think I was presenting my question trying to obtain information I clearly didn't know as something I was right about? I had no idea WOTC reacquired those brands - I just kept seeing third party logos on those old books and people around me kept saying third parties owned them. I'm not inclined to research facts I don't know that I don't know. And even then if you google "WOTC acquires Dragonlance brand" or "Ravenloft intellectual property owners" you still don't get any press releases or definitive answers, so frankly that's some pretty obscure information to expect someone to know.
> 
> And I know WOTC published some Ravenloft stuff...I was incorrectly told they had a limited license to utilize a few aspects of Dragonlance and recreations of the original Ravenloft module.




just adding an idea to what you said

...even if Pathfinder did not exist, that does not mean people would have stayed with 4th Edition.  I made the switch to 4th; I went through a period of time when I began to hate the game, and I decided to step outside of D&D and seek my rpg fortunes elsewhere.

While I have come back to the fold in so much that I play 4th and enjoy it, I think the last time I spent money on a D&D product was somewhere around Manual of The Planes.  I've used some of the products (others at the table own them,) but I haven't bought into the game.  I'm currently in a position where I enjoy the game, but have no desire to pay into the brand at this point in time.


----------



## Alphastream

OpsKT said:


> It doesn't matter what 'the industry' wants to try to pick as the winner, for many gamers they will pick games based upon what they want to play and to hell with what the 'big boys' marketing divisions want to push on us.
> 
> For us, our flight to quality is those smaller publishers that you took so lightly in your article.



Not only are there many people that play RPGs from other publishers, but it can be argued that one of the terrible parts of the OGL was the way it encouraged companies to all become d20 and to spit out poor material. A lot of this was a reaction to incorrect expectations, the same way we saw companies like FASA get into CCGs and eventually lose a lot of money, or people gold rushing in California. Yes, we saw many individuals get better at writing for D&D (sometimes at the expense of customers), but that wasn't healthy overall. 

It is possible for something like the OGL to create a healthier RPG industry, particularly if there were a way to regulate quality a bit better and if there were some barriers to entry that prevented anyone from thinking a "d20" sticker was the sure road to profit. The bust of 3E d20 and 4E being closed has helped create a wider diversity of games and the RPG industry seems healthier for it. We now see games using various engines (as with Leverage using Cortex or Dresden Files using Fate - and even a Dresden playset for Fiasco) and seeming to be much stronger for it. I and others would argue this diversity is very much a strength and sorely needed.



OpsKT said:


> as opposed to fueling vitriol and edition wars with putting out press releases that amount to, _"Look, we're outselling the guys whose IP we republished!"_



That really made me laugh! It is true that the edition wars benefit Paizo greatly. But, I don't see anyone at Paizo saying that. Keep in mind many Wizards and Paizo employees are friends and a number of freelancers work for both companies.



OpsKT said:


> Even if we're only 10%, can even Paizo afford to turn away 10%?



It isn't clear what the size of the market is. I doubt anyone has a good feel for it. Even if they do, I doubt they know what to do with that information. I would guess there is no reason to try to win over ardent fans of another RPG. Better to bring in people external to the hobby. For example, the tons of college age players (and younger) attending PAX. They are there for video games primarily, but many can easily be roped into becoming at least casual players of RPGs. (And, I saw hundreds of them try D&D for the first time and love it. I loved seeing tables with incredible gender and age diversity, all having a blast learning D&D).



OpsKT said:


> Note only 2/4 of their games _are in print and currently earning money for a pubisher._



Ok, but that isn't good for anyone. Part of the reason the industry has serious issues is that the game itself presents barriers to gamers buying product. If we want to see the industry grow, we need to find ways to further spending (or keep bringing in new faces). 

I also think you make too big a deal out of the edition wars as being something born of the two companies. This is largely a player/Internet thing. The designers are all committed to making great RPGs. I have had the fortune of speaking to Paizo and Wizards designers, plus those that work with them, and the competition just about never comes up. Their focus is on making great games people want to play. This is the same focus all RPG companies have. They might be bigger and have to deal with marketing departments, but I don't hear the negativity of TSR (where they would famously try to do things despite marketing/suits). I hear instead proper controls and great designers and developers working extremely hard to make games we (and they) love.


----------



## buddhafrog

Thanks for this post - interesting read.  Also, many great comments in this thread.  Too many to quote individually.

I'm not arguing the success of getting new generations into playing RPG's.  But I just want to emphasize that it is not due to their enjoyment of playing.

I am an ESL teacher in Korea and currently DM seven games a week for kids between the ages of 10-17.  THEY LOVE IT.  This is Korea, the home of on-line gaming.  All of my students play numerous computer games, but most have told me - without prompting - that they would rather play D&D.  They love the creativity of it; they love the ability to control and imagine their character; they love how the laugh and interact with their friends/classmates.

I firmly believe RPG's work with kids.  Getting them to slow down and play?....


----------



## buddhafrog

kmdietri said:


> I currently play via VTT, but we play with it in-house meaning we're all around the table using laptops and a projector for mapping.
> 
> It has made our games far more interactive and interesting then they have ever been.
> 
> As the DM it's marvellous, so much freedom to use your imagination again as you're not strapped to just trying to keep track of everything, durations, conditions, effects.
> 
> Out of combat is virtually unchanged.  People still get into character as easy as before but as the DM sharing maps, pictures, notes, is so easy.
> 
> For combat there's no more fiddly book-keeping, stat tracking, effect tracking, durations... the computer does all that, all you have to do is think up fun stuff.
> 
> It gets you more involved in everyone's action, you get to see the results right there in an split second click of the mouse.
> 
> I am so excited to think of what kind of a VTT a large company with tons of cash could come up with.




I generally agree with the OP regarding VTT, but your argument has me reconsidering.  Some years later, with some kinks smoothed out, with graphics, speed, accessibility and experience using all improved, I could see this becoming an overall improvement over pen/paper as long as it were still in-house.  I like that idea a lot.


----------



## Alphastream

Ryan, thanks for writing the original post and the follow-up. I love the topic and would like to ask a few questions.


RyanD said:


> Today, the best data I have been able to assemble leads me to believe that there are less than 1,000 full line hobby gaming stores left, and there may be as few as 500.



I don't have a deep understanding of this and I would guess most other readers feel the same way. 

First, on the numbers. If I use the Wizards locator to find stores running Encounters I come up with more than 500. If I widen the search to stores selling D&D, I come up with even more. Do you really feel confident about your numbers?

Also, how critical are hobby stores? I'm guessing they are critical because they introduce new players to the game. It's the classic issue that you won't get hooked in or even know about product if you can't get it in context and then touch it and see it. But, is that true? Are you confident that the brick and mortar store is necessary? In my personal experience, word of mouth and proper advertising seem plausible as substitutes. I've seen a lot more 4E sold via people brought in to play Encounters or who saw it on Meetup than due to already being in the store and saying "hey, I want to try this". I do think there is a value to stores, but I think there are other ways to bring gamers to product, to organized play (where they can try a game and form communities), or online to become part of community or download/subscribe. I can easily be wrong. Clearly Encounters has been all about the store, and it has been excellent at bringing new and casual players into stores when properly advertised.



RyanD said:


> In 1994, when I attended my first GenCon, the list of exhibitors at the show included



So we go from 15 in 1001 to 10 in 2011... and I'm not clear on what to make of it. If I read you right, the 1991 crowd was conducting business poorly by over-publishing (or publishing unprofitable product) and then failing to recognize changes in the consolidation of distributors... and the high water mark was during the d20 boom prior to the bust (when some companies probably shouldn't have purchased Gen Con booths). I'm not sure that means that much. Does it? I mean, are we talking "vague sense"?

Somewhere in there you sort of say that the problem is 3.5, but is this a major factor? There had already been several booms and busts in the industry (even in the 80s), all sorts of changes to the industry from various companies going bankrupt, and the huge changes due to CCGs? Was 3.0 to 3.5 really a big deal? While I do agree it cleared out a ton of d20 stuff, most of that seemed destined for the sale bin anyway. 

This sort of brings me back to the d20 OGL topic. What, really, is the value to the OGL? I get that it opened up the industry, but that effect seems permanent. Freelancers work on 4E, on KQ, for Paizo, for Eclipse Phase, etc. If anything, having the OGL die back a bit has seen wider game diversity and allowed more stability, right? Wouldn't a strong OGL create another false boom? What am I missing here?

I'm also curious about the basic underpinnings. With very few exceptions, the vast majority of 3rd Party Provider offerings saw no shelf space in my friends' homes (these were both hardcore D&D 3E players and casual ones). I might see one product here or there (Ptolus here, Freeport here), but the vast majority of my friends had very little 3PP. Moreover, they didn't use it. It was shelf liner rather than coveted material (Ptolus being an exception for some!). Today I see the same thing. I see a token set here, pdf terrain there... but the shelf is close to 100% from the main company. 

I get the theoretical concept of a company focusing on one area and having 3PP create the rest, but that hasn't happened. Given that, what, really, is the value of 3PP and the OGL? What am I missing?



RyanD said:


> The first was that the products the industry was producing had become too costly.  The boxed set, in particular, was a huge problem.  The cost of a boxed set vs. a hardcover book was often a multiple, rather than a percentage.  The cost of a hardcover vs. a softcover book was also substantial.  In fact, we found several high profile D&D products that were costing the company more to make than the suggested retail price of those products!



I've heard the audio CD products and Dark Sun flip books were in that category. And I heard Andy Collins and Rob Heinsoo talk about the imperative to skip boxed sets and go shallow on setting-specific at a con when 4E was released. But, since that time we see boxed sets by both Paizo and Wizards. Wizards has gone back and forth between hardcover, softcover, and boxed set variants (Gardmore Abbey, Monster Vault, Monster Vault Nentir Vale, Shadowfell, etc.). What gives? Is the premise faulty? Is it worth it to take a bath on things like Red Box and the PF intro boxed set? Is it ok for some products?



RyanD said:


> The effect on the market was that it became increasingly hard to make and sell something that had enough players in common that it would earn back its costs of development and production.




To what extent, though, was this a problem due to so much of the product lines being unprofitable or otherwise problematic? It is often said that having Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc. created a rift. And surely, it was an issue that no player could afford to go very deep in all of these. But, was it really hurting the company in a given year? If there were three products for Greyhawk in one year, was a Greyhawk gamer stopping then and not buying the three Planescape products because that's different, but they would have purchased three more Greyhawk products? Isn't there a balance where you can have a few settings to have wider appeal? 

Wizards clearly kept 4E settings less deep, and they have sometimes been very clever about limiting exposure. There are a ton of 4E Dark Sun adventures, but only one was sold in stores as a "module". There is a lot of content, but only two books that can go on shelves (and both nearly sold out and no longer in print). I think it has worked well for Dark Sun, because they had so much other content at conventions, through Encounters, through Ashes of Athas, through DDI, etc. But Eberron really saw two books and pretty much done. The model for Eberron seemed to really sell the setting short. (And I'm not sure going OGL on it would have changed that much... certainly not in a greatly profitable way for Wizards).

We see something different with Pathfinder. If I look at the catalog, I'm overwhelmed by all the components of Golarion. And that's after a lot of setting material was consolidated. It feels remarkably like the strategy behind FR back in the 90s, but with essentially mini settings and adventure paths in each area. Are we repeating history, making subtle changes, or have the lessons been found to just apply in some cases?

I better stop there, as this is already far longer than I meant for it to be. Thanks!


----------



## xechnao

While I accept the facts that Ryan is presenting us, I disagree with some of his conclusions.

Regarding marketing to younger children and the micro-transaction model. Is there any data about the ages that this model can target and work out?
Are there any entertainment products aimed at 10 year olds that do business with children like this?
Not only I find it improbable, I also find its ethics questionable.

Regarding branding power. I think strategic brand power on entertainment products is over-rated unless you manage somehow to convince people that your product is a product of classic value. D&D due to historical reasons may indeed have this cult thing within a certain demographic. But this demographic mainly consists of people that tend to take gaming seriously, the sort of people that want to work in this field. Of course this is not just about tabletop games, but nowadays mainly video games as this is where most opportunities to make money for designers exist.
Outside of this target demographic the value of the D&D brand is not so impressive I dare say. Magic the gathering has immensely more branding power as it has a bigger demographic that will buy the primary product. Moreover, the kind of demographic that consides D&D a "classic", tends to inform itself more on the matter and thus the brand power effect is not so strong either. This demographic will research more and is more open to explore other brands that seem to be the same kind of what D&D is.

Regarding the OGL and ebay. Really? I would never think of that and consider it kind of absurd to connect the two. What I would think of is piracy but then, this is also a different matter. No, the OGL effect is immensely more powerful than the ebay effect. The OGL created an industry of third parties, totally reshaped the tabletop industry in the 2000s and now in the 2010s it seems to threaten the commercial success of D&D for its owner, name it Hasbro or Wotc. Making a 4e was not a gamble. The pre-orders were the highest among the whole history of D&D and it should have managed to generate more revenue than not making it. Making a 5e today is a gamble indeed, if we consider that DDI is what has been left to sustain D&D at this point. Not making a 5e is still another gamble against the success of competitors like Paizo. In short, the OGL was a bad long-term business decision for Wotc. It has put the value of the brand to a much bigger risk than necessary.

Regarding the way digital services should operate. I think it sounds brilliant in theory. But as RangerWickett put it, I wonder how easily can be put to practice.

And last, lets not forget about the gleemax investment and how much this sort of initiative gone wrong may come to cost.


----------



## buddhafrog

The OP and some commenter suggest that "family games" are a possible route, making gaming quick and less prep-dependent.  I think there will be an increasing need for this, but it does hurt what I feel is the strongest component of RPG's - long games that deepen your commitment to the story and to your character.  If only played one-shots, I know I wouldn't be nearly the gamer that I am now.  It is my enjoyment of the long story - exactly the time spent creating the character and living/choosing his destiny - that I think can and will be lost with the shorter "family games."


----------



## Hussar

Cergorach said:
			
		

> It is of course ridiculous that after 3.5 years after the 4E release the 4E VTT is still in beta, something like that should have been available at launch.




Now this is something I COMPLETELY agree with.


----------



## Hussar

RyanD said:
			
		

> The DDI should not be a hypertext version of the rules. That should be free anyway. DDI should be tools to help you manage your game and your characters. It should be editorial content to help you enjoy your game session more. It should be lore and backstory for campaign settings. It should be a library of content not published in books that you can access for a small fee - stuff that's got too small an audience to be worth printing, but that YOU might find really helpful (like for example a few dozen more Fey creatures).




But, if the mechanics are free and open, what's stopping places like Ema's from producing cloned tools for free?  It's not like this is hypothetical - it actually happened.  There's an En World Thread from February 2009 http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/249918-emas-rpg-sheet-website-down.html detailing what happened.  It took a grand total of what, 6 months maybe for someone to provide a competing service.

What incentive is there for WOTC to allow that?  That's direct competition that they have no reason to allow.  It doesn't benefit them in any way to allow competitors to produce identical products without having to spend any money developing the base material.  And, with a couple of scripts, you could pretty easily data mine WOTC's own material and put it up.

----------

For those talking about VTT's.  Really? That much work to develop a chat client with a few bells and whistles?  Remember, this client only has to service one game - whichever system you want to build it for.  I'm really having a lot of difficulty in believing that something like this is really that complicated.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce?  Really?  Wow.

I'll admit that I'm woefully uninformed on this, so I'll take your word for it.  I really had no idea that something like this would be that complicated.


----------



## Brix

Erdrick Dragin said:


> It's actually much simpler than one would think.
> 
> WotC's mistake was doing 4E in the first place when they should've  continued 3.5 for a few more years, if not make it the final edition  entirely and just offer support in other areas that the game needed after saturating the game with enough material the majority wanted. Because all new editions do is split the base.



I'd support this idea.
I also suggested many years ago to Greg Leads, CEO of wizards, to continue to publish fluff for the pre-4E settings. Take the FR example. Ed Greenwood and others have already been paid to deliver tons of FR lore. This content is THERE! However WotC did not publish it, because they feared, that it would somehow reduce the interesst for the timejumped FR. Offering regular edition neutral PDFs of this stuff for a fair price would certainly earn some money.
It's easy as that


----------



## Hussar

Brix said:
			
		

> Offering regular edition neutral PDFs of this stuff for a fair price would certainly earn some money.




What do you consider a "fair price"?

Any pdf of material produced during the TSR days is going to take a hell of a lot of work to turn into a pdf (unless you're just selling unformatted scans).  What's a fair selling price for that?  Full cover price?  Half cover price?  I guarantee that if you peg the price point any higher than about a $1.99, you'll have armies of people coming onto every online venue possible bitching about how WOTC is gouging the fans.

Is it worth it?


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Hussar said:


> The one thing that OGL supporters have never been able to answer though is how you can have a 4e OGL and a DDI subscription base exist side by side. Like it or not, the DDI is a major source of income for WOTC. Anything that bites into that income is a bad thing. If you did a 4e OGL, where the basic rules are wrapped up in an SRD, a la 3e/3.5, then it would be days after the release of that SRD that we'd have a 4e Hypertext SRD.
> 
> Suddenly you have lots of potential subscribers of the DDI simply choosing the free version - particularly in the early days when there weren't that many supplements to differentiate the DDI from a free Hypertext SRD.
> 
> I really can't see how you can have an SRD and a DDI existing side by side.




Hmmm. That is an interesting quandry. 

Ideally, I'd like to see some restrictions that licensed patches to add on to WotC's D&DI. I'm picturing, say, Goodman Games making their own patch (or hiring the WotC programmers to do so if that's better), then customers pay a one time fee for access to that separate patch, but they need to keep paying for character builder to have access to any of the stuff.

WotC could, of course, charge a percentage of the fee of the patch (the patch might be a one time charge of $10, with WotC taking $4 of that.


I guess the best I can say is that perhaps rather than restricting content, a new OGL could restrict modalities? No html, software, or program driven material would be licensed, but pdf would be ok.

Not sure if that'd solve the issue, but I do think there might be ways to solve it.


----------



## Cergorach

Hussar said:


> What do you consider a "fair price"?
> 
> Any pdf of material produced during the TSR days is going to take a hell of a lot of work to turn into a pdf (unless you're just selling unformatted scans).  What's a fair selling price for that?  Full cover price?  Half cover price?  I guarantee that if you peg the price point any higher than about a $1.99, you'll have armies of people coming onto every online venue possible bitching about how WOTC is gouging the fans.
> 
> Is it worth it?




Ehm, all those TSR day products were scanned and OCRed into a quite small and beautifull package. They cost $2.99 a piece, whether it was a boxed set or a 16 page adventure, eventually the price rose, eventually they weren't available anymore. I bought a couple of hundred at the time, completely legal. Was it expensive for those tiny adventure booklets, sure, but I was happy with the boxed sets at that price ;-)


----------



## Brix

Hussar said:


> What do you consider a "fair price"?
> 
> Any pdf of material produced during the TSR days is going to take a hell of a lot of work to turn into a pdf (unless you're just selling unformatted scans).  What's a fair selling price for that?  Full cover price?  Half cover price?  I guarantee that if you peg the price point any higher than about a $1.99, you'll have armies of people coming onto every online venue possible bitching about how WOTC is gouging the fans.
> 
> Is it worth it?



Fair for me:
The size of what was known as "web enhancement" (4 pages) for $1.99
Bigger units (compare to paizo's player companions) for about $ 10

I'm not talking about stuff that was already released (althoug it would be nice if this would be available, too)
I'm talking about unreleased stuff already submitted to wizards and payed by them.
I'm a publisher for a local print magazine myself, and I know that this can't be expensive to produce:
* original author is already payed
* inhouse editor four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)
* inouse layout: four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)
* freelance (or inhouse map tool) artwork 2 pictures for a we ($20), 10 pictures for a player companion ($100)
* online manager to put it on the website, 10 minutes ($1,60) 
That's € 101,60 for a we and  421,60 for a player companion
Break even for we at 51 buyers and 42 buyers for play companion.
That would not be a high end product (with a big cover picture) but enough to activate enough players to buy official setting support.

Don't believe it? Give my the licence and I'll do it.


----------



## SkidAce

xechnao said:


> In short, the OGL was a bad long-term business decision for Wotc. It has put the value of the brand to a much bigger risk than necessary.




Business strategies are not my forte, more of a security planner, but couldn't it have become a "bad" decision because they didn't stick with it?

I know setting up a project long term and then having my bosses change the "vision" has caused many projects to not do as well as planned.

Not advocating inflexibility, but if you base a plan/project off a certain principle or philosophy, and then change to a new one, you can't expect it to do as well.

.


----------



## Cergorach

Brix said:


> Fair for me:
> The size of what was known as "web enhancement" (4 pages) for $1.99
> Bigger units (compare to paizo's player companions) for about $ 10
> 
> I'm not talking about stuff that was already released (althoug it would be nice if this would be available, too)
> I'm talking about unreleased stuff already submitted to wizards and payed by them.
> I'm a publisher for a local print magazine myself, and I know that this can't be expensive to produce:
> * original author is already payed
> * inhouse editor four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)
> * inouse layout: four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)
> * freelance (or inhouse map tool) artwork 2 pictures for a we ($20), 10 pictures for a player companion ($100)
> * online manager to put it on the website, 10 minutes ($1,60)
> That's € 101,60 for a we and  421,60 for a player companion
> Break even for we at 51 buyers and 42 buyers for play companion.
> That would not be a high end product (with a big cover picture) but enough to activate enough players to buy official setting support.
> 
> Don't believe it? Give my the licence and I'll do it.




So your paying your inhouse editor and layout artist $1733.33 a month? Your paying quality freelancers $100 for 10 images, $10 per image?
Your paying an online manager $1664 a month?
And what about that place to work, rent, gas/electric, computers, software, internet connection, insurance, etc.

Your from Germany, so your also working with not insignificant taxes and high cost of living. Your either working with 'slave' labor or you made an error doing the math.


----------



## kunadam

My 2 cents on the OGL debate:

Please reread Monte Cook's assessment.
The Open Game License as I See It, Part II
The Open Game License as I See It, Part I

The gist of it is that even people who enjoyed 3PP games bought the core book from Wizards. Most 3PP games were/are successful because people liked - and thus bought - D&D.
The free hypertext SRD might be a good reference, but seriously how many people used it without having the core book?
The bottom line is that OGL did not hurt WotC and probably helped it a lot.


----------



## Klaus

Brix said:


> Fair for me:
> The size of what was known as "web enhancement" (4 pages) for $1.99
> Bigger units (compare to paizo's player companions) for about $ 10
> 
> I'm not talking about stuff that was already released (althoug it would be nice if this would be available, too)
> I'm talking about unreleased stuff already submitted to wizards and payed by them.
> I'm a publisher for a local print magazine myself, and I know that this can't be expensive to produce:
> * original author is already payed
> * inhouse editor four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)
> * inouse layout: four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)
> * freelance (or inhouse map tool) artwork 2 pictures for a we ($20), 10 pictures for a player companion ($100)
> * online manager to put it on the website, 10 minutes ($1,60)
> That's € 101,60 for a we and  421,60 for a player companion
> Break even for we at 51 buyers and 42 buyers for play companion.
> That would not be a high end product (with a big cover picture) but enough to activate enough players to buy official setting support.
> 
> Don't believe it? Give my the licence and I'll do it.



Your art rates are completely unrealistic.

If you want professional quality art and maps, you have to pay *at least* $200 per third-of-page illustrations. Probably more, if you want to appeal to established artists.


----------



## Brix

Cergorach said:


> So your paying your inhouse editor and layout artist $1733.33 a month? Your paying quality freelancers $100 for 10 images, $10 per image?
> Your paying an online manager $1664 a month?
> And what about that place to work, rent, gas/electric, computers, software, internet connection, insurance, etc.
> 
> Your from Germany, so your also working with not insignificant taxes and high cost of living. Your either working with 'slave' labor or you made an error doing the math.




Slave labour. Actually I can produce and distribute my magazine (10.000 issues per month, 32 pages) for about $3500, and everybody is happy. The mag is also available for free.

But PDF publishing is a different matter. $1733 is a decent salary in germany, although admittedly not very good and (at least for editors) not compliant with standard rates.

However my estimate was based on a "per issue" calculation, not an overall "per month" calculation.
And please consider that releasing this stuff is on top of all other sales activities. So you don't have to pay taxes, rent, etc from this money.
It's additional income for the company.
Everybody understands would understand, if these products would only contain nice b/w artwork. If you have good freelance artist, who work fast, you can talk them to do the stuff for less money, if they can paint - let's say - 20 pictures per week.


----------



## Brix

Klaus said:


> Your art rates are completely unrealistic.
> 
> If you want professional quality art and maps, you have to pay *at least* $200 per third-of-page illustrations. Probably more, if you want to appeal to established artists.




Claudio, didn't you start taking free commissions on this board? I know some artist who did (William O' Connor e.g). I see his credits now regularly in almost any Dungeon or Dragon magazine. 
The price is not fair, of course you can (and should) pay more. But it's a good start for newcomers.
Another possibilty is to buy stock art from people over at elfwood and deviant art.
I'm just trying to say, that it's possible to get these things rolling (cheaply), and that wizards could benfit from selling this yet unreleased stuff.


----------



## Brix

*Other Calculation*

Let's put it in another direction:
A 32 page PDF should cost no more than $1000 to produce (all costs included)
[I say it can be done even for less money]
If you sell it for $10 dollar you need 100 people to buy it for break even.
That should be possible with brands like Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc..


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

As a few other people have commented, I wonder about the whole "we must have the Brick and Mortar stores to live" thing. There are TONS of games produced for game consoles and the mobile market. Most of them have dirt for marketing budgets. Nowadays you can get virtually everything online. There are certainly a lot of game stores around still, but (very analogously with FLGS) they cater almost entirely to existing customers, and to a large extent exist these days more because of their ability to sell highly discounted used games. In fact the game publishers in the long run would probably rather this sales channel went away.

Yet, somehow computer games are a huge, growing, and healthy industry. Clearly you don't HAVE to have a retail presence on the ground to have an industry. What you have to have is MIND SHARE. The computer gaming industry has clearly figured out how to attract that mind share. There are dynamics there which don't apply to the TT RPG industry, but there are still lessons to be learned.

One thing that the computer gaming industry has done is to coalesce around a small number of online platforms, Steam, for instance is a one-stop-shop where you can instantly purchase and play a vast array of games. Nothing like that exists in the TT RPG industry. 

As for attracting players, well, I'm sure Ryan has more knowledge on the subject than I do, but I helped set up and run several FLGS back in the 80's, and I can say with pretty good authority that there was almost no such thing as 'walk-in traffic'. Once in a GREAT while you'd get some parent or random walk in person, but they practically never bought stuff. In fact the one really big store we set up was basically a clubhouse. The people that came in were gamers, they bought their games and mostly played them right there at the store (we had like 20 large tables). New customers came in with existing customers. Kids would bring in their friends, soldiers would bring in their buddies, etc. It was all networking. I seriously doubt that a lot of sales happen today any differently than they did back then. People don't randomly drop into stores and say "gosh, look at that RPG, maybe we should try that." Now, bookstores and general merchants MIGHT manage to sell some product that way, but my guess is they mostly sell product to people that again are already gamers and don't (like me) have an FLGS nearby and make an impulse buy. 

So, yeah, its the outreach that is the thing. Marketing. The best thing TSR ever did was that cartoon. That thing sold more D&D than probably every other marketing campaign ever in the history of gaming. Today, with the way people can and will buy online, you don't even need to have the box in the store so they can actually run out and buy it. Every library should have a set of RPG books and a place to play them (many do actually) and a 'game day' (again, many do, my sister runs one at her library, or has at least off and on). Schools, ditto. 

I think the industry is dying because the industry was successful. 10 years ago the revival of D&D sparked off a lot of renewed interest in a lot of lapsed gamers and got people playing more. The industry expanded, new people were brought in by the network, things looked good, and I think a lot of the industry forgot about promoting itself. They got so busy pumping out product and spent so many resources competing with each other that they simply dropped the ball on getting out there in the trenches growing the industry. Now things have boomeranged. Revenues inevitably started to shrink as the market saturated and people drifted off to other interests. As the revenue falls the marketing funds dry up and its a spiral. WotC clearly tried to spark a new revival cycle with a new edition, but much like with 2e it was only mildly successful. Again, they focused right off on the existing market because that's low hanging fruit, but they apparently haven't so far been able to really grow the audience. Maybe because they're not the majority of the market anymore, there's just no 900 lb gorilla left that has the resources to do it. I don't know.

I'm not so sure the differences between 4e and pre-4e versions of D&D are really that relevant either. They matter within the existing customer base, but I wouldn't be so quick to condemn WotC for refreshing the game in a big way. I think they clearly saw (well Mike Mearls outright stated as much) that just reselling material to the existing audience wasn't going to cut it. They felt they needed a game with more modern sensibilities (and one that is clearly more compatible with digital tools). Maybe the game that they ended up with missed their design goals in some ways (I think they didn't really intend it to be played as a 'skirmish game' for instance). Still, I think it would have been a bigger mistake to have not tried. A LOT of new blood plays 4e. At some point the same old game simply doesn't match modern sensibilities as much as it needs to. They certainly haven't made all the right moves, but there's a reason why you redesign your product.


----------



## TheFindus

RyanD said:


> It was already obvious in 1999 that eBay and Craigslist meant that the genie was already out of that bottle. Easy access to 1e and 2e product was going to be a mass-market phenomenon, no matter what Wizards did.
> 
> I believed then, and believe now, that the only thing uniquely valuable in a go-forward basis to Wizards of the Coast is the Dungeons & Dragons brand. Wizards is the only company that can put that brand on a book and sell it. And if managed correctly, that brand alone should allow Wizards to charge a price premium -- even against people selling the exact same content under a (lesser) brand identity.
> 
> The game rules aren't valuable. The brand equity is the value, connected to the huge social network of folks who want to tap that equity.
> 
> Let me give you an example... (snip)



I have always found it hard to understand why on earth WotC designed the OGL. As I have said upthread, legally it would have been easy to design something with almost the same marketing and networking effect but with more control over the use of the IP.

But I think I finally have the reason why something so obviously damaging to a company's development of future editions was designed anyways.
You said it right here: It was the sense that the game rules are not valuable.

But, Mr. Dancey, they are. The 3e game rules are valuable, because they form the basis of the game people want or do not want to play. The DnD brand by itself did nothing to stop players from moving away from 4E, because these players did not like the rules of that 4E game. This is not a marketing issue. It is a matter play style.
RPGers are really fond of what they consider "their" game. And the rules of the game make that game. 

And since Paizo can legally keep producing 3e, there is a never ending supply for just that 3e game. Whereas buying 1st and 2nd edition material on Ebay falls into the category of going to an antique book store without much current support. 
This makes it so much harder for just the brand "DnD" to reach out to those who now have a valid alternative.

So, with that possible alternative version of the game, when was WotC going to change to a new version? When most people are fed up with the old version? When everything has been said in 3e? When players do not want to play high level campaigns in 3e anymore? What kind of percentage of unsatisfied players has to be reached in order to make a change viable? 51%? 70%?
After all, you do not want to loose too many players. And you want to reach out to new players, too, for which the old rules might not be enough.

I guess these questions are hard to answer in general. And these decisions are on top of the actual designing process of the new version itself.
With the OGL in place, it makes these decisions almost impossible to make.

The competition, however, empowered by the OGL, can just lean back and observe and then decide what they are going to do. Especially if they, like Paizo, have been empowered by WotC to publish their flagship magazines for years as well. That's some network-building-opportunity for Paizo right there. 
But what a mess for WotC!


----------



## valis

I find the entire premise of his observations absurd.

There are more people gaming now then at any other period of my life. My entire peer group - men, women, children are gaming regularly. Tabletop gaming, not computer or video games. I just do not meet people that haven't or aren't playing some sort of social game with friends. 

In college, even after the release of 3e - even the period around 2004 when 3.5 was being released it required a bit of footwork to find a game. No, I literally do not have room or time to include all the people willing to play in games.

And I'm in one of the most conservative backwater areas of the nation, and I can spit an hit people playing games on a weekly basis. Who the hell needs a Brick and Mortar store that never ever has what you need in stock.


----------



## Klaus

Brix said:


> Claudio, didn't you start taking free commissions on this board? I know some artist who did (William O' Connor e.g). I see his credits now regularly in almost any Dungeon or Dragon magazine.
> The price is not fair, of course you can (and should) pay more. But it's a good start for newcomers.
> Another possibilty is to buy stock art from people over at elfwood and deviant art.
> I'm just trying to say, that it's possible to get these things rolling (cheaply), and that wizards could benfit from selling this yet unreleased stuff.



I did free art for my website (which I started just prior to 3e's release), and started working for very little, 10 years ago. But I still think you need to have a decent rate for illustrations (and writing), otherwise artists will be forced to take lots of commissions and end up doing rushed work. Sure, starting artists will probably work for less, but there is a limit to what "less" is (and putting one's name out there should never be considered payment).


----------



## Matt James

Klaus said:


> (and putting one's name out there should never be considered payment).




Quoted for emphasis.


----------



## Cergorach

Brix said:


> Slave labour. Actually I can produce and distribute my magazine (10.000 issues per month, 32 pages) for about $3500, and everybody is happy. The mag is also available for free.
> 
> But PDF publishing is a different matter. $1733 is a decent salary in germany, although admittedly not very good and (at least for editors) not compliant with standard rates.
> 
> However my estimate was based on a "per issue" calculation, not an overall "per month" calculation.
> And please consider that releasing this stuff is on top of all other sales activities. So you don't have to pay taxes, rent, etc from this money.
> It's additional income for the company.
> Everybody understands would understand, if these products would only contain nice b/w artwork. If you have good freelance artist, who work fast, you can talk them to do the stuff for less money, if they can paint - let's say - 20 pictures per week.




$1733 is around €1386, that's around €16600 a year before taxes, doesn't unemployment pay more then that? You don't have to pay taxes? If you have inhouse editors and artists sitting around doing nothing, I might agree with you, but if that's happening, your doing something else wrong.

And $10 for a 32 page pdf, no way people would pay that on a regular basis. Especially not a low quality publication, I'm getting more pages, in full color, in high quality, for less (comparable products). That's not even talking about the $10 Pathfinder 300+ page pdf files. A Pathfinder adventure path is 96 pages, full color, high quality and is $14. A 32 page pdf might net you $5, but only in color and high quality...

$72 nets a subscriber a years worth of DDI subscription, Dungeon and Dragon magazine already net at 1600-1700 pages a year, you really think that the dedicated 4E fan will jump at the $5 32 page pdf publication?

To be honest, I would think that unpublished material goes to Dungeon and Dragon Magazine.


----------



## Morrus

Brix said:


> Let's put it in another direction:
> A 32 page PDF should cost no more than $1000 to produce (all costs included)
> [I say it can be done even for less money]
> If you sell it for $10 dollar you need 100 people to buy it for break even.
> That should be possible with brands like Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc..




Depends who you want to write an illustrate it.  If you want some big names, you pay a lot more.  

Writing, in particular, could go from less than a cent per word up to 8-10 cents per word very easily.


----------



## Morrus

Klaus said:


> I (and putting one's name out there should never be considered payment).




I agree completely.  I think it's insane that people still try that one.


----------



## Mark CMG

TheFindus said:


> I have always found it hard to understand why on earth WotC designed the OGL.





It was a good move.  The bad move was moving away from it again.  As Kenzer (and Mayfar and others before them), have shown, you don't need an OGL to produce materials for another system.  However, if someone uses the OGL to launch their system and raise the tide for all boats, they can get a lot more oars in the water pulling in the direction you wish to go.  Again, the mistake wasn't launching the OGL, it was walking away from it after seeing how powerful a market force it can be.  There were other mistakes (like driving folks off the d20 System License with the "morals" clause) but launching the OGL in the first place wasn't one of them.


----------



## Mercurius

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>   <o:AllowPNG/>  </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <w:TrackMoves/>   <w:TrackFormatting/>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <woNotPromoteQF/>   <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>   <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>   <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>    <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>    <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>    <wontFlipMirrorIndents/>    <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>   </w:Compatibility>   <m:mathPr>    <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>    <m:brkBin m:val="before"/>    <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45-"/>    <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>    <m:dispDef/>    <m:lMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:rMargin m:val="0"/>    <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>    <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>    <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>    <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>   </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"   DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"   LatentStyleCount="267">   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>   <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; 	mso-style-noshow:yes; 	mso-style-priority:99; 	mso-style-parent:""; 	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; 	mso-para-margin-top:0in; 	mso-para-margin-right:0in; 	mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; 	mso-para-margin-left:0in; 	line-height:115%; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:11.0pt; 	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; 	mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; 	mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; 	mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; 	mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]-->  Very entertaining and informative read, thanks for that, Mr. Dancey. 

A couple thoughts to add to the mix. First, I think the elephant in the room that Dancey is implying to the point of almost outright spelling out (but seemingly doesn't want to just say it) is that a lot of the problems in the RPG industry right now have to do with poor decisions and management and a simple lack of vision, particularly on the part of Wizards of the Coast. I just don't see any way around it. Yeah, the rise of MMOs and various other factors created the "storm conditions" but Wizards simply hasn't been a well-steered ship, from about 2003 until recently. What occurs in 2012 should be very telling as to the direction that this "ship" will take.

On another note, I am a bit concerned about this insistent meme that the only way TRPGs are going to survive is if they are able to compete with MMOs. Someone mentioned breaking down the barriers altogether and just talking about RPGs in the largest sense of the word, so that MMOs and TRPGs (and other forms) are all part of the same category. This just isn't true except in the most superficial sense; in some ways, TRPGs and MMOs/video games are _opposite _experiences--the former is an in-person social experience of shared imagination, while the latter is (usually) a solo experience (at least in "meatspace") of virtual immersion. 

TRPGs is an organic experience, whereas MMOs/video games is synthetic. One is self-generated and requires those involved engaging in an active cognitive process, whereas the other is responsive to external stimuli and is more passive. Another major difference between the two is that TRPGs can touch into the artistic domain, both in terms of collaboration within a game session--a co-created story and dramatic presentation--and in terms of the creative work that a GM engages in; MMOs/video games require no artistry, no creativity, except on the part of the designers themselves.

I've used this analogy before, but the difference between the two is very similar to the difference between reading a book and watching a movie. When you read a book you are creating images within your own mind based upon what you read--you are actively imagining the story, whereas in a movie you are simply perceiving and responding to external imagery. A further difference in this regard is that, unlike reading a book that you buy in a store, the group--especially the GM--actually _writes _the book (with the GM engaging in a further level of creativity through world building).


 My bias is rather obvious--I'm not a big fan of video games and see them as not only as something opposite to TRPGs, but actually _opposed _and detrimental to not only the TRPG industry but the creative capacities that TRPGs engender and engage.

So my view is that for TRPGs to not only "survive but thrive" they need to focus on what they do best; this does not mean disavowing technology, but using it in a manner that better facilitates that which TRPGs do best: the free play of the imagination.

On a more practical note, while I think the Pathfinder Beginner Box is an excellent product and a great model for WotC when they think about how they're going to present D&D 5E, I think one more "in-between" stage would be helpful, a very inexpensive (even free), and very slim introductory product that could be slipped into other products and offered as a free PDF download, as well as widely distributed. Imagine a 24-page booklet that is something akin to the Red Box's learn-as-you-play approach. Then, at the end of the booklet, you have a page saying "Where to Go Next?" And then you can advertise your introductory box set as the true entry point into the game. Then, in the intro box, you have further advertisements discussing the more advanced Player's Handbook, DMG, etc.



RyanD said:


> It's hard to write for new players. Most people in the industry have never done it. They write for players assumed to know a lot about RPGs (even when they _think_ they're writing for new players.) They also have never written for kids. Wanna see something interesting? Find a kid who hasn't played many games and ask them to "draw a hand of cards". If there's paper and pencil nearby, you'll likely get a funny illustration. We take so much terminology for granted.




Very true. In some ways it reminds me a car mechanic trying to explain what's wrong with a car to the owner, or a computer tech trying to explain what's going on with a non-techy person's laptop. Now the problem is that these folks can't "translate down"--this has been a problem for decades of geekdom. This problem is further compounded with the basic fact that many geeks have poor interpersonal skills, so when you have geeks running a company with poor interpersonal skills and an inability to "translate down" their complex abstract thinking, you end up having a group that can only talk with others of their ilk.


----------



## Brix

Morrus said:


> I agree completely.  I think it's insane that people still try that one.




I don't want to go to much off topic, but please ask yourself, if you (artist, writer, etc) would have gotten so far, if you would have not give away some of your creativity for free? Your (good) "name" comes from many, many unpaid hours of painting or writing for the community.
After countless message board threads, art commisions, and unreplied submissions, you were given the chance to actually earn money as freelance artists, self-publishing website or freelance writers.

(Unfortunatly) no company would pay someone who cannot present some kinde of references.

However just to be clear: I do not promote that kind of business model for WotC. So please don't bash me if some of these number are to low.

My main thesis is:
* WotC could earn some additional money by supporting their settings with fair priced (and fair payed) PDFs by using unpublished material.


----------



## Morrus

Brix said:


> I don't want to go to much off topic, but please ask yourself, if you (artist, writer, etc) would have gotten so far, if you would have not give away some of your creativity for free? Your (good) "name" comes from many, many unpaid hours of painting or writing for the community.
> After countless message board threads, art commisions, and unreplied submissions, you were given the chance to actually earn money as freelance artists, self-publishing website or freelance writers.




I'm not an artist or a writer.


----------



## Marius Delphus

Brix said:


> * inhouse editor four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)
> * inouse layout: four hours for a web enhancement ($40),  two days for a 32-page ($160)



Not to belabor the point, but even assuming these deadlines are realistic (I don't know how fast *they* work...), these (WOTC) people earn much more than $10 per hour.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Mercurius said:


> A couple thoughts to add to the mix. First, I think the elephant in the room that Dancey is implying to the point of almost outright spelling out (but seemingly doesn't want to just say it) is that a lot of the problems in the RPG industry right now have to do with poor decisions and management and a simple lack of vision, particularly on the part of Wizards of the Coast. I just don't see any way around it. Yeah, the rise of MMOs and various other factors created the "storm conditions" but Wizards simply hasn't been a well-steered ship, from about 2003 until recently. What occurs in 2012 should be very telling as to the direction that this "ship" will take.



Yeah.



> TRPGs is an organic experience, whereas MMOs/video games is synthetic. One is self-generated and requires those involved engaging in an active cognitive process, whereas the other is responsive to external stimuli and is more passive. Another major difference between the two is that TRPGs can touch into the artistic domain, both in terms of collaboration within a game session--a co-created story and dramatic presentation--and in terms of the creative work that a GM engages in; MMOs/video games require no artistry, no creativity, except on the part of the designers themselves.
> 
> I've used this analogy before, but the difference between the two is very similar to the difference between reading a book and watching a movie. When you read a book you are creating images within your own mind based upon what you read--you are actively imagining the story, whereas in a movie you are simply perceiving and responding to external imagery. A further difference in this regard is that, unlike reading a book that you buy in a store, the group--especially the GM--actually _writes _the book (with the GM engaging in a further level of creativity through world building).
> 
> 
> My bias is rather obvious--I'm not a big fan of video games and see them as not only as something opposite to TRPGs, but actually _opposed _and detrimental to not only the TRPG industry but the creative capacities that TRPGs engender and engage.



To add on to the book/movie analogy, I do think that computer games are very different from tabletop rpgs. That being said, they can also be synergistic-as can books and movies. People (except possibly for addicts, which is a concern with WoW) generally engage in a number of diverse forms of entertainment.

My time spent playing Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Dragon Age, and so on is not a replacement for my D&D sessions. However, I learned a lot about the D&D rules and the tone of the setting from BG, and a got a lot of ideas for my campaigns from these games (and from books, movies, TV, etc.). Almost all D&D players seem to play computer games, as well as to be engaged in high-quality dramatic fiction in some form, and engaging strategy gaming in some form. I conclude that MMOs are different and perhaps even opposed to tabletop rpgs, but that modern people are entirely capable of multitasking.

So I think the Dragon Age rpg has it right, for example. It's a different experience with different rules than the cRPG. It is, however, a fairly successful and engaging tabletop rpg experience. If D&D was run competently, had quality rules and an appropriate license, and had a tie-in computer game of similar quality to Dragon Age (the first one), I think it would be doing even better than DA. That isn't happening, unfortunately.


----------



## Brix

Cergorach said:


> $1733 is around €1386, that's around €16600 a year before taxes, doesn't unemployment pay more then that?
> ...



I can only speak for germany. The avarage income is 22.000 US-$ per year



Cergorach said:


> A 32 page pdf might net you $5, but only in color and high quality...



I disagree. Many 3rd party publishers get their stuff sold for $5. I think a 32-page official D&D PDF will be received well (b/w with good artwork)



Cergorach said:


> $72 nets a subscriber a years worth of DDI subscription, Dungeon and Dragon magazine already net at 1600-1700 pages a year, you really think that the dedicated 4E fan will jump at the $5 32 page pdf publication?



I'm sorry, but the dedicated 4E fan pays a lot of money for pages and pages full of new powers, that even an intern could develop.

But speaking of DDI: If WotC would support all systems and settings (with pre 4E material), this would make it interessting for me to subscibe. But I don't wan't to pay $72 per year for 1 or 2 post-4E FR material e.g.
Even better would be a flexible system, like FR subscriptions for less money, etc


----------



## Klaus

Brix said:


> I'm sorry, but the dedicated 4E fan pays a lot of money for pages and pages full of new powers, *that even an intern could develop.
> *




Wow. That is so wrong, I don't even know how to reply.

Regarding work for free, yes, artists do it to promote themselves. It's called a "portfolio", and we do it on our own time, in addition to our *paid* work.

Do you ask a plumber to fix your sink for free, and in exchange you'll put in the good word with your neighboors? An artist or writer isn't any different.


----------



## Brix

Marius Delphus said:


> Not to belabor the point, but even assuming these deadlines are realistic (I don't know how fast *they* work...), these (WOTC) people earn much more than $10 per hour.



Again I can only speak for germany.
We have an discussion about minimum wages. It's currently at 8,5 Euro ($10,98)


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Klaus said:


> Do you ask a plumber to fix your sink for free, and in exchange you'll put in the good word with your neighboors? An artist or writer isn't any different.




Except that obviously to a fair amount of gamers it is different. I'll say this and it's not just limited to gamers, people in general dont appreciate or value the work that gets put into any endeavor unless IT'S THIER WORK or ENDEAVOR. 

It's not just artists and writers either. Look how easy it is for the average person to crap all over a book or movie that they dont like. Not even a BAD movie or book, just one that they dont like. They dont value that hundreds of people worked on the movie or that while the story may not be to their liking that the movie is shot well or the direction and pacing is spot on. NO. The first instinct is to crap all over it. 

I work in IT and I cant tell you the amount of time that the work that I do is taken for granted. And no your cousin cant do what I to fix your problem and neither can your kids. Because if they could? YOU WOULDN'T BE BOTHERING ME WITH THIS CRAP. 

Bottom line? People dont value the work and effort. I do. Which is why I dont mind paying for RPG's and RPG material that I want. Even when I get something for free if it's of quality? I value it as much as if I paid for it. If it's not of quality I simply dont accept it.


----------



## Brix

Klaus said:


> Wow. That is so wrong, I don't even know how to reply.
> 
> Regarding work for free, yes, artists do it to promote themselves. It's called a "portfolio", and we do it on our own time, in addition to our *paid* work.
> 
> Do you ask a plumber to fix your sink for free, and in exchange you'll put in the good word with your neighboors? An artist or writer isn't any different.




No offence. Let's settle this. I like your artwork

Unfortunatly I'm pressed into a position I don't advocate.
I was estimating the cost based on how I would do it as a startup. I said elsewhere, that WotC is an entirely diffrent matter. They can certainly pay $20 for a good black & white picture. < pun

Let me ask you a serious question. How long does it take you to to paint a good b/w picture?


----------



## Cergorach

I'm seeing 56 page B&W adventures for $10, but those have always been more expensive then usual. A 160 page book for $10 with 300+ rituals. Level up is 64 pages and $4. But I'm also seeing 16 page expansions for $5. But would you accept that kind of quality and price from a publisher like WotC these days? I don't think folks will, folks don't mind paying for quality, but 32 pages of discarded material that didnt make the book, wrapped in a subpar wrapper isn't exactly quality.

I'm seeing a lot higher 'average' salaries for Germany, as high as €41.000 from a research from 2010. $22.000 => €17.600, that's just above the minimum salary in the Netherlands (€17.360). There's a BIG difference between average income (which is €22.000 in the Netherlands) and average salary. With average income, they take all the income be that a salary or a social stipend and divide that by the number of citizens including folks that don't work (including children). The average salary of those working in the Netherlands is €34.600, I doubt it's much different for Germany.

And an Editor, Layout artist or an Illustrator aren't exactly low-end jobs. I see folks taking significant lower salaries in the non-profit sector, but when it's for a business that aims to make more money (like WotC, aka. Hasbro) folks don't accept a pittance...

And what's this mumbling about supporting multiple editions? For a property like D&D it isn't doable, to much stuff out there, a market that is already split up amongst many RPGs isn't going to support even older editions. It would kill the business. But as I have said before, what one find unprofitable, someone else could find profitable. The problem is the D&D brand, it's worth a lot, so getting a license to produce D&D 1E products isn't going to happen, because such a license would be prohibitively expensive, even if WotC/Hasbro was inclined to license out D&D 1E.

I'm currently working on a new Mecha line, I'm getting new B&W line art designs done at $50, that's relatively cheap. If I want an established popular name, I'm quickly paying $150 per illustration/design. I'm currently working with someone that is relatively new in the field, and delivers some cool designs, but isn't a professional yet. If he keeps growing he will ask/get more and it'll be worth it.

In 2003 someone who did color illustrations for Dungeon/Dragon magazine (those single class/monster illustrations) got him $150, which he thought was quite good, but it was an established magazine.


----------



## OpsKT

RyanD said:


> (in response to my citation of the number of FLGS left in the North American market).
> 
> Yes, certainly.  I was paid by a client while I ran my consulting business to reach out to as many such stores as could be located.  To build the necessary database I compiled information from SIC codes and from on-line yellow pages and by doing state by state searches of business licenses.  I added in the retail lists I had been keeping for years for my own businesses, as well as contacts screen scraped from many publisher sites.  I think GAMA may have distributed a retailer list after one of the GTS shows (but I honestly don't remember at this point).  Then I hired an outsourced firm overseas to call all of the phone numbers we were able to generate and we had our outsourcers ask the people who answered a series of simple questions to see if they were brick & mortar stores and if they sold hobby game products beyond just D&D and Magic.  Given the time that has passed since that work was performed (more than 5 years) I'm saying the number is likely 750 FLGS +/- 250.




Thanks for this. I was not calling you or Lisa lairs (as implied by another earlier) but as a general academic rule, you mistrust numbers you don't see yourself unless you at least know _how_ they were gathered. Thank you. That makes sense as a way to have gathered those numbers that would be accurate. 



RyanD said:


> "Flight to Quality" isn't something publishers do.  It's something consumers do.  And it's an emergent behavior, not a planned or scripted thing.  It just happens because most people are rational, and in a shrinking market, the rational thing is to go where most of the other people are going.  Once it starts, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.  In Pathfinder's case, it's well past the starting point.
> 
> You've got a twisted and mistaken idea about the people who make RPGs (D&D, Pathfinder, etc.) if you think they're driven by automatic response to market research and focus groups.  By and large they're ad hocing it just like they always have.  In fact, I'd bet that by far there's more tension as the market research folks try to convince designers not to do something than there is effort expended trying to get them to do something based on research.  It's a hair pulling experience to convince a designer who *knows* they're right about something that the data shows they aren't.




It sounds like this is a terminology difference based on matters of scale. In my business classes (currently in senior year finishing a second Bachelor's degree in Business Information Systems) we discussed flight to quality as what happens when large mass manufactures contract around the goods/lines that both sell well and have a high margin. For example, GM cutting the popular lines of Pontiac and Saturn, even thought the consumers were buying them and they were popular because the margins were still too low _even with people buying them as very popular brands_. 

I could see in a smaller market where that contraction would be more of a response to consumer actions than margins, but only to a point. Star Wars Saga Edition was very popular, but WotC decided to end it because in part it had too low a margin with the licensing fees. 

That said, how much of this flight to quality is due to the game _being_ good, as opposed to the _perception_ that the game is good? While Pathfinder is a decent system, it was built on the bones of D&D v3.5, and as a result has most of the problems that v3.5 had intact. 4e has it's own set of problems (while I think that both games problems stem form being level based over 'organic' that is a topic for another time and thread), but at least it is more consistent among levels with those problems. Pathfinder still has 'liner fighter, quadratic wizard' issues even with the new gifts to the martial style classes. 

Or, and this is impossible to easily measure I'd admit, but should be considered, how much of this perceived flight to quality is due to the edition wars and the _perception_ that one game is winning over the other? While the edition wars have pretty much drove me away from running both, how many feel like they have to be forced into one or the other to find people to play with? Which is a shame, because I do believe there is room for both, as each does the 'Generic Fantasy' genre with a different feel. 

Part of this, I think, is that in the industry, the GMs have an unusual amount of clout. In video games, anyone can buy and play. In TRPGs, it is often the DM who buys, runs, plans, and chooses the game for the entire group (in part, often because they have the money to buy this stuff). 



RyanD said:


> Fair enough - it was done by my marketing department.  It's only fair that I take the shot for it.  It was in bad taste, I wish it hadn't been done, and if I had the chance to do it over again, I'd have intervened to stop it if I had the chance to do so.




I give you full credit and award for being a good enough man to admit that was a mistake and not try and gloss over it. I don't care what the people on the Eve Online forums might say about you, you just earned big points in my book. 

Do I really think the companies as a whole are encouraging the edition wars? No, of course not. That's bad business form to attack your competitors directly. But do I believe that marketing people might be taking advantage of that? Sure, to a point. We're all human. We want to feel like we've made the right product choice and that we 'won.' 

But the industry as a whole would be well served by doing what they can to get everyone back in the Big Tent®, and then working with the consumers to figure out how to get more people to come in the front flap and see what we have to offer. 



RyanD said:


> The DDI should not be a hypertext version of the rules.  That should be free anyway.  DDI should be tools to help you manage your game and your characters.  It should be editorial content to help you enjoy your game session more.  It should be lore and backstory for campaign settings.  It should be a library of content not published in books that you can access for a small fee - stuff that's got too small an audience to be worth printing, but that *YOU* might find really helpful (like for example a few dozen more Fey creatures).
> 
> DDI should also be a community organizing tool that helps you find groups, form groups, and gather groups into larger groups so that folks have a sense of a real-world social network.
> 
> DDI should also be a place for playtesting and feedback, where the designers can get immediate and real-world input on the work they're doing.
> 
> And obviously it should be a portal to content:  All the content that TSR/Wizards has ever published (and that they have rights to) should be available for a reasonable fee.
> 
> Why can't I browse a list of monsters (thousands and thousands), select any number I wish, and have a POD version of a Monster Manual custom built to my specifications sent to me (electronically or in print)?  Why can't I build my own spell books for my campaign from a list of spells (thousands and thousands) and do the same?
> 
> Wizards has all the data necessary to enable a whole new way of formatting the game - customized directly for *YOU*, as opposed to generically.  DDI could be the portal to that.
> 
> The material released as Open Game Content is just the tip of the iceberg of value that Wizards controls.




In this we fully agree, and before I finally deleted my account and quit their forums because I was sick of the edition wars, I said very similar things often on the boards at WotC. 

Let me ask you if this makes sense -- I have been saying since the first Character Builder was released that the CB should be a free product to use (online or offline, doesn't matter). It would let you pick your powers, do the math, and so on. And it would make you a character sheet. 

But only the sheet. No power and item cards. Powers and feats just listed by name. To know what all that stuff you added to it *DOES* (read: your powers and magic items, rituals for certain caster classes), you'd need to own the books that stuff was in. 

Therefore, WotC would give away _convenience_ with the CB, but actually encourage people to _buy the books._ 

Does that make sense based on your experience? And, if it does, would Paizo consider doing that for Pathfinder?

And as an end note, to someone else --



AbdulAlhazred said:


> One thing that the computer gaming industry has done is to coalesce around a small number of online platforms, Steam, for instance is a one-stop-shop where you can instantly purchase and play a vast array of games. Nothing like that exists in the TT RPG industry.




Well, it does actually. They are called Amazon (where I get most of my physical game books because my UFLGS never has stock) and DriveThruRPG. If the companies started doing Kindle editions, I'd get those via Amazon (for supplements, I still like physical core books to reference at a table).


----------



## Klaus

Brix said:


> No offence. Let's settle this. I like your artwork
> 
> Unfortunatly I'm pressed into a position I don't advocate.
> I was estimating the cost based on how I would do it as a startup. I said elsewhere, that WotC is an entirely diffrent matter. They can certainly pay $20 for a good black & white picture. < pun
> 
> Let me ask you a serious question. How long does it take you to to paint a good b/w picture?



Depending on size (1/3, 1/2 or full page) and complexity (portrait, scene, humongous battle with dozens of creatures and characters) it can take anything from one to four days, in addition to the back and forth of doing sketches and reasonable revisions before doing the final piece.


----------



## Brix

Cergorach said:


> .. And what's this mumbling about supporting multiple editions?



That was a suggestion from another poster in this thread.
You can also support multiple editions by publishing edition-neutral fluff
I know of high quality fluff that didn't make it into a book. For example the web enhancement for the Mysteries of Moonsea accessory. This was already announced, but was not released, because 4E came, and wizards did not want to publish pre-FR-material anymore. I guess it was already finished at that time complete with $150 artwork and the best payed editors and layouters the world has ever seen.

I'd pay $1,99 for it.
I guess at least 500 other people would buy it, too.
That's $1000 Euro for putting the damned thing online.

Not doing it is simply stupid (and it was stupid at that time)
Not only would this approach generate money. It would also bring back many 4E-deserters.


----------



## freeAgent

I joined this site just to reply to this article.

I agree that the TRPG market is contracting and has been since at least the mid-late 90s.  My first experience in RPGs was with AD&D when one of my friends and his older brother allowed me to sit in on one of their sessions and play a character.  I thought it was really cool and wanted to play more.  This was probably in 1995 and I was 10 years old.

Unfortunately, I had a hard time finding anyone to play with other than my one friend and his older brother.  In fact, I had a hard time playing with them, because it was really the older brother's game (he was the DM), which he played with his friends.  I was only able to play with them a handful of other times.  I tried to get some of my other friends interested, but I never had the financial resources to buy a ton of books, so I was stuck with the intro to AD&D box and some random add-ons mostly about the Forgotten Realms campaign setting.  In any case, my attempts to actually play D&D as a TRPG were a failure.  This was also due to both "hobby" games stores I knew of in my area going out of business (Fantasy Forum and Arlington Comics and Cards, though the latter was primarily a Magic Cards shop).

I still read the Forgotten Realms novels, and I played Baldur's Gate/II, NWN, and stuff like that on the computer but TRPGs were essentially dead to me for over a decade.  When computers and the internet became more widespread, I used them to play computer games and not to connect with pen and paper RPG players.

Fast forward to the near-present.  I was discussing geeky hobbies at a party recently and found that a couple friends-of-friends used to play or still do play TRPGs.  We decided to throw a D&D (3.5e) party and it was a blast.  Everyone had a great time, even people who had never played an RPG before.  At this point, I decided the time was right to try and get back into TRPGs.

I checked out what games were out and what was popular.  I discovered Pathfinder and thought it was awesome that Paizo publishes PDFs of all their books, so I jumped in.  I also got the Legends of Drizzt boxed game to see how that was.  I played it once with a few friends and really hated it since it's so limited and has no roleplaying component.  Its only redeeming quality as far as I'm concerned is that it brings back memories of the R. A. Salvatore novels I enjoyed as a kid.

So, Pathfinder it was.  I looked at the local community for gaming and found that there is one out there in Chicago (which seems to be centered around Chicagoland Games/Dice Dojo and the Chicago Order of Weekend Screwballs).  Unfortunately it's not in a convenient location for me and I can't play during the week at all.

So, I decided to start my own group.  It includes:


My girlfriend, who hadn't played RPGs until two months ago
Two other friends of mine who had never played TRPGs, but are big into board games.
A friend of the other two friends who has 3.5 experience
A person I found on Meetup who had been looking for a weekend group in the downtown Chicago area since at least May, 2011 (this was in December).  She had played 3.5 and probably earlier editions as well.
As the organizer of the group, I became the de facto DM/GM.  This was a pretty daunting thing to jump into because I have very little time to read and write adventures and I hadn't played Pathfinder or D&D since the 90s.  Since my overall investment in TRPGs quickly went from $0 to around $300 not including my time, I wanted to make sure I was successful this time around.



I was glad to find that Paizo also offered the Adventure Paths, so I went that route.  I also got Hero Lab.  I've found these to be invaluable time-savers for someone like me.  I also found Hero Lab files for all the NPCs in the Adventure Path I chose (Second Darkness) and Combat Manager.  These tools have all allowed me to successfully GM my first two sessions with MUCH less time commitment than I would otherwise need to invest.  With resources like Hero Lab and d20pfsrd.com, I don't even have to know all the rules and the rules, tables, math, etc. behind everything since it can be referenced on the fly.  This is great.


Anyway, all that is a roundabout way of saying that for someone like me the new online and technology-assisted resources aren't just nice.  They're necessary.  Things are still not incredibly user-friendly for someone completely uninitiated (like most of my group).  Unless you've already played RPGs before or are otherwise extremely motivated, you'd be hard pressed to locate all of the great resources out there before giving up and going back to CRPGs or whatever else you do in your limited free time.


I think that in order to really grow the TRPG business, a publisher needs to find a way to dramatically cut down on the time and effort needed to get started.  Right now, tools are generally spread across the internet.  The problem with this is that someone who first goes to Paizo or WotC (or Amazon) will most likely not get exposed to any of this unless they do more digging on their own.  They'll get a game that's playable only if you do TONS of manual work with pens and paper.  The publishers should start trying to partner with or absorb the groups putting out computer/internet-based tools and resources so they can cut down the up-front time commitment and present a more unified system of play to the consumer.  Basically, in order to compete with CRPGs on a long-term basis publishers need to try and make their games as accessible as possible without dumbing them down like the D&D boxed games.  At this point, nobody has done that.  Paizo has come closer by releasing books in PDF format and declaring Hero Lab the "official" character generator for Pathfinder, but they still have a long way to go.  The frustrating part is that the parts are already out there, but nobody has put them together yet.


----------



## S'mon

"My instinct is that Pathfinder will be the lifeboat that the long-term hobbyists will use to keep the social network from fraying past the point of no return."

I play/DM at the London Dungeons & Dragons Meetup, which is accessible to anyone who can google 'Dungeons & Dragons' and 'London'.  We have dozens of regular players, around a dozen different campaigns running at a time (weekly or fortnightly), we would probably have even more players if venue space was unlimited.  But generally speaking, if you live near London and are ok with playing in a pub, you can get a game with us.

From what I see, Pathfinder is certainly popular, but the typical new player has heard of 'Dungeons & Dragons' and turns up bright eyed & bushy-tailed with a 2008 4e D&D Player's Handbook.  That will only change if WoTC issue a new book called "D&D Player's Handbook" - the Essentials books certainly didn't cut it.

By contrast, at the games stores Pathfinder seems to have the edge over 4e D&D, eg it holds all the best real estate at Orc's Nest, the central London games store that is the common entry point for 'just passing by' new roleplayers.

Not relevant to the Meetup, but online it's the OSR that has a lot of the momentum when it comes to traditional RPGs.  For the fragmented, can't-get-a-game players, whether newbie or grognard, OSR-D&D has the huge advantage that with pre-3e D&D anyone can easily play a real roleplaying game via text-chat, voice-chat, bulletin boards; no rules knowledge required, no funky virtual tabletop technology required.  This is just a niche, but it's a niche that IMO may be increasingly important in terms of the amount of D&D actually being played.


----------



## Cergorach

Brix said:


> I'd pay $1,99 for it.
> I guess at least 500 other people would buy it, too.
> That's $1000 Euro for putting the damned thing online.
> 
> Not doing it is simply stupid (and it was stupid at that time)
> Not only would this approach generate money. It would also bring back many 4E-deserters.




I would probably buy it to for $1.99, BUT...

#1 $1000 is chump change for a company like WotC/Hasbro, the folks discussing it and giving it's seal of approval would probably cost more then $1000.

#2 If you sell 500 units @$1.99 for a product that you don't support anymore, it's 500 people that don't have to buy any of your other products for a while.

#3 WotC has spent a lot of effort killing of their previous editions, so currently folks were forced to go 4E or go home (that didn't go as expected with Pathfinder). Hell, WotC isn't selling any pdfs at the moment no 1E, 2E, 3E or even 4E pdfs, so why would they suddenly start selling a web only product for a measly $1000....


----------



## Gentlegamer

S'mon said:


> By contrast, at the games stores Pathfinder seems to have the edge over 4e D&D, eg it holds all the best real estate at Orc's Nest, the central London games store that is the common entry point for 'just passing by' new roleplayers.



Orc's Nest! I still remember the ads in Dragon from the late 80s to early 90s! The Orc picking his nose with his tongue!






Tiddley Widdley Diddley Plop! The Orcs have got another shoppe! (something like that)


----------



## Morrus

Brix said:


> I'm sorry, but the dedicated 4E fan pays a lot of money for pages and pages full of new powers, that even an intern could develop.




At this point, I think we need to see your super-cheap product produced by interns which rivals the quality of large companies.


----------



## eyebeams

The most accessible form of roleplaying for neophytes is fanfic-based freeform play. These feature:

1) No cost
2) No need to meet anyone physically
3) No need to learn rules
4) Well-known contemporary media properties
5) Multiple free, intuitive tools
6) Platform neutral -- forums, blogs and other web hangouts work well on anything

The idea that a game can be introduced through a tablet/smartphone app is based on the popular notion that young people are "digital natives" who will take the technology for granted. Unfortunately, the "digital native" stereotype is wrong; most smartphone and tablet adopters are over 25. 

This is formidable competition. How can tabletop RPGs catch up? Point by point:

1) Release the core rules for free. This is easy, since pirates already do it anyway. You might as well make it easy and control versions. 4chan's TG and torrenting communities already collaborate on distributing DTRPG PDFs within days of paid release.
2) Encourage the growth of online play communities from a central exchange, without administering it all yourself. I don'y believe dropping wads of cash on a virtual tabletop/toolset is a good idea, because centralized development will always have to catch up with free options. I can already run RPGs through everything from forums to G+.
3) Produce rules that can be learned gradually, without being set aside as a "starter." Throwing down a chunk of change on a game you're supposed to drop after Level 5 (or whatever) immediately creates a barrier between yourself and full adopters. 
4) Current successful licences are all based on existing crossovers between RPGers and other fandoms. This almost never grabs anyone new. Freeform games are usually starved for well-developed, game specific soft content, however. Basically, companies need to start paying for fluff and setting again. This runs contrary to what the majority of game designers and hardcore fans believe, but they're wrong. The collapse of a unitary D&D and the rise of casual freeform proves that the last decade's obsession with building a "better mousetrap" of game systems was a self-indulgent effort that appealed to existing RPG greybeards. The fact is that setting/narrative context is the necessary unifying factor, not systems. The entire project of innovating through system first has had a decade to make a breakthrough. It failed.
5 and 6) It's about time we acknowledged the huge number of people who are not waiting to play through a top down software product, but are already doing so through free stuff. Since these tools are always changing, your community hub needs to stay constantly updated, providing play sites and advice.

The big challenge is to build a profitable business model from it.  The idea of paying for *any* element of an information-centric pursuit is pretty much alien to young people. If you look at conversations that younger gamers actually have about acquiring games, it's all about filesharing -- there is a distinct contempt for the idea of paying for anything. 

In all cases, the trick is to produce something that new consumers want, but can't make themselves. The solution may be some subscription-based freemium model, where the core of the game is free, but the ongoing content/support stream costs money. Lots of people hate that -- I'm not fond of this sort of thing myself -- but current RPG consumers have basically purchased as much as they're going to, and lots of people have less money than they used to.


----------



## billd91

OpsKT said:


> That said, how much of this flight to quality is due to the game _being_ good, as opposed to the _perception_ that the game is good?




Is there a difference? Given the inherent subjectivity in assigning a game good quality, I'd say there really isn't one.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Alphastream said:


> I'm also curious about the basic underpinnings. With very few exceptions, the vast majority of 3rd Party Provider offerings saw no shelf space in my friends' homes (these were both hardcore D&D 3E players and casual ones). I might see one product here or there (Ptolus here, Freeport here), but the vast majority of my friends had very little 3PP. Moreover, they didn't use it. It was shelf liner rather than coveted material (Ptolus being an exception for some!). Today I see the same thing. I see a token set here, pdf terrain there... but the shelf is close to 100% from the main company.
> 
> I get the theoretical concept of a company focusing on one area and having 3PP create the rest, but that hasn't happened. Given that, what, really, is the value of 3PP and the OGL? What am I missing?




I am just going to respond to only this part. While it may be true in your experience and I am sure it is. On the flip side if during the heyday of 3e if you had look and my friends and my shelves you would have seen 3pp books out number official WotC books 2-1 or 3-1 range. It depends a lot of what people want and are looking for out of the game. 3pp is what brought me back to DnD in the first place and what keep me playing DnD. With out i likely would have never gotten back into it or if I had would likely have not stayed with it. But I fully admit I like a lot of niche idea's and products that 3pp cover that big companies don't.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I can't xp ya, Dark Mistress, but I agree wholeheartedly.

I own almost every WotC book from 3e/3.5...and my 3pp stuff outnumbers it by approximately 4 to 1, with that ratio expanding as I find more old stuff to buy (and even moreso if you count Pathfinder).


It was the 3pp stuff that maintained my interest in D&D, and in WotC's crunch splats.


----------



## Brix

Morrus said:


> At this point, I think we need to see your super-cheap product produced by interns which rivals the quality of large companies.




No problem. Give me $1000 and I'll do a fine 32-page product including artwork from Claudio.


----------



## Morrus

Brix said:


> No problem. Give me $1000 and I'll do a fine 32-page product including artwork from Claudio.




You said you'd already produced many such.


----------



## Mark CMG

And to expand on the posts by Dark Mistress and Aberzanzorax, while WotC wouldn't have wanted to produce those lower-margin supplements, it would have been in their interest to release more material from the supplements they did produce into the OGC pool.  Since many 3PPs would have built on those WotC supplements and that OGC, it would have driven those sales for WotC beyond their core books as well.  By that time it seemed that internal arguments over releasing supplemental OGC had past a tipping point and then the naysayers within were bolstering their own side by being able to point to diminishing returns.  But, again, while those diminishing returns would have existed because they were into the supplement producing phase of the edition they might well have still seen larger sales on supplements if they still had the 3PP community driving their supplement sales higher.  That might have staved off a new edition for a couple/few more years.  It was a self-fulfilling prophecy but we can all now see what has come from it.  It is the length of the edition cycle that is now diminishing.


----------



## Lanefan

Regarding all the talk of VTTs, and not knowing a thing about them, my question is this: does using a VTT lock you into a specific rule system?  Or are VTTs malleable enough to support any edition - or any RPG, for that matter?

As for the decline of brick-and-mortar stores, it sure ain't the case in this town!  The metro-area population here is about 300K and there's 4 well-established game stores (three full-line comics/RPGs/collectibles and one M:tG-centred with RPGs etc. available as well) to serve us.  Throw in a decent list of places that either sell some RPG stuff on the side or sell used RPG material, along with an uncountable number of bookstores of all types (mostly independent) and a couple of independent boardgame-centric places, and we're in pretty good shape here.  If that's at all representative of the rest of North America I seriously have to question Mr. Dancey's numbers.

Getting kids into RPGs is one thing, but I suggest another place to look is college campuses.  Perhaps an enterprising RPG company might want to look into sponsoring (even in a very small way) a gaming club on each campus?

Lan-"if I buy online I'm just going to print it out anyway, so why not buy it on paper in the first place"-efan


----------



## S'mon

Dark Mistress said:


> I am just going to respond to only this part. While it may be true in your experience and I am sure it is. On the flip side if during the heyday of 3e if you had look and my friends and my shelves you would have seen 3pp books out number official WotC books 2-1 or 3-1 range. It depends a lot of what people want and are looking for out of the game. 3pp is what brought me back to DnD in the first place and what keep me playing DnD. With out i likely would have never gotten back into it or if I had would likely have not stayed with it. But I fully admit I like a lot of niche idea's and products that 3pp cover that big companies don't.




I agree; during the 3e heyday I spent more on Necromancer Games stuff than WoTC stuff, and Necromancer material has been the basis of the great majority of my D&D campaigns since 2000.  Troll Lord Games is #2, WoTC #3.


----------



## S'mon

Lanefan said:


> As for the decline of brick-and-mortar stores, it sure ain't the case in this town!  The metro-area population here is about 300K and there's 4 well-established game stores (three full-line comics/RPGs/collectibles and one M:tG-centred with RPGs etc. available as well) to serve us.  Throw in a decent list of places that either sell some RPG stuff on the side or sell used RPG material, along with an uncountable number of bookstores of all types (mostly independent) and a couple of independent boardgame-centric places, and we're in pretty good shape here.  If that's at all representative of the rest of North America I seriously have to question Mr. Dancey's numbers.




I doubt it's representative.  Dunno about USA, but here in London, UK, with 8+ million people we have 2 dedicated RPG stores left; Orc's Nest & Leisure Games, plus the Forbidden Planet comic shop stocks RPG stuff.


----------



## IronWolf

Lanefan said:


> Regarding all the talk of VTTs, and not knowing a thing about them, my question is this: does using a VTT lock you into a specific rule system?  Or are VTTs malleable enough to support any edition - or any RPG, for that matter?




MapTool is a very good VTT and is pretty much generic until you add in a framework. By itself MapTool offers you an easy way to share a battlemat online with friends. Each friend can control their own token. MapTool provides lighting effects and vision blocking layers if you want to enable them, but they are not required. It has integrated chat, but for voice you need to use Skype, Ventrilo, Google chat, etc.

There are frameworks available for MapTool that typically support certain game systems. So if you play Pathfinder you grab a Pathfinder framework. If you play 4e you grab a 4e framework. The frameworks start supporting more specific rules, conditions, etc.

MapTool is pretty flexible.


----------



## Brix

Morrus said:


> You said you'd already produced many such.



Yes. It's a regional pop-culture magazin with interviews (this issue Henry Rollins, and Biohazard), cd reviews, game-tips, etc.
We even had a nerdy Interview with Monte Cook two years ago.
Except one (payed) comic painting artist, we have mostly photos of course (which 99% of the time don't cost anything, since this is promotional material).
Still I'm sure I can do a quality 32-pager with 1000 US Dollar that actually get's purchased - at least as a one shot. 
This would be a nice kickstarter project.


----------



## Morrus

Brix said:


> Yes. It's a regional pop-culture magazin with interviews




Well, let's see it then!



> Still I'm sure I can do a quality 32-pager with 1000 US Dollar that actually get's purchased - at least as a one shot.




So why haven't you? You seem confident you can make it profitable.


----------



## Cergorach

Brix said:


> Yes. It's a regional pop-culture magazin with interviews (this issue Henry Rollins, and Biohazard), cd reviews, game-tips, etc.
> We even had a nerdy Interview with Monte Cook two years ago.
> Except one (payed) comic painting artist, we have mostly photos of course (which 99% of the time don't cost anything, since this is promotional material).
> Still I'm sure I can do a quality 32-pager with 1000 US Dollar that actually get's purchased - at least as a one shot.
> This would be a nice kickstarter project.




Yeah, but the point is that you sell enough to cover the initial $1000 and still make a profit. Getting purchased is easy, getting purchased enough is hard. If your so confident that you can, you should do it, otherwise don't act as if you know what your saying.

And Claudio should definitely ask for money upfront...


----------



## Alphastream

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Maybe the game that they ended up with missed their design goals in some ways (I think they didn't really intend it to be played as a 'skirmish game' for instance). Still, I think it would have been a bigger mistake to have not tried. A LOT of new blood plays 4e. At some point the same old game simply doesn't match modern sensibilities as much as it needs to. They certainly haven't made all the right moves, but there's a reason why you redesign your product.




I absolutely agree that the design missed some parts (such as the feeling it lacked storytelling and RP). But, let's keep in mind that 3E at the time was in a terrible downward spiral. Complete Mage, Complete Arcane, Complete Iboughtthatlastmonth... even the really devoted fans were laughing at the offerings. Looking around at organized play, most gamers were very tired of 3E. It was a broken system, bloated, unwelcome to new players, and played like a broken record. 

It was absolutely the right time for 4E. Sales were through the roof, further proving the point. The biggest problem was that the OGL allowed someone else to create a new edition too! Just like Wizards, Paizo offered a new edition - this time a 3.75 rather than going super innovative.  There is no way Wizards could have done that. Had Wizards announced 3.75 and switching solely to a new setting (Golarion) they would have had a dismal failure on their hands. Instead, the OGL let Paizo do this very thing (and outside of taking a while to get started they largely rocked it). The result was two companies with "new" D&D, each with a slightly different take. What would it have been like without an OGL? If one of the points of the OGL was to prevent previous editions from overtaking 3E (as Ryan said) that's very ironic since the OGL allowed 1E, 2E, and 3E to all compete with 4E. Because of this, many fans concluded 4E was an MMO and gave up on it. They switched rather than give it the time we all gave AD&D, 2E, or 3E (despite all of us being able to criticize aspects of each of those).


----------



## Alphastream

SkidAce said:


> Business strategies are not my forte, more of a security planner, but couldn't it have become a "bad" decision because they didn't stick with it?



Why stick with it? What is the benefit?

I have two main problems with the OGL. The first is that you can't turn it off. The second is that you gain no revenue from it. The only revenue is sales of your own material (in theory, 3rd Edition Wizards books). As we see, this has really hurt Wizards' ability to move to another edition. It is fairly crazy that companies can be making all kinds of 3E content and the owner of D&D can't derive any benefit. 

In theory, it should be possible to have a revenue-generating version of the OGL where the main company still gets a cut and where they have control over when they can move to a newer edition (for example, perhaps the cut increases over time once they release a new edition to encourage 3PPs to migrate). Had this been the OGL model Wizards would benefit (as intended) from Paizo's success with the OGL, as well as from any other companies working with the OGL on 1E, 2E, etc. It is possible that in this scenario everyone would be winning.


----------



## Alphastream

Morrus said:


> I agree completely.  I think it's insane that people still try that one.




In business I'm usually in the "never offer something for free" camp. My main reason for this stance is that people value things more when they pay for them. They tend to undervalue, discard, or mistreat free things. 

But, as a provider it can make sense to give your talent for free. Just going through the process of submitting your work, revising, and finishing can be valuable. You sure don't want to do it often!


----------



## Alphastream

Dark Mistress said:


> I am just going to respond to only this part. While it may be true in your experience and I am sure it is. On the flip side if during the heyday of 3e if you had look and my friends and my shelves you would have seen 3pp books out number official WotC books 2-1 or 3-1 range. It depends a lot of what people want and are looking for out of the game. 3pp is what brought me back to DnD in the first place and what keep me playing DnD. With out i likely would have never gotten back into it or if I had would likely have not stayed with it. But I fully admit I like a lot of niche idea's and products that 3pp cover that big companies don't.




I see a lot of gamers through cons and I've lived on both coasts and traveled extensively (and visited a lot of gaming stores). I just haven't seen any substantial upswing at any time in 3PP consumption. It pains me to say that, because I support the concept and I have many friends that worked on 3PP. I just don't see it as being big as a percentage of what average gamers buy. If it isn't big, is it worth promoting by Wizards?

Secondarily there is the question of benefit to Wizards. Sure, having 3PP with d20 can cause gamers to play one thing but then gravitate to D&D, but D&D is a pretty well known entity. If they are looking at a shelf in a store with 3PP, I can't believe they missed the huge shelf stacked full of D&D. Because revenue isn't gained via OGL sales, the sale of OGL needs to somehow generate a D&D sale. I'm not convinced that happens in significant enough numbers. I would love to see information one way or the other. 

My third issue is whether it is critical. I disliked the d20 boom. I didn't need another bad d20 3PP adventure. And while I liked big projects like Ptolus or Iron Heroes, I am much happier when creativity leads to independent stuff like Fiasco, a return to d10 L5R, Eclipse Phase, etc. I suspect that new takes like that are better for the industry and gamers, though it is just my guess and hard to prove either way.


----------



## Mark CMG

Alphastream said:


> I see a lot of gamers through cons and I've lived on both coasts and traveled extensively (and visited a lot of gaming stores). I just haven't seen any substantial upswing at any time in 3PP consumption. It pains me to say that, because I support the concept and I have many friends that worked on 3PP. I just don't see it as being big as a percentage of what average gamers buy. If it isn't big, is it worth promoting by Wizards?





Except that with 3.XE and the OGL it's been proven potentially big so trying to disprove by looking toward 3PP GSL support also proves the point.




Alphastream said:


> Secondarily there is the question of benefit to Wizards. Sure, having 3PP with d20 can cause gamers to play one thing but then gravitate to D&D, but D&D is a pretty well known entity. If they are looking at a shelf in a store with 3PP, I can't believe they missed the huge shelf stacked full of D&D. Because revenue isn't gained via OGL sales, the sale of OGL needs to somehow generate a D&D sale. I'm not convinced that happens in significant enough numbers. I would love to see information one way or the other.





The stack of WotC product in my FLGS, one of the top stores in the nation, hasn't been huge in quite some time.  There's a lof of Paizo material and even older D&D stuff, but not new WotC material.




Alphastream said:


> My third issue is whether it is critical. I disliked the d20 boom. I didn't need another bad d20 3PP adventure. And while I liked big projects like Ptolus or Iron Heroes, I am much happier when creativity leads to independent stuff like Fiasco, a return to d10 L5R, Eclipse Phase, etc. I suspect that new takes like that are better for the industry and gamers, though it is just my guess and hard to prove either way.





Okay, "disliked the d20 boom," liked "Ptolus and Iron Heroes" (Monte Cook and Mike Mearls projects), nothing to say about market leaders like PF and M&M (which are OGL and have vibrant 3PP support), the second of which is from GR which also does many independent projects like Black Company, Dragon Age, etc., you're personally an Admin for the Ashes of Athas 4E D&D campaign . . . I get this feeling we're getting some sense of where 5E might be heading, or definitely not heading, and I appreciate the candor.


----------



## Hussar

Cergorach said:
			
		

> To be honest, I would think that unpublished material goes to Dungeon and Dragon Magazine.




Now that's a great idea.  They already do the "D&D Alumni" section in Dragon right now.  Imagine if they started a small "D&D Reprint" section alongside.  I imagine that there'd be a pretty decent venue for that.

And has the added bonus of padding pagecount nicely for the magazine with minimum work.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Alphastream said:


> Why stick with it? What is the benefit?
> 
> I have two main problems with the OGL. The first is that you can't turn it off. The second is that you gain no revenue from it. The only revenue is sales of your own material (in theory, 3rd Edition Wizards books). As we see, this has really hurt Wizards' ability to move to another edition. It is fairly crazy that companies can be making all kinds of 3E content and the owner of D&D can't derive any benefit.
> 
> In theory, it should be possible to have a revenue-generating version of the OGL where the main company still gets a cut and where they have control over when they can move to a newer edition (for example, perhaps the cut increases over time once they release a new edition to encourage 3PPs to migrate). Had this been the OGL model Wizards would benefit (as intended) from Paizo's success with the OGL, as well as from any other companies working with the OGL on 1E, 2E, etc. It is possible that in this scenario everyone would be winning.




Ehhhhh, I don't think that would work. I'm no game industry expert, but I do know a good bit about open source software. You can certainly license code to other people, its a common business model, but I think Ryan is right to a certain extent, in the gaming world it isn't rules that are all that important, it is more the shared play style and the whole 'culture' of the game. There's just no big reason why (and probably very little money in) licensing out game engines. I can write one pretty easily and certainly the people that do it for a living can knock out core rules in their sleep. A non-free OGL wouldn't be fundamentally an 'O'GL, it would be a license to be dependent on WotC.

In fact the GSL is pretty much exactly what you're suggesting. There is SOME GSL content out there, but not much, and notice it is still FREE, just not OPEN. Open licensing works precisely because you DO surrender control. OGL was a success, and is still a success in and of itself. WotC just picked up its marbles and left the table, so now they're dealt out.

Personally I really LIKE 4e a lot, but the problem it has is cultural, in several ways. First it clearly threatened people's notion of their game. Just by existing as a different game from what they professed loyalty to before it questions that loyalty. Then WotC had the questionable (IE BAD) judgment to pretty much state that 4e was better and 3e was not cool, which just made the threat into a direct attack. That was bad. 

Then WotC overpromised and underdelivered on DDI. DDI is great, but they promised some pie-in-the-sky vision of it instead of what they could deliver. That never makes a good impression. 

There was an even more insidious and in the end perhaps even worse mistake they made. They created Paizo. How much of the staff of Paizo used to work for WotC? How many of their freelancers are ex-WotC employees? Most hideous of all was a master mistake they made years ago. They gave Paizo Dragon and Dungeon AND THEY LET THE CUSTOMERS KNOW. Its one thing to use a service bureau to publish and distribute your publication, but they let Paizo interface with the customers. How do you think Paizo became a game company and had name recognition that they could leverage to put out Pathfinder? WotC made them a name that people knew, and then 'licensed' them a game system that validated a whole disaffected bunch of customers preferences, and handily made available all kinds of talent that could develop for it. 

I don't mean to imply that the people at Paizo didn't do all the right things and haven't busted their tails to make it work. Of course they have, and they've done a wonderful job of interfacing with the customers and the rest of the gaming business community. Still, they were handed a fully cooked meal on a silver platter that only needed to be served. 

Plainly speaking if guys like Ryan were running the D&D division at WotC, where do you think D&D would be? Who knows, but somehow the people that make the decisions there are disconnected from what needed to be done and made basic business mistakes, some of them long before 4e, and they're paying the price now. 

4e itself, in some form, perhaps with different presentation, was basically a logical move, and they made a fine game. They just haven't understood how to please a good chunk of the community and make dumb mistakes. Even so, WotC can survive and if they have the will they can probably just live through it. If they can learn from it then they'll be OK, but I do question whether the corporate culture there is capable of absorbing the lessons it needs to learn.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Alphastream said:


> I see a lot of gamers through cons and I've lived on both coasts and traveled extensively (and visited a lot of gaming stores). I just haven't seen any substantial upswing at any time in 3PP consumption. It pains me to say that, because I support the concept and I have many friends that worked on 3PP. I just don't see it as being big as a percentage of what average gamers buy. If it isn't big, is it worth promoting by Wizards?
> 
> Secondarily there is the question of benefit to Wizards. Sure, having 3PP with d20 can cause gamers to play one thing but then gravitate to D&D, but D&D is a pretty well known entity. If they are looking at a shelf in a store with 3PP, I can't believe they missed the huge shelf stacked full of D&D. Because revenue isn't gained via OGL sales, the sale of OGL needs to somehow generate a D&D sale. I'm not convinced that happens in significant enough numbers. I would love to see information one way or the other.
> 
> My third issue is whether it is critical. I disliked the d20 boom. I didn't need another bad d20 3PP adventure. And while I liked big projects like Ptolus or Iron Heroes, I am much happier when creativity leads to independent stuff like Fiasco, a return to d10 L5R, Eclipse Phase, etc. I suspect that new takes like that are better for the industry and gamers, though it is just my guess and hard to prove either way.




Here's another great Cthulhuoid insight from the software industry. A LOT of success is related to MIND SHARE. It isn't really about the bottom line. You have to have mindshare. In the software industry that comes from developers, and I suspect in a sense it is the same in the TT RPG industry. OGL created mindshare. This is how Linux succeeded. It captured the developers away from the big commercial OS developers. Any kid in his garage, any college student, anyone with a hankering to scratch an itch could get on board and with no investment but time they enjoyed spending use and hack on and build upon an open tool set. And the same thing happened that has happened with WotC too, the Microsofts of the world got cast as the big bad evil corporate guys in suites that want your money. 

Look at what people are DEVELOPING for, not 4e. Again, just like with Linux, the people that get onboard and contribute that mind share are a wedge. They're evangelists, dedicated commandos that went out and set up Linux servers in the closets of the server rooms of the world when the bosses scoffed. The big guys couldn't keep it out, they couldn't get those people back. Nothing they could ever do would make those people toss away their vision and sell out their passion until finally they just won. They won because they could not lose. Mostly they just wanted freedom to do their own thing. It wasn't even a better thing, it was just pleasing to them. 

WotC walked away from the mind share of the whole community AND they alienated half their customers (which might have been inevitable) but the sum total of all those mistakes was a giant mistake, maybe a disaster. The people out there developing games will certainly work for WotC for pay, and there are certainly 4e evangelists among them, but there's a big hunk of people out there in that group that just aren't on WotC's bandwagon anymore. Maybe WotC will just outlive them all and with all its money jump into some new post-digital-RPG business space that nobody else can afford to do, but they sure have given themselves a tough road to walk to get there, IF they can get there.


----------



## William Ronald

At a local game shop in NW Indiana, the owner has said that 4E stuff moves much more slowly than Pathfinder.  There is much more Pathfinder material there as well.

As for the 3E boom, there was a lot of bad stuff.  However, there also was a lot of good ideas.  I really enjoyed some great stuff from Malhavoc Press, Green Ronin and some other publishers.

As for the future, I am not sure what may happen.  Still, I am enjoying the discussion and I am glad to see that it is civil.


----------



## Brix

Morrus said:


> Well, let's see it then!
> 
> saar-scene
> 
> So why haven't you? You seem confident you can make it profitable.




$once I have the $1000 bucks, I'll show you all


----------



## TheFindus

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Ehhhhh, I don't think that would work. I'm no game industry expert, but I do know a good bit about open source software. You can certainly license code to other people, its a common business model, but I think Ryan is right to a certain extent, in the gaming world it isn't rules that are all that important, it is more the shared play style and the whole 'culture' of the game. There's just no big reason why (and probably very little money in) licensing out game engines. I can write one pretty easily and certainly the people that do it for a living can knock out core rules in their sleep. A non-free OGL wouldn't be fundamentally an 'O'GL, it would be a license to be dependent on WotC.



I think it would have been possible. For example, one of the hamstrings of the GSL in comparison to the OGL is section 10.1 "Termination". WotC can basically terminate the liscence whenever they wish to do so, which makes planning for 3rd party companies hard.
You do not have to put something like this in a liscence, though. Instead it could be a timespan of 2, 4, 5+ years, after which the liscence has to be renewed. Other clauses are also possible.



> Personally I really LIKE 4e a lot, but the problem it has is cultural, in several ways. First it clearly threatened people's notion of their game. Just by existing as a different game from what they professed loyalty to before it questions that loyalty. Then WotC had the questionable (IE BAD) judgment to pretty much state that 4e was better and 3e was not cool, which just made the threat into a direct attack. That was bad.



Yeah, I guess that some of the things that were said on podcasts and in interviews were inconsiderate. On the other hand, when Dave Noonan said that he enjoys 4E much more than 3e and would rather not play 3e anymore, I know a lot of people that concurred.

You are in my opinion perfectly right when you say that 4E threatened people's notion of their game. This is what I have been saying upthread: 4E just plays differently than 3e. For me, in a better way, for others, mmmhh, not so much. 4E just is not their game.

And Paizo succeeds in winning those people.
The question that nobody seems to ask is: How many people would have left 3e without a new edition. And to be honest: I would have. I just had enough. And the people I play with had enough, too.



> Then WotC overpromised and underdelivered on DDI. DDI is great, but they promised some pie-in-the-sky vision of it instead of what they could deliver. That never makes a good impression.



It really is mindboggling that they did not have DDI ready to go when they launched 4E. What a mess that was!



> There was an even more insidious and in the end perhaps even worse mistake they made. They created Paizo. How much of the staff of Paizo used to work for WotC? How many of their freelancers are ex-WotC employees? Most hideous of all was a master mistake they made years ago. They gave Paizo Dragon and Dungeon AND THEY LET THE CUSTOMERS KNOW. Its one thing to use a service bureau to publish and distribute your publication, but they let Paizo interface with the customers. How do you think Paizo became a game company and had name recognition that they could leverage to put out Pathfinder? WotC made them a name that people knew, and then 'licensed' them a game system that validated a whole disaffected bunch of customers preferences, and handily made available all kinds of talent that could develop for it.



Yup, that was the second biggest mistake in my opinion, if not the biggest (together with the OGL). Whoever came up with that should not be working with WotC anymore but should be Paizo's worker of the month, the year, the decade. 
And Paizo is so much better at marketing, too. For instance, how did they manage to get the free advertisement praise in the headline of the ENWorld-PF-Forum. It says: "The PATHFINDER RPG from Paizo Publishing is finally here!  Discuss all aspects of the game in this forum!" That sure sounds like a really good product. Finally here! In comparison, the 4E forum states: "Ask questions about D&D 4th Edition rules, discuss the game, and post house rules and fan creations in here."
See? 4E is a game you have questions about and have to make houserules for. Whatever the "aspects" of PF are, aren't we glad, they are finally here?
That ist awesome marketing right there! They really do that well, Paizo does. And most important: they talk to their customers and actually answer questions, too. That makes the gamers feel appreciated, which is always a good thing. 
WotC can learn a lot from Paizo in that regard.



> 4e itself, in some form, perhaps with different presentation, was basically a logical move, and they made a fine game. They just haven't understood how to please a good chunk of the community and make dumb mistakes.



No, the problem is that they designed game rules that a huge portion of the DnD players did not like, but the other, equally huge, portion really likes. Rules matter, they make the game. By making rules that people like, a designer creates the asset of a game company. You should not loose control over those rules, not for eternity.


----------



## Mercurius

Ahnehnois said:


> To add on to the book/movie analogy, I do think that computer games are  very different from tabletop rpgs. That being said, they can also be  synergistic-as can books and movies. People (except possibly for  addicts, which is a concern with WoW) generally engage in a number of  diverse forms of entertainment.
> 
> My time spent playing Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Dragon Age, and so on is  not a replacement for my D&D sessions. However, I learned a lot  about the D&D rules and the tone of the setting from BG, and a got a  lot of ideas for my campaigns from these games (and from books, movies,  TV, etc.). Almost all D&D players seem to play computer games, as  well as to be engaged in high-quality dramatic fiction in some form, and  engaging strategy gaming in some form. I conclude that MMOs are  different and perhaps even opposed to tabletop rpgs, but that modern  people are entirely capable of multitasking.
> 
> So I think the Dragon Age rpg has it right, for example. It's a  different experience with different rules than the cRPG. It is, however,  a fairly successful and engaging tabletop rpg experience. If D&D  was run competently, had quality rules and an appropriate license, and  had a tie-in computer game of similar quality to Dragon Age (the first  one), I think it would be doing even better than DA. That isn't  happening, unfortunately.




OK, good point. This is the ideal and perhaps a reason why it would  behoove WotC to develop an MMO or video game of some kind. A well-made  movie would be a good thing, too, but who knows if that will ever happen  (I still think Dragonlance Chronicles would be the best bet).

But the problem is that TRPGs require a lot more effort: you actually  have to create something, imagine something, spend time planning  sessions, etc. You can't just plug in and start playing. So the danger is that a large number of people will get "stuck" with the video games and never "graduate" to TRPGs.

However, TRPGs are also more rewarding--both socially but also imaginatively; and _that _is the experience that game designers should focus on, which makes TRPGs a relatively unique hobby. In some ways I think the difference between CRPGs and TRPGs is like fast food vs. a well-prepared gourmet meal; the latter doesn't have the quick-fix junk food factor, its tastes are more subtle and complex. But once you develop a palate, you start appreciating gourmet food and won't be satisfied with fast food any longer (at least not on a regular basis!).


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Lanefan said:


> Regarding all the talk of VTTs, and not knowing a thing about them, my question is this: does using a VTT lock you into a specific rule system? Or are VTTs malleable enough to support any edition - or any RPG, for that matter?
> 
> Getting kids into RPGs is one thing, but I suggest another place to look is college campuses. Perhaps an enterprising RPG company might want to look into sponsoring (even in a very small way) a gaming club on each campus?
> 
> Lan-"if I buy online I'm just going to print it out anyway, so why not buy it on paper in the first place"-efan




So much to respond to here!

Almost every VTT is flexible enough for any system that uses dice (I'm not sure about other resolution mechanics like cards).

Some have built in character sheets and such for specific systems with autocalculators, so they "lean" toward a system.


But, overall, pick your favorite system and any vtt, and you're pretty good to go, at least from the VTTs I've seen.




RE: college...ABSOLUTELY!

More money than kids/teens, more time than people out of college, and an interest in discovering new things.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Mercurius said:


> But the problem is that TRPGs require a lot more effort: you actually  have to create something, imagine something, spend time planning  sessions, etc. You can't just plug in and start playing. So the danger is that a large number of people will get "stuck" with the video games and never "graduate" to TRPGs.



Hopefully introductory tie-in products are the bridge to get non-D&D people into tabletop gaming. If D&D doesn't do it, there are certainly other brands out there that are trying. If we ever saw "WoW the rpg", that would be something (nonwithstanding that particular 4e criticism).



> However, TRPGs are also more rewarding--both socially but also imaginatively; and _that _is the experience that game designers should focus on, which makes TRPGs a relatively unique hobby. In some ways I think the difference between CRPGs and TRPGs is like fast food vs. a well-prepared gourmet meal; the latter doesn't have the quick-fix junk food factor, its tastes are more subtle and complex. But once you develop a palate, you start appreciating gourmet food and won't be satisfied with fast food any longer (at least not on a regular basis!).



You'll get no argument from me there. I kind of liken it to the difference between 'Law & Order' and 'The Wire'; once you start watching the latter, something deeper and more reality-based, it's hard to go back to the former (and indeed my games take heavily from The Wire, BSG, and variety of other "it's not TV" TV shows).

To further that analogy, there was a point not so long ago when reality TV hit and quality scripted television seemed to be dying out; it just didn't make monetary sense to produce a really good television show. But then a number of excellent cable networks started putting out great dramatic television, and people frustrated with the big networks flocked to them. The networks have somewhat increased their committment to scripted television since just to compete, but as they're limited in what they can show, cable now has a new niche that isn't going away. Hopefully something similar happens with D&D and its 'flight to quality'.


----------



## S'mon

TheFindus said:


> By making rules that people like, a designer creates the asset of a game company. You should not loose control over those rules, not for eternity.




That's kinda tough then, since rules are specifically excluded from copyright protection.    Apart from the very occasional patent, rules are essentially not protected by Intellectual Property law.


----------



## TheFindus

S'mon said:


> That's kinda tough then, since rules are specifically excluded from copyright protection.    Apart from the very occasional patent, rules are essentially not protected by Intellectual Property law.



I know, but the text of the rules can be protected. Plus iconic names. And that makes all the difference. Otherwise, why the need to design an OGL in the first place? It is to give 3rd party publishers that security.


----------



## S'mon

TheFindus said:


> I know, but the text of the rules can be protected. Plus iconic names.




Names used as a badge of origin for goods & services can be protected as trade marks, but there is no general protection for names, no.


----------



## Marius Delphus

Brix said:


> saar-scene
> $once I have the $1000 bucks, I'll show you all



You do that. Meanwhile, the magazine copies I can see on the website are not bad, but I wouldn't say they're professional quality. It loses a lot of points for using Tahoma (Microsoft fonts are generally eschewed by professional publications). It loses several points for having text that doesn't line up between columns (to be fair, WOTC is also guilty of this sin). I can see where it's trying to be Entertainment Weekly or People or something like that, but there's just not enough "there" there. So it's obviously a low-budget endeavor.

(As an aside, I also quibble with the website delivery -- why can't I download a PDF of an entire issue (the out-of-date ones that are served up via buggy Shockwave)?)


----------



## Marius Delphus

TheFindus said:


> I know, but the text of the rules can be protected. Plus iconic names. And that makes all the difference. Otherwise, why the need to design an OGL in the first place? It is to give 3rd party publishers that security.



Specifically, it's the text that *expresses* the rules that is protected (in addition to "fluff" text, or what I like to call the "D&D story"). The OGL exists for two reasons: (1) to give 3rd party publishers permission to copy expressive text, and (2) to assure 3rd party publishers that they won't be mired in a court battle over what is expressive text, what is part of the "D&D story," and what is unprotectable rules text.


----------



## Henry

Lanefan said:


> As for the decline of brick-and-mortar stores, it sure ain't the case in this town!  The metro-area population here is about 300K and there's 4 well-established game stores (three full-line comics/RPGs/collectibles and one M:tG-centred with RPGs etc. available as well) to serve us.  Throw in a decent list of places that either sell some RPG stuff on the side or sell used RPG material, along with an uncountable number of bookstores of all types (mostly independent) and a couple of independent boardgame-centric places, and we're in pretty good shape here.  If that's at all representative of the rest of North America I seriously have to question Mr. Dancey's numbers.




On the other hand, you've just described an area of 300 thousand people with ONLY 4 game stores. How many of those 4 stores sprung up in the last 5 years, and how much of a percentage of RPG display is devoted in those stores compared to comics and collectibles? I know that in my area (around 600,000 people), the number of comics and RPG stores has not declined, but it's held steady and not grown at all for the past ten years -- the number of new stores pretty much equals the number of failed stores.


----------



## estar

kmdietri said:


> I think I agree with that article's statement that VTT's are an option where TRPG's can compete and recapture some of the market of MMO's.
> 
> Unlike the author though, I believe they can succeed, and not be a white whale for the industry.




VTTs work NOT because they emulate MMOs but rather they use another technology altogether i.e. collaborative whiteboards combined with voice/chat systems. Appended to this are RPG Utilities like dice rollers and interactive character sheets.

The result in package of software pretty complements tabletop roleplaying because you wind up doing roughly the same things as you do when you play or referee a regular tabletop game. There are some differences. Some easier  like fog of war, and secret notes. Some worse, opening ports, server accounts, everybody needing a copy, needing to scan everything to bitmaps, etc.

We can see what a MMO style RPG would look like because of  Bioware's Neverwinter Night.  It had a nearly standard set of 3.x D&D rules built in. It had a decent toolkit of building just about anything you can imagine. However as popular it was it has one problem to do anything sophisticated you needed to be programmer, 3d artist, or a combination of both. The net effect despite it's great tools and slick interface it fails as it is no where near as flexible as a regular tabletop game. 

In contrast if all a VTT does is gives you a dice roller, a way of displaying images, and a chat/voice system everything that a tabletop RPG can do is possible.

What hasn't been done right with VTTs yet is a place people can meet and form games or campaigns. Something that is easy to use and have a large enough players to make worthwhile.  There are some promising avenues but no clear winners yet.

Again what VTTs a win for tabletop roleplaying is that they are a sophisticated Whiteboard and NOT a MMORPG/CRPG.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

estar said:


> What hasn't been done right with VTTs yet is a place people can meet and form games or campaigns. Something that is easy to use and have a large enough players to make worthwhile.  There are some promising avenues but no clear winners yet.
> 
> Again what VTTs a win for tabletop roleplaying is that they are a sophisticated Whiteboard and NOT a MMORPG/CRPG.




This is what I meant when I mentioned Steam earlier. That's the thing about it. You can play a VAST number of games there, buy them instantly, find players, and be part of a community all in one seamless package. I think for TT RPGs it needs to transcend any one publisher or title too in much the same way. Everyone that has even the slightest awareness of any video games that can be played MP knows about Steam, and is likely to even have an account. There are other services too, but you just don't get the same effect when it is too balkanized. With all the titles being on that one platform it is really easy for people to get exposed to new products. This is also rather true with the App Store model for phones/tablets, people DO find stuff and try it out. You might not get a LOT of brand new gamers, but you'll likely capture the potential ones that show up a lot more effectively if you can show them the whole suite of stuff.


----------



## eyebeams

estar said:


> VTTs work NOT because they emulate MMOs but rather they use another technology altogether i.e. collaborative whiteboards combined with voice/chat systems. Appended to this are RPG Utilities like dice rollers and interactive character sheets.




Please explain to me why I should pay for these with a D&D logo on them when I can get them for free with a Google logo on them, especially when the ones with the Google logo will get iteratively more awesome every year and the ones with the D&D logo will suffer spasmodic development tied to the budget and staff assignments.

See, the people who will buy VTTs are old people: over 30s who feel time pressure, want an integrated, canned solution, and do not believe that paying for things is absurd. Everyone else inclined to roleplay already tosses together free web tools. Often, the results are better, because no matter how much you think the iconic fighter is, the average person is going to like Photoshopped Daniel Craig more -- and you can't have that on the company joint.

The developers of VTT software will constantly compete with free tools that feature a more rapid development cycle and bigger budget. They will eventually fail, and will never even do well compared to the alternative. The rare exceptions are things that require complex values specific to the game, like character creators.


----------



## estar

eyebeams said:


> Please explain to me why I should pay for these with a D&D logo on them when I can get them for free with a Google logo on them, especially when the ones with the Google logo will get iteratively more awesome every year and the ones with the D&D logo will suffer spasmodic development tied to the budget and staff assignments.




The only reason to pay for any VTT with a specific RPG logo on them is that they have superior support for a specific set of rules and/or better software tools for RPGs.




eyebeams said:


> See, the people who will buy VTTs are old people: over 30s who feel time pressure, want an integrated, canned solution, and do not believe that paying for things is absurd. Everyone else inclined to roleplay already tosses together free web tools. Often, the results are better, because no matter how much you think the iconic fighter is, the average person is going to like Photoshopped Daniel Craig more -- and you can't have that on the company joint.




First off I was talking of VTTs in general whether you buy something specific or craft on out of existing free tools like Google+ and Skype. The key innovation of VTTs is showing how whiteboards dovetails great with RPGs. I wouldn't be surprised if facebook apps or google+ apps is become the way to use a VTT on-line.  

I disagree it limited to older gamers, any group that get dispersed geographically would find VTTs useful. I heard of hybrid groups where some gamers are physically present while others are present only virtually.

Finally there is always a tension between DIYers and those liking an out of box solution that more expensive. I think it cuts across all ages. Old and young like buying Apple products, Old and young like messing around with Android and so on.




eyebeams said:


> The developers of VTT software will constantly compete with free tools that feature a more rapid development cycle and bigger budget. They will eventually fail, and will never even do well compared to the alternative. The rare exceptions are things that require complex values specific to the game, like character creators.




I may happen yet, but so far in VTTs OpenRPG has lagged considerably behind Fantasy Grounds, Battlegrounds and it's competitors. Another consideration is that current leading VTTs have good support for specific rulesets. 

My prediction, as such, is that the first VTT tools to make it easy for gamers to find a large number of campaigns to play will quickly become THE way to play RPGs over the internet.  It will come not from one of the existing VTT companies but from someone with a preexisting large social network of gamers Google+, RPGNow, Paizo, Wizards,etc. The existing VTTs will survive by offering better support for specific rulesets and great utilities.


----------



## eyebeams

estar said:


> The only reason to pay for any VTT with a specific RPG logo on them is that they have superior support for a specific set of rules and/or better software tools for RPGs.




I think there's a limited set of things that can really be made better for TTRPGs. Part of the issue is that even though we *could* automate a lot of stuff, we probably wouldn't, because gamers generally want to see and interact with the system's gears.



> First off I was talking of VTTs in general whether you buy something specific or craft on out of existing free tools like Google+ and Skype. The key innovation of VTTs is showing how whiteboards dovetails great with RPGs. I wouldn't be surprised if facebook apps or google+ apps is become the way to use a VTT on-line.




Then I think we're more in agreement than it may appear.



> I disagree it limited to older gamers, any group that get dispersed geographically would find VTTs useful. I heard of hybrid groups where some gamers are physically present while others are present only virtually.




Oh, if we're talking general virtual play, then it's already happening. I would say we may be at at least 25% adoption, more if we talking about all forms of remote roleplaying.

But in terms of an RPG-specific product, I think there's a split in expectations, where younger roleplayers expect to kludge around free stuff.



> Finally there is always a tension between DIYers and those liking an out of box solution that more expensive. I think it cuts across all ages. Old and young like buying Apple products, Old and young like messing around with Android and so on.




Looking at self-organizing RP communities, it looks like younger folks really do skew more toward using vBulletin, Livejournal and other content sharing packages where they have to adapt them to games. When I talk to folks about paid TTRPG apps, they're definitely older, IME. I've never met a Dicenomicon user who didn't have some grey hair.



> I may happen yet, but so far in VTTs OpenRPG has lagged considerably behind Fantasy Grounds, Battlegrounds and it's competitors. Another consideration is that current leading VTTs have good support for specific rulesets.




I have a feeling that these will experience Death by API as code-loving hobbyists simply plug the needed functionality in.



> My prediction, as such, is that the first VTT tools to make it easy for gamers to find a large number of campaigns to play will quickly become THE way to play RPGs over the internet.  It will come not from one of the existing VTT companies but from someone with a preexisting large social network of gamers Google+, RPGNow, Paizo, Wizards,etc. The existing VTTs will survive by offering better support for specific rulesets and great utilities.




Yeah, I can maybe get behind that, though I don't think game companies have the required agility. They just don't have good track records as software developers.

Here's what somebody smart can do: be the first in line with branded dice, character and play apps for G+ (or a future successor) that work well and push connections with the company's paid wares. I used to think there could be a "Gamer Facebook," but now I think that gamers have colonized the networks they'll use, and companies need to follow them there.


----------



## Klaus

Make a "VTT Facebook app" and you're set.


----------



## joelesko

Since the topic has mostly turned to VTTs, I thought I would chime in, since I've considered all these issues while designing the Fabletop app.

The biggest issue, IMO, is that the most popular systems are all designed for face-to-face play.  Even with all the fancy new tech out there, the "interface" of sitting around a table with real-life friends and a stack of books is vastly different than even the most flexible of graphical user interfaces.  

Consider the idea of the "handout", which is so simple in real life that the name itself tells you what to do: you just hand it out.  

But when you're designing the same task for an online medium, you have to deal with a bunch of new, non-trivial issues: what file formats do you support, how to get the file "into" the app, how to deal with large files, are there controls on who gets to see it, where on the screen does it appear, is it movable/resizable, how to make it accessible in later games (or outside the game), and how to quickly teach the users how to do all of the above.  Many of the things we take for granted in face-to-face play are like that, and it's even more difficult if you want to ensure a nice, polished experience. 

Also, even with things like real-time video/audio, roleplaying online often has the  "uncanny valley" effect.  It might kinda-sorta do the job, but it still doesn't feel right.

MMOs don't have this issue because they have evolved to the medium's strengths, and they manage to provide what many (arguably most) gamers in the 80's wanted from D&D  (hang out, kill monsters, get treasure, level-up, etc).  Neverwinter Nights had a lot of promise, but the support for tabletop-style play was minimal and you really had to struggle to play it that way.  

So my belief right now is that, if there is a successful online equivalent to TTRPGs, it won't be a conversion of a face-to-face system. It will probably be something different, that plays to the strengths of the online medium while still making imagination an important part of the game.

As far as the future of (non-virtual) tabletop gaming, I agree with Mr. Dancey that there is probably a lot of promise in "party style" roleplaying.  Think about how casual computer games have recently boomed after a long period of dominance by hard core shooters and RTS's.  There may be a similar opening waiting to be filled by a simpler RPG with a broader appeal.  But if anything is to re-invigorate the space, I doubt it will come from an established brand.  It will be something unexpected, and probably (hopefully) stretch our current idea of what it means to roleplay.  And lead to all kinds of online arguments, of course!


----------



## Matt James

The text of the rules are not that easy to protect. My lawyer (@GSLLC) has a column on my site called Protection from Chaos (get it, law vs. chaos? haha). He's an IP attorney and a big D&D advocate. He also runs the DC area convention called synDCon. He's a bit of crusader against people who give false interpretations of the law as it pertains to copyright, trademarks, and patents when they don't have an education in law (re: Law Degree).

Loremaster - Protection from Chaos


----------



## Klaus

Matt James said:


> The text of the rules are not that easy to protect. My lawyer (@GSLLC) has a column on my site called Protection from Chaos (get it, law vs. chaos? haha). He's an IP attorney and a big D&D advocate. He also runs the DC area convention called synDCon. He's a bit of crusader against people who give false interpretations of the law as it pertains to copyright, trademarks, and patents when they don't have an education in law (re: Law Degree).
> 
> Loremaster - Protection from Chaos



"Protection from Chaos"?

Your lawyer deserves XP.


----------



## Frylock

Klaus said:


> "Protection from Chaos"?
> 
> Your lawyer deserves XP.




I'm a 23rd-level attorney. 

While imperfect, the general rule is, "Fluff is protectable, and crunch is not." Every case turns on its own facts, though, so either consult an attorney or steer clear of controversy.


----------



## Lanefan

Henry said:


> On the other hand, you've just described an area of 300 thousand people with ONLY 4 game stores. How many of those 4 stores sprung up in the last 5 years,



None.  All are at least ten years old; in that time the only change is that one moved from one part of town to another (following the population to a faster-developing area).  About ten years ago is when the most recent of the four opened.  There was more turnover in the 90's - the market here seems able to support about 4 of these stores but it took quite a lot of trial and error to determine which 4.


> and how much of a percentage of RPG display is devoted in those stores compared to comics and collectibles?



Not much, but enough to let even a casual shopper know they are present.


> I know that in my area (around 600,000 people), the number of comics and RPG stores has not declined, but it's held steady and not grown at all for the past ten years -- the number of new stores pretty much equals the number of failed stores.



OK, so in both our markets the number of stores has not changed in some time.  Yet we are being told there has been a large decline in store numbers.  Anyone else got any local info - particularly for North America - to lob in here?

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan

Question: does anyone know if Mike and Monte are going to see this thread? (better yet, if they have been invited to contribute to it?)  I ask because before all these sub-conversations broke out there were some very interesting ideas for 5e and a surprising amount of common ground among some of those ideas.  I'd hate to see it go to waste. 

Lanefan


----------



## eyebeams

Not a lawyer, but my semi-educated impression is:

1) Typically, game *rules* are understood not to be protected, but their specific expression/description is. You can describe how to hit a dude in combat, but not using the same description of how to hit a dude from another game, even if the functional aspect (d20+mod vs AC) is the same.

But:

2) Game companies typically threaten action over copyright as part of an omnibus "you violated everything!" claim, as Hasbro did over what was once Scrabulous (where the claim of trademark violation was there, but it *also* claimed copyright violation for scoring and layout of the board). The thin justification for this is an analogy from software, where the claim is that specific numeric values and their interactions are protected. I do not know if this has ever succeeded in any court.

3) Hasbro could probably ruin the average game company even with baseless legal action due to the relative budgets of the parties involved.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Lanefan said:


> None.  All are at least ten years old; in that time the only change is that one moved from one part of town to another (following the population to a faster-developing area).  About ten years ago is when the most recent of the four opened.  There was more turnover in the 90's - the market here seems able to support about 4 of these stores but it took quite a lot of trial and error to determine which 4.
> Not much, but enough to let even a casual shopper know they are present.
> OK, so in both our markets the number of stores has not changed in some time.  Yet we are being told there has been a large decline in store numbers.  Anyone else got any local info - particularly for North America - to lob in here?
> 
> Lanefan




Well, there have been 2 stores in my state for MANY years. Hasn't changed AFAIK since the early 90's at least, maybe longer. These are actual game stores that primarily sell games though. There have been hobby/toy retailers that sold some games that have come and gone. I don't think there are any of those nowadays, but it is hard to say for sure.

Overall the availability of both games and in-store playing space has remained about the same for a good long time. 

OTOH I think the general type of gaming that goes on has slowly shifted. There are people RPing obviously, but our local gaming club is quite active and RPGs are now a very small part of what the members do. There are games, but the activity has shifted drastically in the direction of either one-shot games or just playing board games of various types, which are very strong these days. Our local area Con has a good number of RPG tables each year, but 95% of them are filled by either homebrew stuff, indy games, OSR type stuff, etc. I think there were maybe 1 each PF and 4e game scheduled and maybe 2 3.5 games scheduled out of about 40 slots (I could be off a bit but definitely the 'big name' games were not very prominent). 

I think people are doing a lot of experimenting, playing a lot of board games, and not doing a lot of classic RPG campaign running. It is still there, but I think that style of gaming is not thriving.


----------



## estar

joelesko said:


> Since the topic has mostly turned to VTTs, I thought I would chime in, since I've considered all these issues while designing the Fabletop app.






joelesko said:


> The biggest issue, IMO, is that the most popular systems are all designed for face-to-face play.  Even with all the fancy new tech out there, the "interface" of sitting around a table with real-life friends and a stack of books is vastly different than even the most flexible of graphical user interfaces.




There I have to disagree. Whiteboards in combination with dice-rollers, chat/voice effectively recreates the tabletop experience online.  You do the same kind of prep with the same type of materials and manage the game in the same manner. 

The tech is additional overhead. Now you have an extra step of having to scan any visual material you want to present. You have to make sure you can connect and all your players. In the early 2000s this was a bit of a pain but the technology has become easier and easier as the years go on. 




joelesko said:


> Consider the idea of the "handout", which is so simple in real life that the name itself tells you what to do: you just hand it out.
> 
> But when you're designing the same task for an online medium, you have to deal with a bunch of new, non-trivial issues: what file formats do you support, how to get the file "into" the app, how to deal with large files, are there controls on who gets to see it, where on the screen does it appear, is it movable/resizable, how to make it accessible in later games (or outside the game), and how to quickly teach the users how to do all of the above.  Many of the things we take for granted in face-to-face play are like that, and it's even more difficult if you want to ensure a nice, polished experience.




As a programmer I know that these issue are not trivial for the app developer. However the state of the art has advanced to the point where they several good examples of how various VTT features should be implemented. For example a word processor is not a trivial program to develop but the various issues in writing have been hashed to death and there are several well known solutions to each of the various issues. 

The nice about VTTs is that they look to the continuing development of whiteboard and collaboration software for further ideas. 



joelesko said:


> Also, even with things like real-time video/audio, roleplaying online often has the  "uncanny valley" effect.  It might kinda-sorta do the job, but it still doesn't feel right.




For the vast majority interacting through the internet is never their first choice. Internet rather acts as a multiplier increasing the number of social connections we can make and sustain. For gaming this means groups have people move away don't necessarily need to split up. The absent member can use various technologies to link back in and continue to play. If the entire group shift to the point where face to face is impossible then the game can continue on line. 

The nice thing about VTTs is that they work in conjunction. It is not like a MMORPG where major elements of tabletop are discarded. Instead groups can freely change how they change how they meet while doing the same work and using the same products. 

As for the hobby in general VTTs is not THE answer, it should be viewed as one piece of the puzzle to keep the hobby's social network going. One more thing in addition to home campaign, game conventions, store games, and the rest. 



joelesko said:


> MMOs don't have this issue because they have evolved to the medium's strengths, and they manage to provide what many (arguably most) gamers in the 80's wanted from D&D  (hang out, kill monsters, get treasure, level-up, etc).  Neverwinter Nights had a lot of promise, but the support for tabletop-style play was minimal and you really had to struggle to play it that way.




With Neverwinter Nights you had to struggle because you had to be a programmer to create useful stuff with the game. If you had all the pieces it was a killer way to run an adventure (which I did several times). Plus it require to learn new techniques of refereeing where the referee was more of a event manager.  I found my experience running LARP events extremely useful in running my group through NWN.  However the sum of what you had to do run a campaign using NWN was very removed from normal tabletop. VTTs do not share this disadvantage. 

As for MMORPGs, they are different form of gaming. At this point they compete with tabletop in the same way other forms of gaming. They are not a substitute. I am not ignoring the impact they had on tabletop but let's face in the decades since the early 70s the number of different forms of gamings have exploded. While the overall population of gamer may have grown there more competing for their time. I strongly that tabletop games should NOT try to BE like other forms of gaming. Instead tabletop should play to it's strengths not matched by the other forms.



joelesko said:


> So my belief right now is that, if there is a successful online equivalent to TTRPGs, it won't be a conversion of a face-to-face system. It will probably be something different, that plays to the strengths of the online medium while still making imagination an important part of the game.




Between whiteboards, voip, and social network sites we have all the pieces. What needed to make it all come together is somebody with a pre-existing social network to use a VTT. This may be a Google+ app, or Paizo creating something, or Wizards finally completing their setup.  My current feeling is that one of major social networking sites will get there first with an app that does what Fantasy Grounds does but using the social network site as the background.



joelesko said:


> As far as the future of (non-virtual) tabletop gaming, I agree with Mr. Dancey that there is probably a lot of promise in "party style" roleplaying.




All you are going to accomplish is create a new form of gaming. Without the human referee and several other major elements it is no longer tabletop roleplaying. It may be a good strategy for a company to develop in order to survive the changing tastes in gaming. But the try to push as tabletop roleplaying evolved is just going to alienate the existing market and further fracture it like 4e did. 



joelesko said:


> Think about how casual computer games have recently boomed after a long period of dominance by hard core shooters and RTS's.  There may be a similar opening waiting to be filled by a simpler RPG with a broader appeal.




One of the reason why we can sell OSR products is because older D&D is a pretty straight forward game to jump into. Plenty of my customer are gamers who like the simplifier approach of older D&D, B/X D&D in particular.



joelesko said:


> But if anything is to re-invigorate the space, I doubt it will come from an established brand.  It will be something unexpected, and probably (hopefully) stretch our current idea of what it means to roleplay.  And lead to all kinds of online arguments, of course!




That could be. My opinion is that gaming companies that want large sales need to keep up whatever the current taste in gaming. While SJ Games still releases the occasional GURPS product their current bread and butter is Munchkin. In five years it may be something completely different. 

However the industry is not the hobby. Thanks to the OGL (appreciate Ryan Dancey for being a major supporter) the hobby can take care of itself now with popular and classic games. We no longer depend on the marking whims of X companies to play, and publish for the game we like. Plus it means that however shrunken there will still be a market to sell too. 

What Ryan doesn't mention is that Model Trains are still a 1.2 billion a year business although it share of the larger toy market is very tiny compared to what it was back in the day.

In our own hobby, hex and counter wargames are still being produced and even had a little resurgence a couple of years ago with the organization of some conventions. Of course it is nothing like it was during the glory days of SPI and Avalon Hill.

This website and forum is primarily about tabletop roleplaying first, not the companies that currently make tabletop roleplaying games, not other forms of gaming (as interesting as they may be). If Wizards decides the "5th edition" of D&D is to be a series of board games like Ravenloft, etc then they are no longer producing tabletop roleplaying games. 

So I take a negative view when a columnist comes and say "Oh the game has to change because of X, Y, and Z." It obvious from his comments to John Wick's facebook post, and his columns that where Ryan Dancey is coming from is the survival of the game companies themselves. 

My general feeling is, "Fine! you made your case, if a game company want to keep their current level of employees and profitability then the type of games they need to make has to change." But once that happen my interest in those companies ceases because they are no longer making tabletop RPGs. 

But I am not interesting playing those games as my primary hobby. I am a tabletop roleplayer. I like playing them, refereeing them, publishing, and writing for them.  What I work for is having the largest number of tabletop roleplayers to game with. And if I can't rely on the industry to do it then I will do it myself.


----------



## Alphastream

Mark CMG said:


> Except that with 3.XE and the OGL it's been proven potentially big so trying to disprove by looking toward 3PP GSL support also proves the point.



Can you show me the proof? It's a real question. I'm on board with various groups being interested, or regional interest, but I would like to see real numbers.



Mark CMG said:


> The stack of WotC product in my FLGS



We can find a store to paint any picture. I think Shannon Appelcline's 2010 estimates are probably a more likely situation. 



Mark CMG said:


> Okay, "disliked the d20 boom," liked "Ptolus and Iron Heroes" (Monte Cook and Mike Mearls projects), nothing to say about market leaders like PF and M&M (which are OGL and have vibrant 3PP support), the second of which is from GR which also does many independent projects like Black Company, Dragon Age, etc., you're personally an Admin for the Ashes of Athas 4E D&D campaign . . . I get this feeling we're getting some sense of where 5E might be heading, or definitely not heading, and I appreciate the candor.



If by candor you mean me being honest about how I feel about an industry I care about greatly, always. I'm not a Wizards guy, though I do work for free for AoA and I have had a few articles published. My main claim should be opinionated loudmouth... 

Seriously, my questions are honest. I honestly question how much the OGL contributed to 3E, versus how much it cost Wizards in the long run. We can blame them for not jumping in fully, but it isn't clear to me that they should have. They really were in a position where they had to change versions. They had nothing going on at the end of 3E and the edition was about to die. While we all know they didn't do the best job of selling 4E, it still did very well. Was the main issue that they could never turn off the old game because of the OGL? If so, why would they want a new OGL to pin them into never turning off 4E? What is the benefit? Can we give it any rough numbers? 

If the OGL was all about selling core books, I think it is likely 4E sold more core books than 3E did. Factor in the loss of revenue to Pathfinder and other OGL 3E stuff during the 4E timeframe and it has to be revenue negative. If the OGL was about creating a big industry, we saw as much boom as bust. If as Ryan said the OGL was about making it so everyone played one version of D&D, that didn't work at all - it did the opposite. If it was about creating freelancers... ok, I can buy that one, though DDI is doing that as well. Potentially the OGL can help Wizards focus on one area and get 3PPs to provide others (like adventures), but I think that also creates long-term problems of potentially losing out on design space you would grow to a few years later. I also don't think Wizards wants to shrink in size and work largely through 3PPs beyond core stuff, as seems to have been part of the original plan. Have someone else write Greyhawk, FR, Dark Sun? I think it would hurt in the long run or require costly oversight that would make any overall benefit negligible. 

I understand the benefits of open source in software (while being aware how it has failed many companies). I'm a big fan of how Eclipse Phase uses open source. Those guys seed their own torrents and sell hackable versions of their awesome game, but it makes sense for them. The same thing would not make sense for Wizards. I similarly don't see how the OGL makes sense long term. I welcome feedback on how it could make sense, particularly any financial insight.


----------



## Mark CMG

Alphastream said:


> Can you show me the proof?





I'd suggest using a search engine rather than taking my word for it.  Look for information on the success of each and the number of 3PP supporters of each.




Alphastream said:


> We can find a store to paint any picture. I think Shannon Appelcline's 2010 estimates are probably a more likely situation.





Again, don't take my word, check the number of stores during each era and make a few calls around to see who has what on hand.




Alphastream said:


> If by candor you mean me being honest about how I feel about an industry I care about greatly, always. I'm not a Wizards guy, though I do work for free for AoA and I have had a few articles published. My main claim should be opinionated loudmouth...





Yet I never see you at the meetings . . . 





Alphastream said:


> Seriously, my questions are honest.





And, again, you don't need me to tell you twice what I think nor to take my word on anything.  Search around to get information from folks like RyanD and see how long 3.XE held the top of the market all to itself with little competition relative to 4E's situation. Check into the old OGL lists to see when WotC began backing off their support of the OGL and look into the market reaction at the time.  Check into the size of the Organized Play communities supporting each.  Check into the number of retail stores during each period.  Check back to discover how long 3.XE and 4.XE (we'll include Essentials) sold before WotC began slowing their production schedule and/or pulling back release information from cancelled products from places like Amazon, indicating an end to the edition cycle.  If your opinion after reviewing such things is that the OGL was bad, I doubt I can do anything to persuade you otherwise.  But you don't need me to check on these things for yourself and come to an informed opinion.


----------



## joelesko

estar said:


> There I have to disagree. Whiteboards in combination with dice-rollers, chat/voice effectively recreates the tabletop experience online.




My comments might have sounded like I was anti-VTT.  Obviously, as someone who just released a VTT, I'm not. =)

I think roleplaying can be done online, and in a lot of cases, better than real life.  I just disagree with the idea that the Stack-o-Books style of gaming will ever be a good fit for the online medium.  Maybe it's a fine stopgap for existing gamers who are willing to make the conceptual leap, but I don't see it as a way to revitalize the hobby as some people seem to be saying.  

My guess is that 10 years from now, the most popular solution will look more like an online game with role-playing capabilities, than an app that tries to translate the current tabletop scene.


----------



## Erudite Frog

Mark CMG said:


> I'd suggest using a search engine rather than taking my word for it.  Look for information on the success of each and the number of 3PP supporters of each.
> 
> 
> Again, don't take my word, check the number of stores during each era and make a few calls around to see who has what on hand.
> 
> 
> Yet I never see you at the meetings . . .
> 
> 
> 
> And, again, you don't need me to tell you twice what I think nor to take my word on anything.  Search around to get information from folks like RyanD and see how long 3.XE held the top of the market all to itself with little competition relative to 4E's situation. Check into the old OGL lists to see when WotC began backing off their support of the OGL and look into the market reaction at the time.  Check into the size of the Organized Play communities supporting each.  Check into the number of retail stores during each period.  Check back to discover how long 3.XE and 4.XE (we'll include Essentials) sold before WotC began slowing their production schedule and/or pulling back release information from cancelled products from places like Amazon, indicating an end to the edition cycle.  If your opinion after reviewing such things is that the OGL was bad, I doubt I can do anything to persuade you otherwise.  But you don't need me to check on these things for yourself and come to an informed opinion.




Thats really diengenuous. You originally made the claim and now your telling alphastream to do a search to prove your own claim for you. 
RyanD also isnt the best unbias person to ask for data. hes already proven his bias. By his account, wotc should have died in a death-spiral a couple years back.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Lanefan said:


> Question: does anyone know if Mike and Monte are going to see this thread? (better yet, if they have been invited to contribute to it?) I ask because before all these sub-conversations broke out there were some very interesting ideas for 5e and a surprising amount of common ground among some of those ideas. I'd hate to see it go to waste.
> 
> Lanefan




You could always ping [MENTION=56746]mudbunny[/MENTION] to include it in his regular report to WotC.

(Though, in this particular thread, you might want to filter out some of the more relevant posts...there is some fairly messy stuff in here as well).


----------



## Hussar

Another thought occurred to me regarding the number of gaming stores in America.  From Ryan's comments, we have a situation with a presumption of 5000 stores before the 90's, in the mid-90's where we have about 2500 gaming stores.  By the late oughts, we have around 5-700.  Wow, that's a big drop.

However, like many of these numbers, they're only snapshots.  It's really, really difficult to extrapolate any real interpretation from these.  Let's put things in context for a moment. 

Take the 5000 number.  Where did that come from?  I'm going to take a stab and guess TSR.  Yeah, there's a credible source.  :/  Considering how little market research was done before WOTC did any, it's pretty safe to say that any numbers were of the "throw a dart at the board" variety.

 2500 gaming stores in the mid-90's.  Ok.  So, during the largest boom in the American economy in the 20th century, we have lots of gaming stores and this drops to (for ease of typing) 500 in the late oughts where we have one of the worst economic downturns in decades.  The thing to compare immediately would be, how do other brick and mortar retail specialty stores compare?  

I mean, does anyone actually think that there should have been _growth_ in brick and mortar specialty retail stores in the last ten years?  Between a garbage economy and the HUGE growth of online retail, every single brick and mortar store type is having problems.

Let's also not forget something too.  How many of those gaming stores in the 90's were being floated by CCG's?  The Magic and Pokedollars that were flowing in were keeping lots of people pretty flush.  Again, the bottom drops out of the CCG market around 2000 or so.  Another big blow to brick and mortar specialty hobby shops.

It's easy to point to the hobby and say, "The hobby is dying!  Look at THIS!"  But, like the claims that SF is dying (it's been on its deathbed for a couple of decades now) because print SF magazines have had to change formats or have gone out of business (guess what?  So have EVERY SINGLE print formats out there), claims that the hobby is dying is based on very little actual evidence.

------------

Eyebeams - you asked what a VTT could provide?  That's easy.  Imagine having modules pre packaged for play on a VTT.  Every die roller automated in an easy macro, every create pre-formated for the VTT.  

Being able to play D&D without any prep beyond reading a ten page module.  FAN FREAKING TASTIC!


----------



## estar

joelesko said:


> Maybe it's a fine stopgap for existing gamers who are willing to make the conceptual leap, but I don't see it as a way to revitalize the hobby as some people seem to be saying.




I see what you mean. I agree that VTTs are not going to revitalize tabletop roleplaying by themselves. I would add that I feel that no one thing is going to revitalize tabletop RPGs. Instead it is going to take a multiprong approach to grow the hobby however slowly. The main reason is that the ways are multiplying in how the social network connects the individual members. Anything that wants to have a broad appeal need to incorporate many of them. 

VTTs will be an important part of tabletop's future, but so will tablets, surface computing, print on demand and host of other technologies.



joelesko said:


> My guess is that 10 years from now, the most popular solution will look more like an online game with role-playing capabilities, than an app that tries to translate the current tabletop scene.




To me the big unknown is whether large display surfaces will take off. If they don't then I see a long period of time where things are pretty much the way they are now. The main difference will be that the new methods of distributing products will have settled and as well as the use of internet based social networking. Technology we have now will mature.

One area of new development is increased connectivity between tabletop rpg apps. Everybody has a tablet and it very easy for everybody sitting around the table (or using the internet) to connect. Much like Fantasy Grounds the referee will be able to see everybody's character sheet, and do other VTT like actitives (fog of war, etc). The difference in the future will be just easy to setup. 

The game changer comes if surface computing takes off. Imagine a entire dining room table as computer screen. Already we seen developers created a automated D&D 4e surface where miniatures use barcodes to communicate to the underlying software. 

It will be a game changer because one "board" can play a huge variety of traditional games. The technology allows the use of physical pieces which many gamers like. It will allow the complexity of a rule system to be hidden. This aspect is similar to MMORPG and CRPGs. And it will work with people sitting physically around the table. 

If they can make flexible portable large surfaces then things will get real crazy.


----------



## DaveMage

Lanefan said:


> Question: does anyone know if Mike and Monte are going to see this thread?
> 
> Lanefan




Probably.  

They're always watching.


----------



## IronWolf

Hussar said:


> Eyebeams - you asked what a VTT could provide?  That's easy.  Imagine having modules pre packaged for play on a VTT.  Every die roller automated in an easy macro, every create pre-formated for the VTT.
> 
> Being able to play D&D without any prep beyond reading a ten page module.  FAN FREAKING TASTIC!




I think we will start to see more modules like this as it starts to catch on. We see some of this in products like Breaking of Forstor Nagar.


----------



## Clavis

One of the reasons MMORPGs are so popular (although certainly not the _only_ reason) is that they allow non-geeks (especially women) to be geeky without being seen associating with geeks.

The non-geeks who previously would game privately (but _never _go to cons, wear game t-shirts, or otherwise openly advertise their love of RPGs) no longer need to sneak around, hoping their larger social group never finds out about their rpg habit.  They can simply log-on and play, never revealing their actual identity.

Whatever we like to tell ourselves in our own press, being a geek is _not_ cool.  *RPG gaming is not cool*. Gamers have a horrible social reputation that we've largely inflicted on ourselves. In my experience, many women simply don't feel like they can game without unpleasant social repercussions, either from their friends, or from male gamers themselves. At best, male gamers tend to inelegantly ogle any females who come around. At worst, there is outright misogyny born from bitter memories of unsuccessful love lives. 

I know for a fact that there are attractive, socially adept women who love fantasy and play MMORPGs, but would never consider for a moment stepping foot anywhere near a game store. The traditional RPG market is contracting in part because of _gamers_. Non-geeks simply don't need to associate with geeks anymore. 

I think that the Dungeons & Dragons name is both the banner of the RPG industry, and the albatross around its neck. "Playing D&D", in the mind of the general public, is reserved for misfits and nerds (who are also, _not _cool). As long as it's called "D&D" non-geeks won't do it in large numbers. If it _isn't _called D&D, the established base won't play. You can sell to the public, or sell to the geek base, but its very hard to appeal to them both.


----------



## Mark CMG

Erudite Frog said:


> You originally made the claim and now your telling alphastream to do a search to prove your own claim for you.





Not for me, for himself.  I'm often surprsed when folks can't pick up on what is happening on their own but sometimes time and other factors makes it tough to keep an eye on things.  I've been following this closely for years, online and by discussing things with individuals at conventions and elsewhere.  If you're looking for me to give you a direct quote from someone who has confided in me, you'll be waiting a long time and as you point out in the second half of your post, it's easy to dismiss someone out of hand even with two decades of industry experience like RyanD.  If you want to educate yourself and come to similar conclusions (never a guarentee), then you have to do some of your own heavy lifting.  It helps to begin by asking some of the right questions.




Erudite Frog said:


> RyanD also isnt the best unbias person to ask for data. hes already proven his bias. By his account, wotc should have died in a death-spiral a couple years back.





By his account they are at the beginnings of one.  Do you disagree?  Four years ago I would have said they were just at the end of an edition cycle, were hitting some bumps working out the new licensing scheme they were trying to produce, and making a few missteps in their hype/marketing of the new edition.  It did seem like an awkward period but the new edition was scheduled for June 8th release in 2008 and even some fumbling of the roll out was likely to be squelched by the new shiny of the game.  How do you feel that has gone now that we're three and a half years beyond that release?  How's the market look?  What are the latest indicators as to how the brand is doing?  Do you know if anything new is happening with the game?  Anything so new as to suspect things will suddenly be as bright and shiny as when they rescued the brand from TSR, put out a new edition when hundreds of small publishers were helping support the game and their market share was as high as many have ever seen it since the Eighties? (Look it up . . .)

As to your opinion that RyanD has a bias, one could just as easily claim that anyone with an opinion has a bias.  His, however, at least comes with a couple decades of expereince on the subject he is discussing.  But, you can read around a bit and determine if that is truly a factor for youself, if that's not too much trouble and you don't need it served up to you more directly.  Someone can also click on your posts here on EN World and get a better handle on what drives the nine months of your limited posting history.  All we can really do is look into things and then make decisions based on that knowledge and our own experience.


----------



## Alphastream

Lanefan said:


> Yet we are being told there has been a large decline in store numbers.  Anyone else got any local info - particularly for North America - to lob in here?




Single local data is basically random/inaccurate data. Looking at Wizards' directory shows more than 500 locations in the US where you can play Encounters... and that has to be a fraction of all gaming stores (lots of gaming stores don't have Encounters, don't carry D&D but carry other similar products, etc.).

More than just the numbers, I am curious about the premise. I saw a lot of gaming stores closing in the '90s, but I see stores doing really well 20 years later. That's not to say individual stores don't close, shrink, etc., but overall gaming stores seem to now have better ideas on how to stay profitable (and a lot of that is by making RPGs a smaller part of their mix... they just don't compete with Magic, Pokemon, GW, etc.). Great stores bring in busloads of kids, have D&D camps for young ones, etc. Good stores don't go that far, but they have a far better business plan than "I like games and this seems like a fun job" - I heard that far too often in the '90s and '00s as I traveled around the country. 

What is great about stores is that they showcase product and build community. They facilitate impulse buys, getting a gaming group, using that impulse or planned purchase. I really hope Dancey answers my earlier questions, because I'm curious just how critical this all is compared to other ways of distributing. How critical are stores to Pathfinder, given the well known Paizo-owned Paizo store? If the brick and mortar store is critical to Paizo, that says something. Is Paizo really seeing the demise of the store and worried about it?

What I see is that the overall model of RPGs is not great for stores. Stores carry D&D and RPGs because they believe in RPGs and because some of their gamers really want that content, but their profitability is in minis and CCGs and some board games. That underlying model where six gamers is really just 1 to 2 gamers buying things... that isn't a good model. Those same gamers all are spending a lot of money on video games, on movies, on many other hobby aspects, but not on RPGs. That really needs to change for our hobby to escape the boom-bust cycle. Let's keep in mind that most RPG players never post on forums (if they even heard of EN World), have just 1-2 PCs for their favorite RPG, don't own more than 1-2 player books, etc.


----------



## Alphastream

Mark CMG said:


> But you don't need me to check on these things for yourself and come to an informed opinion.




This sounds an awful lot like "I don't have the data I wish I had to support my point". I'm asking because all I hear are vague answers like yours, but no actual numbers. If it is easy to Google them I wouldn't have asked!

I can come up with vague responses to a lot of what you wrote. For example, 4E's LFR was said to be the largest organized play program ever when it started (and I think that is likely accurate based on what I've seen). It has obviously decreased in size, but I would guess Encounters has fully replaced any decrease... so I don't see any shrinking there, and we've added PFS and only lost moderately with campaigns like L5R, Shadowrun Missions, etc. Organized Play seems to be doing really well in numbers and doesn't seem impacted by the OGL at all. But, again, I welcome your numbers. And no, individual postings on forums (which don't represent the body of D&D players at all) do not themselves count as data (though they might contain good data).


----------



## Alphastream

Mark CMG said:


> it's easy to dismiss someone out of hand even with two decades of industry experience like RyanD.



If we had a dollar for every time someone with deep industry experience got the industry wrong, we could fly around the world... I'm not saying that to slam anyone. The industry is tough. It lacks good business parameters, has very little solid market research, and thus it is easy to make mistakes. I'm not knocking Ryan, but he's one guy and as much as I like his post it raises questions. 



Mark CMG said:


> How do you feel that has gone now that we're three and a half years beyond that release?  How's the market look?  What are the latest indicators as to how the brand is doing?  Do you know if anything new is happening with the game?  Anything so new as to suspect things will suddenly be as bright and shiny as when they rescued the brand from TSR, put out a new edition when hundreds of small publishers were helping support the game and their market share was as high as many have ever seen it since the Eighties? (Look it up . . .)



The history of just about any RPG is one of peril. Reading over Shannon Appelcline's _Designers & Dragons_, I'm blown away by how the history of TSR is just a series of missteps and good steps, always dancing on the edge of success or ruin. As a gamer it is easy to just think of our own experience, where we enjoy one game, then another. The aggregate is really hard to see. For example, as a gamer I never realized the insane volume of choose-your-own-adventure and how that bust almost ruined TSR. 

Similarly, it is easy to look at the period from mid-2010 to the end of Q1 2011 and conclude it was a bad year for Wizards. The product lines were floundering, marketing communications were confusing at best, and negativity was pervasive. Then again, I don't know the numbers. That same period shows really strong DDI growth. I would guess times were bad, but none of us really know. Before that time sales could have been really strong (they certainly were when 4E core books were released). After Q1 2011 Wizards seems to really right the ship. While they had relatively few releases, the releases they had in 2011 were incredibly strong - some of the most innovative work we've seen from D&D. Did they sell great? We have no idea. And, let's keep in mind this is at a relatively good time for RPGs and an excellent time for Pathfinder. This doesn't, to me, sound like the demise of D&D. Really, if we are going to see the longest-running RPG out there take some quarters at the #2 spot, is that doom? (How many RPGs would kill for that version of doom?) Is there any real indication that this is perpetual? Has PF solved the question of versions... their releases suggest otherwise. As Ryan said, there is currently no escape from the typical cycle of needing a new version, even for PF.

Maybe Wizards is doing terribly. Maybe it is doing great. We don't know. My personal guess is that they are achieving numbers just about any RPG would kill to have, but that those numbers are not good enough for Wizards itself, given its size and goals. That would be why they keep experimenting, changing, and why Legends & Lore exists. But this is just my guess. 

If you have data one way or the other, I welcome it.


----------



## RyanD

The data regarding the collapse of the brick & mortar bookstores is unquestioned, right?  That's 50% of the D&D business going away.  Since Barnes & Noble didn't grow to replace all the vanished stores and is in fact not that healthy, do you agree its a safe conclusion that the volume of D&D being sold through that channel simply went away too?

Or do you think Amazon picked it up?  That's a possibility but I can't give you data either way since what I know is confidential.  You'll have to do that research on your own.


----------



## estar

RyanD said:


> The data regarding the collapse of the brick & mortar bookstores is unquestioned, right?  That's 50% of the D&D business going away.  Since Barnes & Noble didn't grow to replace all the vanished stores and is in fact not that healthy, do you agree its a safe conclusion that the volume of D&D being sold through that channel simply went away too?
> 
> Or do you think Amazon picked it up?  That's a possibility but I can't give you data either way since what I know is confidential.  You'll have to do that research on your own.




Wouldn't it be safe to say the entire distribution network for games and RPGs is screwed at this point.


----------



## Mercurius

RyanD said:


> The data regarding the collapse of the brick & mortar bookstores is unquestioned, right?  That's 50% of the D&D business going away.  Since Barnes & Noble didn't grow to replace all the vanished stores and is in fact not that healthy, do you agree its a safe conclusion that the volume of D&D being sold through that channel simply went away too?
> 
> Or do you think Amazon picked it up?  That's a possibility but I can't give you data either way since what I know is confidential.  You'll have to do that research on your own.




I'm not sure how it is possible to do that kind of research, unless one bribes an Amazon employee to release sales figures.

But I don't think that the first (loss of game stores) is automatically followed by the second (overall decline in sales). The only thing we know for certain (without inside info) is that the channels by which RPGs are sold and bought are different than they were, say, 20 years ago.


----------



## mudbunny

Lanefan said:


> Question: does anyone know if Mike and Monte are going to see this thread? (better yet, if they have been invited to contribute to it?)  I ask because before all these sub-conversations broke out there were some very interesting ideas for 5e and a surprising amount of common ground among some of those ideas.  I'd hate to see it go to waste.
> 
> Lanefan





This thread popped up on my radar too late to include it in the last report I made to WotC, but it will get included in the next report. My reports go to Trevor Kidd, head of Community Management, and he compiles them and they get sent to the appropriate people. While I can't guarantee that M&M will actually take part in the thread, there is a very good chance that they will look at it.


----------



## Mark CMG

Alphastream said:


> This sounds an awful lot like "I don't have the data I wish I had to support my point". I'm asking because all I hear are vague answers like yours, but no actual numbers.





Oh, you won't get numbers.  The difference between us seems to be that I am willing to venture an opinion based on my own experience, my relationships, and the more obvious evidence that anyone can manage to get without too much trouble using search engines if they haven't been following it for the last decade or so.  You, on the other hand, seem to say that no one can know because hard numbers aren't available . . . but here's what you think anyway despite believing you cannot know.  Fair enough.


----------



## Mark CMG

Alphastream said:


> The industry is tough. It lacks good business parameters, has very little solid market research, and thus it is easy to make mistakes.





I'm guessing you heard that from someone in the industry? 




Alphastream said:


> I'm not knocking Ryan, but he's one guy and as much as I like his post it raises questions.





You can google up any number of places where you'll find him as one of the few people who has shared what little market research has happened in the industry when he is not under some restriction.  You'll find very few people who share data, some because they can't and some because they won't.


----------



## Alphastream

I wrote to Ryan back here, asking questions about some of the first half of his post. I wanted to ask questions about the second half, should he have the time to respond.



RyanD said:


> We hooked that train up to the engine of the Open Gaming License to help spur consolidation of game systems towards a common core, and to enable publishers who wanted to just make a great world or a cool sourcebook to do so without having to first make their own homebrew RPG (and thus fragment the market), and watched the resulting highly entertaining explosion in creativity and revenues in the market starting in 2000.



Was that an increase to the industry, or to Wizards, or to both? Are there any available numbers on this, and is it possible to separate out the "boom that will be a bust" from revenue that would hang on after the bust? 



RyanD said:


> Feeding all that activity was an even larger cadre of freelancers than had been in place in the 1990s – the D20 System enabled folks who would never otherwise have tried their hand at commercial design to get paid for their ideas, who joined the pre-existing ranks of freelance creative people working with the major publishers.



I love that aspect of the OGL! 



RyanD said:


> Shortly thereafter the dominoes started to fall



You mention that the change from 3.0 to 3.5 really drove the bust. Was it inevitable, just due to the volume? I recall seeing shelves full of d20 adventures, and the ratings for them were abysmal (though they were priced really low). Were the sales really high enough that this was a true loss for the stores rather than making the reality of dead inventory due to no quality control clear?

Did this really set things up for MMOs to then drive the market downward? I recall Warcraft as being pretty big during some of the most successful years of Living Greyhawk organized play. While I know a few people that played less D&D during that time, I know more that joined the RPGA during that time. The social network seemed really strong (as did that for other non-living games at that time) - local conventions were doing really well. I may just be myopic here, though I did have a pretty good handle on the RPGA due to my heavy travel and con attendance, that's all I was really seeing.



RyanD said:


> A large number of people within its network externality left their TRPG groups to focus on MMOs.  And instead of receiving the benefits of an acquisition engine generating new players every year, young kids got diverted into MMOs at an age earlier than any suitable TRPG offering, likely establishing a play pattern they’ll keep through to adulthood.



I'm really curious about the age effect. During the 90's and 00's it felt like almost no new gamers were coming into the field. But I wonder if that had to do with how uncool gaming was and how little there was to bring young players over to the game. When growing up we had the cartoons, the action figures, the comics, the choose-your-own-adventure books, the prominent displays in toy and book stores, kids playing in the movie ET... was the issue MMOs or just that there were no vehicles to attract the young?

In contrast to the 90's and 00's, I've seen many more young gamers join in the last three years and many say this is the era where geek is cool. Most Encounters DMs have a story of a parent bringing in a young kid (I saw at least seven in my first two seasons of Encounters, with two becoming being regular players). I saw many young teenagers at PAX Prime this and last year. I see more young players at LFR conventions. I see a lot of young gamers at Gen Con the last two years. I see gaming stores catering to the young with Pokemon games and then transitioning them to other games as well. Stores in Seattle bring in buses of school kids and in Portland they have D&D Summer and Winter Camps. Do you see this increase as well? How large is the drain from MMOs? 



RyanD said:


> Wizards of the Coast has laid off a number of designers



But they are also hiring and added designers. Have they really decreased in size over the last few years?



RyanD said:


> they’ll need less and less support in the form of commercially produced products.  They will instead seek out community support tools to help them remain in touch with their hobby even as the social network they’re directly connected to becomes ever more frayed.



I'm very worried about that possibility. How do we keep gamers buying? The industry still publishes a core book then sees declining sales because some gamers are done buying. Even when we have a single version, and even if we have a single world, that problem exists (we see it for non-D&D RPGS that have a single version and world... I own Fiasco, but I don't own the Fiasco Companion, nor the Dresden Files playset). And how do we get players to be active? The gamer with a WoW account and paying for IMAX movie tickets thinks DDI or KQ or PF subscriptions arn't worth their money (if they even know these subscriptions exist). 

How do we change the underlying model without making gamers rebel with vitriol at the slightest thought their game will be turned into an MMO/board game, etc.?



RyanD said:


> The problem is that VTTs exist, and they’re not successful.  If you give people the choice between a VTT and an MMO, they pick the MMO.



Is this comparable? I would have thought that MMOs are a different activity. I might play RPGs one day, go fishing the next, but they aren't comparable. When I play VTTs I don't feel like this is at all similar to playing a video game/MMO. A great VTT would not make me give up video games. Now, I'm not a huge VTT fan. I've played around 60 games on VTTs in the last two years, but only when I can't play face-to-face. I really don't find VTT a great place for D&D, except when it is my only option. While I like the features of the DDI VTT or MapTool over OpenRPG, the features/platform don't really drive whether I use a VTT. I use a VTT when I can't find a local game, or to supplement local gaming / catch up on LFR. 

Has there been any market research into this, to see whether VTTs really are important? Wizards put a lot of work into theirs, likely sacrificing their own progress on other DDI elements, and it isn't clear to me whether that was a good choice or not. I simply have no indicator one way or the other, other than many people unhappy about not getting better Adventure Tools.

I do agree with your assessment that iPad-style gaming tools can be huge. The number of players with laptops, netbooks, and now iPads is pretty huge. I do wonder how this contributes revenue. DDI subscriptions are one way. But it seems to be a ways off before someone really finds the way to link things. Part of the problem is very few RPG companies can afford to experiment here. 



RyanD said:


> I define a Hobby Game as one where (at least one person) spends more time preparing to play the game than actually playing it.  For TRPGs that is usually the GM, but often it is players as well.  This “out of game time” may be the biggest obstacle to overcome to keeping the TRPG platform competitive.



I don't disagree, but I do note that the out of game time for Magic the Gathering is a big part of its success. A big part of the addictive purchasing is the lotto mentality when you open a booster, plus the validation feelings as you construct a deck. Non-gaming time ends up being revenue boosting. 

I think this happens to some extent with D&D beyond 2E. As PCs become more complex, many players spend a lot of time creating characters. For some, optimization is its own game. They devour content so as to create increasingly interesting/optimal PCs. Those new feats have some of that addictive revenue-boosting behavior. There might be something here, especially if it could be easier to provide content in more on-demand ways and structure the game accordingly. 

For example, a typical season of Encounters starts with giving a new player a pregen PC and a log sheet. They can keep playing and never purchase anything (maybe dice), but the bottom of the log sheet has a Renown tracker and it gives you points if you make your own PC, and probably some if the PC comes from the latest book. That's excellent. But, now the player need not do anything for the next 10-15 weeks. Ideally, there would be ways to encourage revenue, such as by selecting options as they level or rewards as they vanquish foes, and these would be from newer material than when they started (or even older material). With micro-transactions it could really be useful. You get to make your PC into a swordmage after meeting the NPC that can retrain you. If you want to do so, here's the web code to buy just the swordmage class on DDI. (Or, in PFS, to get the info for just the pirate class, etc.). 



RyanD said:


> I think that commercially successful TRPGs of the future will be constructed more like a family game – something that can be unpacked, learned quickly, and played with little prep work.  These games will give people a lot of the same joy of “roleplaying” and narrative control that they get from today’s Hobby Game TRPGs but with a fraction of the time investment.  Wizards is already experimenting with this format, as is Fantasy Flight Games.  It seems like a good bet that there is a substantially profitable business down this line of evolution.



I agree we will see more here. I'm not sure it is what RPGs will look like in the near future. Part of it is that designers seem unwilling to go down this path. No one at Wizards or Paizo seems to want to substantially tinker with the basis of the RPG. But part of it is for the logical reason that consumers really don't seem to want that. I have met tons of gamers that love Ravenloft, Ashardalon, and Drizzt board games, but none of those gamers is going to play those and give up playing the D&D RPG. Similarly, while the LEGO Heroica series is great for kids, it lacks staying power. Rather, these board games seem to be a good way to expand the base, expand the brand's reach, and possible bring in a few players (but according to Wizards' designers acquisition was not the goal). 



RyanD said:


> My instinct is that _Pathfinder_ will be the lifeboat that the long-term hobbyists will use to keep the social network from fraying past the point of no return.



Forgive me, but that's what a Paizo employee should feel! Could we not argue that the OGL has made it impossible for D&D to move forward and leave old versions behind? If the game needs to change in design, needs to be innovative to compete, and must attract new gamers, then doesn't it have to move forward? 

At some point Pathfinder has to get a new version, as does D&D. When we have PF2.0 and D&D 5.0, doesn't the OGL hurt that effort? Doesn't the OGL cause a lot of the fraying?

Would 4E have not been a continually massive success if the OGL had not existed? Sure, we can all agree there have been massive blunders, but that is true of every edition. And we can look at the posts from when 3.0 came out (or letters to the editor in Dragon for 2.0) to see the same vitriol thrown at 3.0 as was thrown at 4.0, yet 4E had an even more successful start. Was the difference the OGL, allowing a large base to discount the new game and stay with what they already had? Is that really good for the RPG industry, or just good for the main company that (very smartly and capably) won the OGL business? 



RyanD said:


> I see the same things you all see – Monte Cook going back to Wizards of the Coast and a general recognition in the market that 4th Edition was not commercially successful.



Wait, but hasn't it been on par with Pathfinder on sales (mostly tied or higher, sometimes lower)? Is that not enough to be commercially successful? 



RyanD said:


> I hope with all my heart that the folks at Wizards of the Coast figure out how to get that franchise righted and back on track, because it would be good for the hobby in general for D&D to become a strong brand again.



I share that sentiment, and I know you want a strong overall RPG market, but to be honest what you wrote was that the lifeboat was just Pathfinder now. What role does Wizards play for Paizo? Why does Paizo need Wizards to be a strong brand?

I'm also not clear on when/whether D&D became a weak brand? The industry may have contracted (perhaps due to the d20 bust), MMOs may be part of the reason, and gamers may or may not be aging, but do we know that Wizards is weak outside of having a strong competitor in Paizo?

Thanks again for your post, and I look forward to the next one!


----------



## Falstaff

mudbunny said:


> This thread popped up on my radar too late to include it in the last report I made to WotC, but it will get included in the next report. My reports go to Trevor Kidd, head of Community Management, and he compiles them and they get sent to the appropriate people. While I can't guarantee that M&M will actually take part in the thread, there is a very good chance that they will look at it.




See, they should be here, now, talking and discussing D&D with us fans. That's the kind of interaction they need to show us that they're willing to do. Talk with us about D&D. Come to these forums and just talk. Be honest and talk with us. Why won't they do that? It would go a long way to fostering  goodwill between WotC and us gamers. Just my opinion.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

joelesko said:


> My comments might have sounded like I was anti-VTT.  Obviously, as someone who just released a VTT, I'm not. =)
> 
> I think roleplaying can be done online, and in a lot of cases, better than real life.  I just disagree with the idea that the Stack-o-Books style of gaming will ever be a good fit for the online medium.  Maybe it's a fine stopgap for existing gamers who are willing to make the conceptual leap, but I don't see it as a way to revitalize the hobby as some people seem to be saying.
> 
> My guess is that 10 years from now, the most popular solution will look more like an online game with role-playing capabilities, than an app that tries to translate the current tabletop scene.




Well, I sort of agree. I think games that are specifically designed to be played online are the way to go. I think those games can however be just as deep and have just as much material as any TT RPG. They can have books and/or digital material that goes with them. Why wouldn't they really? There's no reason people would NOT want to have the same sort of creative material.

Clearly it will be a somewhat different sort of business, but in many ways it may not be THAT different. You'd have creative people to write settings, adventures, monsters, whatever, etc. In a lot of ways it would probably work a lot like the way WotC runs DDI now. It will just require the evolution of all the tools and whatnot required to support the proper workflow in addition to the software to run a game (VTT or whatever one wants to call it). 

IMHO this really is the future for at least one branch of the RPG industry. I can see the argument that the existing TT RPG industry doesn't go away and this is some sort of 'new thing', but it seems to me like from the standpoint of a company in the business it is something that could become their business or part of it.


----------



## Ahwe Yahzhe

*Network Externalities and such*



Alphastream said:


> I In contrast to the 90's and 00's, I've seen many more young gamers join in the last three years and many say this is the era where geek is cool. Most Encounters DMs have a story of a parent bringing in a young kid (I saw at least seven in my first two seasons of Encounters, with two becoming being regular players). I saw many young teenagers at PAX Prime this and last year. I see more young players at LFR conventions. I see a lot of young gamers at Gen Con the last two years. I see gaming stores catering to the young with Pokemon games and then transitioning them to other games as well. Stores in Seattle bring in buses of school kids and in Portland they have D&D Summer and Winter Camps. Do you see this increase as well? How large is the drain from MMOs?



 I'm a latecomer to this thread too, but
I found the whole "acquisition" and "network externality" portion of this discussion too interesting not to comment.  

I think Ryan Dancey has tied the demise of some marketing channels too closely to the issue of network effects and player acquisition.  Brick & mortar retail channels may have improved network externalities by increasing the availability of game products, but game products are just as easily obtained through online retail channels today.  And while Amazon.com does nothing to reinforce the network effect through player acquisition (as is often bemoaned), neither did brick & mortar bookstores.  So that leaves hobby games stores and peer groups as the primary sources of player acquisition.  

While Ryan Dancey may be close on his estimate of only 500-1000 hobby game stores left in the US, I think the composition of many of those surviving game stores is telling.  Many now-defunct hobby game stores were no better than niche brick & mortar bookstores; when online retailers beat them on product price, availability, and service, they started to go out of business right along with them.  Five years ago my local FLGS (the stereotypical narrow-aisled rat nest with posters covering the windows, a disinterested clerk and a stale fast-food smell) was replaced with a new game store designed around a model that other successful game stores seem to be following: A full-spectrum store that sells chess, backgammon, poker, and party games in the front, boardgames in the middle (from "feeders" to Eurogames and various licensed property games), and TRPGs and miniature combat games in the back.  (CCGs are in and behind the glass sales counter, as always.)  The most distinctive feature of this successful game store (which just doubled in size at its new location), however, is the fact that over half of its square footage is dedicated to tables for playing any kind of tabletop games, with late hours to support after-school or after-work players.  This allows for a weekly and monthly scheduled of organized play events that build a local gaming community.  Players come in to buy or play one game, and come back to buy or play others, including D&D (and occassionally Pathfinder.)  That is why programs like Encounters may be more important to WotC than LFR, because they provide an organized play format in these stores targeted at new player acquisition.  (And Lair Assaults to try to bring in experienced players from their home games.)  I would back up Alphastream's anecdotal evidence of more new (young) players- I've helped plenty of high school and college students, kids brought in by their parents, and lapsed D&D players (some overlap on those last two categories, of course) learn the ropes of current edition D&D in these short 1 or 2-hour sessions.   This is where Paizo has to sell its (excellent) Beginner Box, because it can't survive indefinitely on aggregated (but still dwindling) legacy edition players.  If nowhere else, these kind of game stores will be the drivers of new player acquisition.*  TRPGs will survive or thrive as part of this larger hobby gaming community.

I'm not sure what VTTs may do other than hold onto TRPG players not supported by a "new-format" game store, but TRPGs are a different playing experience than MMOs and similarly shouldn't be compared to them other than in the largest sense of competing for a gamers' finite budget and leisure time.

-AY


*Conversely, I always thought that the reason the WotC retail stores (remember those?) failed was their narrow product focus and inability to support organized play- those mall stores didn't have the square footage for game tables.


----------



## fumetti

As a high school teacher, one who connects with the gamer types, I think their problems with paper and dice based RPGs are simple:

1)  Video games require no set up time.  

2)  Video games require no significant reading (or abstract thinking).

3)  Video games can be played solo, and at one's own pace.

4)  Video games are socially acceptable; TRPGs still aren't.



To create a new generation of paper and dice gamers, one must overcome those conditions.


----------



## DaveMage

Falstaff said:


> See, they should be here, now, talking and discussing D&D with us fans. That's the kind of interaction they need to show us that they're willing to do. Talk with us about D&D. Come to these forums and just talk. Be honest and talk with us. Why won't they do that? It would go a long way to fostering  goodwill between WotC and us gamers. Just my opinion.




They do - sometimes.  Mearls more than Monte, I think - although Monte does have his own boards where he has been quite responsive in the past.


----------



## RyanD

Alphastream said:
			
		

> (much commentary)




I'll try to answer your questions as best I can but I'll tell you up front that the kind of rigor you're looking for with regards to numbers doesn't exist.  For example, the distributors don't share information about retail sales with publishers, so no publisher knows where the distributors are sending its products or in what quantity.  As you'll see from some of my other answers below, some of the data the publishers might have is often contaminated by people lying to get perks & benefits they're not really entitled to get.

Games Workshop likely has the very best data of everyone.  They sell their stuff through their own stores and through stores they act as their own middleman for.  They use 3rd party distribution sparingly.  Games Workshop is the only public company in the hobby gaming space (Hasbro pointedly does not break out Wizards of the Coast information in its SEC filings - I'm certain because they don't want the researchers that follow them (or their competitors) to know what a huge percentage of their bottom line profits come from Magic and from D&D licensing).  You can get Games Workshop's information directly from their website (look for the investors links).  They're listed under GAW on the FTSE stock exchange in London.  Go back as far as you can before you start reading - the annual reports are just fascinating and reveal a tremendous amount about the hobby over the past 10+ years.

Wizards has never released its market research data after the report I published in '99/'00.  They have mountains of such data but they keep it close to the vest.  I wish they'd be more open, it would be useful to everyone in the industry and would have very little impact on them.

If you want to see what the market was like in the 1990s, I recommend that you get archives of Comics & Games Retailer.  They had a monthly retail store survey that tracked the popularity of various products.  The conventional wisdom in the industry was that the numeric data was worthless, but that the ranking order of sales was actually usually quite accurate.  From time to time I do presentations at industry shows about this data but they're less and less useful now (the magazine itself is defunct and didn't capture much data of use after the early 2000s).

You can also look to the reports currently produced by ICv2.  These reports don't show unit volumes and they also are compiled from retailer surveys so the accuracy may be questionable, but I think the rankings are usually pretty accurate.

There is no independent 3rd party source for unit volume data on any hobby gaming product which I consider reliable.  The industry lacks something like BookScan or SoundScan, and it is poorer for it.  The reasons for this are long and convoluted but they are likely unfixable so its a situation everyone has resigned themselves to living with.

Finally I'll say that as an industry insider I get a lot of information I simply can't share.  My ability to get that information is based in large measure on my reputation for not disclosing it.  If people felt that I would take information given to me in confidence and repeat it, they'd stop sharing it with me.  So I will often tell you that I know what I know but I can't tell you how I know it.  Still, I think that's better than nobody telling you anything, and like Mark says, often with a little work you can get some verification of certain facts by creative Google searches.

Ok, as they say in Iceland:  áfram med smjörid! (On with the butter!)



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> First, on the numbers. If I use the Wizards locator to find stores running Encounters I come up with more than 500. If I widen the search to stores selling D&D, I come up with even more. Do you really feel confident about your numbers?




The Wizards locator (like all store locators in the industry) has 3 problems:

1:  Some of the stores in it will have ceased to exist.  Turnover is ferocious, especially with new young stores.  Most don't last the first year they're in business.  But Wizards won't remove them until some database cleanup cycle which doesn't happen every year.

2:  Some of the stores in it never existed.  They're individuals posing as retailers to get store perks and access to various organized play promotional materials.  Some of these folks will go so far as to mock up a retail space for the purposes of shooting pictures to "prove" they're Brick & Mortar stores, get business licenses, maybe even build a website.  Wizards' ability to identify and remove these people is always less than the need to do so (its time consuming and most of the time you'd rather spend headcount dollars on someone that will help grow your business rather than enforcing rules against cheaters).

3:  Some of the stores in it aren't game stores.  They're stores that sell Magic or (less commonly) D&D, but that's it.  The "game store" might be one rack of product maintained by the son of the owner for himself and his buddies.  Again, they're seeking access to the promotional stuff Wizards produces.  They may run a Friday Night Magic or an Encounters session on a for-profit basis (or just because they love the games), but they're not Full Line Game Stores.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> Also, how critical are hobby stores?




Mission critical for everyone but Wizards, and reasonably critical for Wizards.  Excepting the TRPGs sold in mass market bookstores, the primary venue for all hobby gaming product is the full line game store.  All the on-line sales and direct sales end up being about 20% of the unit volume of 80% of the publishers (and not just TRPGs, but CCGs, boardgames and minis too).

They represent the chance to present a game option to a buyer who is in the right frame of mind to make a purchase.  This cannot be overstated:  Getting someone into a game store with money to spend and an interest in buying is the *primary* method a publisher sells that all-important first purchase to a player.  Maybe they go on to buy supplements/expansions/etc. from other sources, but they're highly unlikely to buy that first thing anywhere other than a game store.

The TRPG business used to have some of this effect in mass-market stores but as I've been watching them over the years the selection and variety of the books on offer has gone down and now it is likely that just Wizards and Paizo are getting any of this benefit.

So if you want to make a TRPG that isn't Dungeons & Dragons or Pathfinder, you better hope you've got full line game stores to sell it too, or nobody will ever be likely to start playing it.

The other thing the retailers do is provide a pool of capital.  They typically pay their distributors COD, and in rare cases on Net 30 terms.  That money flows upstream to the distributors and thence to the publishers.  Every unsold copy of a game on a retailer's shelves represents an investment by that retailer in that publisher.  The more stores, the larger the pool of capital.  The fewer stores, the less capital.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> So we go from 15 in 1001 to 10 in 2011...




Sorry - you misunderstood.  I said you had to *add* the newcomers in 2001 to the publishers that existed in the 90s (very few of whom went out of business in the interim).  By the time you get to 2012, you see a big reduction in absolute numbers of TRPG publishers, and even greater reduction in the number of living-wage paid TRPG design/development positions because the companies operating in 2012 do so with less staff than they (or their peers) did in 2001.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> Somewhere in there you sort of say that the problem is 3.5, but is this a major factor?




Yes, it was a huge factor.  You have to understand that most publishers have no room for error.  A failure of just one release can put them into technical bankruptcy.  Many publishers operate for years with negative cash flow, slowly draining the bank accounts of their owners.  3.5 was brutal to the industry because it was such a surprise to everyone.  Many publishers got caught with 3.0 products in the pipeline or on store shelves and they faced immediate cashflow problems as a result.  There just isn't enough of a shock-absorber in the system to cope.

You'll remember that when we did 3.0 we announced it a full year before we shipped it, and 2e didn't have any publisher ecology to support.  Still, retailers took an (unavoidable) beating on the 2e product that they had on their shelves during that period.

And I said that the market could possibly have recovered even from that had it not been for the rise of the MMO.  We'll never know, but 3.5 was a good system and it had fan interest.  If the publishers had more runway they may have been able to recover and get back into profitability.  But they didn't have that runway (a factor utterly beyond Wizards' control).



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> What, really, is the value to the OGL?




80% of the profits earned by D&D come from sales of the 3 core rulebooks.  The rest of the product line is effectively a self-subsidizing marketing campaign.  The core rulebooks are reprinted endlessly, allowing their development costs to be amortized over many more units than anything else in the line.  The core books are also the products with the widest footprints - they are the things new stores sell, and the beachead the game uses to open a new channel of sales.

You can (and should) think of the D&D business as the business of selling the core books.  If you get distracted and think you're in the business of selling campaign setting or rules expansions you'll end up with a less profitable business.

The OGL means that there's an even larger product-driven marketing campaign to sell those books.  Every 3rd party product that gets people interested in playing a fantasy TRPG leads eventually to a D&D core book sale.  Even when someone makes a non-D&D RPG, what they're doing is expanding the fractal interface of TRPG exposure.  Once someone is exposed to TRPGs, and they start to play, all the data shows that they're likely to eventually play D&D.  That's the power of the network externality.

So the OGL, for Wizards of the Coast, is basically a way of selling high-profit core books.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> {In response to my description of the damage that campaign settings had on the core game social network} To what extent, though, was this a problem due to so much of the product lines being unprofitable or otherwise problematic? It is often said that having Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc. created a rift. And surely, it was an issue that no player could afford to go very deep in all of these. But, was it really hurting the company in a given year? If there were three products for Greyhawk in one year, was a Greyhawk gamer stopping then and not buying the three Planescape products because that's different, but they would have purchased three more Greyhawk products? Isn't there a balance where you can have a few settings to have wider appeal?




First, you have to go back to the 1990s TSR catalogs to get a sense as to how absurd this problem was allowed to become.  TSR was producing *seventy or eighty* new releases a year.  It was common that *every month* there was a Forgotten Realms release.  Look at how deep the product lines are for things like Dark Sun and Planescape - lines that only existed for a handful of years.

Second, obviously the smart money is on having fewer campaign settings.  For 3e, we had two: Greyhawk & Forgotten Realms.  And Greyhawk was supported primarily through the Living Grehawk RPGA campaign with very little published content, meaning that we monetized directly just the Forgotten Realms.  And further, unlike the 2e era, we tried to ensure that the Forgotten Realms products would not create their own core systems, but would build off of systems in the core books and thus could be used as supplements for any game even if not using the rest of the Realms canon. In those objectives I think we were extraordinarily successful.  And on top of that, we charged a 20% price premium for Realms products - in other words, we made the brand of the Forgotten Realms pay for itself, as opposed to just subtracting value from the core D&D brand.

I could write a whole essay on this topic (and in fact I have done so, some Google search will probably turn it up).



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> We see something different with Pathfinder. If I look at the catalog, I'm overwhelmed by all the components of Golarion.




Paizo has a different kind of market than Wizards does.  It has subscribers, who have opted in to a monthly purchase process.  And Paizo is really careful about differentiating between Golarian content and core Pathfinder content.  There's only 3 core Pathfinder rulebooks (the core book and the Ultimate books).  Everything else is either monsters, magic items, or Golarian source material.  So a person who just wants to use "Pathfinder" in their homebrew hasn't been asked to acquire a bunch of stuff.  And the Golarian stuff is very careful to avoid creating systems, but sticks to developing content presented in the core, so folks don't feel like they're missing "part of the game" if they don't buy everything.  It helps Paizo tremendously that they're operating so close to so many of their customers without the obfuscation of the distribution/retailer tiers so this kind of strategy can be communicated effectively.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> (in response to my comment about hooking the OGL up to the 3.0 bus and watching the explosion of market activity)Was that an increase to the industry, or to Wizards, or to both? Are there any available numbers on this, and is it possible to separate out the "boom that will be a bust" from revenue that would hang on after the bust?




Nope, there's no numbers that can be shown.  The only facts I have are Wizards numbers.  And most of those are confidential.  The one thing I can tell you is that when TSR did the transition from 1e to 2e in 1998, they sold 289,000 Player's Handbooks in 1998.  We sold 300,000 3e Players Handbooks in about 30 days.  And the trajectory of the rest of the product line mimicked the PHB.  

3.5 was not driven by the 10 year plan we left the TRPG team with, and 3.5 was not done the way I would have done it even on that plan.  I think that its impossible to disentangle what happened after 2003 from the decision to do 3.5, so it's impossible to say if the "bust" was foreordained or not.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> You mention that the change from 3.0 to 3.5 really drove the bust. Was it inevitable, just due to the volume? I recall seeing shelves full of d20 adventures, and the ratings for them were abysmal (though they were priced really low). Were the sales really high enough that this was a true loss for the stores rather than making the reality of dead inventory due to no quality control clear?




Go into a bookstore and look at the offerings for any genre.  What you see are a handful of best sellers, a larger (but still limited) selection of evergreen titles, and then a whole lot of crap.  Do that in a music store (if you can find one).  Do it in any creative field of endeavor.  Sturgeons Law (90% of anything is crap) always applies.  This mountain of crap does not drive cyclical booms & busts in creative industries.  And it didn't drive one in the TRPG business either.

The thing you need to understand is that during the D20 "bubble", *the retailers made more revenue & profit than they had ever made before or since in the history of the hobby*.  And not because of TRPGs.  Because of Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh!.  The year we released 3e, 2000, we fixed a broken business, restored an entire unit to profitability, and outsold every projection by *multiples* (not percentages).  And you know what?  We were a pimple on the elephants ass of Pokemon.  In that one year, 2000, Pokemon made more than *eight times* as much money as _Magic: The Gathering_, and an even higher multiple of what D&D did.

Pokemon spiked and was mostly a non-factor after 2003 (funny timing that with 3.5, eh?) but Yu-Gi-Oh! took its place and instead of spiking it plateaued and maintained for about 5 years.

Those two products combined firehosed about a 200% increase in overall revenue into the retail tier.  The losses they took on unsold d20 product were rounding errors.  In fact, it's likely that the availability of all that mass-marekt CCG cash enabled stores to take gambles on D20 products of suspect provenance which is one reason there was so much crap in the channel in the first place.  If you don't really care that much about if you sell something or not, you're more likely to speculate (or buy with your heart, which is what a lot of game store owners do when times are good).



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> In contrast to the 90's and 00's, I've seen many more young gamers join in the last three years and many say this is the era where geek is cool.




We're seeing an all-new type of person in the market now.  These people are "lifestyle gamers" not "hobby gamers".  They're not dedicated to, or interested in a lifetime affiliation with a game system or game type.  They enjoy all sorts of gaming - video games, family games, hobby games - with equal passion.  They seek out experiences that reward them for being smart and thinking quickly, as opposed to mastery of rules intricacy.  They don't see themselves as defined by the games they play.  They won't say "I'm a D&D player" like many hobby gamers would.  They'll say "I think D&D is cool", which is a whole different kettle of fish.

These people will have to have products purpose built for them, and those products won't look like the pyramid shaped "lines" that hobby gamers are used to.  They'll look like bestselling novels, maybe trilogies, where you play them and then move on to something else rather than having a high-replay value.  And while they'll reward being a bright, savvy gamer, they won't require you to know that you get a +2 circumstance bonus when flanking, and how to determine if you're flanking, and sell you miniature figures and battlemats to show that you're flanking.  So I'm absolutely talking about not "dumbing down" the games, just making them smart in a different way than we're used to.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> But they are also hiring and added designers. Have they really decreased in size over the last few years?




Unquestionably yes.  I would estimate that they've got less than 50% of the designers/developers that they had as of 2003.  Maybe even less than that.  And overall, the number of full-time, living wage positions for TRPG designer/developer positions in the industry may be 20% of what it was in that era.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> Could we not argue that the OGL has made it impossible for D&D to move forward and leave old versions behind? If the game needs to change in design, needs to be innovative to compete, and must attract new gamers, then doesn't it have to move forward?




I can imagine several ways to develop a 4th edition of D&D that are different from what was done.  The design horizon of 5th Edition (should such a thing exist) has to be more narrow, because it must be built in response to the reaction to 4th.

I can imagine developing a 4th edition that was less complex, but still rooted in the 1e/2e/3e design tradition of D&D.  I can imagine de-emphasizing the Power Gamer quadrant of the player demographic and doubling down on the Storyteller and Character Actor quadrants.  I can imagine learning something from the narrative control experiments in the "indy" RPG scene and bringing that to the D&D game to change the way the DM and players interact.  I can imagine all sorts of ways to advance D&D, without putting the game into a paradigm shift.  But now that it's been shifted, well, options for further progress become much more limited.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> Would 4E have not been a continually massive success if the OGL had not existed?




My opinion is no.  If you add up the unit sales of 4e + Pathfinder (and any other d20-derived game) over 4e's life, the total is going to be less (substantially less) than the same numbers of either 3e or 3.5e, and I suspect lower than 2e as well.

The MMO problems affect D&D as much as they affect everything else.  4e is a game that was launched into the teeth of a hurricane, and on its own merits, it didn't have a level playing field.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> Wait, but hasn't it been on par with Pathfinder on sales (mostly tied or higher, sometimes lower)? Is that not enough to be commercially successful?




Success for 4e was defined (by Wizards) as generating annual revenues between $50 and $100 million.  By that (self-imposed) definition, it is a failure.

Profitability for D&D means that it has to recoup all the costs not only of its development and its on-going support network but also the investment into DDI.  I suspect, but do not know, that it has not recouped those costs.  And I suspect that none of the current product line (the stuff being solicited and sold as new this year and last year) is even marginally profitable when you factor in the overhead of the sales & marketing teams, plus the RPGA.

Wizard's cost basis is several orders of magnitude higher than Paizos.  They have more, higher paid staff.  They pay more for art.  They pay more for production.  They have more overhead costs (rent, legal, etc.)  And worse, due to the way Hasbro structures itself, they don't get to claim any credit for the royalties earned by D&D licensing.  So the money Wizards gets to use to offset its costs is just from product sales and DDI.

4e is also exclusively sold through middlemen.  You can't buy D&D from Wizards of the Coast.  Whereas Paizo earns 100% of many of its sales, Wizards only earns 40% on all of the stuff it sells.  So Wizards has to sell 2.5 times as many units just to generate the same revenue as 1 unit of a Paizo product sold direct to a consumer.

If it were working financially, you wouldn't have seen Essentials.  Essentials, to me, was the visible indicator that the strategy of selling the highest margin product - the core books, had failed for 4e, and that Wizards was seeking to make revenues (and profits) elsewhere.  As I didn't see a huge groundswell of reaction to Essentials, I conclude that the strategy didn't work either.



			
				Alphastream said:
			
		

> I share that sentiment, and I know you want a strong overall RPG market, but to be honest what you wrote was that the lifeboat was just Pathfinder now. What role does Wizards play for Paizo? Why does Paizo need Wizards to be a strong brand?




For many people, D&D will always be synonymous with RPGs.  Their opinions about the hobby will be colored, for better or for worse, by how D&D is performing.  Their interest in and ability to support RPGs will be limited by that association.

D&D also has worldwide brand recognition.  Pathfinder has a fraction of that brand equity, and its mostly in the US.  Any market that D&D is doing well in is likely a place that Pathfinder can also thrive in.  The idea that Pathfinder can open and expand a foreign market is untested.

It may be that Pathfinder has passed a phase-change, and has fully inherited the mantle of D&D, and that it is now on its own as the RPG category champion.  But I don't know that to be true, and I think it's way too early to make that coronation.  Pathfinder is at heart a revision of a revsion of 3.0.  That makes it effectively a 12 year old game.  I think a lot of innovative ideas have been added to the toolbox of TRPG design in those 12 years, and if D&D can pick them up and use them, I think it benefits everyone and that includes Pathfinder.


----------



## Pour

Falstaff said:


> See, they should be here, now, talking and discussing D&D with us fans. That's the kind of interaction they need to show us that they're willing to do. Talk with us about D&D. Come to these forums and just talk. Be honest and talk with us. Why won't they do that? It would go a long way to fostering  goodwill between WotC and us gamers. Just my opinion.




If the RPG team came to chat, I'd certainly read the conversation, but I'm really not turned off by them not participating on ENWorld- or this thread in particular. I guess, to be fair though, I'm not looking for them to prove anything to me. 

I mean I don't hold it against anyone for not talking shop, theory, or speculation that pertains to the future of their business, including at least one employee of their competitor, amidst certain elements on this public forum ready and willing to twist their words and/or pounce. 

I'm sure we'll hear more from everyone at WotC come the end of this month.


----------



## Hussar

Excellent response as always Ryan.  I might disagree with you, but,  damn, you make a convincing argument.  

Just a question though:



			
				Ryan D said:
			
		

> Success for 4e was defined (by Wizards) as generating annual revenues between $50 and $100 million. By that (self-imposed) definition, it is a failure.




I'm presuming that's gross sales of course.  For the past year, we've had over 50 000 DDI subscribers (it's over 65 k now).  50 000x$7=$350 k per month.  That's $4.2 million per year.  But, since we don't have to worry about distribution or retail, that's effectively the same as making 16 million per year.  And, that's a very conservative estimate by the way, since we are only taking into account DDI subs that we can prove.

Let's not forget also, that that money comes in regularly - no several month wait from a distributer to pay, which is no small advantage as well.

The thing is, you keep comparing D&D at its absolute highest (in your own words) to now.  If we move the slider to 2004 instead of 2003, the view isn't anywhere near as bad.  Is it really fair to compare high bubble point D&D to any other point in time?


----------



## RyanD

Hussar said:


> I'm presuming that's gross sales of course.  For the past year, we've had over 50 000 DDI subscribers (it's over 65 k now).  50 000x$7=$350 k per month.  That's $4.2 million per year.




So less than 10% of the *minimum* goal they set for themselves.  Since I doubt anyone at that meeting was going to sign off on any sales figure over $20-25 million for the physical products, I suspect they were looking for something more like 300-350k DDI subs; I.e.what a moderately successful MMO would generate.

I think it's fair to compare 2009-2011 with 2000-2003, or even 1989-1993, because we're talking about industry wide phenomenon: retail tier sizes, distributor consolidation, rise of effective direct (MMO) competition.


----------



## Hussar

But, again, where are you getting this 50 million/year figure?  And, other than at the height, has WOTC ever actually achieved that?


----------



## Mark CMG

Pour said:


> If the RPG team came to chat, I'd certainly read the conversation, but I'm really not turned off by them not participating on ENWorld- or this thread in particular. I guess, to be fair though, I'm not looking for them to prove anything to me.





Plus, I think they would probably prefer to just watch and find out what others are saying rather than steer the discussion or wind up entrenched in sidebar discussions that take away from their heavy time commitments toward the new shiny.  While not everyone agrees with their direction or everything they say, they are professionals who need to focus at the top tier of their industry and spending too much time on all of the messageboards they'd need to frequent to keep all of their fans feeling like they are engaging might be a bit much to expect of them.  We get the occasional liaison interface from folks like Trevor when we add defnite misinformation that needs correction.


----------



## RyanD

Hussar said:


> But, again, where are you getting this 50 million/year figure?  And, other than at the height, has WOTC ever actually achieved that?




I know for a fact that such a pitch was made to Hasbro.  It was how they got the green light to do 4e & DDI.


----------



## Hussar

Has any RPG company ever achieved that goal?  For any extended period of time?

Don't people get fired for making promises like that?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I'm presuming that's gross sales of course. For the past year, we've had over 50 000 DDI subscribers (it's over 65 k now). 50 000x$7=$350 k per month. That's $4.2 million per year. But, since we don't have to worry about distribution or retail, that's effectively the same as making 16 million per year. And, that's a very conservative estimate by the way, since we are only taking into account DDI subs that we can prove.
> ?




I don't pretend to know how much wizards is making, but why do you say that is the same as making 16 million per year? I don't see the step between making 4.2 million a year and that being equal to 16 million from other sources (since we don't really know their costs of doing business for either model).


----------



## Giltonio_Santos

RyanD said:


> I know for a fact that such a pitch was made to Hasbro.  It was how they got the green light to do 4e & DDI.




Ouch...

While we are on that, I believe a DDI could have been released for the same degree of sucess of a good MMO (not WoW, but still a good one), no new edition necessary (at least, not such a different one, which alienated a significant share of the player base). Necessary features, in my opinion:

- Character builder
- Monster/Encounter builder
- Daily features, not necessarely Dragon and Dungeon, which should have remained as print material under Paizo.
- Old edition material. I'm not even thinking of new stuff, just the ability to search and download the old stuff, but what about a weekly column on pre-3E D&D? I believe in potential freelancers who still love/play AD&D willing to write it.

The VTT, while an interesting offer, is not the deal breaker, as I see it. But I think the model above would go a long way to allow Wizards to grab money from everybody with DDI, not only players of current edition.


----------



## RyanD

You have to learn all the backstory that led up to that meeting to understand the context.  It's a long and winding road.

After Vince Calouri was pushed out of Wizards of the Coast he was replaced by Chuck Heubner.  Chuck basically had to manage Wizards on the downslope from the Pokemon salad days.  Hasbro has been through many boom & bust cycles in the toy business and they have a standard response when it happens:  cut headcount and reduce overhead.  Since Wizards was de facto the only pat of the business that had not been rolled up into Hasbro proper it was not insulated by the successes of other things at Hasbro like GI Joe or Transformers.

While this was happening there was a big internal fight for control over the CCG business within Hasbro.  Brian Goldner who was at the time the head of the Boys Toys (i.e. half the company) division of Hasbro thought that the company was missing a huge window of opportunity to follow up Pokemon with a series of mass-market CCGs linked to Hasbro's core brands GI Joe and Transformers.  These battles resulted in things being escalated all the way to the C-Suite and the Hasbro Board, where Brian lost the fight and Wizards retained the exclusive ability within Hasbro to make CCGs.  The downside for Wizards is that they were forced to do things with the Duelmaster brand that they did not want to do, and it never got the traction in the US that Wizards thought it could achieve.  (In Japan, by contrast, it became a huge best-seller).

Chuck left after two years and Loren Greenwood, who had been the long time VP of Sales, replaced him in 2004.  He was also a visible proponent of the idea that Wizards, and not Boys Toys, should set Hasbro's CCG strategy.  Thus when Brian was named COO of the whole company in 2006 and CEO in 2008, Loren had a big problem on his hands.  Loren guided the company through the post 3.5e crash of the TRPG market, the loss of the Pokemon franchise, and the unwinding of the Wizards retail strategy.  All of this was pretty bitter fruit for hm since he'd been instrumental in building up much of what had to then be torn down.  The combination of all these things led to Loren's exit and his replacement by Greg Leeds, who is the current CEO of Wizards.

Sometime around 2005ish, Hasbro made an internal decision to divide its businesses into two categories. *Core* brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and had a growth path towards $100 million annual sales, and *Non-Core* brands, which didn't.

Under Goldner, the Core Brands would be the tentpoles of the company.  They would be exploited across a range of media with an eye towards major motion pictures, following the path Transformers had blazed.  Goldner saw what happened to Marvel when they re-oriented their company from a publisher of comic books to a brand building factory (their market capitalization increased by something like 2 billion dollars).  He wanted to replicate that at Hasbro.

Core Brands would get the financing they requested for development of their businesses (within reason).  Non-Core brands would not.  They would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support.  In fact, many Non-Core brands would simply be mothballed - allowed to go dormant for some number of years until the company was ready to take them down off the shelf and try to revive them for a new generation of kids.

At the point of the original Hasbro/Wizards merger a fateful decision was made that laid the groundwork for what happened once Greg took over.  Instead of focusing Hasbro on the idea that Wizards of the Coast was a single brand, each of the lines of business in Wizards got broken out and reported to Hasbro as a separate entity.  This was driven in large part by the fact that the acquisition agreement specified a substantial post-acquisition purchase price adjustment for Wizards' shareholders on the basis of the sales of non-Magic CCGs (i.e. Pokemon).

This came back to haunt Wizards when Hasbro's new Core/Non-Core strategy came into focus.  Instead of being able to say "We're a $100+ million brand, keep funding us as we desire", each of the business units inside Wizards had to make that case separately.  So the first thing that happened was the contraction you saw when Wizards dropped new game development and became the "D&D and Magic" company.  Magic has no problem hitting the "Core" brand bar, but D&D does.  It's really a $25-30 million business, especially since Wizards isn't given credit for the licensing revenue of the D&D computer games.

It would have been very easy for Goldner et al to tell Wizards "you're done with D&D, put it on a shelf and we'll bring it back 10 years from now as a multi-media property managed from Rhode Island".  There's no way that the D&D business circa 2006 could have supported the kind of staff and overhead that it was used to.  Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content.  So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D.  That's something between 50 and 75 people.

Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it.  The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI.  At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing.  The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals.  Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.

The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI.  DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools.  Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the DDI team and it never really recovered.  The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched, and the explicit link between 4e and DDI that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized.  The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone.  The marketplace backlash to 4e didn't help either.

Greg wasn't in the hot seat long enough to really take the blame for the 4e/DDI plan, and Wizards just hired a new exec to be in charge of Sales & Marketing, and Bill Slavicsek who headed RPG R&D left last summer, so the team that committed those numbers to Hasbro are gone.  The team that's there now probably doesn't have a blank sheet of paper and an open checkbook, but they also don't have to answer to Hasbro for the promises of the prior regime.

As to their next move?  Only time will tell.

(Edit - changed the year of the meeting for the 4e/DDI pitch)


----------



## Ahnehnois

RyanD said:


> I can imagine developing a 4th edition that was less complex, but still rooted in the 1e/2e/3e design tradition of D&D.  I can imagine de-emphasizing the Power Gamer quadrant of the player demographic and doubling down on the Storyteller and Character Actor quadrants.  I can imagine learning something from the narrative control experiments in the "indy" RPG scene and bringing that to the D&D game to change the way the DM and players interact.  I can imagine all sorts of ways to advance D&D, without putting the game into a paradigm shift.  But now that it's been shifted, well, options for further progress become much more limited.



Wait, what?

I'm going to have to store that quote somewhere. Sounds like the Voice of Reason to me.



> Pathfinder is at heart a revision of a [revision] of 3.0. That makes it effectively a 12 year old game. I think a lot of innovative ideas have been added to the toolbox of TRPG design in those 12 years, and if D&D can pick them up and use them, I think it benefits everyone and that includes Pathfinder.



To be fair, that does to.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

RyanD said:


> 3:  Some of the stores in it aren't game stores.  They're stores that sell Magic or (less commonly) D&D, but that's it.  The "game store" might be one rack of product maintained by the son of the owner for himself and his buddies.  Again, they're seeking access to the promotional stuff Wizards produces.  They may run a Friday Night Magic or an Encounters session on a for-profit basis (or just because they love the games), but they're not Full Line Game Stores.




I can provide a personal anecdote to illustrate this particualr point; one of my best friends runs a comic store that fits right into this mold; they don't stock games (tried, but they didn't sell) but do host a D&D Meetup on a monthly basis.  They just recently started running Encounters (primarily because, hey, free stuff!).  So they would show up in the locator, but are not in any way a game store.


----------



## Frylock

TheFindus said:


> I know, but the text of the rules can be protected. Plus iconic names. And that makes all the difference. Otherwise, why the need to design an OGL in the first place? It is to give 3rd party publishers that security.




Again I refer everyone to my article series on Loremaster.org called Protection from Chaos. Read the "IP Primer" and "To GSL or Not to GSLLC." In short, neither rules nor ironic names can be protected through copyright, and the OGL (and especially the GSL) are more about maintaining game integrity than licensing protected material. That is, WotC uses the license to restrict your ability to use otherwise unrestricted material by way of *contract*, not IP law, and as a result there is consistency running through all products bearing the WotC logo, whether published by WotC or not. Understanding this goes a long way towards understanding just how brilliant those licenses are (regardless of the details of how they're executed).


----------



## delericho

RyanD said:


> Magic has no problem hitting the "Core" brand bar, but D&D does.  It's really a $25-30 million business, especially since Wizards isn't given credit for the licensing revenue of the D&D computer games.
> 
> It would have been very easy for Goldner et al to tell Wizards "you're done with D&D, put it on a shelf and we'll bring it back 10 years from now as a multi-media property managed from Rhode Island".  There's no way that the D&D business circa 2006 could have supported the kind of staff and overhead that it was used to.  Best case would have been a very small staff dedicated to just managing the brand and maybe handling some freelance pool doing minimal adventure content.  So this was an existential issue (like "do we exist or not") for the part of Wizards that was connected to D&D.  That's something between 50 and 75 people.
> 
> Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it.




That's... pretty terrifying. If you don't mind my asking, how much of your post do you _know_, and how much is informed speculation?



> As to their next move?  Only time will tell.




Being freed of the promises of the previous management does them no good if they're still beholden to that impossible $50M target. I see no way for them to reach that.

I suppose they could do a 5e on the cheap, and pray for a major hit. That would almost certainly fail, but it _might just_ work. Even if successful, it would only be a short-term boost, but perhaps they only need to hold on for a few years, for things to improve, and for Hasbro to change tack.

Alternately... you said that they were hampered because they couldn't benefit from the D&D electronic license. But, how about now? Now that it's back in-house, could they license it out for an MMO?

The final option I can think of is for the D&D team to quietly position themselves to spin out at their own, independent company, and then pick up the license for D&D RPG when Hasbro cancels it.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> Has any RPG company ever achieved that goal?  For any extended period of time?
> 
> Don't people get fired for making promises like that?




Sadly, no.


What typically happens is one or more leaders makes such a claim, either from blind faith in their approach or desperation.

Then the teams try to figure out a plan that _if everything goes perfectly_ can achieve the goal and projects start fring off.

The first intimations start coming in that the goal will not be met.

There is a quick change of leadership as those originally in charge find other opportunities.

The results of the initiative are tabulated and the new leadership attempts damage control and to assert control.  Depending on the new leadership, start over at point #1


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> Excellent response as always Ryan.  I might disagree with you, but,  damn, you make a convincing argument.
> 
> Just a question though:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm presuming that's gross sales of course.  For the past year, we've had over 50 000 DDI subscribers (it's over 65 k now).  50 000x$7=$350 k per month.  That's $4.2 million per year.  But, since we don't have to worry about distribution or retail, that's effectively the same as making 16 million per year.  And, that's a very conservative estimate by the way, since we are only taking into account DDI subs that we can prove.
> 
> Let's not forget also, that that money comes in regularly - no several month wait from a distributer to pay, which is no small advantage as well.
> 
> The thing is, you keep comparing D&D at its absolute highest (in your own words) to now.  If we move the slider to 2004 instead of 2003, the view isn't anywhere near as bad.  Is it really fair to compare high bubble point D&D to any other point in time?




Revenues are gross sales.  the good news is it isolates the performance of sales from the costs of servicing the customer.  The bad new is finding more efficient delivery systems doesn't affect the target numbers.

So if book/cards sales are at $30M a year currently, for DDI to fill the gap would require a subscription base of 240,000 subscribers at $7 per month.  I would be tempted to argue that the $30M revenue is high for the non-subscription market we are seeing (D&D often being 2nd in book sales, for example) and thus the subscriber base required to hit the revenue target is actually closer to 400-500K subscribers.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

Thanks Ryan for all the work you're putting into this thread.  It's been informative and enlightening and I appreciate it like crazy. 

It's easy to focus on the game itself, but to get such a good picture of the business realities that drive what goes on with the game, is invaluable. 

To me, much of the backstory and history you're providing makes it seem like a new edition of the game would be a huge mistake -- and at the same time I'm not sure too many of my other ideas aren't bigger mistakes.


----------



## billd91

Nagol said:


> Sadly, no.




I'm not sure that's a question of sadly. Sometimes you have to get burned to learn to do a better job. It's when people don't get fired for never learning that's a big problem.

Pitching 4e/DDI on a higher than realistic sales figure may set the project up for failure... based on that high criteria. But, if the venture actually makes a modest (if small) profit in the long run, I'd argue there's no harm to the interested parties (shareholders, etc). Perhaps any further pitches from that quarter should be viewed with more suspicion, but firings shouldn't be warranted. I don't know if 4e is at that point (or ever will be) or past it. 

The part about all of this stuff Ryan is posting that I find most unfortunate is the way WotC is now viewed within the Core/Non-core brands structure of Hasbro. I think I'd much rather see Wizards as a company meaning more than Magic and D&D (and whatever little crumbs get tossed Avalon Hill's way). I think they'd be much better off within Hasbro's culture as a single Core brand.


----------



## Ahwe Yahzhe

RyanD said:


> You have to learn all the backstory that led up to that meeting to understand the context. It's a long and winding road.
> ...
> Sometime around 2005ish, Hasbro made an internal decision to divide its businesses into two categories. *Core* brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and had a growth path towards $100 million annual sales, and *Non-Core* brands, which didn't.
> ...
> Core Brands would get the financing they requested for development of their businesses (within reason). Non-Core brands would not. They would be allowed to rise & fall with the overall toy market on their own merits without a lot of marketing or development support. In fact, many Non-Core brands would simply be mothballed - allowed to go dormant for some number of years until the company was ready to take them down off the shelf and try to revive them for a new generation of kids.
> ...
> Greg wasn't in the hot seat long enough to really take the blame for the 4e/DDI plan, and Wizards just hired a new exec to be in charge of Sales & Marketing, and Bill Slavicsek who headed RPG R&D left last summer, so the team that committed those numbers to Hasbro are gone. The team that's there now probably doesn't have a blank sheet of paper and an open checkbook, but they also don't have to answer to Hasbro for the promises of the prior regime.



Thanks, Ryan.  The story of Hasbro's brand strategy feels like a huge, flangey puzzle piece that's been missing, like a crowd of blindfolded people (us) describing an elephant by touch.  It provides context for so much of the D&D brand thrashing about.

What seems odd to me though, is if Hasbro is aiming to build a brand-stable supported by toys and games (ala Marvel) focusing on Core Brands, then shouldn't have current licensing revenues been factored into any revenue threshold number, be it $50 or $100 million?  Especially if such licensing revenue streams were an end goal of the Core Brand strategy?
...
So has WotC abandoned its Core Brand target for D&D? (Especially with  those who pitched it to Hasbro now gone...) Has D&D really been relegated to the category of "sink-or-swim" (minus licensing revenues)?  Is WotC now trying to complete DDI without Hasbro financing?  It makes me wonder if the DDI VTT will ever leave Beta, or if TRPGs will evolve with more tech-assisted tools for lifestyle gamers. (I'm glad you recognized that there are new gamers coming in who play D&D, albeit _among other games_.) 

I still dream of the DM at the table rolling dice, entering results on his laptop/tablet which would then update monster/PC hit points and conditions on everyone's smartphone/tablet character sheets via bluetooth.  This would enable 'smart' character sheets that show the PC only those actions/options were available to them, including what unused powers/feats... Basically all the fiddly bits automatically updating a digital PC sheet, with the DM monitoring PCs and monsters/NPCs on his own laptop/tablet...  The game moves with less "analysis paralysis," and the DM has more visibility over how the players are faring. (/dream)


----------



## Nagol

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure that's a question of sadly. Sometimes you have to get burned to learn to do a better job. It's when people don't get fired for never learning that's a big problem.
> 
> Pitching 4e/DDI on a higher than realistic sales figure may set the project up for failure... based on that high criteria. But, if the venture actually makes a modest (if small) profit in the long run, I'd argue there's no harm to the interested parties (shareholders, etc). Perhaps any further pitches from that quarter should be viewed with more suspicion, but firings shouldn't be warranted. I don't know if 4e is at that point (or ever will be) or past it.




What seems to happen most frequently is the instigating parties are never held accountable because they are not in the same position/company as when they launched the initiative.  The new position is insulated from the pending fallout of their previous decisions.  Not every instance of misplaced optimism deserves a head on a pike (e.g. firing), but some accountability is helpful in bulding better skills at estimation and risk perception.  The occasional head on a pike is useful to control outrageous claims as well.

As for the stakeholder harm, I disagree.  An enterprise has limited resources (usually cash, talent, and ability to focus).  Large projects compete with each other to acquire approval to gather these resources to themselves based upon their expected benefit.  If one project wins based upon wildly optimistic projections and still manages to eke out a positive return, the stakeholders have lost the potential return of the next most competitive project -- assuming it wasn't wildly overstated as well, of course.


----------



## Pramas

Guess I should have read the article last week because now a lot of people have been misinformed about Green Ronin. We have had full time employees since 2001. Currently we have 11 employees, 5 full time and 6 part time. 

It is true that I have spent some time working in the video game industry, most recently as the lead writer on the Warhammer 40K MMO at Vigil Games in Austin, but the company hasn't had less than 4 full timers since 2003. I've also been back full time at GR since August, when I returned to Seattle from Texas.

I'd also add that Dragon Age, Set 1 has been a very successful intro product for RPGs. It just went into its third print run.


----------



## RyanD

Pramas said:


> Guess I should have read the article last week because now a lot of people have been misinformed about Green Ronin. We have had full time employees since 2001. Currently we have 11 employees, 5 full time and 6 part time.




I stand (gratefully) corrected.  Good to hear about that success Chris!

RyanD


----------



## billd91

Nagol said:


> As for the stakeholder harm, I disagree.  An enterprise has limited resources (usually cash, talent, and ability to focus).  Large projects compete with each other to acquire approval to gather these resources to themselves based upon their expected benefit.  If one project wins based upon wildly optimistic projections and still manages to eke out a positive return, the stakeholders have lost the potential return of the next most competitive project -- assuming it wasn't wildly overstated as well, of course.




Yeah, see, I have a very hard time defining failure to do as well as you could have, when already achieving a gain, as "causing harm".


----------



## Pramas

RyanD said:


> I stand (gratefully) corrected.  Good to hear about that success Chris!




Thanks. We don't have corporate money and we're not funded by millionaires, but we are tenacious.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Pramas said:


> Thanks. We don't have corporate money and we're not funded by millionaires, but we are tenacious.




Quality plus tenacity makes u guys a winner in my book


----------



## Cergorach

Hussar said:


> Has any RPG company ever achieved that goal?  For any extended period of time?
> 
> Don't people get fired for making promises like that?




To be fair it isn't as unrealistic as you might imagine. If they had launched the DDI tools on time (with the launch of 4E) and didn't alienate all the current Pathfinder players they might actually have hit that $50 million in sales. At the time they also had the sales of the D&D miniatures game (which I would suspect would be significant).

While Games Workshop might not be (directly) in the RPG business anymore, they are a company that has a $200 million a year revenue.


----------



## k012957

Strictly from a consumer's point of view, there is a definite problem with the business model of TRPGs.

A consumer decides to play the game, buys a book or two, and begins playing. Soon the consumer is surrounded by folk who have follow-on publications that make the consumer's PC look weak and boring in comparison.

The reason, of course, is that the company selling the product cannot make a profit from selling only the core rulebooks. The company must sell follow-on product. 

If that product makes it easier/more fun for the consumer without complexifying the game (such as item cards, miniatures, or battle-mats), then the products will be bought and the consumer will see the money as well spent. But, if the follow-on product is new rules/spells/monsters/classes/feats/etc., then the consumer must either buy the new product, or be consigned to only using the core.

WOTC had a good game in 3.0 (well, except for the Harm spell <<grin>>). Their follow-on products ran the gamut from new monster manuals to various splat books that not only abused the power curve, but in some cases appeared to not have been proof-read well. 

In order to fix a few things and generate new revenues, they came out with the 3.5 core books. This then was followed by more monster manuals and more splat books.

Consumers who jumped to Paizo upon the elimination of a physical magazine (both Dungeon and Dragon), thought they had found the answer. Yet now, the core books for Pathfinder include follow-on books. 

4e has a similar problem, but with a different twist. After the core books, then come the errata and the follow-on books. These often change the original to something quite different. Thus, the books are very outdated as soon as new content is published, whether physically or digitally. The only solution is to become a member of DDI, pay the yearly dues, and always have an updated version. This model has constant income coming into the company, but will it really generate new income by getting new players?

As a consumer, I am unlikely to spend my money twice to get the same product, and the bar to new players is rather large.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

RyanD said:


> So less than 10% of the *minimum* goal they set for themselves.  Since I doubt anyone at that meeting was going to sign off on any sales figure over $20-25 million for the physical products, I suspect they were looking for something more like 300-350k DDI subs; I.e.what a moderately successful MMO would generate.
> 
> I think it's fair to compare 2009-2011 with 2000-2003, or even 1989-1993, because we're talking about industry wide phenomenon: retail tier sizes, distributor consolidation, rise of effective direct (MMO) competition.




Here's the thing though. Even a cursory back-of-the-envelope calculation shows how utterly unrealistic such a goal was. I live in Vermont. We've got a population of around 800k people. Gaming has always been pretty active here, we have our own Con and have for quite a while, and there are weekly game club activities, etc. There are certainly at this point 100's of gamers here. Lets call it 1,000 because I know most of the people in my part of the state, and that's easily a third of the state, and that's a couple hundred people. So basically you have something like 0.1% of the population that games enough to count. To have 300k DDI subscribers you have to figure that's 0.1% of the whole US population. In other words you'd have had to have 100% market adoption of DDI to reach that figure. You'd have to have had basically 150 tables of people playing 4e in this state on a basis frequent enough to all buy core books to sell that many core books. There aren't 150 RPG tables playing ALL RPGS COMBINED in this state on that kind of frequency to make that number. Clearly whoever made that pitch either had no respect for the truth or was completely insane.

This is really why I think the whole idea that D&D might 'die' doesn't work. If you look at what 4e HAS done, it actually seems quite realistic. Now maybe someone hasn't had the gumption to go up to corporate and say "hey, look, those guys you fired last year because they didn't deliver were into the good stuff. Here's what we CAN do." but really that has to happen. Nobody axes a product line that can make a solid operating net income because of sunk costs that are irrelevant anyway. They may wish they never did it in the first place, but its done. It isn't as if shutting down the division makes any business sense, you just do exactly what they have done, cut it down to a size that works and have them do products they know they can sell, and keep poking at the market to keep yourself in the game. They can play that game for a LONG time, and when they factor in that you can't really get anything out of the licensing, novels, board games, etc if you don't have an RPG that is the anchor product, it makes even less sense to think that it will go away. 

Of course there will be some sort of '5e' eventually. There's always something that has to come along. Nobody ever expected 4e to last forever. Even if it sold $25 million worth of books in 2008 it sure wouldn't be doing that today.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't pretend to know how much wizards is making, but why do you say that is the same as making 16 million per year? I don't see the step between making 4.2 million a year and that being equal to 16 million from other sources (since we don't really know their costs of doing business for either model).




This is based on the 1:4 ratio of what the publisher makes stated earlier in this thread.


----------



## Hussar

The problem is AbdulAlhazred, without that pitch, it was quite possible that everyone at WOTC would be looking for a new job as Hasbro simply mothballs D&D for ten years.  If you have a choice between getting fired or making a promise that you probably can't achieve and keeping your job for the next while and then getting fired, which one are you going to make?

And, yes, in case I didn't mention it before, thanks a bunch to Ryan D for all of this.  Much, much stuff to chew on.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> This is based on the 1:4 ratio of what the publisher makes stated earlier in this thread.




I'd say though that is somewhat optimistic. For one thing DDI still requires production costs, Dungeon and Dragon aren't free. There are also some costs associated with running ANY sort of online service, and DDI's tools require some amount of maintenance just to keep up with the stuff that gets put out in the magazines. So 4.2 million in gross revenue from an online service like that might only translate into say 2 million net cash. You might have to sell 8 million worth of hardcover books to equal that, but clearly that still doesn't put you in the big leagues. 

The thing with online services is that they scale really well, unlike publishing where the costs of printing, distribution, and sales are MUCH more linear. A DDI that costs say 2.5 million to run for 50k users would cost some trivial amount more to run for 100k users. You barely need any additional staff, your IT guys can run 20 servers as easily as 10 these days, and the costs of hardware and bandwidth are relatively modest costs. Thus someone saying "I can make 300k a month paying user web service" was promising a LOT more than what a 50k user web service is worth. Heck, the number of web services with 300k paying users IN THE WORLD is a 2-digit number. They were promising basically the Moon, made of platinum no less.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

Hussar said:


> The problem is AbdulAlhazred, without that pitch, it was quite possible that everyone at WOTC would be looking for a new job as Hasbro simply mothballs D&D for ten years.  If you have a choice between getting fired or making a promise that you probably can't achieve and keeping your job for the next while and then getting fired, which one are you going to make?
> 
> And, yes, in case I didn't mention it before, thanks a bunch to Ryan D for all of this.  Much, much stuff to chew on.




Oh, I've seen that dynamic as well, yes. I think what really happens is a combination of the fact that DOERS are optimistic people and they always set high goals. Many of them set unrealistic goals, at least some of the time. And then you factor in "my butt is on the line, I got no choice" and you do quite easily end up with a person that convinces themselves that something almost completely unrealistic is possible. It usually IS theoretically possible, so if you can pitch really well the corporate people upstairs aren't able to totally shoot your idea down, and you get a shot at it.


----------



## Hussar

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I'd say though that is somewhat optimistic. For one thing DDI still requires production costs, Dungeon and Dragon aren't free. There are also some costs associated with running ANY sort of online service, and DDI's tools require some amount of maintenance just to keep up with the stuff that gets put out in the magazines. So 4.2 million in gross revenue from an online service like that might only translate into say 2 million net cash. You might have to sell 8 million worth of hardcover books to equal that, but clearly that still doesn't put you in the big leagues.
> 
> The thing with online services is that they scale really well, unlike publishing where the costs of printing, distribution, and sales are MUCH more linear. A DDI that costs say 2.5 million to run for 50k users would cost some trivial amount more to run for 100k users. You barely need any additional staff, your IT guys can run 20 servers as easily as 10 these days, and the costs of hardware and bandwidth are relatively modest costs. Thus someone saying "I can make 300k a month paying user web service" was promising a LOT more than what a 50k user web service is worth. Heck, the number of web services with 300k paying users IN THE WORLD is a 2-digit number. They were promising basically the Moon, made of platinum no less.




Oh hey, yeah, totally agreeing here.  300k subs is a ridiculous number.  The fact that they were predicting that large of a growth of their own industry (doubling in size?  Really?) is just barrels of not goodness.


----------



## frankthedm

k012957 said:


> WOTC had a good game in 3.0 (well, except for the Harm spell <<grin>>). Their follow-on products ran the gamut from new monster manuals to various splat books that not only abused the power curve, but in some cases appeared to not have been proof-read well.



Sword & Fist was merely a sign of things to come. 

Welcome to EnWorld BTW.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Hussar said:


> If you have a choice between getting fired or making a promise that you probably can't achieve and keeping your job for the next while and then getting fired, which one are you going to make?



I actually left my job and went back to school for essentially that reason; because new business goals were being set that I wanted no part of, nor did I want to think about how I might achieve such goals. To be fair, I am of age and experience that it made sense to do so (not everyone would have that easy of a choice) and it was in the cards anyway, but I do believe there's something to be said for standing on principle. There's also something to be said for quality of living and avoiding a high-stress work environment.

If I had been working on 3.5 for WotC, and I had seen the basic requirements from Hasbro and the 4e-related plans from my company to meet them (i.e. if I had seen Ryan Dancey's posts in this thread), I would have quit before they could have fired me.

Given the staff turnover, I suspect there were people in the company who did exactly that (and many more in the "fired later" category).


----------



## frankthedm

Hussar said:


> If you have a choice between getting fired or making a promise that you probably can't achieve and keeping your job for the next while and then getting fired, which one are you going to make?



So would *you* be OK with someone who was supposed to be working for your best interests, like your banker or broker, outright lying to you about the expected returns on your investments?

There comes a time when a person has to decide what their honor is worth.


----------



## Ahnehnois

frankthedm said:


> So would *you* be OK with someone who was supposed to be working for your best interests, like your banker or broker, outright lying to you about the expected returns on your investments?
> 
> There comes a time when a person has to decide what their honor is worth.



I couldn't give XP, but this is what I was getting at.

(Thanks for covering me [MENTION=61026]tuxgeo[/MENTION])


----------



## Lanefan

RyanD said:


> The Wizards locator (like all store locators in the industry) has 3 problems: ...



Plus a fourth, perhaps, in that it only counts stores who do the D+D Encounters stuff - am I right?  If so, at least in this town the count is off by either 75% or 100% as three of the 4 local stores do not do Encounters (that I know of) and I'm not sure about the fourth.


> Nope, there's no numbers that can be shown.  The only facts I have are Wizards numbers.  And most of those are confidential.  The one thing I can tell you is that when TSR did the transition from 1e to 2e in 1998, they sold 289,000 Player's Handbooks in 1998.  We sold 300,000 3e Players Handbooks in about 30 days.  And the trajectory of the rest of the product line mimicked the PHB.



Something here doesn't make sense.  Wasn't the 1e-to-2e transition completed a *long* time before 1998?  And if so, what do 1998 sales have to do with anything?

Lanefan


----------



## Hussar

Yes, because the guy who controls your money would NEVER lie about what's going on.  

But, if it's a choice between making some promises that I might be able to keep but probably won't or my kids being homeless because I got laid off from a game making company... well, that's not exactly the easist of decisions to make.  It's very easy to sit back and say what you would or would not have done.  I'm not going to take that position thanks.


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> /snip
> Something here doesn't make sense.  Wasn't the 1e-to-2e transition completed a *long* time before 1998?  And if so, what do 1998 sales have to do with anything?
> 
> Lanefan




I believe he meant 1988.  That would make more sense.

If they sold 300k (ish) PHB's in 1998, that would be very, very impressive.


----------



## Mark Oliva

Ryan's post doubtless makes different points to different people.  The point that I got is that a TRPG in the hands of a company like Hasbro can leave you high and dry any day of the week.  It confirms my decision to drop D&D (R) at the time 4E appeared and to go to Pathfinder (R), an RPG marketed by an RPG company dedicated to its customers, rather than an octopus dedicated to retail numbers alone.


----------



## GSHamster

I think the ethics of the 4E plan may depend on how it was presented. It could easily have been pitched as a high-risk, high-reward plan.  Given the directive to make D&D a $100 million property, that plan might have been the only path, even with a low probability of success.


----------



## Cergorach

The US is certainly not the only D&D market out there, we have the rest of the world as well. As Ryan indicated WotC sold 300,000 PHBs in the first 30 days upon release with 3.0 and that certainly wasn't the only PHBs they sold, not by a long shot. So there's a lot more players out there then the 300k, at least in the 3.0E days. WotC was aiming with 4E at another revival of D&D, but as mentioned before their plans didn't go as planned.

- DDI wasn't finished (on time)
- GSL wasn't a success and alienated a lot of people
- 4E wasn't what a lot of people expected it to be and would rather go with something else

If those 'failures' hadn't occurred D&D would still be the 900 pound gorilla and might actually have reached that $50 million a year in _revenue_ (and not profit as some folks think). Is that a risky business proposal, maybe now with hindsight 50/50, but at the time D&D was still that 900 pound gorilla, and they made it a hit in 2000. I would guess that at the time it wasn't a crap shoot, but there was of course risk (as there is in any business). I seriously think that everyone in the team didn't think it was doomed to fail, the possibility was there, but I don't think the risk was bigger then in 2000 and the rewards were certainly there if they succeeded.


----------



## RyanD

Yeah 1989.  Typo.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Cergorach said:


> The US is certainly not the only D&D market out there, we have the rest of the world as well.




Yeah i was about to point out the same thing. Even if the US for DnD is 65% of the market that still means a lot of it is outside the US. I have no idea how big of the market is in the US or other countries. I just used a random number of a guess as a example.


----------



## xechnao

Cergorach said:


> - DDI wasn't finished (on time)
> - GSL wasn't a success and alienated a lot of people
> - 4E wasn't what a lot of people expected it to be and would rather go with something else



I do not agree. IMO, the main reasons were:

- 3.xe was a big commercial success. Most 3e fans were convinced to transition to 3.5e and re-purchased the game after three years. They could not be so easily re-convinced to re-purchase the game after another 3-4 years.

- The biggest reason is the third reason of your list:
4E wasn't what a lot of people expected it to be and would rather go with something else...
For many that would be something that could rally them with a quality presentation and product made to cater to their hurt feelings: enter Pathfinder.


----------



## Cergorach

xechnao said:


> I do not agree. IMO, the main reasons were:
> 
> - 3.xe was a big commercial success. Most 3e fans were convinced to transition to 3.5e and re-purchased the game after three years. They could not be so easily re-convinced to re-purchase the game after another 3-4 years.
> 
> - The biggest reason is the third reason of your list:
> 4E wasn't what a lot of people expected it to be and would rather go with something else...
> For many that would be something that could rally them with a quality presentation and product made to cater to their hurt feelings: enter Pathfinder.




Your first reason is not true, while there are folks that stuck with 3.5E because of a new investment, that number is relatively small. There were many that bought the 4E core books and never got further into 4E. And when Pathfinder showed up on the market, folks massively bought into that. 5 years between editions is in todays market not that strange, nor as unacceptable as it was a few decades ago. With consumers it isn't about not willing to upgrade, but liking what the upgrade does, this goes for computers and gaming.

#1 The GSL, a lot of hardcore fans didn't like that, not only that, a lot of the publishers didn't like that. Less support from 3rd party publishers meant that a lot less folks were interested in 4E.

#2 4E is very different from 3.5E, both in rules philosophy and presentation. For me it was the presentation that kind of killed 4E for me and made Pathfinder more attractive, that Pathfinder uses the OGL is pure bonus.

#3 No decent electronic tools at launch and the GSL made tools very iffy to produce. If WotC had DDI fully functional and ready at launch things might have been different, a lot of folks use electronic tools these days and even WotC was pushing 4E to take advantage of the electronic medium, they were just very much behind the curve.

#4 No PDF support, folks are moving away from the paper book and fully utilizing their tablets. 3-4 years ago there wasn't an iPad, now your burried under tablet options. Also us pnp RPG collectors are running out of room to actually put our books, I stopped with novels around 10 years ago, and still my book cases are almost filled to capacity. I'm filling some gaps in my old collections and am limiting myself to core books for new(er) systems. For Heavy Gear Blitz! I've gone for pure pdf, no physical rulebooks. My physical book collection for Battletech and Shadowrun will stop at the FASA era and the hardcover rulebooks.


----------



## Dausuul

The real problem with DDI is that Wizards has limited resources to throw at it. The initial release was riddled with problems, and progress since then, while steady, has been very slow. DDI is still clunky and customization is almost nonexistent, or at least it was when I let my subscription lapse a few months back.

There's a solution to this, however. The D&D fan base is very creative and slightly obsessive. They are also overwhelmingly tech-savvy; a _lot_ of us work in the tech industry in some capacity. What this adds up to is a huge pool of free developer-hours just waiting to be tapped.

What WotC ought to do is turn DDI into an API. They provide software to authenticate DDI users and serve up data--monsters, powers, magic items, and so forth--from a big honkin' database*. Then they tell the fans, "Here you are. Go nuts." The community builds better VTTs and character builders and monster builders and all the rest than Wizards could produce in a hundred years. Wizards picks the best ones and links to them from their website.

Then Wizards can just sit back and collect money from DDI subscriptions, while letting the community do the heavy lifting of development and reaping a ton of goodwill into the bargain. The down side, of course, is that they surrender corporate control over the end product, and that could make it difficult to sell internally. But I think the end result would be much more successful.

[SIZE=-2]*Actually a tiny honkin' database. As databases go, you could fit the entire 4E ruleset with all of its options and modules into one small corner of most corporate DBs nowadays. But you get the picture.[/SIZE]


----------



## xechnao

Cergorach said:


> Your first reason is not true, while there are folks that stuck with 3.5E because of a new investment, that number is relatively small. There were many that bought the 4E core books and never got further into 4E. And when Pathfinder showed up on the market, folks massively bought into that. 5 years between editions is in todays market not that strange, nor as unacceptable as it was a few decades ago. With consumers it isn't about not willing to upgrade, but liking what the upgrade does, this goes for computers and gaming.



What I am talking about is a phenomenon that hobby businesses are aware of. Joe Goodman, some year ago, put an excellent description of it regarding D&D. RyanD, in the OP of this thread refers to it as the boom & bust cycles. Also, if I remember correctly it was again Ryan that described this kind of affair regarding Games Workshop's POV (they want to hook some people for 2-3 years, be done with them and then market to other people). 


Cergorach said:


> #1 The GSL, a lot of hardcore fans didn't like that, not only that, a lot of the publishers didn't like that. Less support from 3rd party publishers meant that a lot less folks were interested in 4E.



No really. This is a claim some people here on enworld keep repeating but there is no strong evidence in favor of it. 4e still allows 3rd party to support it but fans are not very interested about it. Besides, there was no edition of D&D other than 3.xe that were OGL. Yet, D&D was always number 1, except maybe now in front of Pathfinder which was marketed as a revision of 3.5e edition. 
4e is not struggling against the OGL. 4e is struggling against the will of many of its fans to not upgrade, especially since someone can still pat on their back, offering them product of unparalleled quality.


Cergorach said:


> #2 4E is very different from 3.5E, both in rules philosophy and presentation. For me it was the presentation that kind of killed 4E for me and made Pathfinder more attractive, that Pathfinder uses the OGL is pure bonus.



Fans, even designers themselves struggle to understand the objective reasons of the appeal of some product or the other. Few times are they correct. But, as many say, what only matters in the end, is the result. Personally, I believe that 4e failed to be what D&D was to many of its fans. Perhaps the biggest of it all was the way they dropped the meme of Wizards memorizing daily spells, fighters lasting for the day while explicitly focusing gameplay to board game tactics. That kind of distinctions regarding gameplay. But maybe I am very wrong. Yet what they did with Essentials proves me half correct.



Cergorach said:


> #4 No PDF support, folks are moving away from the paper book and fully utilizing their tablets.



If we go by the Drivethru sales numbers they released for their case, the pdf business was pocket change. Almost not worthing Wotc's attention.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

It isn't your average players that are the people that things like licenses, or even play style stuff etc bugged. The VAST majority of people playing D&D aren't that concerned for which rules they're playing by exactly. They buy whatever is the thing that is being played, they don't know OGL or GSL from GPS and are perfectly happy any old way. It is the few thought leaders that count, which are people that are likely to care about a license (because they are developing games/content or at least engaged). Same with details of game rules. A few people set the tone, though it is more broad-based than something esoteric like game licenses. 

Your product has to appeal to this relatively small audience and they tend to be 'true believers' and thus probably heavily invested. This is IMHO why D&D has barely changed from 1974 to 2008. Fans never really like change that much. 4e didn't even actually piss off any more of those people than any other edition. It is just breaking point. At every version roll you lose some people. Couple that with a shrinking demographic and well, nothing is going to make your new edition sustain high sales.


----------



## ProlificVoid

RyanD said:


> The DDI should not be a hypertext version of the rules.  That should be free anyway.  DDI should be tools to help you manage your game and your characters.  It should be editorial content to help you enjoy your game session more.  It should be lore and backstory for campaign settings.  It should be a library of content not published in books that you can access for a small fee - stuff that's got too small an audience to be worth printing, but that *YOU* might find really helpful (like for example a few dozen more Fey creatures).
> 
> DDI should also be a community organizing tool that helps you find groups, form groups, and gather groups into larger groups so that folks have a sense of a real-world social network.
> 
> DDI should also be a place for playtesting and feedback, where the designers can get immediate and real-world input on the work they're doing.
> 
> And obviously it should be a portal to content:  All the content that TSR/Wizards has ever published (and that they have rights to) should be available for a reasonable fee.
> 
> Why can't I browse a list of monsters (thousands and thousands), select any number I wish, and have a POD version of a Monster Manual custom built to my specifications sent to me (electronically or in print)?  Why can't I build my own spell books for my campaign from a list of spells (thousands and thousands) and do the same?
> 
> Wizards has all the data necessary to enable a whole new way of formatting the game - customized directly for *YOU*, as opposed to generically.  DDI could be the portal to that.
> 
> The material released as Open Game Content is just the tip of the iceberg of value that Wizards controls.




I just had to say that I like the HELL out of this idea/strategy. BAM!!!


----------



## Radiating Gnome

I can't help but think that it might be an interesting time for a Wizards/Hasbro to try a Paizo-style spin-off with D&D.  

***Bear with me a sec before you cite the end of the Dungeon/Dragon contract as a reason this idea blows.***  

D&D as a brand isn't successful enough for Hasbro's standards.  And probably isn't going to be anytime soon, barring some sort of miracle product. 

It could be plenty big and successful for a much smaller organization, but that smaller company could never survive the cost of buying the brand. 

However, a licensing agreement to produce D&D products similar to the contract with Paizo to produce Dungeon and Dragon could be survivable for a small company.  

Now; it's true that the smaller company would always be under the threat of the end of that contract -- and, really, it's inevitable that the contract would end eventually.  But a good run -- 5-10 years -- could be very good for the brand, under the right leadership. 

Anyway.... If you had the current DDI audience -- say 65,000 subscribers, give or take.  Their subscription fees might support a full time desiger or two, maybe one or two DB/Coders to work on DDI tools. They'd have to count on the community for freelance content. And might have to leverage the community more for DDI tools, too. For example, toss the idea of developing the VTT and instead adapt a version of MapTools (not at all an original idea, I know). 

Anyway, it's probably a terrible idea.  Most of the ones I've come up with are. And I'm pretty sure, judging by the experience the Paizo folks had, they wouldn't recommend it -- I'm sure they're done not being in final control of the brand they're working on.  

But other folks (fools?) -- passionate people, probably current or former WOTC employees who have been doing this work all along -- might be the right people, in the right place, to take on this sort of challenge, if it was that or severance and mothballing the brand.  

Anyway, I'm just some beardless fatbeard who should be doing his own work right now....it's probably a terrible idea. 

-rg


----------



## Cergorach

AbdulAlhazred said:


> It isn't your average players that are the people that things like licenses, or even play style stuff etc bugged. The VAST majority of people playing D&D aren't that concerned for which rules they're playing by exactly. They buy whatever is the thing that is being played, they don't know OGL or GSL from GPS and are perfectly happy any old way. It is the few thought leaders that count, which are people that are likely to care about a license (because they are developing games/content or at least engaged). Same with details of game rules. A few people set the tone, though it is more broad-based than something esoteric like game licenses.




The problem with hardcore fans is that they generally are DMs and the center of many a web of gamers. If that hardcore fan is very against a product, chances are that the game isn't going to be played in that group or even club. I'm not saying that there are many, but a single DM can impact groups as large as 50+ players. As others have mentioned, folks have a hard time finding a group as a player, if you DM (and your any good at it) the situation is of course quite different. I would also say that a high percentage of ENworld readers are (partially) DMs. Would I mind playing in a fun 4E campaign, nope, would be fun I think. The problem is that I (like many) am the one that generally has to get the game started as a DM, when things have been going well for a while others tend to get interested in DMing (sometimes other gamesystems). Some of the DMs here would have single handedly sold a 100+ PHBs or Pathfinder core rulebooks just because they made up their minds on what to play. This wouldn't have to be a big deal, if it weren't for the other things that happened. I found the GSL a strike against 4E, but I still bought into 4E because it was D&D, others weren't that attached to brand loyalty as I was.



> Your product has to appeal to this relatively small audience and they tend to be 'true believers' and thus probably heavily invested. This is IMHO why D&D has barely changed from 1974 to 2008. Fans never really like change that much. 4e didn't even actually piss off any more of those people than any other edition. It is just breaking point. At every version roll you lose some people. Couple that with a shrinking demographic and well, nothing is going to make your new edition sustain high sales.




Why is/was the demographic shrinking? While I don't disagree, it's still a rather large demographic for the TRPG industry, and it hurts a lot when you loose half your customers/sales to a brand new competitor (Paizo/Pathfinder). 2E by 1996 wasn't exactly big, but still bigger then all the RPG competitor companies. 3E attracted a lot of new and old gamers, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that 4E could have done the same. I think part of the problem with 4E is Hasbro and it's directives, independent WotC always seemed far more agile then WotC/Hasbro (or even TSR) every did.

At every version you also gain some people, I don't think that the problem ever was how many you lost to an old edition, you gained enough with the new. Sure there are folks still playing 3.5E, but I don't think it's a bigger percentage then 2E players during the 4th year of the 3E hype.


----------



## Alphastream

Cergorach said:


> To be fair it isn't as unrealistic as you might imagine. If they had launched the DDI tools on time (with the launch of 4E) and didn't alienate all the current Pathfinder players they might actually have hit that $50 million in sales.



From looking at how the Living Forgotten Realms adventures had to be approved and how the crunch content was digitized, it is pretty clear that the original idea was for adventures to come out in the VTT near-instantly upon release. That would have been a really huge game-changer. Being able to play so much 4E in so many ways and so easily would have really helped grow 4E and organized play. Instead, none of this happened and the process just hurt LFR's quality and flexibility. 

And, I do agree with your GW point. There are ways to really increase the revenue of D&D. It isn't easy, but there are ways to do it and still largely stay true to the typical way of playing. 



k012957 said:


> As a consumer, I am unlikely to spend my money twice to get the same product, and the bar to new players is rather large.



I know a lot of people that pay twice for paper and digital versions. People pay for convenience, for stocking their bookshelf (our egos, our enjoyment of art, etc.), and so on. 

I think a lot can be said around errata. AD&D suffered from a lack of willingness to fix obvious issues. 3E was also slow to adopt fixes, other than through 3.5. 4E started that way, then went way overboard with the fixes (often fixing individual issues rather than systemic ones). The game is better for it, but there is the strong perception that this made core and supplement books unnecessary to own, particularly with DDI. I am hopeful that this will help the industry better understand the careful balance here with errata. 

Also, as Arcane Sprinboard pointed out on Critical Hits, there is the importance of a physical book providing a rich beautiful experience and lore/story so that the crunch content isn't the only value. Many gamers will say that a book like Martial Power 2 has practically no value other than the crunch, and all of that is in DDI. This makes it very easy to just make one digital purchase. A book like Monster Vault Nentir Vale is very different. There is tremendous value to the fluff, to the encounter pairings, to the setting material (which can be easily dropped into other settings). Neverwinter is another example where the DDI content is desirable, but the setting hooks and campaign ideas provide really good value.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Cergorach said:


> Sure there are folks still playing 3.5E, but I don't think it's a bigger percentage then 2E players during the 4th year of the 3E hype.



 It's hard to find numbers on these sorts of things, but that statement just boggles my mind.

I suspect that the percentage of active 3e players (not including PF; people whose games are primarily 3e) is probably an order of magnitude bigger then the percentage of 2e players during the 3e era. Besides the fact that the game was far more active in general (where 2e was not doing well long before 3e was even announced), there's the fact that the rules are_ available for free online_, and there's a very active secondhand book market through online sources that were just beginning to exist in the 2e era. To say nothing of the rules themselves.

This site's *non-scientific polls that do not reflect the gaming population as a whole* often show that ENWorlders are almost as likely to be playing 3e as they are to be playing 4e or PF (example). 3e players are especially hard to track because they're generally not doing any organized play or subscribing to anything, but there's every reason to believe there are still plenty of them.


----------



## Alphastream

frankthedm said:


> So would *you* be OK with someone who was supposed to be working for your best interests, like your banker or broker, outright lying to you about the expected returns on your investments?
> 
> There comes a time when a person has to decide what their honor is worth.




Some people are basically employed to make really bold growth plans. They are also supposed to select plans upon which the company can deliver, and for the plans to be sustainable, but see the financial services industry (amongst so many examples). Almost always there is some element of success (they can say on their resume they grew a company's revenue by 20 million, even if the plan had been 60). 

Below that level are managers and doers. These people didn't select the plan. They are working passionately to execute the plan, or at least to keep the vision they have alive. I've seen teams work extremely hard for a plan, but recognized that they are also being passionate about a very realistic vision of the company doing well - completely separate of that plan. An employee at an RPG company can be passionate and honorable in their dedication to the product, regardless of an incorrect view at the top. And I'm very glad that's the case, since otherwise nearly every RPG would have been sunk. 



GSHamster said:


> I think the ethics of the 4E plan may depend on how it was presented. It could easily have been pitched as a high-risk, high-reward plan.  Given the directive to make D&D a $100 million property, that plan might have been the only path, even with a low probability of success.




That's true as well, and useful to frame it within the context at the time. Most plans seem really exciting and possible. The people that sell them tend to be very good at selling them. It is very easy for the vast majority of staff in a company to be really excited about a plan until it is 120% revealed to be a failure. A lot of the reality (the 80-100% realization) happens behind closed doors and is what middle management deals with... and they often have a responsibility to keep that confidential (and it is in fact often honorable to work to correct the issues for some time). Heck, as described, it was possible the plan could have worked, or at least worked reasonably well, had a few things played out differently. That's how high risk plans often go. 

While anyone is entitled to hate a company for any reason, it would be really disingenuous to say Wizards should be hated for what took place. The company continues to operate as a small company of passionate people that love RPGs and want to make RPGs you want to play. Spend any time with Mike Mearls or any of the other guys at D&DXP or Gen Con and it becomes plain as day that they are like anyone working at another RPG. The fallacy of hating Wizards is like any other typecasting or broad hatred: it breaks down at the individual level. Do you hate Chris Sims, who worked for Wizards, was laid off, became a freelancer for Wizards and others, worked on the Paizo Pathfinder intro boxed set, and then recently became full-time for Wizards again? Do you hate SRM but only on the days his Save My Game column was coming out on DDI, and now love him fully because he no longer writes it?


----------



## Alphastream

AbdulAlhazred said:


> D&D has barely changed from 1974 to 2008. Fans never really like change that much. 4e didn't even actually piss off any more of those people than any other edition. It is just breaking point. At every version roll you lose some people. Couple that with a shrinking demographic and well, nothing is going to make your new edition sustain high sales.



Keeping in mind that 4E initial sales were higher than the already great initial 3E sales... that shrinking demographic, MMOs, and everything else didn't seem to hurt at launch.

But, I understand what you mean. I started playing D&D with the purple box. This week I went back and read and ran the original White Box for my 4E gaming group. Most have 3E and PF experience, but none of them really have experience before that.

What was amazing to me was how similar the game has been through all the earlier editions. White Box has some substantial differences (all damage is d6, abilities do very little, spells have very little information, you just have three classes, etc.). But, incredibly, the first few supplements of Greyhawk and Blackmoor set OD&D and the things I mentioned to be very similar to Basic and all the way to second edition AD&D. Sure, there are differences, but they are usually very minor. Third makes some big changes with skills and feats, but there is still a real familiarity at the core of the game. 

Fourth is really the first case where we see system-wide innovation. Just about everything was re-examined from the ground up and rebuilt. I think that's part of what hurt 4E, but in the context that people didn't have to adopt to the changes due to the OGL.


----------



## Cergorach

Ahnehnois said:


> It's hard to find numbers on these sorts of things, but that statement just boggles my mind.
> 
> I suspect that the percentage of active 3e players (not including PF; people whose games are primarily 3e) is probably an order of magnitude bigger then the percentage of 2e players during the 3e era. Besides the fact that the game was far more active in general (where 2e was not doing well long before 3e was even announced), there's the fact that the rules are_ available for free online_, and there's a very active secondhand book market through online sources that were just beginning to exist in the 2e era. To say nothing of the rules themselves.
> 
> This site's *non-scientific polls that do not reflect the gaming population as a whole* often show that ENWorlders are almost as likely to be playing 3e as they are to be playing 4e or PF (example). 3e players are especially hard to track because they're generally not doing any organized play or subscribing to anything, but there's every reason to believe there are still plenty of them.




There's a very good reason why I said 'I think'.

There was a very active second hand 2E network after 3E released, the 2E pdfs being available for cheap also helped a lot. I know that there was a large 3E market after 4E hit, I sold a buttload of 3E books I had multiples of. 3.5E PHBs are actually pretty expensive these days, even the DMG and MM are more expensive then their 4E counter parts. But there are no new books being printed, no one stocks the core books anymore because the last ones sold out years ago, and even worse there are no pdfs available (legally). Sure we have the 3.5E SRD, but we also have the Pathfinder SRD, whose core books are readily available and even the pdfs are very cheap at $10 each. I would even go as far as to say that the 3.5E DM material is reasonably compatible with Pathfinder, hell as a DM I wouldn't want all those classes/feats/spells in my 3.5E game (I certainly wouldn't miss them in my potential Pathfinder game).

So if cost was an issue, folks can 'upgrade' to Pathfinder for free through their SRD and for very little if they buy only the PDFs. I don't belief this mythical 3.5E group is as large as folks think it is, sure a lot of books are trade in the 2nd hand channels, but a lot of those are for collectors who want to complete their D&D collections. Just like what happened with 2E.

Do I belief that the 3.5E crowd was large before Pathfinder was released? Yes I do, but not anymore. A lot of those folks that were still playing 3.5E or actually started playing it kept hitting one serious problem, no PHBs, and printed copyshop copies just weren't all that acceptable. When I started showing folks my Pathfinder core rulebook and told them about it they were interested (as interested as you can be after you just spend $100-$300 on 3.5E books ;-).


----------



## Ahnehnois

Cergorach said:


> There's a very good reason why I said 'I think'.
> ...



Fair enough.

My 'mythical' group will be playing 3.X until we have a reason not to.


----------



## Lanefan

RyanD said:


> Yeah 1989.  Typo.



OK.

I'm not sure if the 1e-2e and 2e-3e transitions are really all that comparable, however, having seen both.

1e-2e was much more drawn-out in its turnover - a "soft change".  There was about a 2-year overlap period where 1e and 2e were being produced and marketed alongside each other (and BECMI as well), and so any surge in sales generated by 2e's release would have been fairly slow to build and then slow to decline.

2e-3e, on the other hand, was a "hard change": 2e vanished when 3e came out.  Couple that with the market being more than ready for a reboot and yes, the initial 3e sales surge was much higher.  But how quickly did that surge die back, is the question?

And for 3e-4e they tried another hard change, and got another surge; but this one seems to have died back even quicker.

Lan-"killing sales does not give experience points"-efan


----------



## caudor

Mark Oliva said:


> Ryan's post doubtless makes different points to different people.  The point that I got is that a TRPG in the hands of a company like Hasbro can leave you high and dry any day of the week.  It confirms my decision to drop D&D (R) at the time 4E appeared and to go to Pathfinder (R), an RPG marketed by an RPG company dedicated to its customers, rather than an octopus dedicated to retail numbers alone.




Same here.  Hearing this news had a big impact on me.  If Hasbro has no loyalty to their product lines, then why should I?  I tried so hard to stick with 4e because I wanted the latest and greatest D&D.

Today, I received my first Pathfinder book in the mail, and I'm very happy with it.


----------



## Jawsh

RyanD said:
			
		

> We're seeing an all-new type of person in the market now. These people are "lifestyle gamers" not "hobby gamers". They're not dedicated to, or interested in a lifetime affiliation with a game system or game type. They enjoy all sorts of gaming - video games, family games, hobby games - with equal passion. They seek out experiences that reward them for being smart and thinking quickly, as opposed to mastery of rules intricacy. They don't see themselves as defined by the games they play. They won't say "I'm a D&D player" like many hobby gamers would. They'll say "I think D&D is cool", which is a whole different kettle of fish.
> 
> These people will have to have products purpose built for them, and those products won't look like the pyramid shaped "lines" that hobby gamers are used to. They'll look like bestselling novels, maybe trilogies, where you play them and then move on to something else rather than having a high-replay value. And while they'll reward being a bright, savvy gamer, they won't require you to know that you get a +2 circumstance bonus when flanking, and how to determine if you're flanking, and sell you miniature figures and battlemats to show that you're flanking. So I'm absolutely talking about not "dumbing down" the games, just making them smart in a different way than we're used to.




I'm not sure if this type of gamer is really that new. I think it has always been the case that the game has been picked up and enjoyed by people who did not understand the rules. You do hear from the rules-knowers over the decades, because they're the ones who write letters and post on forums. But I don't think the character of the modern geek has changed that much. I think the human appetite for rules content is roughly constant. 

The difference is simply the fact that there are more options out there for them. Complicated or simple, they will pick up what they like either way. By far the most influential factors will be artwork, layout, the social network (do my friends play this game?), and accessibility/reference-ability (increasingly meaning online access). The complexity (or lack thereof) of the rules is, IMO, a non-factor.

IMO every TRPG product should have the Gygax quote printed on its inside cover: _"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."_

Rules don't matter. You don't need rules to get a game of D&D going. All you need is the idea to get you started. And further products will always simply be sources for new ideas. I often wondered about why TSR didn't invest more in actual realistic reference books, since Gygax so often recommended sources that dealt with things like real-world castles, caves, heraldry, and endless other topics. 

I also want to pick on this idea of TRPGs being like best-selling novels. If we're looking to model a business on best-selling novels and films, then surely the Core Rulebooks ought to be the DVD players, the VCRs, and the E-Book Readers. Thus the "best-selling novels" should be storylines, whether they are campaign settings, actual novels, or adventure modules.

If WoW is threatening TRPGs, then TRPGs should be setting their sights on films and novels. Those industries are in trouble too, so go after them like sharks that smell blood.


----------



## c0c0c0

Unintentional post


----------



## smiteworks

RyanD said:


> *Future Paths*
> 
> _Digital_
> 
> The first thing that a lot of folks ask for when engaged about the future of the hobby is a virtual table top.  It seems kind of obvious – if MMOs are breaking the social network of TRPGs then the way to fight back is to take the TRPG to the MMO’s territory and enable distributed on-line play.
> 
> The problem is that VTTs exist, and they’re not successful.  If you give people the choice between a VTT and an MMO, they pick the MMO.  The VTT doesn’t solve the real problem that is that the MMO experience is simply better for a significant portion of the former TRPG social network.  My opinion is that a successful and widely used VTT will remain an elusive mirage despite how much effort is poured into developing them.
> 
> That is not to say that there’s no role for digital in the future of the TRPG.  Transforming the delivery mechanism of TRPGs into digital products is, I think, the likely evolutionary path.  And I’m not talking about just PDFs of printed books – I’m talking about the idea of making a digital product that takes advantage of all that implies to deliver an improved tabletop experience using iPad-type technology.





As the principal owner of SmiteWorks, makers of the Fantasy Grounds VTT, I can shed a little additional insight into this.  Ryan's statement that there are VTTs already is very true.  His statement that none of them are successful is partially true.  I'm not aware of any of the other VTTs out there that make sufficient revenue to employ a large staff.  SmiteWorks is still in the process of paying off a 3 year support contract with the former owners before it will be able to take full advantage of the revenue it earns; however, it consistently reports more than $120K in earnings each year.  Our user base is over 23K users. That is very nearly enough to support some full-time staff, but currently it only supplements full-time work and allows us to employ freelancers.  The problem currently faced by us is that we both already have very well paying careers outside of SmiteWorks. (I guess there are worse problems to have)

This is without the support and license to redistribute content from either of the two primary D&D companies.  As a result, I would agree with Ryan that Fantasy Grounds and VTTs remain a niche product of a niche industry.  If either Paizo or WoTC would agree to license the products, however, I think this would grow very rapidly into an entirely new distribution avenue.  Imagine what it would be with the official backing and ability to buy official content from the likes of Paizo or WoTC...

*The cost breakdown for VTT distribution*
The rule of 5 quoted by Ryan is much more favorable in a VTT environment, but mainly because it costs the same amount no matter how many copies you sell.  

With each of our other publishers, we give a flat percentage (between 30 to 45%) to the publisher in royalties.  They incur nearly $0 in costs to convert existing material into product usable on the VTT platform.  Sure, they had to pay the artists, editors and creative staff originally... but they can skip the entire production costs.  For any past catalogs of content, there is no cost to reproduce this in the VTT market.  I, for one, believe there is a viable market in out of print content conversion to the VTT world.  

Why are we able to give such a large percentage and waive the cost of conversion?  Simple.  We either convert the content ourselves using custom built tools for the job or we outsource it to our community members (along with guidance, support and tools) to convert for us.  In exchange, we pay our community devs an ongoing 15% commission on any future sales of a conversion.  We maintain quality by reviewing everything that is converted and we get better engagement with the community, who actually enjoys the "hobby" portion of doing the conversion work.  Because we have two SmiteWorks owners/developers working on the core engine and community devs actively developing and suggesting new ideas for our engine, we end up with a constant growth of both content and functionality.  

*Future Development*
The VTT market doesn't have to be simply about converting print products into material usable by VTTs.  You can actually build content directly in the VTT and package it into modules for resale.

*So why haven't WoTC or Paizo taken our offer to license their content?*
I'm not exactly sure.  At one point, Lisa Stevens held the lack of a native Mac OS X version as the reason not to license the content.  I applaud the stance to support all the gaming community or none at all, but I also noticed that the upcoming Pathfinder MMO is coming out for PC only at first.  The simple fact on this is that it is non-trivial to support more than one OS natively.  Instead, we've chosen to go the route of emulators such as Wine to provide support for Mac and Linux.  It works very well and it doesn't spread our development resources thinner than they already are.  Maybe it has something to do with the MMO.  Again, I can't see that as a direct competitor to VTTs.  

For WoTC, it may have more to do with the ongoing work on their own VTT.  That makes some sense, but I still think their tool is a long way off compared to what Fantasy Grounds and other current VTTs can do today.  Besides, WoTC will have to decide if they want to really be in the software development business or if they want to continue to focus on content.

It used to be in limbo because of the Atari/WoTC entanglements that were publicly disclosed.  

We already work with Pinnacle Entertainment Games, Alderac Entertainment Games, Green Ronin, Triple Ace Games, Chaosium, Troll Lord Games and a half dozen other small gaming companies.  We've been steadily growing within each of these areas but we've yet to see the massive breakthrough I would expect from full support from Pathfinder or D&D.  

In the meantime, we'll continue to check in with our contacts at both companies and hopefully crack into the market at some point.  I'm not saying that this is the path to the 3.5E Glory Days of Old, but it sure seems like a step in the right direction to me.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred

I think there are a couple of things based on my experience running games on a VTT for 3 years. VTTs are still a bit of a pain technologically. They need to get easier to use. A truly successful VTT is going to run on tablets, require no installation of software (at least nothing beyond 'click here') and really should be a seamless experience even for the DM. It will need to be as simple as going to the 'adventure shop', selecting what you want to run, clicking on it, paying, and having it come up in your VTT ready to run. Creating content needs to be equally simple. I know FG isn't too far off from that, but with any of these tools there's a lot of grunt work involved in creating an adventure. Nothing is seamless. What WotC for instance can promise is in its own way getting close, but they too need even more seamless integration with DDI and just a lot more features that they don't have right now. Of course the problem is there's not a huge amount of money in VTT development, so progress is really slow.

I think the game/MMO publishers may eventually get there through the back door. The successful ones have the cashflow and subscriber base. They could evolve into being customizable refereed private worlds that are effectively RPGs. I don't know how that will play out, but I suspect there is a decent fraction of the people who play MMOs that would really relish a deeper experience.

There is of course the one final difference between an MMO and an RPG though. You can play your MMO any old time. You can only play your RPG when other people are available. Maybe the concept of 'campaigns' simply won't ever have that much traction in the online world because of that (clearly there are text based chat type games, but they are really a rather different kind of experience). Heck, back in the OLD days we pretty much played D&D that way anyway. There weren't really persistent campaigns. There were a 100 or so players and many DMs, people just pretty much ran the same characters in one guy's game one week, and a different guy's game the next week. It isn't quite the same, but with a shared world you can do a 'living world' sort of play that would probably scratch most people's itch.


----------



## smiteworks

There is a set up cost to most VTTs.  You need to spend some time to get familiar with the software, install it (pretty simple) and sometimes configure your network firewall.  People are getting a little more comfortable with that these days due to the large number of online games and the growing number of routers controlling the gateway to the Internet for the entire household.  

The biggest problem with preparing a game within the VTT is the time it takes to enter in data when it isn't available.  Whenever I prep and run games for systems the publishers license, I can simply drag and drop the NPCs, bad guys, items, etc. onto my story entry or encounter and I'm ready to go.  I use Fantasy Grounds to prep and run for all my in person games too because it would simply take me too long to prepare for these in a traditional pen-and-paper sense anymore.  Either that, or I'd be flipping back and forth inside monster manuals and core books throughout the whole session.  Now, I simply click on the link which brings up the details only as I need it -- or allows me to pick up and roll the attacks with all the bonuses intact.  The sad part is that all this already exists for tons of 4E and Pathfinder content, but without a license I can only use it for my personal benefit.

One other plus I forgot to mention about distribution for a VTT is that it allows you to expand into other markets much more easily.  You don't have to ship any product overseas when you simply sell the products digitally.  We have sales to 79 countries.  I'm not sure how big the RPG market is in New Caledonia, but it didn't cost us any more to sell to them than it did to someone in the U.S.


----------



## cibet

Great article Mr. Dancey, thank you. I must wonder though why are you privy to confidential information about D&D that you can't share? Do you work for Hasbro/WoTC in some way? I also wish there was a way to get notified about these articles when you write them. I just happened to stumble across this. I would really like to keep reading your insights into 2012. Maybe put these articles on a personnel blog or something so it is easier to find?

D&D (and now Pathfinder) will live on as long as there are groups of people to play it. My group has been playing regularly (multiple times a month) with the same players for 27 years and counting. We never played 4E, but have played every other version of D&D right up to and including Pathfinder today. While we are clearly the longest running still active group of D&D players on the planet, we would not be so unique if groups of players were as lucky as we are to have all stayed with driving distance of each other since high school. Lack of face to face contact kills more D&D groups than wives (kidding, kidding, sort of). I believe if a group can get together it will find a way to do so. VTT won't replace the "around the table" aspect of the game. Anyone that plays strictly VTT or (especially) PBP knows it's just a pale imitation of an actual face to face game, they just don't have any other choice. VTT will not salvage the game. In fact I believe VTT RPGs will die even before tabletop RPGs do.

So what will save the game? Well what Paizo did with 3E is about the best example. Smaller companies with a focused and consistent (no version changes) product providing publications at premium rates. Call of Cthullu is another great example. D&D will not expand beyond about what it is now in player base but it will remain in publication for some time to come.

As long as the players can get together to play the game there will be a market to sell to. WoTCs big mistake with 4E was moving the game closer to an electronic format and VTT experience. If not for Paizo that move could have killed the game. 4E did not bring a significant number of new players to the game, it drove tons out. Luckily they had somewhere else to go. I'm sure WoTC can correct this with 5E, I'm positive they can. Hasbro just has to either accept the limited but consistent revenue stream 5E will provide or move on entirely. Trying to grow the game beyond the available community will always fail. It truly is and will forever be a niche. If companies want that niche to continue to generate revenue they should find ways to get and keep groups playing together, around a table, locally. Conventions help but the community needs something more consistent and static in location. It needs something likes casinos for tabletop gaming. Places where adults can go to game, drink, eat, socialize, and buy more games. That's pretty much it. I think this niche hobby can be very profitable but it takes a backwards strategy do so: in person communication, paper based physical product, and static locations. I think that is pretty much the opposite of any other modern consumer product. It seems archaic and counter intuitive, but it's true.


----------



## kargeras

*Desparate attempts to monetize TRPG could kill it.*

This article beautifully explains why it's hard - and getting harder -  to get rich from selling RPG gear. I would be even more blunt and  describe the 4e debacle this way: WotC weren't aiming at improving the  game; they were instead trying force the RPG community onto a territory  where they would be easier to fleece for cash. One one level you can't  blame them. They're a company sailing into a mighty headwind. But on  another level, they also have some responsibility to the RPG  institution. This is what I read from their 4e moves: We're prepared to  salt the earth of TRPGs as we mine out the last available dollar.

What  we need now is a plan for how to keep TRPGs vibrant and thrilling even  after it becomes unmarketable. Here's how I see that playing out.

We're quickly approaching the era when even board games are basically  software. The open source community needs to be ready for this and start  writing games for this format.

Most definitely, I will want to  do some tabletop fantasy RPG in this setting, but I won't want to do  this in WotC's sandbox. (Their inevitable attempt to desperately cash in  will be perfectly at odds with what the game needs to be fun, which is  opennes, accessibility and customizability.) We'll be crying out for an  open source  alternative to D&D, one that doesn't force you to run your campaign  the WotC way. And since we know this, I hope we start now to think  about how the optimal implementation of a fantasy roleplaying game  should look.

Timing is important, because companies like WotC  will certainly support the integration of user-supported modules and  other content, and they'll get armies of creative people basically  adding value to their corporate product while they scheme ways to find  excuses to pull more money from them and the rest of us. (A part of it  will be "new (virtual) rulebooks" to buy - essentially a paid unlock of  certain features, monsters, classes and items. And who knows what else  they will think of to nickel-and-dime us?)

The alternative we  need is an open gaming system, one that is flexible enough to  accommodate house rules, patches from volunteers, and the full and  unrestricted power of the internet. I think it's really important for  the future of social gaming that we start working on this. I picture the  basic mechanics of the software would be standard - how it handles  dice, or maps and spatial orientation, for example. But then you could  load in your selection of mechanics which could resemble some edition of  D&D, or something like Hackmaster, or something else that  volunteers will write and you can easily customize. I thought of  Hackmaster because combat in that game is cumbersome, since it simulates  so many details which demand lots of looking up in tables. But once all  that is done instantly by the machine, role playing games will be free  to simulate all kinds of details that PnP games now can't. You could  keep track of exact wound locations, of armor dings, of what collection  of items fits or doesn't fit in your backpack, etc.

More  important than anything else: We need an open file format for saving  user-created modules and environments, whose content would be adaptable  to any given campaign's house rules. No way will WotC take the lead on  this, but without it, the usefulness any content that volunteers  generate will depend on their whims. I would also love to support the  creation of a very detailed fantasy world-setting, as a competitor to  Forgotten Realms or whatever. It could be called "The Free Kingdoms", a setting in the larger framework project called  "Open Lands" or something like that. I already have some original content for  this, and I'm the faculty advisor of a large gaming club in a state  college. Many of the geeks there would definitely make some excellent  contributions, and there are millions just like them around the world!

Right  now,  no outside party has any say over how you play PnP games - what rules  you enforce, what edition of books you use or don't use, etc. That will  end once games become corporate software, which has the power to force  you to play the WotC way. The future  of fantasy roleplaying is about to swoop in, and you know that  companies will try to rob it of its fantastic openness and lack of  restrictions in order to make money. A concerted movement has to oppose  this. An open system will have the big advantage of not having to impose  artificial restrictions on play, because these are necessary only for  reasons of DRM or making room for paid content. So we can have a better  product without necessarily having bigger budgets or better authors,  just like Wikipedia is by far the best encyclopedia. But we need to be  thinking about this before everyone forgets what truly unrestricted  role-playing was like.

What we need first is for the wonder to  return to game worlds, and this will happen when we can generate free  and deep fantasy content, beginning with the "Free Kingdoms" setting.  First we need at least a partial cannonical theology and metaphysics,  much of which could be adapted from Gygax works. Next: Geography. Then:  Detailed history. Content work on the Free Kingdoms should begin at  least 500 years before the time of the gaming era, and lots of thought  at a high level of detail should be given to the interaction of the  aboriginal cultures and gods, as well as external influences. The  theology must be fixed first, because that, more than anything, will  form the template for culture. To maximize game-world openness, the game  setting needs a recent cataclysmic collapse. Games in the aftermath of a  collapse will leave enough freedom for characters to be their own  masters, and also seed the world with many forgotten pockets of  unconsolidated or unlooted treasure.

Once the development of this  setting is underway, fans will be invited to flesh out the content,  create modules, write fan fiction, make fan art, etc. The result will be  in Wiki form, moderated by a volunteer Consulate of Canonicity. They  will make sure that canonized content is of high quality and overall  internal consistency.

In parallel to this, open-source game  software would be developed for running actual gaming sessions. This  would be a big task, but a compelling and open-sourced Free Kingdoms  setting would definitely help with the enthusiasm. With modern  development tools, six clever, dedicated people could bring such a  project quite far. The focus would be on compatibility, customizability  and connectivity. You should be able to adventure in the Open Lands  using a rule set of your choosing, and fan-generated modules should  appear in a format which makes them playable with a variety of rules.  3rd party tools like Skype could be leveraged for virtual presence. A  rendered "what your character sees" screen would be perfectly feasible,  and could be done with GPL rendering engines like Doom3. It wouldn't  have to be pretty to be good. If decent community development tools got  made, entire regions could be rendered and canonized.

This is how  tabletop role playing should look in the future - this is how to bring  the magic back. However, this is exactly what will never happen if we  leave the initiative with WotC or any other profit-driven company. Their  #1 priority is not (and can't be) to create an excellent game  experience. It's to permanently leave you feeling that something is  missing, something that your money might fix. That's the Farmville  model, and it's what digital D&D will become. The true spirit of TRPG is  exactly the opposite: It's the feeling that you can freely do anything  and go anywhere. This spirit can only survive if there is an open  alternative once TRPGs transition to a digital format, and it's up to us  the community to make that happen.


----------

