# "Tabletop D&D Has Lost Its Way" Says Pathfinder Video Game Exec



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

> The issue, he says, is that "D&D is a part of Wizards of the Coast and WotC is a part of Hasbro" and that he would "love to see D&D be bought by someone and become what it was before... Become TSR again."




Obsidian's best computer RPG to date (NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer) was based on 3.5E by WotC...


----------



## doctorhook (Feb 10, 2015)

Great, somebody with a microphone has shown up to rehash the same ol' dead-horse arguments that "WotC sux, Ha$bro sux, TSR 4eva!1!"

On the other hand, maybe this will be the poke the beast needs to start (continue?) improving its relationships and licensing agreements with other companies.


----------



## National Acrobat (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> Obsidian's best computer RPG to date (NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer) was based on 3.5E by WotC...




I am unfamiliar with the timeline, but did Hasbro own WoTC at that time, or was WoTC it's own entity during that time? I think the issue that is being expressed is that Hasbro presents an extra hurdle or layer of issues to deal with when trying to license D&D for things such as video games, et al.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 10, 2015)

Judging by his comments, he hasn't even seen, read, or played 5e.  It's more like a TSR edition than the two previous editions before it.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Feb 10, 2015)

Grain of salt applied.  Obsidian's opinions don't hold much weight for me, since NWN2 was crap compared to the first one, in my opinion.  I was quite disappointed when I learned that Paizo had partnered with them.


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

National Acrobat said:


> I am unfamiliar with the timeline, but did Hasbro own WoTC at that time, or was WoTC it's own entity during that time? I think the issue that is being expressed is that Hasbro presents an extra hurdle or layer of issues to deal with when trying to license D&D for things such as video games, et al.




WotC has been owned by Hasbro since 1999. NWN2 and expansions were released in 2006, 07, 08.


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Grain of salt applied.  Obsidian's opinions don't hold much weight for me, since NWN2 was crap compared to the first one, in my opinion.  I was quite disappointed when I learned that Paizo had partnered with them.




NWN2 had its strengths - like having a full party compared to 1 companion at a time in NWN1. The best thing about 2 was the Mask of the Betrayer expansion though. It's right up there with the Planescape: Torment and Baldur's Gate 2 games when it comes to top CRPGs.


----------



## delericho (Feb 10, 2015)

It's a curious interview.

As regards the tabletop game he might actually be onto something: it is true that D&D (RPG) won't make the sorts of money Hasbro will see from some other games, except in exceptional "new edition" years, and it's also true that it relies on community involvement in a way that Monopoly and Jenga do not.

However, I'm not sure how that relies ties into his decision to have Obsidian take the Pathfinder license rather than a D&D one - partly because the success of a video game only tangentially relies on the tabletop RPG anyway, but partly because one of the stated pillars of WotC's current strategy is _precisely_ that they're looking to license. So, really, it seems an ideal fit... if not for Obsidian then for someone.


----------



## Blackbrrd (Feb 10, 2015)

I read the: "We were having a hard time figuring out how to move forward with Dungeons and Dragons." as: "We can't get a licensing agreement with WotC". Which is a bit sad.


----------



## Astrosicebear (Feb 10, 2015)

This reads : We couldnt afford D&D so we went with what was left.


----------



## doctorhook (Feb 10, 2015)

delericho said:


> However, I'm not sure how that relies ties into his decision to have Obsidian take the Pathfinder license rather than a D&D one - partly because the success of a video game only tangentially relies on the tabletop RPG anyway, but partly because one of the stated pillars of WotC's current strategy is _precisely_ that they're looking to license. So, really, it seems an ideal fit... if not for Obsidian then for someone.



I say this is Obsidian's loss, someone else's gain.

...Provided WotC gets those licenses sorted out quickly and cleanly.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 10, 2015)

doctorhook said:


> I say this is Obsidian's loss, someone else's gain.
> 
> ...Provided WotC gets those licenses sorted out quickly and cleanly.





Well, they have a job posting for someone to do that exact role.  How soon that is hashed out?  With training time?  Who knows.


----------



## arjomanes (Feb 10, 2015)

I'm not convinced this isn't sour grapes. We don't have both sides to this story, and I woudn't be surprised with Hasbro's new emphasis on licensing if someone else outbid Obsidian. We'll see if there are any announcements on video games in the near future. A new studio picking up D&D games might be a good thing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2015)

So, basically is he critiquing the release schedule, or lack there of, the uncertainty of the life span of this edition* and the fact that D&D has a lot more people looking over its shoulder and meddling with it**. 

He is right. 


*At any time some new VP at Hasbro could say "What is that department that employees 13 people? It cost that much for that little revenues!? Off with its head!"

**Like the lack of ebooks and OGL is likely a decision made at the top. They probably have a compagny wide policies on licenses that are none negociable. Paizo has more room for negociations.


----------



## Zander (Feb 10, 2015)

My guess is that the Paizo/Pathfinder licence cost less than the WotC/D&D one. This exec is simply trying to disguise a business decision as one relating to the merits of the two franchises. Sorry, Mr MBA, we're not fooled.

It's analogous to when Hollywood studios claim to have "creative differences" with a director or actor. It's very rarely about creativity. It's almost always a disagreement about money, that is, the director or actor wanting more and the studio not wanting to pay. (Occasionally, a "creative difference" is about an actor having behavioural problems relating to drink or drugs. But usually, it's about money.)

Edit: Astrocisebear beat me to it.


----------



## fba827 (Feb 10, 2015)

Agree with many of the posters here...
The way I read it isn't about table top gaming product but rather about a business decision, related to licensing terms, costs, and relationships.

Because, frankly ( in my opinion) a video game based off any RPG system really comes off similar, just a matter of what names you attach to things.  So, I'd wager ( if licensing cost and terms, and businessrelationships wasn't a factor) the same types of things are required for coding and production of either a pathfinder or 5e based video game.  Anyway, just my peanut gallery comments ;-)


----------



## SteveC (Feb 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, they have a job posting for someone to do that exact role.  How soon that is hashed out?  With training time?  Who knows.




I think the fact that this position is posted *now*, rather than a year ago is telling. Whoever drops into this position will be working on something that should have been sorted out long before the game launched. I wish them luck.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 10, 2015)

Giving this a charitable read, I can kinda see the point, though he doesn't really make it in the interview. Paizo has been generating a lot of adventure & setting content that can mined for computer games. WotC hasn't, really -- their best stuff in that area is all old/legacy. What WotC has been up to lately is producing a good new set of D&D core rules that plays well at the table.

So I'll be playing/running live, tabletop D&D using 5e and, if they're good, playing Pathfinder cRPGs (I'm willing to play tabletop Pathfinder, but not run it).


----------



## Wolfskin (Feb 10, 2015)

Forgive my skepticism, but to me this looks like a comment out of spite more than an objective assessment of the matter. The fact that WotC doesn't want to make yet another D&D game in the vein of NWN may as well be because such games don't sell as they did in their time, like it or not.

Also, if "becoming TSR again" means "turning on the supplement treadmill and crashing down"... then, no thanks!


----------



## Astrosicebear (Feb 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So, basically is he critiquing the release schedule, or lack there of, the uncertainty of the life span of this edition* and the fact that D&D has a lot more people looking over its shoulder and meddling with it**.
> 
> He is right.
> 
> ...





I guarantee you that the first year earnings for D&D will pay for those 13 salaries for at least 3 years.


----------



## The_Gneech (Feb 10, 2015)

Blackbrrd said:


> I read the: "We were having a hard time figuring out how to move forward with Dungeons and Dragons." as: "We can't get a licensing agreement with WotC". Which is a bit sad.




Yeah, that's kinda what I'm seeing too. It's not any kind of a statement about 5E (or even 4E), it's all about the business angle, as far as I can tell.

I'm sympathetic; I've long been of the opinion that too much money involved poisons any kind of hobby. But it's also the kind of thing that is probably best groused about in a bar with friends, rather than in an interview as a game company exec.

-TG


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 10, 2015)

Zander said:


> My guess is that the Paizo/Pathfinder licence cost less than the WotC/D&D one. This exec is simply trying to disguise a business decision as one relating to the merits of the two franchises. Sorry, Mr MBA, we're not fooled.




I believe you are the one fooling yourself.  

Let's say you are right, and you probably are, that the Pathfinder license went for a song compared to the D&D price.  Even if that was the deciding factor in a publisher like Obsidian, the fact that they didn't consider the D&D brand and D&D IP to be worth paying extra for means that the D&D brand is in big trouble.  D&D in the past had significant brand identity, and Obsidian is known for cashing in on existing IP's value by making sequels to successful titles.   Take a look at the production history of D&D branded video game titles between 1988 and 2009 and then post 2009 and tell me how the only problem here is that D&D is overpriced.  

Yes, but why is it overpriced?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> I guarantee you that the first year earnings for D&D will pay for those 13 salaries for at least 3 years.



Well, some stranger on the internet just garantied me something about the cost and revenues of a product it has no information on. 

I guess I can trust him.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 10, 2015)

Aside from whether or not the author is exhibiting sour grapes and what not, there is an angle on this I want to tease out that seems to be getting lost in a bit of wagon-circling. I agree with the sentiment that D&D - as a game and brand - would be better served with a smaller company. By "smaller" I don't mean "small" but basically a company that prioritizes D&D the tabletop RPG, not D&D the brand. 

I don't think his criticism is waged at the game itself because, as some have mentioned, 5E is the most "TSResque" form of D&D since, well, TSR. But I think it is the fact that D&D is now in a little corner of Wizards of the Coast, which in turn is a part of Hasbro. I'd rather see D&D be center stage and thus prioritized. Right now it feels a bit like Milton in _Office Space._


----------



## Barantor (Feb 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Well, some stranger on the internet just garantied me something about the cost and revenues of a product it has no information on.
> 
> I guess I can trust him.




I don't know about 13 years, but being the top seller on Amazon surely brought WoTC a lot of cash with the core books.

Uruqhart just wants to stir the pot like normal, the majority of his games made with Obsidian are sequels to games that did better and couldn't live up to their hype. I don't know why Pathfinder picked him, probably just because he has a history with D&D games and they are banking on that working.

He is trying to make comparisons of companies like EA to Bioware with Hasbro to WoTC and I don't think all of them work because of the differences in media.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 10, 2015)

Obsidian, meh.  WotC should license to Telltale Games to make an awesome story-driven adventure game, that would be fantastic.

They got a license to make Tales from the Borderlands, and Borderlands IP is Gearbox, Feral, and 2k.  Or Game of Thrones, a game based on a show based on a book?  These couldn't have been simple licenses to obtain, but they got them.


----------



## Ravenheart87 (Feb 10, 2015)

I would license Eye of the Beholder to Almost Human.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 10, 2015)

Agamon said:


> Obsidian, meh.  WotC should license to Telltale Games to make an awesome story-driven adventure game, that would be fantastic.
> 
> They got a license to make Tales from the Borderlands, and Borderlands IP is Gearbox, Feral, and 2k.  Or Game of Thrones, a game based on a show based on a book?  These couldn't have been simple licenses to obtain, but they got them.




Problem is now that Telltale has a backlog of games as it stands.   Would be hard to get a game any time soon from Telltale.


----------



## delericho (Feb 10, 2015)

Mallus said:


> Paizo has been generating a lot of adventure & setting content that can mined for computer games. WotC hasn't, really...




Actually, they have, or at least they've been trying: note the recent emphasis on "storylines", and especially "Tyranny of Dragons". Sure, you can question the quality, but that's subjective - as I said, they've been trying.

(And, in fact, that reminds me: there's apparently a ToD expansion for the Neverwinter MMO.)



Astrosicebear said:


> I guarantee you that the first year earnings for D&D will pay for those 13 salaries for at least 3 years.




While numerically that may be true, Hasbro won't think like that. In fact, I don't think they legally _can_ think like that - as a publicly-traded company they're required to try to maximise shareholder value. So it's not enough for D&D 5e to have made big bucks last year - the question is always "what have you done for me today?"


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> Obsidian's best computer RPG to date (NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer) was based on 3.5E by WotC...




Feargus used to control Black Isle Studios, who developed Icewind Dale as well as Knights of the Old Republic 2. They've always been Bioware-lite IMHO; but solid enough.


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Take a look at the production history of D&D branded video game titles between 1988 and 2009 and then post 2009 and tell me how the only problem here is that D&D is overpriced.




I think from looking at D&D branded games currently that Neverwinter MMO could be the stumbling-block. 
i.e. somebody already has and is continuing to use the CRPG rights to at least Forgotten Realms, if not all D&D settings.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2015)

Barantor said:


> I don't know about 13 years, but being the top seller on Amazon surely brought WoTC a lot of cash with the core books.




But does it cover the cost of production of the books? What is the profit margine on those books? People have been working on it since 2012. What were the revenues/cost for that time (e.g. DnDClassics, DDI)? What will be the revenues for this year? One adventure, one board game and declining sells for the core books?


----------



## Agamon (Feb 10, 2015)

Cybit said:


> Problem is now that Telltale has a backlog of games as it stands.   Would be hard to get a game any time soon from Telltale.




I don't think the studio went from just making one or two games at a time (back in the Poker Night, BttF, Jurassic Park days) to having 4 consistent IPs going without some growth.

Plus, the genre is expanding to other studios, thanks to TTG's success.  Dontnod's Life is Strange is really well done, so far.


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> Feargus used to control Black Isle Studios, who developed Icewind Dale as well as Knights of the Old Republic 2. They've always been Bioware-lite IMHO; but solid enough.




Mask of the Betrayer was better than either of those games. It's Obsidian's best and his best. I think it's odd that he harks back to pre-3.5 as his glory days.


----------



## Coredump (Feb 10, 2015)

1) An opinions from a company contracted to a competitor has to be immediately suspect.

2) We have no idea what may have happened.  DnD could have been too expensive, or they may have wanted a bigger (or smaller) initial commitment, or they may already be in talks with someone else, or.... tons of things.

3) They are putting out an app based on a card game, not the RPG.


But last of all... I think if I were Obsidian, I might prefer Pathfinder... it has a lot more 'crunch', and I think crunch is much more necessary in a computer game than in a RPG.  I actually think computer games is what led to the crunch explosions of the past.  Most (not all) of DnD would come off as fluff in a computer game.


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

Obsidian seems to jump from one publisher and license to the next. They've probably burned a lot of bridges over the years. Every time they release a game that is incomplete, poorly thought out, or buggy, they always say it is the fault of someone else. You can only do that so many times before they stop working with you or ask for concessions to guarantee you don't pull stuff like that again.


----------



## Henry (Feb 10, 2015)

I seriously doubt Obsidian couldn't afford the D&D license if they really wanted it -- most of the more popular computer game manufacturers operate in different stratospheres than D&D where RPG licensing is concerned. Ubisoft, one of the publishers who work with Obsidian, had sales fiigures of over a BILLION dollars last year; Obsidian has job postings for developers in the six figure range, and apparently employ something like 100+ people.More likely, it was a difficulty in working out licensing - work for hire WotC seems to handle pretty efficiently, but licensing, let's admit, is not one of their strengths from what we've seen.


----------



## Carl H (Feb 10, 2015)

Cybit said:


> Problem is now that Telltale has a backlog of games as it stands.   Would be hard to get a game any time soon from Telltale.




I'd happily wait on them.


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

Henry said:


> I seriously doubt Obsidian couldn't afford the D&D license if they really wanted it -- most of the more popular computer game manufacturers operate in different stratospheres than D&D where RPG licensing is concerned. Ubisoft, one of the publishers who work with Obsidian, had sales fiigures of over a BILLION dollars last year; Obsidian has job postings for developers in the six figure range, and apparently employ something like 100+ people.More likely, it was a difficulty in working out licensing - work for hire WotC seems to handle pretty efficiently, but licensing, let's admit, is not one of their strengths from what we've seen.




What does UbiSoft's sales figures have to do with Obsidian? They published a single game of theirs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 10, 2015)

I'm not familiar with Obsidian or its games, but I do think D&D and indeed all tabletop rpgs are better off in the hands of smaller companies. The fact that nothing for the D&D brand can take place without being combed through endlessly by the Hasbro legal team is a huge anchor weighing down great ideas. Large corporations eventually screw up everything cool about a product sooner or later in the neverending quest to wring more cash from it. D&D was started by gamers FOR gamers. There is nothing wrong with making money, but when that obsession gets in the way of everything people love about the hobby, the entire point is lost.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 10, 2015)

Henry said:


> I seriously doubt Obsidian couldn't afford the D&D license if they really wanted it -- most of the more popular computer game manufacturers operate in different stratospheres than D&D where RPG licensing is concerned. Ubisoft, one of the publishers who work with Obsidian, had sales fiigures of over a BILLION dollars last year; Obsidian has job postings for developers in the six figure range, and apparently employ something like 100+ people.More likely, it was a difficulty in working out licensing - work for hire WotC seems to handle pretty efficiently, but licensing, let's admit, is not one of their strengths from what we've seen.




Obsidian could not afford the D&D license most likely; they have not been doing well.  They had to kickstart their last game (Wasteland 2).


----------



## Barantor (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> Mask of the Betrayer was better than either of those games. It's Obsidian's best and his best. I think it's odd that he harks back to pre-3.5 as his glory days.




That is the one expansion I didn't like because of the epic levels. Storm of Zehir was the best imo, though I know a lot of other folks didn't like that one as much.  

I played the hell out of NWN1 and 2 and 2 never had the following that 1 had because the creation tools were superior but had a very steep learning curve.  

Old Republic 2 was put out incomplete and it always showed when compared to 1. I still like it because it is star wars, but I wouldn't call it a 'great game'.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 10, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not familiar with Obsidian or its games, but I do think D&D and indeed all tabletop rpgs are better off in the hands of smaller companies. The fact that nothing for the D&D brand can take place without being combed through endlessly by the Hasbro legal team is a huge anchor weighing down great ideas. Large corporations eventually screw up everything cool about a product sooner or later in the neverending quest to wring more cash from it. D&D was started by gamers FOR gamers. There is nothing wrong with making money, but when that obsession gets in the way of everything people love about the hobby, the entire point is lost.




Yeah, I think that D&D would be better served being the flagship product of a gaming company instead of a tiny division of Hasbro.


----------



## Zander (Feb 10, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> I believe you are the one fooling yourself.




I'm not fooling myself. I might be wrong, but I'm not delusional.



Celebrim said:


> Let's say you are right, and you probably are, that the Pathfinder license went for a song compared to the D&D price.  Even if that was the deciding factor in a publisher like Obsidian, the fact that they didn't consider the D&D brand and D&D IP to be worth paying extra for means that the D&D brand is in big trouble.




Not necessarily. Obsidian could have all sorts of other costs or margin targets that mean that the WotC/D&D licence is out of reach _for them_. It doesn't mean that the extra cost might not be worth it for someone else. It also doesn't mean that D&D is losing brand equity which is what this Obsidian exec is implying.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> WotC has been owned by Hasbro since 1999. NWN2 and expansions were released in 2006, 07, 08.




I do't believe that's correct. My understanding is that Peter Adkison sold WotC to Hasbro in 2001.


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

I really don't think cost is the issue, the rights for Forgotten Realms (at least) are already in use by Cryptic Studios/Perfect World Entertainment.


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

Alzrius said:


> I do't believe that's correct. My understanding is that Peter Adkison sold WotC to Hasbro in 2001.




Wikipedia says 1999? Even if it was 2001 that doesn't affect my point, that Obsidian made their best game with WotC/Hasbro in 2007.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 10, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not familiar with Obsidian or its games, but I do think D&D and indeed all tabletop rpgs are better off in the hands of smaller companies. The fact that nothing for the D&D brand can take place without being combed through endlessly by the Hasbro legal team is a huge anchor weighing down great ideas. Large corporations eventually screw up everything cool about a product sooner or later in the neverending quest to wring more cash from it. D&D was started by gamers FOR gamers. There is nothing wrong with making money, but when that obsession gets in the way of everything people love about the hobby, the entire point is lost.





As a general rule, niche hobbies are best served by niche companies, IMO.


----------



## Astrosicebear (Feb 10, 2015)

D&D has a history of BAD products, and it kills the brand.  D&D doesnt know what or who its audience truly is, and often makes mistakes.  So Hasbro/WOTC has every right to ensure that its licensed property gets used properly.

Also we cant forget that there is still a court case going on about D&D licensing. 

I mean take Pathfinder Online... bad products can really hurt.  And D&D has every reason to be gun shy as well.  So charge more money, make the investment substantial and you should get a substantial return.


----------



## Carl H (Feb 10, 2015)

I'm not sure what more Mearls & Co could do at this point to garner goodwill. They've been open, approachable and have given away a big chunk of their product for free.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 10, 2015)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Yeah, I think that D&D would be better served being the flagship product of a gaming company instead of a tiny division of Hasbro.




Yes it would be better for the game overall. There are people working on D&D who do really love the game, but they are entirely expendable working for Hasbro. D&D is just a brand that generates revenue and is treated as such. That can't help but have an effect on the morale of those working on it. To know that the fate of the game you love is in the hands of a company that doesn't really care about it must be depressing.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 10, 2015)

delericho said:


> Actually, they have, or at least they've been trying: note the recent emphasis on "storylines", and especially "Tyranny of Dragons". Sure, you can question the quality, but that's subjective - as I said, they've been trying.



Agreed, WotC is trying. But given the copious amount of Golarion-related material Paizo has been creating, I can see how that would be attractive to a computer game company, outside of any other considerations like licensing costs.


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> I really don't think cost is the issue, the rights for Forgotten Realms (at least) are already in use by Cryptic Studios/Perfect World Entertainment.




D&D is divided up into multiple properties. Neverwinter is held by Perfect World Entertainment. The Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale licenses are in the hands of Beamdog.



Eejit said:


> Wikipedia says 1999? Even if it was 2001 that  doesn't affect my point, that Obsidian made their best game with  WotC/Hasbro in 2007.




Obsidian probably didn't have any experience with licensing any  D&D property. The Neverwinter Nights license was held by Atari at  the time. Obsidian was simply contracted with Atari to create the game.


----------



## delericho (Feb 10, 2015)

Carl H said:


> I'm not sure what more Mearls & Co could do at this point to garner goodwill. They've been open, approachable and have given away a big chunk of their product for free.




Off the top of my head:

- Announce their product line-up for the rest of the year (and then stick to it)
- Get the fan policy and third-party license out there
- Restart the magazines.

Now, I should note at this point that I understand why there are difficulties in doing any of these, and in any case it is absolutely their prerogative to manage things as they see fit. They're under no obligation to do any of these things, ever.

But your post did beg the question.


----------



## Astrosicebear (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> I really don't think cost is the issue, the rights for Forgotten Realms (at least) are already in use by Cryptic Studios/Perfect World Entertainment.




4e and 3E had licences, GSL and OGL.  5E does not yet. So if Obsidian was trying to trump a 5e Licence and WOTC said wait for it, Obsidian said screw you we will look into PFRPG, since Numenera already had a game in the works.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> Wikipedia says 1999? Even if it was 2001 that doesn't affect my point, that Obsidian made their best game with WotC/Hasbro in 2007.




Oh it definitely happened in 1999. WotC was acquired by Hasbro about a year before D&D 3.0's release, and I remember a big issue was how soon and when we'd see "Hasbro" on the back of products. I think iirc it was also around that time that WotC dropped the TSR logo once and for all and went with their own logo exclusively.

On the original article....I seem to recall that the only licensing for video games under TSR led to the Gold Box games, which were initially great, but that most of the contemporary titles from Baldur's Gate and onward (people may not remember but Obsidian is the spiritual successor to Black Isle) were WotC-licensed, so I presume that the fellow in the article is complaining more about the Hasbro element than anything else.


----------



## Astrosicebear (Feb 10, 2015)

With this wacky release schedule and prolonged timetable, 5E seems to be less and less about brand revitalization and more and more about brand sustaining.  Meaning, I dont think HASBRO/WOTC wanted to spend alot to bring D&D back, nor do they want to spend alot maintaining it.  They simply wanted it resurrected from the 4e Death throws to bring the brand value.

I dont think Hasbro would consider selling the D&D brand until it completely tanks. They would rather mothball it than see it get away from them.


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

I am going to guess that it has nothing to do with licensing costs and everything to do with control. Though I am sure the cost to license it was very much a negative for Obsidian who has to Kickstart or get contracted to a publisher to produce a game. 

WotC probably wants control of the content within the game so it stays close with their plans for the D&D property. They've already talked about unifying both the art and story. How Cryptic Studios is working with WotC on the story was talked about on one of the panels at a PAX earlier. 

My guess is Obsidian Entertainment wants full control with only optional input from the license holder. WotC has no interest in such a deal.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 10, 2015)

Barantor said:


> I don't know about 13 years, but being the top seller on Amazon surely brought WoTC a lot of cash with the core books.




First, we don't know how many sells that actually translates too because Amazon's algorithm is opaque.  Being a top seller on Amazon over the course of a few hours doesn't necessarily mean lots of books at the scale that would mean WoTC's D&D brand is flowing with cash considering the multiyear design and development period 5e went through that had to be repaid.

Secondly, almost all of the sells were at 30% or higher discounts, which means that WotC was agreeing with Amazon to take a hit on their profit per item.

Thirdly, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost a huge amount of money on the Tyranny of Dragons/Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign that significantly dented their overall profits on the year.

Fourthly, WotC's D&D department isn't acting like a company that is awash in cash.  We have a very limited release cycle and immediate cut backs in staffing.

Ultimately the real problem here is that when WotC abandoned the OGL and tried to take their game back, the goal had to have been that without the D&D brand that no one would play D&D and that a majority of the customer base would eventually abandon the old technology and return to D&D because of the value of the brand.   That hasn't happened.  The fact that you have a reasonably hefty publisher of intellectual property in a medium you used to dominate picking up a competitive brand over your brand cannot feel good.  The fact that Pathfinder is even still going two editions after you abandoned the technology they depend on is itself probably really disconcerting.  I think 5e is great.  It's far better than I ever hoped it would be.  If I wasn't already very happy with my 3e based homebrew and in the midst of a campaign, I'd probably play 5e.   

But there it is.

And I can't say that my overall fondness for the 5e design has in any way changed my assessment of what 5e would mean for the brand.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 10, 2015)

I think a very important piece of his interview was this:



> "Take Activision, they make games like Call of Duty and Destiny," he said. "They have these big tentpole things, it is very hard to then have another thing that is one one-hundredth of the magnitude of those."
> 
> And that is what he says Hasbro struggles with.




I think he's saying Hasbro is in the same position as Activision, and as well I'd say major movie studios are in.  They don't do "small releases" anymore, everything is just blockbuster releases (because that's where the largest influx of cash comes in.)

Obsidian is making a tablet game based upon the Pathfinder Trading Card Game.  As a release, it's probably going to be rather small-- nowhere near Magic: The Gathering Online or Hearthstone status.  So while maybe it could be the licensing fees that stopped it from being a D&D game... it's also quite possible that Wizards/Hasbro just didn't _want_ to give a license to a "small release" game.  For their video game licenses, perhaps they're just thinking "go big or go home"?

Which reflects Urquhart's final statement on why he wishes D&D was owned by a smaller company that has D&D as their focus.  Because a smaller company would be more likely to grant licenses to a great many products from a great many companies of a great many sizes, just to get the D&D brand out there.  Back in the day, TSR would be wiling to grant a license to a (at the time) no-name developer studio like Bioware and publisher Black Isle Studios for some game called Baldur's Gate that who knows would have worked or how well.

But that's not the case anymore.  Wizards/Hasbro doesn't seem like they're going to offer the brand out to just anybody for just anything anymore.


----------



## JohnnyZemo (Feb 10, 2015)

"I'm probably one of the people who has one of the most electronic D&D games that they've worked on".

Is this a typo, or am I just not understanding his point?  What is "one of the most electronic" games supposed to mean?


----------



## Gecko85 (Feb 10, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> First, we don't know how many sells that actually translates too because Amazon's algorithm is opaque.  Being a top seller on Amazon over the course of a few hours doesn't necessarily mean lots of books at the scale that would mean WoTC's D&D brand is flowing with cash considering the multiyear design and development period 5e went through that had to be repaid.




But it hasn't been "over the course of a few hours". The core books have been in the top 100 of all books sold (ALL books, of any type) consistently for months. It's been sustained.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 10, 2015)

I agree with the premise of the article: when it comes to video games, tabletop RPG's have lost their way. I could do without the digs at WotC but he's almost certainly got a point and is, with absolutely certainty, better placed to judge Hasbro's attitude to licensing than most people here. So, it's hard to dismiss his comments.

Having said that, it's not like Pathfinder's video game offerings are setting the world on fire. They've got their MMO coming, sure, but from what I can glean it's going to be light on content and heavy on sand-boxy, player-driven goals. Not to sound partisan myself, but I have a lot of history with dozens of MMO's, and I certainly know what that sounds like to me. And what else? A tablet card game, still in development?


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Secondly, almost all of the sells were at 30% or higher discounts, which means that WotC was agreeing with Amazon to take a hit on their profit per item.




This is nonsense. You get almost every new release from Amazon at 40% discount. Amazon's discounts are solely done by an algorithm that is determined by the number of sales. The more sales, the higher the discount.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 10, 2015)

JohnnyZemo said:


> "I'm probably one of the people who has one of the most electronic D&D games that they've worked on".
> 
> Is this a typo, or am I just not understanding his point?  What is "one of the most electronic" games supposed to mean?




I'm assuming editing error.  He's probably saying that he's worked on more electronic D&D games than most anyone else... which could be true based upon Black Isle being the publisher of Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, and developer of Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale 1 & 2... and Obsidian being the developer of Neverwinter Nights 2 (plus all expansions of said games.)


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

wedgeski said:


> Having said that, it's not like Pathfinder's video game offerings are setting the world on fire. They've got their MMO coming, sure, but from what I can glean it's going to be light on content and heavy on sand-boxy, player-driven goals. Not to sound partisan myself, but I have a lot of history with dozens of MMO's, and I certainly know what that sounds like to me. And what else? A tablet card game, still in development?




Yeah, if your name isn't "EVE Online" player-driven sandbox doesn't work out so well...


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:
			
		

> Wikipedia says 1999?




Hm, and it has the sources to back it up.

My mistake.


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

Eejit said:


> Yeah, if your name isn't "EVE Online" player-driven sandbox doesn't work out so well...




There hasn't been a whole lot of player-driven sandbox games to begin with. Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, and EVE have all done well. Very few MMORPGs has done exceptionally well, whether it's sandbox or themepark.

That said, Pathfinder Online is a rip-off. You had to not only spend a ton of money on Kickstarter to get into the alpha, but pay a monthly fee to test their game as well. It is going to be eclipsed by the various sandbox games in works such as The Repopulation, Everquest Next, and the recently announced Crowfall.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 10, 2015)

As a general rule anyone who wants TSR back can be safely ignored. As can anyone working for/with someone's competition. That's two strikes.



Carl H said:


> I'm not sure what more Mearls & Co could do at this point to garner goodwill. They've been open, approachable and have given away a big chunk of their product for free.




At this point I think most of Mearls goodwill comes from a group that hasn't bought D&D other than core rules since TSR were a thing. He was identified with 4e, pissing off most of the Pathfinder fans. And he also made jokes about shouting hands back on and other anti-4e edition war nonsense in the runup to 5e.

Also:


delericho said:


> Off the top of my head:
> 
> - Announce their product line-up for the rest of the year (and then stick to it)
> - Get the fan policy and third-party license out there
> ...


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> As a general rule anyone who wants TSR back can be safely ignored. As can anyone working for/with someone's competition. That's two strikes.




TSR licensed to anyone for anything at probably a very low price. That's how we ended up with the Dungeons & Dragons movies. It is only by luck that Interplay licensed the D&D games.


----------



## nofax1 (Feb 10, 2015)

To summarize:  D&D is great but Hasbro is impossible to deal with.


----------



## Eejit (Feb 10, 2015)

nofax1 said:


> To summarize:  D&D is great but Hasbro is impossible to deal with.




That's not a good summary.


----------



## nofax1 (Feb 10, 2015)

I beg to differ.  I could go into more detail summarizing a quote a few sentences long but then it wouldn't be a summary anymore.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Feb 10, 2015)

He's right.  I think that Monopoly has lost its' way.  How many versions can you have?  There's one for the Walking Dead, one for my alma mater, one for Star Wars, the list goes on and on.  It gets stale and rehashed endlessly.  And when will we see the character classes expanded?  How many times do I have to be faced with the tired old choices of Top Hat, Scotty Dog or Race Car?  I'm glad that recent versions have returned more power to the Banker but frankly I think that the rules are too tactical and less oriented to role play than they were before.


----------



## nofax1 (Feb 10, 2015)

Warmaster Horus said:


> He's right.  I think that Monopoly has lost its' way.  How many versions can you have?  There's one for the Walking Dead, one for my alma mater, one for Star Wars, the list goes on and on.  It gets stale and rehashed endlessly.  And when will we see the character classes expanded?  How many times do I have to be faced with the tired old choices of Top Hat, Scotty Dog or Race Car?  I'm glad that recent versions have returned more power to the Banker but frankly I think that the rules are too tactical and less oriented to role play than they were before.




/like


----------



## Carl H (Feb 10, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> At this point I think most of Mearls goodwill comes from a group that hasn't bought D&D other than core rules since TSR were a thing.




Admittedly I am in this group.


----------



## DM Howard (Feb 10, 2015)

Are we talking about WotC now, or are we talking about Games Workshop?

Jokes aside, I think that it is what it is.  Someone will want to make a D&D video game at some point and it will be Obsidian's loss regardless of whether they could get the license or not.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 10, 2015)

nofax1 said:


> To summarize:  D&D is great but Hasbro is impossible to deal with.






Eejit said:


> That's not a good summary.




No, it totally is.  It's all the article deserves.  Urquhart isn't saying "D&D sucks," he's saying "Hasbro sucks for D&D."  The article is poorly written clickbait.



Neonchameleon said:


> At this point I think most of Mearls goodwill comes from a group that hasn't bought D&D other than core rules since TSR were a thing.




I'm not sure what this means.  His goodwill comes from customers?  I think that's probably apt, yes.



> He was identified with 4e, pissing off most of the Pathfinder fans. And he also made jokes about shouting hands back on and other anti-4e edition war nonsense in the runup to 5e.




In a nutshell, this is why I asked him at Gen Con to write his memoirs someday.  He has had a career at Wizards spanning some wild changes and about-faces, and I would love to get an insider's take on them.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Feb 10, 2015)

I think where Paizo's success lays is the fact that they aren't actively trying to be number 1. If their online game isn't rocking the number 1 spot then I don't think they really care. If it reaches number 1 then that's fantastic, if not then that's okay as long as we aren't losing any money. 

Someone mentioned earlier about Hasbro being "all or nothing" and I think they are spot on. Paizo isn't about dominating the market, they are about giving their customers what they want.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 10, 2015)

Celebrim said:


> Secondly, almost all of the sells were at 30% or higher discounts, which means that WotC was agreeing with Amazon to take a hit on their profit per item.




Not necessarily.  It is perfectly normal for a game publisher to sell to distributors at ballpark 30% of the cover price.  Amazon is both a distributor and a retail outfit.  They have room to decide to cover that discount as a business decision.  

In fact, that may well be the profit maximizing choice.  How many people would have bought from Amazon at 0% discount?  At 10% discount?  Frankly, even at 20% discount, I probably would have just driven over to my FLGS, but the combination of large discount and convenience of getting it in the mail won me over.


----------



## Derren (Feb 10, 2015)

Its interesting to see how aggressive posters here become when someone criticises D&D.

And don't hold your breath for another D&D video game. WotC has not a good track record with elecronic products and with the small team and budget D&D has now its unlikely that they risk it again.
And it is even more unlikely that a publisher, especially the good ones, ask for the D&D license as it is simply a shadow of its former self and Hasbro/WotC too much of a control freak. They are better off with creating their own fantasy world.

And the currently running D&D games are either on life support (DDO) or are losing a lot of customers (Neverwinter as mentioned in PerfectWorlds financial report).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 10, 2015)

variant said:


> TSR licensed to anyone for anything at probably a very low price. That's how we ended up with the Dungeons & Dragons movies. It is only by luck that Interplay licensed the D&D games.




You say that as if it were a bad thing.  Who did not love Snails?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2015)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> You say that as if it were a bad thing.  Who did not love Snails?




 The theater audience where my friends saw the movie cheered when Snails got cacked. I'm sure those were cheers of dismay and sympathy.


----------



## Elsenrail (Feb 10, 2015)

I would really welcome a new D&D cRPG. Baldur's gate, Icewind Dale and Plancescape Torment is what brought me to D&D actually. I'm looking forward to Pillars of Eternity and Torment Tides of Numenera as they resemble these classic games. However, there is one developer who made its mark by selling BG, ID, PT in Poland (they were a huge success). It's CD Projekt, the creators of the Witcher. If these guys can get the licesnse, then we would have a spectacular game, no doubt.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2015)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> In fact, that may well be the profit maximizing choice.  How many people would have bought from Amazon at 0% discount?  At 10% discount?  Frankly, even at 20% discount, I probably would have just driven over to my FLGS, but the combination of large discount and convenience of getting it in the mail won me over.




Chances are the discounts weren't profit maximizing - Amazon's profitability isn't high, never has been. Their strategy seems to be marketshare maximizing, something that could lead to high profits in the long run after they squeeze out competition.


----------



## Derren (Feb 10, 2015)

Elsenrail said:


> It's CD Projekt, the creators of the Witcher. If these guys can get the licesnse, then we would have a spectacular game, no doubt.




Why would they want the D&D license and deal with WotC when they have the Witcher where they can do what they want with it?


----------



## Carl H (Feb 10, 2015)

I actually think snails is one of the only good things about that movie...


----------



## Zaran (Feb 10, 2015)

Wolfskin said:


> Forgive my skepticism, but to me this looks like a comment out of spite more than an objective assessment of the matter. The fact that WotC doesn't want to make yet another D&D game in the vein of NWN may as well be because such games don't sell as they did in their time, like it or not.
> 
> Also, if "becoming TSR again" means "turning on the supplement treadmill and crashing down"... then, no thanks!




A lot of beloved settings came from TSR days.  People are clamoring for Planescape, Dragonlance, Spelljammer and Al Qadim.  I seriously doubt the fall of TSR was entirely because they put out too much.


----------



## Wolfskin (Feb 10, 2015)

Zaran said:


> A lot of beloved settings came from TSR days.  People are clamoring for Planescape, Dragonlance, Spelljammer and Al Qadim.  I seriously doubt the fall of TSR was entirely because they put out too much.



I clamor for these settings as well, but IMO TSR published too many supplements and boxed sets long after it was profitable to do so. It may have not been the only reason behind the fall of TSR, but I think it was one of the causes.

EDIT: for instance, I loved 4e Dark Sun and long to see a 5e version, but I don't think we need twenty-something supplements for a hypothetical 5e Dark Sun.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2015)

Zaran said:


> A lot of beloved settings came from TSR days.  People are clamoring for Planescape, Dragonlance, Spelljammer and Al Qadim.  I seriously doubt the fall of TSR was entirely because they put out too much.




I don't think anyone with hard data has ever said it is "entirely" any single thing. But the conclusion of people in the know is that green-lighting too many products without enough analysis of the cost (divided market, boxed sets priced too low to recoup production costs, and so on) left the company vulnerable to the critical cash flow problems that led to them being unable to pay their printers and, ultimately, being bought by WotC.

No doubt most of those settings were awesome. Al Qadim is one of my favorites. But they did crank out a lot of loss-leading materials (and let's face it, they sold boxed sets like loss leaders - setting the prices at what they thought people would pay and not what it cost them to make) that only the most diligent of us (and either wealthy or increasingly debt ridden) could buy. So, like most customers, I expect, I focused on a few of those lines like Al Qadim and Oriental Adventures. That meant that each of those lines could really only expect an increasingly small fraction of the D&D market and it just wasn't sustainable in the long term.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 10, 2015)

Given Obsidian Entertainment is these days known for their buggy, low-quality games and problems solving coding issues that even I, with my amateur level of coding skill, have learned how to solve _just by reading the textbook_... This strikes me a lot as a spiteful statement by a company that was turned down on licensing and had to go with someone else.

Plus, Obsidian Entertainment has napalmed a lot of the bridges they once had. If the company keeps this up, they'll end up bankrupt simply because no one will be willing to work with them.


----------



## qstor (Feb 10, 2015)

Zaran said:


> A lot of beloved settings came from TSR days.  People are clamoring for Planescape, Dragonlance, Spelljammer and Al Qadim.  I seriously doubt the fall of TSR was entirely because they put out too much.




check out Ryan Danceys article about his trip to TSR


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 10, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I don't think anyone with hard data has ever said it is "entirely" any single thing. But the conclusion of people in the know is that green-lighting too many products without enough analysis of the cost (divided market, boxed sets priced too low to recoup production costs, and so on) left the company vulnerable to the critical cash flow problems that led to them being unable to pay their printers and, ultimately, being bought by WotC.




The point at which your new campaign line is cannibalizing sales from your other campaign lines rather than bringing in more than miniscule additional sales, probably comes very quickly.  Most DMs will have one or two (or zero) favorite campaign lines and ignore the rest.  Optimism in the wake of a surge of sales from the box set you are losing money on helps hide the problem.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 10, 2015)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> You say that as if it were a bad thing.  Who did not love Snails?




So my old boss found a short clip on Youtube of Snail's last scene. He played it whenever he was in a bad mood and it really picked him up. Strange boss.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 10, 2015)

Derren said:


> And the currently running D&D games are either on life support (DDO) or are losing a lot of customers (Neverwinter as mentioned in PerfectWorlds financial report).




That's a shame.  Neverwinter is actually a fun ride.  I encourage anyone who hasn't to give it a fair shot.



Zaran said:


> A lot of beloved settings came from TSR days.  People are clamoring for Planescape, Dragonlance, Spelljammer and Al Qadim.  I seriously doubt the fall of TSR was entirely because they put out too much.






qstor said:


> check out Ryan Danceys article about his trip to TSR




Was it Dancey who said WotC briefly considered paving a courtyard with all the Dragon Dice TSR had stockpiled?


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 10, 2015)

I would love to see WotC produce a DnD game that was actually based on the DnD rules.


----------



## Derren (Feb 10, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> That's a shame.  Neverwinter is actually a fun ride.  I encourage anyone who hasn't to give it a fair shot.




The problem with Neverwinter is the lack of content and the downright insulting prices of the in game shop. Basically at level 60 there is only one thing to do and it is bugged and frustrating (Tiamat raid). What worse is that there are groups of players out there who blame WotC for that by reasoning that WotC demanding expansion releases to come simultaneously with their adventure releases they prevent Cryptic from delivering quality content and to perform much needed overhauls.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2015)

"Man with vested interest in Pathfinder disses WotC"

Unprofessional (IMHO), but about as surprising as discovering that water is wet.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 10, 2015)

Derren said:


> The problem with Neverwinter is the lack of content and the downright insulting prices of the in game shop. Basically at level 60 there is only one thing to do and it is bugged and frustrating (Tiamat raid). What worse is that there are groups of players out there who blame WotC for that by reasoning that WotC demanding expansion releases to come simultaneously with their adventure releases they prevent Cryptic from delivering quality content and to perform much needed overhauls.




Rather than derail the thread I'll just state that I disagree with you on all points, and would reaffirm my encouragement to potential Neverwinter players.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Feb 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> "Man with vested interest in Pathfinder disses WotC"
> 
> Unprofessional (IMHO), but about as surprising as discovering that water is wet.



Bingo.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Feb 10, 2015)

What I took out of this discussion is that I need to finish up the main storyline in NWN2 so I can start playing Mask of the Betrayer.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 10, 2015)

Given their track record, Obsidian really doesn't have a lot of room to talk about the failures of others...


----------



## Derren (Feb 10, 2015)

DMZ2112 said:


> Rather than derail the thread I'll just state that I disagree with you on all points, and would reaffirm my encouragement to potential Neverwinter players.




You can of course disagree, but a look into the Neverwinter forums, or its Steam forum where criticism isn't as swiftly deleted than on the official one, supports my side.


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

My eye is on Beamdog. They already have the license to create two D&D games, at least one of them is a Baldur's Gate game, after the success of their  enhanced versions of the Baldur's Gate series.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Feb 10, 2015)

variant said:


> My eye is on Beamdog. They already have the license to create two D&D games after the success of their  enhanced versions of the Baldur's Gate series.




Wait, those weren't even Obsidian ports?

...What has Obsidian been doing for the last five years?  Alpha Protocol, Dungeon Siege III, and the Stick of Truth?

Yeesh.  Good luck, Paizo.



Derren said:


> You can of course disagree, but a look into the Neverwinter forums, or its Steam forum where criticism isn't as swiftly deleted than on the official one, supports my side.




I make it a point to never frequent video game forums if I can help it, because they tend to be full of the kind of baseless whining and poorly attributed criticism found in this Polygon article about Feargus Urquhart.

How's that for a tie-back?


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 10, 2015)

Derren said:


> You can of course disagree, but a look into the Neverwinter forums, or its Steam forum where criticism isn't as swiftly deleted than on the official one, supports my side.




If you're playing an MMO for the mechanics, you should probably just give up playing them.

Seriously, MMOs _always_ are the worst examples of the game type they're turning into an MMO. That's just the nature of the beast. And, actually, Neverwinter is doing very well for itself; MMOs like WoW and Eve Online had _far, far worse_ problems this early into their life cycle. In fact, by this point, half of WoW's engine had been rebuilt once already just to get some features working properly. I know they had to, within a year after launch, completely scrap their PvP mechanics and rebuild them from the ground up.


----------



## Pauper (Feb 10, 2015)

Stories like this make a lot more sense when put into Hasbro's perspective.

Sure, Paizo's folks are (justifiably) happy with the thought that their game is now the #1 mindshare and revenue-maker in the RPG market space. And sure, the WotC folks are likely hoping to get back on top, or at least maintain their position as a major player in the marketplace.

But when Hasbro looks at the bottom line and sees that they made more money from My Little Pony than they did from the D&D TRPG? *That's* why D&D, from Hasbro's perspective, is all about cross-licensing: different kinds of games (D&D Attack Wing, D&D Dice Masters), different delivery systems (Neverwinter MMO, D&D Arena of War tablet/mobile game).

Heck, I'm surprised that somebody hasn't figured out that the current wave of MOBA games owes its pedigree to D&D (through World of Warcraft) and isn't figuring out how to put together a D&D MOBA featuring the greatest characters from D&D's past and present. Perceived market saturation is the only sensible reason why I can't take Mordenkainen and fight alongside Driz'zt against Eclavdra and Storm Silverhand in the Demonweb.

tl;dr: Any market small enough that a single designer can make a living in it is way too small to be interesting to an international corporation all by itself.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 10, 2015)

Hasbro has listed DnD as one of its top-earners, even beating out a few other flagship products.

As far as Hasbro is concerned, DnD is probably golden right now. It's making enough money to help cover for profit losses in other product lines.

So, when Hasbro looks at their bottom line, they see DnD is a product that is making them money where other products failed. DnD isn't even on the list of products to meddle with right now.


----------



## Sunseeker (Feb 10, 2015)

doctorhook said:


> Great, somebody with a microphone has shown up to rehash the same ol' dead-horse arguments that "WotC sux, Ha$bro sux, TSR 4eva!1!"



That was my feeling as well.



> On the other hand, maybe this will be the poke the beast needs to start (continue?) improving its relationships and licensing agreements with other companies.



Arguably, Obsidian is not a great company to do business with anyway.  They're known for creating good games that are also incredibly half-baked.


----------



## Coredump (Feb 10, 2015)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> Hasbro has listed DnD as one of its top-earners, even beating out a few other flagship products.
> 
> As far as Hasbro is concerned, DnD is probably golden right now. It's making enough money to help cover for profit losses in other product lines.
> 
> So, when Hasbro looks at their bottom line, they see DnD is a product that is making them money where other products failed. DnD isn't even on the list of products to meddle with right now.




QUIET YOU!!   Everyone knows that Hasbro is the problem, and everything would be better if that big nasty corporation would just sell it to 3 guys working in their garage.

Sometimes people here sound so "well informed" that they must be getting all of the Hasbro/WotC emails copied to them....


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 10, 2015)

Coredump said:


> QUIET YOU!!   Everyone knows that Hasbro is the problem, and everything would be better if that big nasty corporation would just sell it to 3 guys working in their garage.
> 
> Sometimes people here sound so "well informed" that they must be getting all of the Hasbro/WotC emails copied to them....




*quietly hides the Hasbro emails I've got sitting in my inbox*

Yeah, I could see how it might seem that way...


----------



## Jer (Feb 10, 2015)

> "love to see D&D be bought by someone and become what it was before... Become TSR again."




Become a failed company that time and time again failed to expand their product line out of the one game that made them money, and then proceeded to take that one game and drive it into the ground to where even it wasn't making them enough money to keep them afloat?

Yeah, no.  Nobody should be looking back at TSR and thinking "you know, THAT'S the way to to it!"  You can argue that Hasbro/WoTC isn't doing what they could be doing with the property, but if you're going to hearken back to the days when TSR owned it you're not being serious.


----------



## variant (Feb 10, 2015)

Jer said:


> Become a failed company that time and time again failed to expand their product line out of the one game that made them money, and then proceeded to take that one game and drive it into the ground to where even it wasn't making them enough money to keep them afloat?
> 
> Yeah, no.  Nobody should be looking back at TSR and thinking "you know, THAT'S the way to to it!"  You can argue that Hasbro/WoTC isn't doing what they could be doing with the property, but if you're going to hearken back to the days when TSR owned it you're not being serious.




What he really means is he wishes the D&D license was cheap with no expectations of quality like it was back when Interplay published D&D games.


----------



## ninjayeti (Feb 10, 2015)

I think when you read the full interview it is pretty clear that he is not crapping on 5E, just expressing concern that D&D is owned and controlled by a company that really doesn't care about RPGs other than as a revenue stream - and it is one of their smaller revenue streams at that.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 10, 2015)

ninjayeti said:


> I think when you read the full interview it is pretty clear that he is not crapping on 5E, just expressing concern that D&D is owned and controlled by a company that really doesn't care about RPGs other than as a revenue stream - and it is one of their smaller revenue streams at that.





That is true, the DnD Staff are a very small percentage of WotC.


----------



## keterys (Feb 10, 2015)

I really don't know the relevant bits of lore. I can say that I wish there was a gold box equivalent for D&D 4E, and that it was a shame that not a single computer game came out for that edition while the edition was alive. At least if it was going to be derided for imitating CRPGs, there could have been any at all to compare to 

It does sound like I should check out Mask of the Betrayer. Thanks, I'll do that. I enjoyed the hell out of the gold box games back in the day, and Planescape Torment, but I really wasn't that impressed by many other options that have been popular, like Neverwinter Nights or Temple of Elemental Evil. NwN did have a lot more going for it after the community had a lot of time for it, but I just didn't find the gameplay itself very compelling. ToEE just had too many bugs (many of which were fixed much later), though did feel more like I was playing a good D&D game.

I'll admit, I have hit a point where I've realized that too many of these CRPGs involve waves of "delve and fight stuff non-stop for a couple hours" followed by "explore every inch of town to get all the stuff and talk to 100 NPCs for a couple hours" and I kinda tap out on one or the other at some point. Apparently I need more varied pacing / don't have the patience of youth anymore.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Feb 10, 2015)

The goldbox games, Dragonlance, the Ravenloft games, Menzoberranzan, and the Eye of the Beholder series will always be my favourite.


----------



## BoldItalic (Feb 10, 2015)

D&D hasn't lost its way. It's found its own way, but it's not the computer games way.

Computer games are fun, but they are limited by the imagination of the programmers. Players can only do what the programmers have anticipated. There are no "none of the above" options.

D&D is all about imagination and creativity of people around a table. The players and the DM, between them, create a unique and original story. There's no algorithm for that. Computers can't do that. (Yes, I know all about AI and it doesn't come close).

The things that can be done to make a computer game fun, are different from the things that can be done to make D&D fun. You can make a computer game with goblins and elves and magic swords, and you can make a D&D game with goblins and elves and magic swords, but they are not the same kind of game. It's not the goblins &c that define the game. They can be elements in a story, but the difference is, that in a computer game the story has already been programmed whereas in a D&D game the story is created spontaneously.

In 5e, especially.

For a computer game designer, 5e had indeed gone away. But that doesn't mean it is lost and wandering in the wilderness. It might mean that he is, though.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 10, 2015)

Speaking as someone who has only ever known D&D as a Hasbro brand, I cannot fathom why people are nostalgic for TSRs business practices.  Everything I have ever seen indicates an incompetent company with some weird management issues.

Small is not always good; big is not always bad.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> That is true, the DnD Staff are a very small percentage of WotC.




Well, I think WotC, in their hearts, does care a bit more about D&D than as just a revenue stream.  The company's origin and history speak to that.  Hasbro is a separate matter.

Of course, I don't think we have solid indication that Hasbro mucks in on the design and plans for D&D directly.  Until he ponies up such evidence, I am not sure it is a fair criticism.  It may be that the D&D end of WotC acts rather like a small company....


----------



## Sailor Moon (Feb 10, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Speaking as someone who has only ever known D&D as a Hasbro brand, I cannot fathom why people are nostalgic for TSRs business practices.  Everything I have ever seen indicates an incompetent company with some weird management issues.
> 
> Small is not always good; big is not always bad.




But in this case Big is bad.

TSR had a lot of problems, but if it was run correctly then it would have done perfectly fine. Hasbro is not a good company for D&D, due to reasons that have already been discussed. D&D is the type of niche hobby that really needs to stay with a smallish company that just wants to make a table top RPG and make a little money on the side. The moment Hasbro sees the brand as being worth more than the actual RPG then the game will most likely be pushed and pushed until it fades away, or becomes a tiny little game that might get a little support every few years.


----------



## Keldryn (Feb 10, 2015)

I would like to have read the entire interview so as to be able to put all of Urquhart's comments into the proper context.

My reading is that he thinks that the future of tabletop D&D is a big question mark.  Many people on this very board have expressed the concern that 5e is essentially a "final" version of the game in order to keep something in print while Hasbro focuses on licensing the brand for more profitable ventures.  The folks at Paizo have worked hard to develop a community around Pathfinder, and they continue to support than community.  D&D isn't a big enough property under the Hasbro umbrella for them to dedicate that kind of care and attention to.  Many D&D 3.x fans felt abandoned when WotC released 4e, and many 4e fans felt the same when 5e was announced.  Their digital strategy for D&D is something of a mess.  Under Hasbro, D&D isn't a profitable enough brand for it to get the resources that it needs to thrive.  I think that's what's he's getting at.

At any rate, Feargus Urquhart isn't some clueless exec with a suit and an MBA; he's a gamer who started at Interplay as a playtester in 1991 and ultimately was selected to head up  Interplay's new RPG division in 1996.  The first game produced by this division was _Fallout: A Post-Nuclear Adventure_, released in 1997.  The following year, this RPG division was re-named Black Isle Studios.  They would go on to create several acclaimed RPGs: _Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale,_ and _Icewind Dale II_.  They also published _Baldur's Gate_ and _Baldur's Gate II_ for Bioware.




goldomark said:


> So, basically is he critiquing the release schedule, or lack there of, the uncertainty of the life span of this edition* and the fact that D&D has a lot more people looking over its shoulder and meddling with it**.
> 
> He is right.




Absolutely.  

He has been burned by Hasbro's handling of the D&D computer/video game license in the past.   In 1995, TSR divided the D&D license among mulitple publishers, with Interplay being granted the license to the Forgotten Realms and Planescape brands.  WotC purchased TSR in 1997, and were in turn acquired by Hasbro in 1999; at this point in time, Hasbro's existing subsidiary Hasbro Interactive gained the right to use the D&D brand in their software products.  In 2001, Hasbro Interactive was sold to Infogrames Entertainment (which later rebranded itself Atari after acquring that trademark), transfering the D&D electronic license with it.  According to Urquhart, Interplay lost the D&D license in late 2002 or early 2003, two years into the production of _Baldur's Gate III_.  The rights have since reverted back to Hasbro/WotC.  WotC's handling of their "digital initiative" has been abyssmal, to say the least, so I would probably be somewhat reluctant to work with them.



Wolfskin said:


> Also, if "becoming TSR again" means "turning on the supplement treadmill and crashing down"... then, no thanks!




I'm pretty sure he means that D&D needs to be managed by what is effectively "The D&D Company."  Not as an afterthought to a collectible card game as part of a subsidiary to one of the largest toy companies in the world.  Likewise, computer RPGs are best in the hands of those who appreciate how and why they are different from mainstream action games.



Cybit said:


> Obsidian could not afford the D&D license most likely; they have not been doing well. They had to kickstart their last game (Wasteland 2).




InXile Entertainment made _Wasteland 2_, not Obsidian.  Brian Fargo founded InXile after he left Interplay back in 2002 -- a company which he also founded back in 1983.  Obsidian funded _Pillars of Eternity_ on Kickstarter.  Both companies turned to Kickstarter to fund these games so that they could make the games that they wanted to make without having to compromise their vision to suit a publisher's whims.  Fargo has talked about this many times; he pitched _Wasteland 2_ to several publishers, only to have it rejected because they considered turn-based RPGs to be unprofitable and outdated relics.

Kickstarter has been a blessing for fans of computer RPGs (and adventure games) from the 80s and 90s.  It has nothing to do with whether or not a company is doing well.



variant said:


> Obsidian seems to jump from one publisher and license to the next. They've probably burned a lot of bridges over the years.




They're an independent studio and they need to be working on projects in order to stay in business, so they take the work that is available.  They aren't "jumping" from one publisher and license to the next; they're essentially freelancers who bid on jobs that are available.  It was actually Matt Stone and Trey Parker who approached Obsidian about working on _South Park: The Stick of Truth_.  The development problems with that game were absolutely the result of THQ going bankrupt and UbiSoft's demands for significant changes upon acquiring the rights to the game.



DMZ2112 said:


> Wait, those weren't even Obsidian ports?
> 
> ...What has Obsidian been doing for the last five years? Alpha Protocol, Dungeon Siege III, and the Stick of Truth?




They released Fallout: New Vegas the same year as Alpha Protocol (2010), and they're currently working on Armored Warfare (tactical MMO) and Pillars of Eternity (since 2012), as well as this Pathfinder game.  Microsoft canceled Obsidian's unannounced Xbox One project in 2012, forcing them to lay off 20-30 people.



Nergal Pendragon said:


> Given Obsidian Entertainment is these days known for their buggy, low-quality games and problems solving coding issues that even I, with my amateur level of coding skill, have learned how to solve just by reading the textbook...




Game development is _hard_.  I've been there and done that.  There is a 0% chance that an amateur coder could keep up with the least skilled programmer on their team.  

Their games do unfortunately tend to be buggy, but very few other development studios even attempt to make games that react to the player's decisions the way that Obsidian tries to -- much like Troika Games before them (_Arcanum, Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines,_ and _The Temple of Elemental Evil_).  Both studios were founded by people who worked on the original _Fallout_ game, and their games are heavily inspired by those design sensibilities.  _Knights of the Old Republic II_ was buggy and unfinished, with an abrupt endgame that could barely be called an "ending," but it was also a more ambitious and complex game than was the original.  

_Fallout: New Vegas_ attempted to portray a more reactive world than did _Fallout 3_, which is one reason why it was a buggier game.  Also, as with KOTOR2, it had a much shorter development cycle (18 months for F:NV), which inevitably means that there is less time for QA.  The publisher is responsible for the bulk of the QA, by the way.  Developers will typically have a small team of testers who work alongside the designers and programmers, but the large-scale QA is handled by the publisher.  In many cases, the publisher will sign off on a game and release it, despite the developers telling them that there are still severe bugs present.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 10, 2015)

I came into the interview ready to roll my eyes, but upon reading the full interview he makes a good point. To Hasbro, D&D is just another brand - one of dozens - and the one that makes significantly less money. 



Nergal Pendragon said:


> Hasbro has listed DnD as one of its top-earners, even beating out a few other flagship products.
> 
> As far as Hasbro is concerned, DnD is probably golden right now.* It's making enough money to help cover for profit losses in other product lines.*
> 
> So, when Hasbro looks at their bottom line, they see DnD is a product that is making them money where other products failed. DnD isn't even on the list of products to meddle with right now.



Well, no. The opposite really. They called out D&D as making more money and helping offset losses in Q3, but the brands that performed better didn't make enough to make up for the brands doing poorly in 2014. 

And in the most recent report:
http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/30836/hasbro-reports-profitable-q4-year
They don't even mention D&D at all, despite the holidays and the release of the DMG (and the MM to big box stores).


----------



## Rygar (Feb 11, 2015)

doctorhook said:


> I say this is Obsidian's loss, someone else's gain.
> 
> ...Provided WotC gets those licenses sorted out quickly and cleanly.




The problem there is that there really isn't anyone else other than InXile,  who is closely aligned with Obsidian and whom WOTC already refused to license Planescape to.

Bethesda doesn't make RPG's anymore,  they make player-skill based action adventures,  they're so far from RPG today that they don't even bother implementing character stats.  Bioware doesn't make RPG's anymore,  they make action-centric dating sims.  They abandoned RPG's shortly after EA took over.  Heck,  it's likely that the spell list would be limited by the number of buttons on a gamepad.  

There really isn't anyone else left.  Anything made by any other company would bear very little resemblance to D&D.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, I think WotC, in their hearts, does care a bit more about D&D than as just a revenue stream.  The company's origin and history speak to that.  Hasbro is a separate matter.
> 
> Of course, I don't think we have solid indication that Hasbro mucks in on the design and plans for D&D directly.  Until he ponies up such evidence, I am not sure it is a fair criticism.  It may be that the D&D end of WotC acts rather like a small company....




I think that you are absolutely right that the people working on DnD care more about the game then just as a revenue stream.  On the other hand, the CEO of WotC is not working on DnD.


----------



## Matt James (Feb 11, 2015)

Someone promoting something for one company is saying something less than complimentary about that company's biggest competitor?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 11, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I think that you are absolutely right that the people working on DnD care more about the game then just as a revenue stream.  On the other hand, the CEO of WotC is not working on DnD.




A number of those D&D products people are nostalgic for were created under the "leadership" of Lorraine Williams.  Just saying.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, I think WotC, in their hearts, does care a bit more about D&D than as just a revenue stream.  The company's origin and history speak to that.  Hasbro is a separate matter.



Except that the CEO of WotC was an ex-Hasbro employee brought in a little under a decade ago, replacing another Hasbro suit. Very likely the entire upper management structure has no strong feelings regarding any of the products, let alone D&D.


----------



## Uder (Feb 11, 2015)

Feargus really knows how to troll better than this! I can only give it an 84/100!


----------



## dd.stevenson (Feb 11, 2015)

This article reads almost exactly as if written by Ryan Dancey.

I agree with all of it, I'm afraid.


----------



## SirAntoine (Feb 11, 2015)

The die has been cast.  5th Edition just doesn't offer enough continuity or vision for the future.  For Pathfinder, they know what they're doing and that's what Wizards of the Coast should clearly have been doing.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 11, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> But in this case Big is bad.
> 
> 
> 
> TSR had a lot of problems, but if it was run correctly then it would have done perfectly fine. Hasbro is not a good company for D&D, due to reasons that have already been discussed. D&D is the type of niche hobby that really needs to stay with a smallish company that just wants to make a table top RPG and make a little money on the side. The moment Hasbro sees the brand as being worth more than the actual RPG then the game will most likely be pushed and pushed until it fades away, or becomes a tiny little game that might get a little support every few years.





The opening sentence here is begging the question.  Being part of a large, stable organization has certain advantages over being part of a smaller business.  Certain mi uses, possibly, but it is not black and white, and compared to the monstrous incompetence of TSR, we can say with greater certainty that smaller was not good in the case of D&D.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2015)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> A number of those D&D products people are nostalgic for were created under the "leadership" of Lorraine Williams.  Just saying.




We certainly saw a lot more Buck Rogers under her "leadership"


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 11, 2015)

I really don't think it's the cost of the license, given that Cryptic/Perfect world and Turbine have D&D licenses.  I think he means that with Hasbro, D&D is just one IP among many 100s. It doesn't get their primary focus. 

When it was just WOTC, while D&D wasn't their cash cow, it was something of a prestige thing, I think. It was more of a focus than perhaps the profits justified, but gamers were the better off for it.

Same with TSR. Maybe putting out mountains of product led to their downfall (or maybe it was other things, like Dragon Dice or a flood of novels, or pushing bad Buck Rogers products to make money for the license owners...which happened to include TSR executives), but it's hard to say that it was bad from a gamer's point of view, getting a diverse amount of games and game settings.


----------



## Eirikrautha (Feb 11, 2015)

It's kind of funny that I can look at the substance of a comment and generally predict who posted it before even glancing at the poster's name.  The internet is the greatest force for confirmation bias that ever existed.  Those dissatisfied with WotC or 5e will immediately find someone to "support" their doom and gloom, while those who enjoy 5e will quickly find reasons why WotC are geniuses.  And pretty much nobody knows what they are talking about (when it comes to the internal motivations of any of the principals).

The average TTRPGer, who doesn't follow message boards or internet kerfluffles, simply buys a game that sounds good and plays it.  And that will be what determines 5e's (and by extension, WotC's) success.  Not anything said on the internet, by you, me, or game designers working for the competition.

Personally, I'm enjoying D&D like I haven't since late 1e/early 2e.  So I could care less if D&D is an afterthought for Habsro or is tattooed on the CEO's forehead.  Because I have a solid, fun ruleset that I can play (and expand) for as long as I want, or until something better comes along.  I don't need Mike Mearls to write an adventure for me, but I certainly will buy some published ones (got ToD and will get ToEE) for the short-cuts and/or inspiration.  And if WotC never publishes another thing, it won't stop me playing (and it won't send me back to the mess that is Pathfinder... just because WotC might fail doesn't automatically mean Paizo will succeed.  Crappy mechanics are crappy mechanics).

I just know that, if I hated a game system, I wouldn't spend tons of time on message boards discussing it.  I'd probably spend my time on the boards of the things I did like.  But I guess I'm just weird (and don't need the herd of free-thinking minds to validate my opinions)...


----------



## DaveDash (Feb 11, 2015)

Since when did making awesome CRPGs have anything to do with product support?

Take a look at NWN. It's filled with so much broken and 'made up' stuff it isn't funny. But it was an awesome game for its toolset, DM game mode, and community made persistent worlds, mods, and modules. NWN2 on the other hand was absolute garbage. 

Both "D&D" games, worlds apart.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 11, 2015)

Keldryn said:


> Game development is _hard_.  I've been there and done that.  There is a 0% chance that an amateur coder could keep up with the least skilled programmer on their team.




Given the least skilled programmer on their team _is an amateur coder_ and that's standard for the entire video game development industry, this is not even remotely close to factually correct.



> Their games do unfortunately tend to be buggy, but very few other development studios even attempt to make games that react to the player's decisions the way that Obsidian tries to -- much like Troika Games before them (_Arcanum, Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines,_ and _The Temple of Elemental Evil_).  Both studios were founded by people who worked on the original _Fallout_ game, and their games are heavily inspired by those design sensibilities.  _Knights of the Old Republic II_ was buggy and unfinished, with an abrupt endgame that could barely be called an "ending," but it was also a more ambitious and complex game than was the original.




The companies that are in the same category related to player choice include Natsume, Nintendo, and EA. It's not exactly uncommon.

It's not exactly uncommon. We have entire genres of video games devoted to responding to player choice. That one company screwed it up in an RPG doesn't mean much when there's several other RPGs that do it, and do it well, on a regular basis. It just means one company screwed up.



> _Fallout: New Vegas_ attempted to portray a more reactive world than did _Fallout 3_, which is one reason why it was a buggier game.  Also, as with KOTOR2, it had a much shorter development cycle (18 months for F:NV), which inevitably means that there is less time for QA.  The publisher is responsible for the bulk of the QA, by the way.  Developers will typically have a small team of testers who work alongside the designers and programmers, but the large-scale QA is handled by the publisher.  In many cases, the publisher will sign off on a game and release it, despite the developers telling them that there are still severe bugs present.




And Obsidian has produced the same results over multiple publishers, including using the same excuses about it being problems in coding that simply can't be fixed. KOTOR2 was published by an entirely different company than F:NV, yet the results are pretty much the same. When you produce the same results under multiple publishers, it becomes pretty obvious where the problem really lies.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 11, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> Well, no. The opposite really. They called out D&D as making more money and helping offset losses in Q3, but the brands that performed better didn't make enough to make up for the brands doing poorly in 2014.
> 
> And in the most recent report:
> http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/30836/hasbro-reports-profitable-q4-year
> They don't even mention D&D at all, despite the holidays and the release of the DMG (and the MM to big box stores).




How does replying with my post with a rewording of what you bolded disproving what I said?

Edit: Also! This topic was already discussed. The info I have is accurate.


----------



## SirAntoine (Feb 11, 2015)

Obsidian would not have decided this lightly. I couldn't imagine more shocking news.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 11, 2015)

I think the people talking about WOTC's future and "vision" are right. They don't seem to have any beyond "Don't release a lot of splats". Paizo knew what they were doing with their line long before their playtest was over. They knew release schedule of their APs and their actual core rules only come out with 3 or 4 a year. Pathfinder has been around for a while now, so yes there is a lot of material but it's been over a very long span of time. The key with this is that the players have been in the know from the ground up. This is where wizards fails. 
Wizards may have some grand plan but it doesn't matter if we don't know it. They need to tell us. They need much better PR. We hear bad stuff second hand then people form their own opinions regardless of truth or not. Wizards sucks at letting the fans know what's going on and I know thats hindered from the big company of Hasbro. 

We don't know why the lay offs happened. We don't know why morningstar fell through. We don't know their future plans for book releases. We don't know their future plans of elecrtronic releases. We don't know what and how fan's can create things. We have no idea about any of this and it's frustrating beyond all measure. We get little more than hints and speculation. When we DO get material we have no clue where it came from. Like the Eberron stuff. Came out of no where. Came before FR stuff which surprised me. Was there some sort of poll I missed that gauged what players wanted? None of these things are awful by themselves but they keep piling up and it's getting bad. 

Also what's going on with Basic? They haven't said anything about that in months. Last I heard basic was supposed to be done and over with by December. God I love 5e. and I'm critical of WOTC because I don't want to see this fail, but jesus they need to be more direct with us. ENGAGE the community please!


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 11, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> Also what's going on with Basic? They haven't said anything about that in months. Last I heard basic was supposed to be done and over with by December. God I love 5e. and I'm critical of WOTC because I don't want to see this fail, but jesus they need to be more direct with us. ENGAGE the community please!




The last errata for the Basic rules was back in November. They've been on the website, free for all to access, for months.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> ENGAGE the community please!




Eh, there's a lot of risk in engaging with the community.  

For one thing, if you don't engage, folks don't have expectations.  They may have desires, but anything you do give them is above what they expect of you.  But, if you engage, the expectations of exactly how much you're actually going to tell folks probably skyrockets.

Plus, just a guess here based on how folks post, but I would expect that WotC would have to suffer a disproportionate amount of negative feedback if they engaged.  They would, quite simply, have to put up with more crap from us than Paizo.  It is a lot of work to deal with that, and if you don't do it right, the whole thing backfires, and they wind up in a worse position than if they had just stayed silent, and announced products when they were ready.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 11, 2015)

Right, but it's not the final version right? Still at 0.2? A final version usually ends with version 1.0 etc. It's been 4 months since that dropped. Is that the final update? If so why is it still at version 0.2?


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 11, 2015)

The DM section is at 0.3. Also, it makes sense that those are not 1.0; 1.0 is the PHB, MM, and DMG. The Basic rules are just an imcomplete release, so numbering them as a beta release would be numbered fits in with them not being the truly complete rules of the edition.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Eh, there's a lot of risk in engaging with the community.
> 
> For one thing, if you don't engage, folks don't have expectations.  They may have desires, but anything you do give them is above what they expect of you.  But, if you engage, the expectations of exactly how much you're actually going to tell folks probably skyrockets.
> 
> Plus, just a guess here based on how folks post, but I would expect that WotC would have to suffer a disproportionate amount of negative feedback if they engaged.  They would, quite simply, have to put up with more crap from us than Paizo.  It is a lot of work to deal with that, and if you don't do it right, the whole thing backfires, and they wind up in a worse position than if they had just stayed silent, and announced products when they were ready.




So basically its hard so why try? I'm also not a fan of the "Be quiet, we'll tell you what you want when we say so." It's a valid business practice for sure, but a game built around the community and interaction of the community it seems quite ... odd.. to take a hands off approach. They certainly can and it's their right and I have to deal with it, but I and by the looks of  many others are getting wary of the tight lipped approach. 

When that happens we start forming out own opinions with few facts, and that gets shared and ... well generally bad press starts to spread, regardless of truth or not. So then you have to go into damage control mode. It's a tricky situation to be sure, and they are doing it much differently than 13th age, Legend of the 5 Rings, Pathfinder, and the myriad of other companies out there. I'm just not a fan of the approach is all.


----------



## Xavian Starsider (Feb 11, 2015)

so you can play Bioware's Neverwinter MMO or Obsidian's Pathfinder tablet app? I'm not going to lose sleep over this


----------



## Coredump (Feb 11, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> Obsidian would not have decided this lightly. I couldn't imagine more shocking news.




So, were you in on the conference calls, or are they just your golfing buddies....


People keep acting like things are obvious "of course this means..... "  Obsidian is working on an iApp for a *card game* and wants to work on the PF cRPG.... so they just 'happen' to bad mouth Hasbro.  Yes, it could be true, or it could just be a dig at a competitor....


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2015)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> How does replying with my post with a rewording of what you bolded disproving what I said?
> 
> Edit: Also! This topic was already discussed. The info I have is accurate.



I'm very aware of the topic, where the discussed quote says that the other brands are performing so poorly that D&D's increase doesn't make up for the loss. 
To me that sounds like all the brands need to do better. That they'd expect even more from D&D. Or at the least expect it to maintain, which is unlikely. 
And, again, the very next quarter, they didn't mention D&D at all.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 11, 2015)

Jester Canuck said:


> I'm very aware of the topic, where the discussed quote says that the other brands are performing so poorly that D&D's increase doesn't make up for the loss.
> To me that sounds like all the brands need to do better. That they'd expect even more from D&D. Or at the least expect it to maintain, which is unlikely.
> And, again, the very next quarter, they didn't mention D&D at all.




And I didn't say that it did fully make up for their loss.

Also, while they don't mention it next quarter, they're not saying it's doing badly. Just that it's not a top earner or losing out.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 11, 2015)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> And I didn't say that it did fully make up for their loss.
> 
> Also, while they don't mention it next quarter, they're not saying it's doing badly. Just that it's not a top earner or losing out.



Or, more likely, because it's revenues are constant. 
Mentioning "D&D" and "MtG" in the same breath regarding earning potential is laughable, as Magic makes soooooo much more money. It's much more likely D&D was mentiomed because its revenue was X% higher than the previous quarters or the year or two. That should not be mistaken for Hasbro being happy with its profits or satisfied with the game.

D&D is the older daughter that just went off welfare and got a job waiting. Everyone is "proud" that she's turned things around, but she's still a long way from being her younger sister, Magic, that manages a chain of resteraunt and drives a BMW.


----------



## Nergal Pendragon (Feb 11, 2015)

Citing it because its revenues went up would be how it would work if Hasbro were a relatively small company. Instead, Hasbro is the closest thing to a cyberpunk-style megacorporation that exists. If they're losing profits in a noticeable amount; it's because _the entire industry_ is losing profits in a noticeable amount. Keep in mind this is a corporation that can toss a couple hundred million at a movie flop and not even find the loss of money worth mentioning in their quarterly reports. And the number of product lines and brands they have is so huge that it's very likely even they don't have a complete list.

So, when they mention a product, it's because that product not only saw a rise in profits, but saw a rise in profits that affected their bottom line. They have product lines that rise in a large percentage of profit every quarter that they don't mention. So to mention DnD at all means that it's doing extremely well, to the point it has risen above the hundreds of other product lines competing for attention.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 11, 2015)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> Citing it because its revenues went up would be how it would work if Hasbro were a relatively small company. Instead, Hasbro is the closest thing to a cyberpunk-style megacorporation that exists. If they're losing profits in a noticeable amount; it's because _the entire industry_ is losing profits in a noticeable amount. Keep in mind this is a corporation that can toss a couple hundred million at a movie flop and not even find the loss of money worth mentioning in their quarterly reports. And the number of product lines and brands they have is so huge that it's very likely even they don't have a complete list.
> 
> So, when they mention a product, it's because that product not only saw a rise in profits, but saw a rise in profits that affected their bottom line. They have product lines that rise in a large percentage of profit every quarter that they don't mention. So to mention DnD at all means that it's doing extremely well, to the point it has risen above the hundreds of other product lines competing for attention.




 Maybe maybe not. even if they sold a million PHB (unlikely) I doubt they would get much more than 20 million dollars and probably more like 10 million. D&D gets mentioned probably because they made a few million off in in the WoTC division.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 11, 2015)

Zardnaar said:


> Maybe maybe not. even if they sold a million PHB (unlikely) I doubt they would get much more than 20 million dollars and probably more like 10 million. D&D gets mentioned probably because they made a few million off in in the WoTC division.




Here is one set of numbers confirmed by Hugh Howey: For a hardback that costs $27.99, the publisher/authors makes $9.87.  So about 35%.


----------



## mouselim (Feb 11, 2015)

I would partially agree. Not that D&D 5e isn't good but it lacked the feel of what D&D was during TSR reign at the helm. I guess TSR went down under isn't what Feargus is trying to comment but the hobbyist approach. Not sure how this can be applicable in today's context but it is the truth. Even where I am, most (if not all) of the FLGS are not what it was then back in those good old days.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 11, 2015)

Behold the opinion of some random guy on the internet - yeah...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2015)

I've just re-read the 2nd ed AD&D High Level Campaign handbook. It's really not very good. Is that the sort of 2nd ed material that people are nostalgic for?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Here is one set of numbers confirmed by Hugh Howey: For a hardback that costs $27.99, the publisher/authors makes $9.87.  So about 35%.



Well, that's more-or-less in line with the upper end of [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]'s speculation: 35% of $50 is 17.5, so a million sold would be a bit less than $20 million.

As someone who follows the Amazon trends and other sales/industry data, do you think they have sold one million 5e book?


----------



## Ravenheart87 (Feb 11, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I've just re-read the 2nd ed AD&D High Level Campaign handbook. It's really not very good. Is that the sort of 2nd ed material that people are nostalgic for?




I think some people are nostalgic for the campaign settings of 2e, but forget about the poorly written splatbooks, crappy adventures, and of course Lorraine Williams. The last time TSR was hobbyist was maybe during the early 1e era, and even then they were quite unfriendly even with third party publishers they supported before (eg. Judges Guild) - see Gygax rambling about the importance of official products.


----------



## Xavian Starsider (Feb 11, 2015)

Here's some numbers that may be more worth comparing.

The 5th Edition Player's Handbook is currently the 104th best selling book on Amazon. The Pathfinder Player's Handbook is currently 3,006th. Now granted the two books were released 5 years apart which is going to be a considerable factor.  So let's try again with two books released more closely together. Please note, that I did not check these numbers prior to starting this post.

The D&D 5E Monster Manual was released 2 months before Pathfinder's Monster Codex and costs $10 more than Pathfinder's Monster Codex. With the more recent release and the lower price, Pathfinder should have the advantage here. after all, these are both hardcover monster splat books. Right?

5E Monster Manual: #236
Pathfinder Monster Codex: #72,236

I'm not making these numbers up.


----------



## Evenglare (Feb 11, 2015)

Xavian Starsider said:


> Here's some numbers that may be more worth comparing.
> 
> The 5th Edition Player's Handbook is currently the 104th best selling book on Amazon. The Pathfinder Player's Handbook is currently 3,006th. Now granted the two books were released 5 years apart which is going to be a considerable factor.  So let's try again with two books released more closely together. Please note, that I did not check these numbers prior to starting this post.
> 
> ...




To be fair though, one is a must have core rulebook while the other is a splatbook about monsters, when paizo already has 3 monster manuals out.


----------



## delericho (Feb 11, 2015)

Xavian Starsider said:


> The D&D 5E Monster Manual was released 2 months before Pathfinder's Monster Codex and costs $10 more than Pathfinder's Monster Codex. With the more recent release and the lower price, Pathfinder should have the advantage here. after all, these are both hardcover monster splat books.




They're not even remotely comparable books. The D&D one is a core rulebook for the game. The Pathfinder one is not only not the main monster book for the game, but it's not even the equivalent of "Monster Manual 4". It's closer to something like "Libris Mortis" - a nice-to-have for some people, but very definitely peripheral.

Since you're comparing Amazon sales numbers, you should also compare the Amazon prices: $31.61 for the 352-page Monster Manual versus $31.99 for the 256-page Monster Codex. So the advantage there is very much with the D&D book, not the Pathfinder one.

And, finally, the sales vectors are very different as well: WotC don't do direct sales, making Amazon probably _the_ big place to get D&D books, followed by the FLGS. For Pathfinder an awful lot of sales are through subscriptions.

The thing is, your underlying point is probably right - I suspect D&D is indeed outselling Pathfinder right now. But your comparison here is, I'm afraid, sufficiently flawed as to be meaningless.


----------



## Xavian Starsider (Feb 11, 2015)

The price difference is only 38 cents. I don't think the 38 cents is going to make a significant difference. Especially since the amount that Amazon shaves off the full retail price is largely based on how well it sells. Bigger sellers = bigger orders = bigger discounts. If Pathfinder's sales were comparable to D&D's it would be marked down just as much. The fact that they're not is only further evidence.


----------



## delericho (Feb 11, 2015)

Xavian Starsider said:


> The price difference is only 38 cents. I don't think the 38 cents is going to make a significant difference.




No, but the 100 extra pages in the MM probably is.


----------



## Xavian Starsider (Feb 11, 2015)

Let's try this then. Hoard of the Dragon Queen. D&D Adventure. Aug 19, 2014. $22.41 on Amazon. Rank #1,777

Pathfinder Adventure Path: Iron Gods Part 1. Pathfinder Adventure. Sep 9, 2014. $15.96 on Amazon. Rank #64,513.

But I'll concede your points about direct sales. This is the thing to me, though. Pathfinder is not a brand in the way D&D is a brand. Pathfinder is beloved for its system not for its setting. If Pathfinder were to announce Pathfinder 2nd Edition, and come out with an entirely series of mechanics like D&D just did...yes, a lot of people would probably be intrigued and many would follow but a vast number more would stubbornly refuse, wanting their books (many of which were made by WotC) to remain relevant, and would stay with Pathfinder/3.5. And a new edition would do almost nothing for attracting new/former players to the game. But a far greater percentage followed D&D to 5th edition.


----------



## delericho (Feb 11, 2015)

A wider point on the D&D vs Pathfinder comparison: it's almost completely _irrelevant_. They're two different products from two _very_ different companies.

Pathfinder is Paizo's flagship product. That's where they make their money.

D&D isn't even _WotC's_ flagship product (Magic), and it's barely even a blip on the Hasbro radar. Things are _slightly_ different at the moment, because D&D has had a huge sales spike because of the new edition (which, it would appear, has indeed done phenomenally well). But twelve months from now, it'll be back to being a blip - and that's whether they release 0, 5, or 20 new books this year.

The money from D&D lies in licensing, be it movies, video games, or whatever.

What that means in real terms is this: D&D could outsell Pathfinder by a ratio of 10-to-1, and we could _still_ have a situation where Hasbro cancel D&D as being not worth bothering with at the same time as Paizo consider Pathfinder a runaway success.


----------



## delericho (Feb 11, 2015)

Xavian Starsider said:


> But I'll concede your points about direct sales. This is the thing to me, though. Pathfinder is not a brand in the way D&D is a brand. Pathfinder is beloved for its system not for its setting.




Eh. Lots of people like Pathfinder for lots of different reasons - some like the system, some like the setting, some like the company and want to support them. Apparently, many people buy their APs to read with no intention of actually playing/running them.



> yes, a lot of people would probably be intrigued and many would follow but a vast number more would stubbornly refuse...
> 
> But a far greater percentage followed D&D to 5th edition.




Unless you have market research from Paizo and WotC to share (and I doubt _anyone_ has access to both), you can't know these proportions. In both cases, some people would move, or have moved, to the new edition, and some people would stick, or have stuck, with the old. But we don't know what percentages fall into each camp.

And _none of this_ is a value judgement on either D&D or Pathfinder. I have purchased products for both, and I like both. In future, it looks like I'll spend more money on Pathfinder but actually play more D&D - the former simply because of a much fuller release schedule, and the latter because I actually prefer (what I've seen of) the game engine.


----------



## Uchawi (Feb 11, 2015)

I read the article as Paizo was willing to agree to our terms, so we did not even approach WOTC. If at the time, WOTC had solid footing with the D&D brand, then the commentary would not be released. However, the RPG community in relation to games and/or developers is small. So Obsidian should be careful with the perception of being overly critical. It could come back to bite them.

What happened in the past is history, best to look forward.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 11, 2015)

Xavian Starsider said:


> Let's try this then. Hoard of the Dragon Queen. D&D Adventure. Aug 19, 2014. $22.41 on Amazon. Rank #1,777
> 
> Pathfinder Adventure Path: Iron Gods Part 1. Pathfinder Adventure. Sep 9, 2014. $15.96 on Amazon. Rank #64,513.
> 
> But I'll concede your points about direct sales.




Let's just add in
Hoard of the Dragon Queen. D&D Adventure. Aug 19, 2014. $22.41 on Amazon. Rank #1,777
The Rise of Tiamat (D&D Adventure) Hardcover – November 4, 2014 $21.61 on Amazon. Rank #3,173 in Books

HotDQ is selling well because it is the first 5e adventure. If the first PHB, the first MM, the first DMG, and the first adventure don't sell well for a big brand there's a serious problem. Iron Gods on the other hand is competing with _every previous adventure path_. Why would people buy Iron Gods when there are fourteen other adventure paths? (And precisely one other 5e adventure).



delericho said:


> A wider point on the D&D vs Pathfinder comparison: it's almost completely _irrelevant_. They're two different products from two _very_ different companies.
> 
> Pathfinder is Paizo's flagship product. That's where they make their money.
> 
> ...




Last time I checked it wasn't D&D that had raised over a million dollars at kickstarter for an MMO.


----------



## delericho (Feb 11, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> Last time I checked it wasn't D&D that had raised over a million dollars at kickstarter for an MMO.




True, but that's a somewhat cheeky comparison as well - last I checked, D&D has never _tried_. (And, actually, I would be really interested to see what would happen if they did.  )


----------



## Xavian Starsider (Feb 11, 2015)

delericho said:


> True, but that's a somewhat cheeky comparison as well - last I checked, D&D has never _tried_. (And, actually, I would be really interested to see what would happen if they did.  )




Plus, D&D already has two active MMOs out there. It's great that Paizo raised 1+ mil for its MMO, but for a project the size and complexity of an MMO, that's probably just enough to get your foot in the door. 

Double Fine raised nearly 3.5 million in a record breaking kickstarter for an adventure game (a genre that's almost gone the way of the dodo since the 1990s) and with no disrespect to their endeavor, I don't think the finished product begins to compare to the effort and development that went into making Cryptic's Neverwinter MMO. So I feel safe in saying that Neverwinter probably cost substantially more to develop into the game that it is. Or even the game that it launched as. Pathfinder's kickstarter will not put it on even footing.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 11, 2015)

delericho said:


> True, but that's a somewhat cheeky comparison as well - last I checked, D&D has never _tried_. (And, actually, I would be really interested to see what would happen if they did.  )




So would I. As far as I'm concerned (and I've spun this off to a new thread) the D&D team is leaving a lot of money on the table due to a limited marketing model.



Xavian Starsider said:


> Plus, D&D already has two active MMOs out there. It's great that Paizo raised 1+ mil for its MMO, but for a project the size and complexity of an MMO, that's probably just enough to get your foot in the door.




And initial indications from the MMO are not looking good.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2015)

Evenglare said:


> So basically its hard so why try?




It is not only hard, it is risky. It isn't like, with enough effort, it is sure to pay off for them.

So, it isn't about hard. It is about whether it is actually a good idea for them at all. Engaging with us could well be a mistake. I, at least, am not convinced that we (the community overall) are ready to uphold our end of it.


----------



## chibi graz'zt (Feb 11, 2015)

from a marketing standpoint I dont know how wise it is to make a statement like that. Then again, while many of us feel nostalgia for the "good 'ol days" of TSR, this is the company that went bankrupt and resulted in many innovations in D&D (Pathfinder and 3e/3.5e). Hasbro may not be the most empathetic of companies, but its not going to go bankrupt from mismanagement.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 11, 2015)

Just because you don't like what a company is doing (or not doing)... doesn't ipso facto mean what they are doing (or not doing) is wrong.

I know it's hard to accept... but maybe, just maybe... what *you* want isn't in fact the best course of action for the company.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 11, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just because you don't like what a company is doing (or not doing)... doesn't ipso facto mean what they are doing (or not doing) is wrong.
> 
> I know it's hard to accept... but maybe, just maybe... what *you* want isn't in fact the best course of action for the company.





This.  Also, when people talk about TSR, it's important to remember that there were really two TSRs.  Up to 1985, and post 1985.  AKA, the Gygax TSR, and Lorraine TSR.  When people talk about how TSR had  management that ran the company into the ground, they are probably talking about Lorraine Williams TSR.  When people talk about the "good ol days of D&D with TSR", they're probably talking about pre-Lorraine.  Or at the very least, prior to the Blumes ing the company just before the take over.

That's important to realize, because TSR was around for a long time, and making a blanket general statement about it isn't really accurate to the context of whatever statement you're replying to.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 11, 2015)

So he thinks 5E D&D has "lost its way," because, um... reasons.

If he'd provided any explanation of what he meant by D&D losing its way, specific issues with the game or its management, that would be one thing. But he didn't. He just said, "5E bad, Pathfinder good." Maybe whoever wrote the article just left out all the relevant bits, but based on what we've got here, count me in the group that sees this as sour grapes because Obsidian didn't get a license.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 11, 2015)

pemerton said:


> I've just re-read the 2nd ed AD&D High Level Campaign handbook. It's really not very good. Is that the sort of 2nd ed material that people are nostalgic for?




That's kinda like telling people that like classic movies that you just watched _Plan 9 from Outer Space_ and don't get it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 11, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> When people talk about the "good ol days of D&D with TSR", they're probably talking about pre-Lorraine.  Or at the very least, prior to the Blumes ing the company just before the take over.




But you know what?  Even *that* isn't necessarily true... because there was nothing at the time to compare TSR *to* to determine whether what they were doing was or was not actually right or smart.  I mean heck... they were running two game lines simultaneously, their president was spending more time in Hollywood than actually working on the game, and a whole swathe of their published works were modules they scribbled up to use as convention games with little thought as to their balance or usefulness to long-term campaigning.  So yeah... we could make a case that even the original TSR really sucked as a company too.

And that's the point.  Over the entirety of the game's 40 years (and the companies that ran it), there's always been some parts that we could say were fantastically great, and some parts we could say were ridiculous and stupid.  And every other spot in between.  So what WotC is choosing to do right now is comparatively no better or no worse than any other time.  We can find things that seem brilliant, and find things that seem moronic.  But so be it.  That's called "running a business".


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 11, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just because you don't like what a company is doing (or not doing)... doesn't ipso facto mean what they are doing (or not doing) is wrong.
> 
> I know it's hard to accept... but maybe, just maybe... what *you* want isn't in fact the best course of action for the company.



This is true, but so is the converse.  Just because a company is embarking on what may be the most fiscally viable path doesn't mean I have to like it.  

Now, I shouldn't argue my opinion as any sort of business plan, I agree.  What I want the company to do might drive them bankrupt, for all I know.  But I have no obligation to cut them any slack simply because of a business plan.   The only rationale for that is if I tie the health of the product with the health of the company.  While I don't think they're orthogonal to one another, I don't necessarily think there's a strong correlation.

Quite simply, I find the current release schedule to be BORING, and that's the worst sin for D&D's release schedule, for my interests.  There's nothing to talk about other than "What's WOTC going to do next?" and "Gosh, 5e is a solid game, how about that bounded accuracy?"  We were already looking forward to Sword and Fist and the FRCS at this point for 3e, and Martial Power and the 2 FR books for 4e, plus the knowledge that PHB2 was coming.  This lull is driving me away from talking about D&D on message boards.  I'm reading the Paizo.com message boards again, for God's sake!


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Feb 11, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> This is true, but so is the converse.  Just because a company is embarking on what may be the most fiscally viable path doesn't mean I have to like it.
> 
> Now, I shouldn't argue my opinion as any sort of business plan, I agree.  What I want the company to do might drive them bankrupt, for all I know.  But I have no obligation to cut them any slack simply because of a business plan.   The only rationale for that is if I tie the health of the product with the health of the company.  While I don't think they're orthogonal to one another, I don't necessarily think there's a strong correlation.
> 
> Quite simply, I find the current release schedule to be BORING, and that's the worst sin for D&D's release schedule, for my interests.  There's nothing to talk about other than "What's WOTC going to do next?" and "Gosh, 5e is a solid game, how about that bounded accuracy?"  We were already looking forward to Sword and Fist and the FRCS at this point for 3e, and Martial Power and the 2 FR books for 4e, plus the knowledge that PHB2 was coming.  This lull is driving me away from talking about D&D on message boards.  I'm reading the Paizo.com message boards again, for God's sake!




Conversely, I'm completely on board with the slower release schedule and have found myself drifting away from Pathfinder.  Several releases a month is way too much for me, both from an affordability standpoint and a "when am I going to find time to read and use this stuff in campaigns?" perspective.  I like that 5E is taking its time, allowing the core rules to get some play time behind them before supplementing them.  

The fellow from Obsidian says that tabletop D&D has lost its way and should be more like the TSR era - which TSR era?  It seems he's nostalgic for late 2nd Edition era.  Because 5E seems, to me, to be hitting the early TSR era just fine - core rules and adventures and not much else.  A company or two putting out their own compatible stuff (Judges Guild back then, Goodman Games and a couple of others now), some officially licenses miniatures...yeah, Gygax era TSR is what this feels like to me.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 11, 2015)

TwoSix said:


> This lull is driving me away from talking about D&D on message boards.  I'm reading the Paizo.com message boards again, for God's sake!




Well, that's fine!  I have no issue with you or anybody just saying flatly "This sucks, I wish I had more product to read and maybe use", and leaving it at that.  I don't think most of us would.  It's only when certain people then _extend_ that sentiment to "And WotC sucks as a company for doing it this way, and they're losing all their business, and it's no wonder every other company is so much better than them, and if they keep doing it this way I'm taking my ball and going to Paizo and then *where are they gonna be then*, huh?  HUH?!?"

In other words... try to make their opinions actually have real weight.  Enough weight that their posting on a messageboard will be the light that clicks on at Wizards where they'll finally "get it" and suddenly change up everything they are doing.  It's too bad though that's not how it actually works.


----------



## TBeholder (Feb 11, 2015)

This article is a thing of beauty.


> tell you that the '70s fantasy tabletop role-playing game may have lost its way.



 No objections on the general principle, but... how to put it delicately... No. I cannot. Let me just use links to webcomics to illustrate concepts.
Anyhow, glad he _noticed_ this..
Wait, this comes from someone from the crew that once upon a time released _Neverwinter Nights_? The game mostly made of lolrandom stuff occasionally using proper nouns from FR? _Even before 4e_?
Huh, it's strange how some people ran D&D into such a dead end.


> to see D&D be bought by someone and become what it was before... Become TSR again



 Become TSR again? I dunno, all signs point at "they already have produced viable clones of Lorraine Williams, with excessive redundancy".




Eejit said:


> Obsidian's best computer RPG to date (NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer) was based on 3.5E by WotC...



 Cool, two in one!



Sacrosanct said:


> Judging by his comments, he hasn't even seen, read, or played 5e.  It's more like a TSR edition than the two previous editions before it.



 How so? It looks like D&D5 = D&D3 (most of d20 base) + D&D4 (ritual casting, bells and whistles per day, general style...) + C&C (saving throws, skills).
But D&D3 and D&D4 _are_ "the two previous editions", and Castles & Crusades wasn't produced by TSR. I'm reasonably sure that D&D5 was actually _playtested_, too. So... exactly what there is "more like" TSR?



Umbran said:


> "Man with vested interest in Pathfinder disses WotC"
> Unprofessional (IMHO), but about as surprising as discovering that water is wet.



 There's always "chicken or egg" question... but yeah, it's funny how _his eyes suddenly opened now_...


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 11, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> In other words... try to make their opinions actually have real weight.  Enough weight that their posting on a messageboard will be the light that clicks on at Wizards where they'll finally "get it" and suddenly change up everything they are doing.  It's too bad though that's not how it actually works.



This I agree with.  I have no idea what WotC should do.  I suck at reading tea leaves.  Mostly because I chew on them for some tea flavor.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> "Man with vested interest in Pathfinder disses WotC"





I'm with you!  I only trust the negative opinions of people who have no vested interest in what they are discussing or, better yet, have a vested interest in NOT giving a negative opinion.  These folks who have seen both sides and have an opinion that lines up with the life-changing decision they made to move from working with one corporation to its rival just ring hollow.

I wouldn't put any weight behind their career decision as backing up what they think, literally putting their money where their mouth is.  Nor would I attribute their decision to speak out as passionate rather then unprofessional.  Especially not, since being labeled as unprofessional is the most likely and most easily leveled charge to make against them sharing their opinion by someone who wishes to marginalize that opinion.  That weighs on me not an ounce.

There's so many places on the Internet where I see folks standing up for corporate employees who are stuck as part of a larger system and probably have the best of intentions but for their being but a cog in a wheel where they just don't have any control or the ability to steer their own course.  It's very annoying when someone like this comes along and walks the walk he's talking.

Do I get a saving throw against this guy's nefarious dissing if I yell, "I diss-believe!?"


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 11, 2015)

Well, Obsidian's behavior over the years, in what they release and how they deal with partners, can be fairly characterized as unprofessional.  Running down a competing brand when Ovsidian probably wasn't in line to work on it anytime soon is just more wood on the fire.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 11, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Just because you don't like what a company is doing (or not doing)... doesn't ipso facto mean what they are doing (or not doing) is wrong.
> 
> I know it's hard to accept... but maybe, just maybe... what *you* want isn't in fact the best course of action for the company.






Sacrosanct said:


> This.  Also, when people talk about TSR, it's important to remember that there were really two TSRs.  Up to 1985, and post 1985.  AKA, the Gygax TSR, and Lorraine TSR.  When people talk about how TSR had  management that ran the company into the ground, they are probably talking about Lorraine Williams TSR.  When people talk about the "good ol days of D&D with TSR", they're probably talking about pre-Lorraine.  Or at the very least, prior to the Blumes ing the company just before the take over.
> 
> That's important to realize, because TSR was around for a long time, and making a blanket general statement about it isn't really accurate to the context of whatever statement you're replying to.




This might overlap with Defcon 1's post a bit. TSR mismanagement started with Gygax and the Blumes, it only became catastrophically worse under Williams. TSR was never run well from day one. Like so many before or since, Gygax (and Arneson) were the brilliant creators who lost their company because they didn't know how to run it well.

And the quality and quantity of product is almost a different thing than how well the company was run, although they are of course related. Gygax's mismanagement led to the Williams era which killed the company (although it took decades). But during the height of 2E's release schedule, the volume, quantity, and differentness of TSR's D&D output was pure awesomesauce to me at the time! I remember those days fondly, as the company burned down!

People aren't nostalgic for the crappy business decisions of course, it's just that not everybody is up on their D&D Corporate History 101 and legitimately miss the days when new D&D products filled multiple shelves and their seemed to be always something new to buy.

WotC is going even further away from that business model than they did during the 3E days, and it's natural people miss the "old days" even if the new release schedule is the best possible business decision WotC can make.

Business me cautiously approves of WotC's handling of the 5th edition. Gamer me wants MORE PRODUCT NOW!!! Hopefully, when WotC is ready to release the terms of the new OGL/GSL license, we'll begin to see some great 3rd party products to fill that void.


----------



## Ravenheart87 (Feb 11, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Well, Obsidian's behavior over the years, in what they release and how they deal with partners, can be fairly characterized as unprofessional.  Running down a competing brand when Ovsidian probably wasn't in line to work on it anytime soon is just more wood on the fire.




Running kickstarters is also a good way to lose prestige if you aren't an indie developer. It says "we badly need your alms to make this game". Which is a shame after NWN2, KotOR II, and Fallout: New Vegas.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Feb 11, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> This might overlap with Defcon 1's post a bit. TSR mismanagement started with Gygax and the Blumes, it only became catastrophically worse under Williams. TSR was never run well from day one. Like so many before or since, Gygax (and Arneson) were the brilliant creators who lost their company because they didn't know how to run it well.
> .




From everything I've read and heard and people I've talked to, Gygax actually didn't mishandle the company prior to Williams.  It was the Blumes who spent like crazy on things like cross stitching and needlepoint.  In fact, Gary had to come back from Hollywood early to try to get a handle on things, but he didn't have enough % ownership in the company.  By all accounts, Gary wanted to keep the company fairly small.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 11, 2015)

Ravenheart87 said:


> Running kickstarters is also a good way to lose prestige if you aren't an indie developer. It says "we badly need your alms to make this game". Which is a shame after NWN2, KotOR II, and Fallout: New Vegas.





In video games, for sure.  Plenty of Bioware/Black Isles successor companies, like Beamdog, don't need to go there, and still have contracts with companies like WOTC.

Even those pretty good games you mention are highly flawed follow-ups to other peoples work.  I might never forgive Knights of the Old Republic II as a customer.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Feb 11, 2015)

Astrosicebear said:


> This reads : We couldnt afford D&D so we went with what was left.




I read it, as "we want a D&D game, which removed WOTC from the equation."


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 11, 2015)

I can't blame someone for being miffed if they were wanting to make a D&D video game and couldn't for some reason.  Has little to do with the tabletop but sure. His opinion should be given appropriate consideration.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 11, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Even those pretty good games you mention are highly flawed follow-ups to other peoples work.  I might never forgive Knights of the Old Republic II as a customer.




Well, at least that one you can't totally blame on Obsidian.  That was LucasArts demanding the game get released in time for Christmas 2004 when it still have probably 6 months of development time required remaining.  That's why so many plot threads were left dangling and so much of the story tied together oddly.  They had to cut off a whole heap of stuff to get it out by December per LucasArt's orders.


----------



## Eric V (Feb 11, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> But during the height of 2E's release schedule, the volume, quantity, and differentness of TSR's D&D output was pure awesomesauce to me at the time! I remember those days fondly, as the company burned down!
> 
> People aren't nostalgic for the crappy business decisions of course, it's just that not everybody is up on their D&D Corporate History 101 and legitimately miss the days when new D&D products filled multiple shelves and their seemed to be always something new to buy.




This was me as well.  I didn't have a lot of different hobbies back then, so I picked up a LOT of different accessories, sometimes just to read (including mods).  I get it when people say they prefer the format of the 5e books over 4e and 3e...they are nice just to sit and read, instead of reference (maybe could use a bit of help on the latter  ). 2e books were cool to just pick up and peruse, and there was lots of reading to do: Ravenloft, Red Steel, Monstrous Compendiums, Planescape, Al-Qadim (my personal missing fav).  As well, even though the black books (S&P, C&T and High-Level Handbook) may not have been tested well, it was great to see some out-of-box thinking for the game.

If _that's_ what he means by "TSR days," I miss them too.

-E


----------



## Sailor Moon (Feb 11, 2015)

6







Eric V said:


> This was me as well.  I didn't have a lot of different hobbies back then, so I picked up a LOT of different accessories, sometimes just to read (including mods).  I get it when people say they prefer the format of the 5e books over 4e and 3e...they are nice just to sit and read, instead of reference (maybe could use a bit of help on the latter  ). 2e books were cool to just pick up and peruse, and there was lots of reading to do: Ravenloft, Red Steel, Monstrous Compendiums, Planescape, Al-Qadim (my personal missing fav).  As well, even though the black books (S&P, C&T and High-Level Handbook) may not have been tested well, it was great to see some out-of-box thinking for the game.
> 
> If _that's_ what he means by "TSR days," I miss them too.
> 
> -E



I would say you are spot on!


----------



## Xavian Starsider (Feb 11, 2015)

What I still find most funny about this though is that he's explaining why he wants to make a Pathfinder mobile app. Really? I'll admit it. I'm a D&D player at heart. I love 5th edition. But I probably wouldn't waste my time with a D&D mobile app. much less a Pathfinder mobile app. If this is 'the way', Paizo's welcome to it


----------



## billd91 (Feb 11, 2015)

Xavian Starsider said:


> What I still find most funny about this though is that he's explaining why he wants to make a Pathfinder mobile app. Really? I'll admit it. I'm a D&D player at heart. I love 5th edition. But I probably wouldn't waste my time with a D&D mobile app. much less a Pathfinder mobile app. If this is 'the way', Paizo's welcome to it




Depends on what the mobile app was. If it was about facilitating the playing of the game, I'm all for it if it covers features I want (like quick access to rules and monster stats). If it's about playing the game, it depends on the user interface. Baldur's Gate isn't quite right for an iPad. It's too hard to pick out a specific figure in a scrum with any efficiency. But a Baldur's Gate style D&D5 game on the iPad? Sure, I'd be interested. I've got more interest in D&D than I have time to play on the tabletop so something to play with in other leisure time is welcome.


----------



## Herschel (Feb 11, 2015)

Zander said:


> My guess is that the Paizo/Pathfinder licence cost less than the WotC/D&D one. This exec is simply trying to disguise a business decision as one relating to the merits of the two franchises. Sorry, Mr MBA, we're not fooled.
> 
> It's analogous to when Hollywood studios claim to have "creative differences" with a director or actor. It's very rarely about creativity. It's almost always a disagreement about money, that is, the director or actor wanting more and the studio not wanting to pay. (Occasionally, a "creative difference" is about an actor having behavioural problems relating to drink or drugs. But usually, it's about money.)
> 
> Edit: Astrocisebear beat me to it.




Not only that, but look at the quotation marks. I'm surprised Morrus linked an "article" that is not only edition warring, but places the words in such a place as to make them seem attributable to an industry person rather than the writer, who injects his own bias in to what was touted as an interview with someone.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 11, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, at least that one you can't totally blame on Obsidian.  That was LucasArts demanding the game get released in time for Christmas 2004 when it still have probably 6 months of development time required remaining.  That's why so many plot threads were left dangling and so much of the story tied together oddly.  They had to cut off a whole heap of stuff to get it out by December per LucasArt's orders.





I would be more sympathetic if they didn't fail the same way over and over.  In video games, delivery matters, and Ovsidian consistently fails to deliver.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 11, 2015)

Ravenheart87 said:


> Running kickstarters is also a good way to lose prestige if you aren't an indie developer. It says "we badly need your alms to make this game". Which is a shame after NWN2, KotOR II, and Fallout: New Vegas.




Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter was far more of a reflection of the industry's lack of confidence in "old school" CRPGs than a perceived lack of prestige.



Parmandur said:


> In video games, for sure. Plenty of Bioware/Black Isles successor companies, like Beamdog, don't need to go there, and still have contracts with companies like WOTC.




Beamdog is primarily a publisher and distribution platform.  The only WotC content their small games division handled is the "Enhanced" remakes of the Infinity Engine titles which had more than their fair share of bugs and problems (particularly the tablet versions).  While I think the updates are pretty cool, it's not like they're making brand new content with the D&D license.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 11, 2015)

Ravenheart87 said:


> Running kickstarters is also a good way to lose prestige if you aren't an indie developer. It says "we badly need your alms to make this game". Which is a shame after NWN2, KotOR II, and Fallout: New Vegas.




I was happy to see Inxile running a kickstarter for Torment 2 and disappointed that WotC could not get on board so that it would be based in the Planes again.  It just seems like such a big missed opportunity to me.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 12, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> From everything I've read and heard and people I've talked to, Gygax actually didn't mishandle the company prior to Williams.  It was the Blumes who spent like crazy on things like cross stitching and needlepoint.  In fact, Gary had to come back from Hollywood early to try to get a handle on things, but he didn't have enough % ownership in the company.  By all accounts, Gary wanted to keep the company fairly small.




If Gygax had been a decent businessman, he'd never had lost control to the Blumes. And they would not have passed the torch to Williams. Gygax deserves props for innovation and the creation of the MOST IMPORTANT GAME EVER!!! He might have even been a good insurance salesman (that was his job prior to D&D, if I remember correctly). From all reports I've read, he ran his business, TSR and personal, very ethically. But he was not a savvy entrepreneur.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 12, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Well, that's more-or-less in line with the upper end of [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION]'s speculation: 35% of $50 is 17.5, so a million sold would be a bit less than $20 million.
> 
> As someone who follows the Amazon trends and other sales/industry data, do you think they have sold one million 5e book?




No a million sounds quite high to me. I was just putting out the little data I had, I was not trying to make some point about quantity sold.  I don't really know, but my instincts tell me a million is way too many.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 12, 2015)

Dire Bare said:


> If Gygax had been a decent businessman, he'd never had lost control to the Blumes. And they would not have passed the torch to Williams. Gygax deserves props for innovation and the creation of the MOST IMPORTANT GAME EVER!!! He might have even been a good insurance salesman (that was his job prior to D&D, if I remember correctly). From all reports I've read, he ran his business, TSR and personal, very ethically. But he was not a savvy entrepreneur.




A reminder of Jon Petersen's excellent articles: The Ambush at Sheridan Springs and How Gary Gygax Lost Control of TSR.

Cheers!


----------



## Barachiel (Feb 12, 2015)

I miss TSR days, or should I say, pre-Hasbro days. We were getting so many sourcebooks with so much fluff. And alongside Dragon/Dungeon Magazine. Long do I miss the days of so much setting lore, all the settings had a great many books filled with nice "fluff." Settings like Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape...

Nowadays...we're excited to get a tiny little Realms article on their website once a month maybe...sad days.


----------



## SirAntoine (Feb 12, 2015)

The problem is for Wizards of the Coast, their approach has been about the rules.  With each edition they managed to publish, 3rd Edition through 5th Edition, they have re-designed the rules.  Obsidian seems to think 3rd Edition was from TSR, though.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 12, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I was happy to see Inxile running a kickstarter for Torment 2 and disappointed that WotC could not get on board so that it would be based in the Planes again.  It just seems like such a big missed opportunity to me.




I'm pretty sure InXile didn't ask WotC to be involved at all. The whole point was to create a spiritual successor, not an actual one.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 12, 2015)

Just looked it up; inXile publically said that WOTC was not willing to license Planescape to them, and WOTC publically said they were totally willing to license Planescape if approached with a proposal, but hadn't been asked.  He said, she said?


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 12, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Just looked it up; inXile publically said that WOTC was not willing to license Planescape to them, and WOTC publically said they were totally willing to license Planescape if approached with a proposal, but hadn't been asked.  He said, she said?




Given what Urquhart says regarding the difficulty working with WotC, I could easily see both statements being true.


----------



## Sonny (Feb 12, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> Given what Urquhart says regarding the difficulty working with WotC, I could easily see both statements being true.




Pretty much. The guy who said he approached Wizards chocked it up to some sort of miscommunication and quickly dropped the matter.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 12, 2015)

Miscommunication is highly probable, people being as we are


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

SirAntoine said:


> The problem is for Wizards of the Coast, their approach has been about the rules.  With each edition they managed to publish, 3rd Edition through 5th Edition, they have re-designed the rules.  Obsidian seems to think 3rd Edition was from TSR, though.





I suppose in some sense 3.0E is largely a design and execution by TSR people who came along with the sale to WotC of TSR.  3.5E isn't all that different from 3.0E, so the same would hold true all through 3.XE if you take the first part to heart.  Did 4E and does 5E, however, have anyone who was with TSR on staff?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I suppose in some sense 3.0E is largely a design and execution by TSR people who came along with the sale to WotC of TSR.  3.5E isn't all that different from 3.0E, so the same would hold true all through 3.XE if you take the first part to heart.  Did 4E and does 5E, however, have anyone who was with TSR on staff?




Did Kim Mohan have any design credit on 4e? He had been around in TSR days.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Did Kim Mohan have any design credit on 4e? He had been around in TSR days.





Maybe.  I can't seem to locate my 4E books to check.  Anyone?  Buehler?


----------



## MerricB (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Maybe.  I can't seem to locate my 4E books to check.  Anyone?  Buehler?




Both Steve Winter and Kim Mohan worked on the 4E books. Kim left Wizards in 2013, Steve left Wizards in 2011.

Here are their pages on RPGGeek: 
Steve Winter - http://www.rpggeek.com/rpgdesigner/562/steve-winter
Kim Mohan - http://www.rpggeek.com/rpgdesigner/2207/kim-mohan

Cheers!


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

MerricB said:


> Both Steve Winter and Kim Mohan worked on the 4E books. Kim left Wizards in 2013, Steve left Wizards in 2011.
> 
> Here are their pages on RPGGeek:
> Steve Winter - http://www.rpggeek.com/rpgdesigner/562/steve-winter
> ...





Thanks.  Do you know from the credits of a 4E book in what capacity they worked on 4E?


----------



## Cybit (Feb 12, 2015)

Parmandur said:


> Well, Obsidian's behavior over the years, in what they release and how they deal with partners, can be fairly characterized as unprofessional.  Running down a competing brand when Ovsidian probably wasn't in line to work on it anytime soon is just more wood on the fire.




Don't ever ask the Bioware KOTOR 1 developers about KOTOR 2 and Obsidian.  Many of the developers used to be friends before KOTOR 2 came out.  Obsidian....ugh.  They did some shady things. (I worked in the games media at the time all that was going down)


----------



## MerricB (Feb 12, 2015)

TSR alumni that worked on the 4E PHB:

Additional Design and Development: includes Richard Baker, Kim Mohan, Steve Winter, Michele Carter, Bruce Cordell, Julia Martin, Ed Stark

PHB Managing Editing: Kim Mohan

Editing: Michele Carter

Cheers!


----------



## Cybit (Feb 12, 2015)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I read it, as "we want a D&D game, which removed WOTC from the equation."




Nah; much more on the "Pathfinder will sell its license to cheap for us!" bandwagon.  You should ask Goblinworks how much the Pathfinder license cost to make the MMO.  

Obsidian developed a bad rep for messing up KOTOR 2 (they underestimated the time necessary to make the game, and Lucasarts got fed up with them and made them release it 6 mo after the promised release date, if the E3 rumors at the time are to be believed); Dungeon Siege 3 did poorly (which is sad, as I quite liked the game) in terms of sales, and Fallout: New Vegas and South Park had really bad QA issues on release (Fallout: New Vegas will fail on PS3s eventually, for instance).  

Based on the bugginess of the last few games they've released - WotC may have said no to them outright.  They went to KS because I do not think major publishers are eager to work with them currently.


----------



## jeffknight (Feb 12, 2015)

Wolfskin said:


> Forgive my skepticism, but to me this looks like a comment out of spite more than an objective assessment of the matter. The fact that WotC doesn't want to make yet another D&D game in the vein of NWN may as well be because such games don't sell as they did in their time, like it or not.
> 
> Also, if "becoming TSR again" means "turning on the supplement treadmill and crashing down"... then, no thanks!




Sorry, but I have to disagree. The Neverwinter Nights 1/2 community desperately wants a true Neverwinter Nights 3. The first 2 games have done really well on GOG and are still selling copies. NWN was what got me into the world of D&D. NWN3 could be a massive boon to 5e if WotC plays its cards right.


----------



## Fergurg (Feb 12, 2015)

Barachiel said:


> I miss TSR days, or should I say, pre-Hasbro days. We were getting so many sourcebooks with so much fluff. And alongside Dragon/Dungeon Magazine. Long do I miss the days of so much setting lore, all the settings had a great many books filled with nice "fluff." Settings like Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Planescape...
> 
> Nowadays...we're excited to get a tiny little Realms article on their website once a month maybe...sad days.




It was all of the sourcebooks that put TSR onto the fast train to self-destruction, and very nearly ended D&D.

Having a company that puts the fans before making a profit is like dating a porn star - it sounds great until you're the one cleaning up the mess.


----------



## Miskatonic81 (Feb 12, 2015)

Feels a bit like the final goodbye to an era for me. Obsidian makes great RPGs and were involved with some of the greatest of all time - BG2, Planescape. Them turning away from D&D really hits close to home.


----------



## Ravenheart87 (Feb 12, 2015)

PLOT TWIST!

http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/12/new-dungeons-dragons-game-storm-coast-legends-coming-in-2015?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Ravenheart87 said:


> PLOT TWIST!
> 
> http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/12/new-dungeons-dragons-game-storm-coast-legends-coming-in-2015?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook





Unless they have it strictly setting-based and not story-based, I'm not sure it is really breaking any new ground, even if they add in a so-called DM.  If it has a set story, then the DM is just going to be a figurehead even with the illusion of being in control with supposed authority over the game.  It looks like they are trying to walk up to the edge of being a virtual tabletop, and are hoping to be perceived as better than one, while still being an multiplayer game.  I don't know, of course, since the details are scant but when they talk about the "story"  . . .


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Feb 12, 2015)

Ravenheart87 said:


> PLOT TWIST!
> 
> http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/12/new-dungeons-dragons-game-storm-coast-legends-coming-in-2015?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook



Awesome! Gonna keep my eye on that. Thanks!


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 12, 2015)

I would be more forgiving of Obsidians repeated failure, but the "repeated" part is problematic.  As someone with some video game industry experience, they have no excuse but poor management.


----------



## Ghost Matter (Feb 12, 2015)

> "D&D is different, it needs a lot more support, it's community driven, it needs conventions and all of this stuff, and it's not going to make a billion dollars."




It is community driven still, look at EN World! The playtesting and surveys Wizards is doing! I don't see conventions as a requirement, the vast majority of D&D players *have never gone and will likely never go* to a RPG convention. "All of this stuff"... which is?

I can see how someone would think D&D has lost it's way but I don't see any solid arguments here.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 12, 2015)

Ghost Matter said:


> It is community driven still, look at EN World! The playtesting and surveys Wizards is doing! I don't see conventions as a requirement, the vast majority of D&D players *have never gone and will likely never go* to a RPG convention. "All of this stuff"... which is?
> 
> I can see how someone would think D&D has lost it's way but I don't see any solid arguments here.




To be fair, most (probably upwards of 95%) D&D players will never see the playtesting or surveys, either, so that argument applies equally there.

Asking a quote from an interview what "all of this stuff" is the height of pointlessness, frankly.


----------



## Ghost Matter (Feb 12, 2015)

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be fair, most (probably upwards of 95%) D&D players will never see the playtesting or surveys, either, so that argument applies equally there.
> 
> Asking a quote from an interview what "all of this stuff" is the height of pointlessness, frankly.



Good points. I just wish the criticism shown here was a little more thought-out. But it's a short interview, I guess.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 12, 2015)

Ravenheart87 said:


> I think some people are nostalgic for the campaign settings of 2e, but forget about the poorly written splatbooks, crappy adventures, and of course Lorraine Williams. The last time TSR was hobbyist was maybe during the early 1e era, and even then they were quite unfriendly even with third party publishers they supported before (eg. Judges Guild) - see Gygax rambling about the importance of official products.



IMO, the best hands D&D has ever been in business-wise was the brief window between being bought by Wizards and before Wizards was sold to Hasbro. Second-best would be the early Hasbro years when Wizards people were still in charge.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I suppose in some sense 3.0E is largely a design and execution by TSR people who came along with the sale to WotC of TSR.  3.5E isn't all that different from 3.0E, so the same would hold true all through 3.XE if you take the first part to heart.  Did 4E and does 5E, however, have anyone who was with TSR on staff?



Monte Cook is a TSR alum who was involved in the design of 5E. Granted, he didn't stick around, but he was employed by WotC for a substantial period as the game was taking shape. I'm pretty sure his name is on the credits page.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Monte Cook is a TSR alum who was involved in the design of 5E. Granted, he didn't stick around, but he was employed by WotC for a substantial period as the game was taking shape. I'm pretty sure his name is on the credits page.





That was like a few months, right?  I got the impression he was contracted to help, sat in on some of the design meetings during playtest, and they parted ways for whatever reason(s).  If things were all good, it could have been about money, but seems more likely either they were going somewhere he didn't think it should go or he wanted to take it somewhere they didn't think it should go.  I don't know that I would hold him up as someone who had much direct design control over 5E.  But it's a good point that he was a contracted freelancer for at least part of the process.


----------



## jeffknight (Feb 12, 2015)

Ravenheart87 said:


> PLOT TWIST!
> 
> http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/02/12/new-dungeons-dragons-game-storm-coast-legends-coming-in-2015?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook




Looks like I was right on the money.


----------



## Wolfskin (Feb 12, 2015)

jeffknight said:


> Sorry, but I have to disagree. The Neverwinter Nights 1/2 community desperately wants a true Neverwinter Nights 3. The first 2 games have done really well on GOG and are still selling copies. NWN was what got me into the world of D&D. NWN3 could be a massive boon to 5e if WotC plays its cards right.



I stand corrected. Looks like WotC got the drop on us and announced Sword Coast Legends. Glad to see the kind of games I enjoyed about a decade ago are still selling well!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 12, 2015)

Staffan said:


> IMO, the best hands D&D has ever been in business-wise was the brief window between being bought by Wizards and before Wizards was sold to Hasbro. Second-best would be the early Hasbro years when Wizards people were still in charge.




WotC bought TSR in 1997 and was bought by Hasbro in 1999. D&D 3e was released in 2000. I'm not going to say that a lot of D&D design decisions weren't made during that two year time period before WotC was bought out, but it is important to realize that WotC was owned by Hasbro when D&D 3e was actually published.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 12, 2015)

ThirdWizard said:


> WotC bought TSR in 1997 and was bought by Hasbro in 1999. D&D 3e was released in 2000. I'm not going to say that a lot of D&D design decisions weren't made during that two year time period before WotC was bought out, but it is important to realize that WotC was owned by Hasbro when D&D 3e was actually published.





Specifically, Hasbro gave the OGL and d20 the green light.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> That was like a few months, right?  I got the impression he was contracted to help, sat in on some of the design meetings during playtest, and they parted ways for whatever reason(s).  If things were all good, it could have been about money, but seems more likely either they were going somewhere he didn't think it should go or he wanted to take it somewhere they didn't think it should go.  I don't know that I would hold him up as someone who had much direct design control over 5E.  But it's a good point that he was a contracted freelancer for at least part of the process.




Cook was a pretty big part of the design process - his leaving WotC had nothing to do with the 5E process and had to do with (IIRC) Hasbro not allowing him to make games that could potentially compete with 5E while working on 5E.  IE, Numenera.  IIRC, there was another developer from WotC who ended up having to leave over the same deal.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Cybit said:


> Cook was a pretty big part of the design process




I'm not sure what that means in actual terms of what he did and what others did without him.  Do you have any sort of details?



Cybit said:


> - his leaving WotC had nothing to do with the 5E process and had to do with (IIRC) Hasbro not allowing him to make games that could potentially compete with 5E while working on 5E.  IE, Numenera.




That certainly makes sense.



Cybit said:


> IIRC, there was another developer from WotC who ended up having to leave over the same deal.




At roughly that same time or do you mean since WotC bought TSR?


----------



## MerricB (Feb 12, 2015)

Cybit said:


> Cook was a pretty big part of the design process - his leaving WotC had nothing to do with the 5E process and had to do with (IIRC) Hasbro not allowing him to make games that could potentially compete with 5E while working on 5E.  IE, Numenera.  IIRC, there was another developer from WotC who ended up having to leave over the same deal.




That was Stan! Wizards doesn't allow you to work on outside creative stuff when you're with them, which would have shut down Numenera entirely, which (we now know) was very much on Monte Cook's mind at the time.

Stan!'s blog posts on it are:
http://www.stannex.com/?p=2049
http://www.stannex.com/?p=2054
http://www.stannex.com/?p=2063

It's the second one that describes the problem.

Cheers!


----------



## billd91 (Feb 12, 2015)

MerricB said:


> That was Stan! Wizards doesn't allow you to work on outside creative stuff when you're with them, which would have shut down Numenera entirely, which (we now know) was very much on Monte Cook's mind at the time.
> 
> Stan!'s blog posts on it are:
> http://www.stannex.com/?p=2049
> ...




Wizards *must* have allowed that sort of thing in the past, otherwise, I don't think either Stan! or (as we strongly suspect, Monte) would have approached management with the topic. Nor do I think they'd have forms for that sort of thing if the answer was always going to be "No." That said, we don't know how old those forms are and they might all predate the current (as of Stan!'s writing) VP for HR and the CEO.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 12, 2015)

ThirdWizard said:


> WotC bought TSR in 1997 and was bought by Hasbro in 1999. D&D 3e was released in 2000. I'm not going to say that a lot of D&D design decisions weren't made during that two year time period before WotC was bought out, but it is important to realize that WotC was owned by Hasbro when D&D 3e was actually published.




That's the period during which most of 3e was made, when the groundwork for the OGL started, and when they abandoned the Comics Code-inspired "Code of Conduct" that said that the good guys must always win and authority figures must always be portrayed in a positive light. That last bit was particularly strongly shown in Cloak & Dagger, which actually let the bad guys take some good strides forward in FR and planted the seeds for Bane's return.

But the things I remember most about that time was the way Wizards was reaching out to fans. One of the first things they did after buying TSR was can the old online policy (which basically said "don't do anything online with D&D stuff") and replaced it with a much simpler and more generous one which basically said "as long as you're not reprinting our books, using our art, and/or making money from stuff, do whatever." Peter Adkison, "CEO and Janitor", made occasional posts about the acquisition and how things were going, followed by Ryan Dancey. They started making old books available online - some for free, and others as paid downloads.

Much of this went on for a while after they were bought by Hasbro, because Hasbro essentially said "You're clearly doing something right over there bringing in all that money, so we'll leave you to it." Most of that was from Magic and Pokémon, but that "shielded" D&D from corporate interference.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 12, 2015)

You're right; it's not that they don't allow it, but rather that the default position is that you can't but you can seek exceptions.

Although I can make a case for Stan! being allowed to continue with his work outside Wizards, I don't really see how they could come to an accommodation with Monte about Numenera.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I'm not sure what that means in actual terms of what he did and what others did without him.  Do you have any sort of details?




You would probably have to ask Mearls or Cook themselves; I am not privy as to what he specifically worked on.  I just remember the letter that Wizards wrote when Cook announced he was leaving; it was almost like they were in shock.  I think they imagined Monte would be a big part of this new edition.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Cybit said:


> You would probably have to ask Mearls or Cook themselves; I am not privy as to what he specifically worked on.  I just remember the letter that Wizards wrote when Cook announced he was leaving; it was almost like they were in shock.  I think they imagined Monte would be a big part of this new edition.





I'd imagine they hired him back precisely with that hope.  I'm just thinking that his limited time there would have to limit his contribution as well.  I mean, sure, everyone who worked on it will always say that others they worked with were big contributors but looking at things realistically that doesn't seem possible in retrospect.  Not to mention what that would imply regarding everyone else's contribution to say that the guy who was there on contract for a very short time was so instrumental.  Would seem a bit unfair to those who were there the whole time working so hard through all the changes and such.


----------



## Cybit (Feb 12, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> I'd imagine they hired him back precisely with that hope.  I'm just thinking that his limited time there would have to limit his contribution as well.  I mean, sure, everyone who worked on it will always say that others they worked with were big contributors but looking at things realistically that doesn't seem possible in retrospect.  Not to mention what that would imply regarding everyone else's contribution to say that the guy who was there on contract for a very short time was so instrumental.  Would seem a bit unfair to those who were there the whole time working so hard through all the changes and such.




Time spent != impact.  It is more based on what part of the game you're working on, and when in its' development you stepped in.  You could have someone who is only there for a few months, but comes up with the basic mechanics (like, for instance, everything is an ability check, and we have bounded accuracy) make a much bigger impact than someone who works on the nitty-gritty details for 18 months.  I believe Cook's impact was at a much higher level "senior designer" point than most folks.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 12, 2015)

Cybit said:


> I believe Cook's impact was at a much higher level "senior designer" point than most folks.





Just your gut feeling?  Or do you know something specific?  Like do you know that while Monte was there he said, "Hey, let's add in this Advantage / Disadvantage mechanic and streamline the math for combat and the like."  I know Monte is a sharp guy but I think it detracts from everyone else to claim that he had much of an impact while he was there for a short time relative to the impact everyone else had over the long haul.


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 13, 2015)

I remember that Monte was only there a few weeks before he invented Passive Perception.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 13, 2015)

Mark CMG said:


> Just your gut feeling?  Or do you know something specific?  Like do you know that while Monte was there he said, "Hey, let's add in this Advantage / Disadvantage mechanic and streamline the math for combat and the like."  I know Monte is a sharp guy but I think it detracts from everyone else to claim that he had much of an impact while he was there for a short time relative to the impact everyone else had over the long haul.



The original WotC page that had the information is now gone, so I only have this post of mine referencing the material, but it clearly shows that Cook was the Design Team Lead.  That's why he was given the Legends & Lore articles to do.  Mearls mentioned hiring him in the September 20th, 2011 L&L, but he was first mentioned in an earlier one from August.  Cook left WotC in late April, 2012, so he was there for about 8 months.  The first playtest packet came out a month after he left, with the game _largely_ in the form we have it now, as far as the core chassis.  A review of his L&L's indicates, to me anyway, that 5e's development proceeded along the lines he outlined in those articles, and as Design Team Lead, presumably had a hand in deciding.

Just to clarify (not to Mark CMG, but to the wider audience), the Design Team basically sets strategy -- they say, "We want the game to do this."  The nitty-gritty mechanical expression of that is then created by the Development Team.  So Monte's role in the 5e process was not to create mechanics or write rules necessarily, but to provide goals and objectives for the development team, and then evaluate the results.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 13, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> (snip)






Iosue said:


> (snip)





Thank you, both, so much!  Excellent summary and just the info I was hoping someone might have access to sharing.


----------



## delericho (Feb 13, 2015)

Shasarak said:


> I remember that Monte was only there a few weeks before he invented Passive Perception.




??

Wasn't Passive Perception (and, indeed, Insight) in 4e?


----------



## Ravenheart87 (Feb 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> ??
> 
> Wasn't Passive Perception (and, indeed, Insight) in 4e?




Yes, it was in 4e. Honestly, I'm glad he left the boat early with 5e. His work is too crunchy for my taste, without being interesting or inspiring.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 13, 2015)

billd91 said:


> Wizards *must* have allowed that sort of thing in the past, otherwise, I don't think either Stan! or (as we strongly suspect, Monte) would have approached management with the topic. Nor do I think they'd have forms for that sort of thing if the answer was always going to be "No." That said, we don't know how old those forms are and they might all predate the current (as of Stan!'s writing) VP for HR and the CEO.




TSR sure didn't... hence the suit (against GDW & E Gary Gygax) over Mythus.

It's a pretty damned bog-standard corporate practice in dealing with full-time creative hires to claim ownership of any creative endeavors they work on during their tenure, whether at work or not.


----------



## delericho (Feb 13, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> TSR sure didn't... hence the suit (against GDW & E Gary Gygax) over Mythus.




I thought Gary had left TSR by then?

In any event, I'm not sure this is a good example - if not this particular suit, then there were others where TSR went after other RPGs designed by EGG after he had left the company - indeed, sometimes long after he had left the company. So I don't think it was so much an issue of 'creatives' working on other things, but rather EGG in particular.


----------



## Henry (Feb 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> I thought Gary had left TSR by then?
> 
> In any event, I'm not sure this is a good example - if not this particular suit, then there were others where TSR went after other RPGs designed by EGG after he had left the company - indeed, sometimes long after he had left the company. So I don't think it was so much an issue of 'creatives' working on other things, but rather EGG in particular.



Correct - where Gary was concerned, there was some particular sort of... Vendetta, for lack of a better word, going on. TSR ended up buying Dangerous Journeys in a settlement (GDW wasn't judged on, they apparently went bankrupt from a combo of spending all their time on the lawsuit and the CCG boom, according to a few sources at GDW) and then TSR sat on it. In a world filled with RPGs at the time, they went after Gary's work, I still firmly believe because it was Gary behind it, not from any contracts or infringement.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> ??
> 
> Wasn't Passive Perception (and, indeed, Insight) in 4e?




That was one of the running jokes / concerns here on ENWorld at the time.  Cook mentioned the idea of maybe making a "Passive Perception" kind of system in Next (I think in one of his Legends & Lore columns) as a possible direction they could go in, not realizing that it was already in the 4E game.  So people were ripping on him for being so far out of the D&D loop that he didn't even know what the game currently was that he was working on.

I found the whole reaction kind of silly, since all of these web articles have always seemed like they were written last minute at the end of the day Friday when the person suddenly remembered "Oh crap, I have an article due!", which is why they've never been completely polished or free of bugaboos.  But people here took them so goddamned seriously and you'd think the earth was falling into the sun and that Cook shot their dog based on the reactions people had to him writing as though he was inventing Passive Perception in his column.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 13, 2015)

I don't want to jump on the bandwagon and say that Passive Aggressive Perception was one of Monte's worst RPG ideas.


----------



## Iosue (Feb 13, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> That was one of the running jokes / concerns here on ENWorld at the time.  Cook mentioned the idea of maybe making a "Passive Perception" kind of system in Next (I think in one of his Legends & Lore columns) as a possible direction they could go in, not realizing that it was already in the 4E game.  So people were ripping on him for being so far out of the D&D loop that he didn't even know what the game currently was that he was working on.



The exact quote was, 'but what about what I like to call "passive perception?"'  Cook later said it was meant to be ironic.  Which, I can actually buy, in retrospect.  Even if Cook was entirely unfamiliar with 4e, his fellow designers were not, and I'm sure in the course of Perception discussions 4e's method came about.  I doubt he suddenly created it on his own and thought he had a new idea.

But when Cook wrote that L&L, 5e hadn't been announced, and as a joke, it fell flat.  The reaction _was_ an overreaction, I thought.  Part, if not most, of it coming from many people not in favor of Cook working on D&D in the first place.  OTOH, Cook's L&Ls were never as good as Mearls' early L&Ls were, and that was one example.  (His poll on bringing back strength limitations for female PCs being another.)


----------



## Staffan (Feb 13, 2015)

Henry said:


> Correct - where Gary was concerned, there was some particular sort of... Vendetta, for lack of a better word, going on. TSR ended up buying Dangerous Journeys in a settlement (GDW wasn't judged on, they apparently went bankrupt from a combo of spending all their time on the lawsuit and the CCG boom, according to a few sources at GDW) and then TSR sat on it. In a world filled with RPGs at the time, they went after Gary's work, I still firmly believe because it was Gary behind it, not from any contracts or infringement.




Yeah, TSR claimed that Dangerous Journeys violated their copyright in a few hundred instances. Some examples:

[sblock](4) The concept of adjusting a character's abilities corresponding to its age found in MYTHUS (pages 104-105) is derived from the similar concept in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (page 13).

(7) The MYTHUS concept of character vocations in MYTHUS (pages 13 and 70-71) is derived from the character class concept in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (pages 18-33); the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 16-21); and the AD&D UA (pages 12-25 and 74-75).

(17) The K/S Area of Buffoonery in MYTHUS (pages 179-182) is derived from the Jester character class in TSR's DRAGON Magazine, issue #60 (pages 45-49); TSR's DRAGON Magazine, issue #65 (page 9); and TSR's DRAGON Magazine, issue #67 (page 61).

(32) The method used in MYTHUS (page 9) of resolving game action by generating random numbers on a linear probability scale is derived from a similar method used in the AD&D game system in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (pages 9-10).

(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57).

(48) The races of other-world elves called the Elves, Fay and Faeries, from the fantasy world known as Phaeree in MYTHUS (pages 332- 333), are derived from a race of other-world elves called the "Pharisees" in the AD&D QUEEN OF THE SPIDERS game module (pages 107-108) and the AD&D QUEEN OF THE DEMONWEB PITS game module (pages 13-14).

(49) The game turns mechanic in MYTHUS (pages 20 and 130-131) are derived from the game turns mechanics in AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 39)
and the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (page 38).

(89) The Armor, Physical Cantrip in MYTHUS (page 278) and MYTHUS MAGICK (page 34) is derived from the Armor Spell in the AD&D UA (pages 51-52).

(114) The Circe's Transformation Spell in MYTHUS MAGICK (page 56) is derived from the Polymorph Other Spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB (page 78) and the AD&D OA (page 86).[/sblock]

And so on, and so on.


----------



## SirAntoine (Feb 13, 2015)

Fergurg said:


> It was all of the sourcebooks that put TSR onto the fast train to self-destruction, and very nearly ended D&D.
> 
> Having a company that puts the fans before making a profit is like dating a porn star - it sounds great until you're the one cleaning up the mess.




It happens.  It doesn't mean the same people wouldn't do better if given a second chance, though.  I have said again and again, "just listen to the fans", and I doubt this will ever be bad advice.


----------



## SirAntoine (Feb 13, 2015)

Staffan said:


> Yeah, TSR claimed that Dangerous Journeys violated their copyright in a few hundred instances. Some examples:
> 
> [sblock](4) The concept of adjusting a character's abilities corresponding to its age found in MYTHUS (pages 104-105) is derived from the similar concept in the AD&D 1st ed. DMG (page 13).
> 
> ...




Horrifying.  If I had known, I may never have played 2nd Edition.


----------



## chriton227 (Feb 13, 2015)

Nergal Pendragon said:


> Citing it because its revenues went up would be how it would work if Hasbro were a relatively small company. Instead, Hasbro is the closest thing to a cyberpunk-style megacorporation that exists. If they're losing profits in a noticeable amount; it's because _the entire industry_ is losing profits in a noticeable amount. Keep in mind this is a corporation that can toss a couple hundred million at a movie flop and not even find the loss of money worth mentioning in their quarterly reports. And the number of product lines and brands they have is so huge that it's very likely even they don't have a complete list.
> 
> So, when they mention a product, it's because that product not only saw a rise in profits, but saw a rise in profits that affected their bottom line. They have product lines that rise in a large percentage of profit every quarter that they don't mention. So to mention DnD at all means that it's doing extremely well, to the point it has risen above the hundreds of other product lines competing for attention.




Hasbro is far from a cyberpunk style megacorp, in the business world they are pretty small.  They aren't even in the Fortune 500.  If they lost $200mil, that would amount to almost 5% of their 2014 gross revenue  and would be equivalent to 70% of their 2014 profits, and would definitely be mentioned in their quarterly statements.  Hasbro as a whole is smaller than Activision Blizzard, Hanesbrand (makers of Hanes underwear), Coach (known for handbags), and Tractor Supply Company.  If you want megacorp, try Unilever, Proctor & Gamble, or Nestlé.  All of them own huge portfolios of brands covering a wide variety of industries and have tens of billions of dollars in revenue per year.  Or Walmart with almost $500 billion in annual revenue (more than 100x what Hasbro has).


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 13, 2015)

Iosue said:


> Just to clarify (not to Mark CMG, but to the wider audience), the Design Team basically sets strategy -- they say, "We want the game to do this."  The nitty-gritty mechanical expression of that is then created by the Development Team.  So Monte's role in the 5e process was not to create mechanics or write rules necessarily, but to provide goals and objectives for the development team, and then evaluate the results.



Was that distinction still in place for 5E development? I know that's how things work on the Magic side of the company, and it used to be how D&D did things too; but I'm wondering if that division was maintained as the D&D team shrank. Seems like when you only have a handful of people working on the mechanics in _any_ capacity, it would be hard to keep them strictly separated.

I'm also not sure it makes as much sense for D&D as it does for Magic. As I understand it, the whole reason they evolved the two-tiered structure for Magic was because of the need to maintain tight balance in a competitive "rules-first" game. D&D is much less demanding in that regard.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Feb 13, 2015)

I've enjoyed games that Feargus has worked on, and I'm glad he's excited about his Pathfinder games (I'm very much looking forward to that tablet PACG). 

That said: it's poor form to publicly diss another company, particularly a former partner.

In my eyes, he's given up 5 reputation points, and taken 10 damage to "class."


----------



## Shasarak (Feb 13, 2015)

DEFCON 1 said:


> That was one of the running jokes / concerns here on ENWorld at the time.  Cook mentioned the idea of maybe making a "Passive Perception" kind of system in Next (I think in one of his Legends & Lore columns) as a possible direction they could go in, not realizing that it was already in the 4E game.  So people were ripping on him for being so far out of the D&D loop that he didn't even know what the game currently was that he was working on.
> 
> I found the whole reaction kind of silly, since all of these web articles have always seemed like they were written last minute at the end of the day Friday when the person suddenly remembered "Oh crap, I have an article due!", which is why they've never been completely polished or free of bugaboos.  But people here took them so goddamned seriously and you'd think the earth was falling into the sun and that Cook shot their dog based on the reactions people had to him writing as though he was inventing Passive Perception in his column.




It was almost as fun a reaction as the time when Mike realised that you can not shout an amputated hand back on.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 13, 2015)

delericho said:


> I thought Gary had left TSR by then?
> 
> In any event, I'm not sure this is a good example - if not this particular suit, then there were others where TSR went after other RPGs designed by EGG after he had left the company - indeed, sometimes long after he had left the company. So I don't think it was so much an issue of 'creatives' working on other things, but rather EGG in particular.




Gary had worked on some items that made it into DJ and DJ:Mythus while at TSR. TSR had the files to prove it.


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2015)

First,  [MENTION=907]Staffan[/MENTION] , thanks for finding that. Absolutely mind-blowing.




aramis erak said:


> Gary had worked on some items that made it into DJ and DJ:Mythus while at TSR. TSR had the files to prove it.




TSR's owners circa 1990 had about as much credibility as Pinocchio at Liar's Dice. It wouldn't have shocked me at the time if they had forged said files just to prove their point. They filled their legal complaint with outrageous claims, were openly hostile to fans, and ran the company into the ground with pet projects and blind alleys of marketing. (I still remember the "official derivative content" ftp server. Yeesh that was ludicrous.) It still amazes me how well they had people fooled into thinking they were doing a good job for so long.

Back to the court filing a second -- I just now realized that in (7) they claim ownership of "vocations" because God forbid no one had a vocation before D&D came along; in (32) they basically claim copyright on Rolling Dice to determine resolving things; in (33) they claim copyright on random damage; and in (35) as my personal favorite, they claim COPYRIGHT ON the concept of TIME HEALING INJURIES. Someone alert doctors and physical therapists everywhere! 

Or wait, were doctors derivative of Clerics in the PHB?


----------



## Staffan (Feb 14, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> Gary had worked on some items that made it into DJ and DJ:Mythus while at TSR. TSR had the files to prove it.




Wasn't that Cyborg Commando? And the lawsuit against GDW for Dangerous Journeys was solely about copyright, not about any work-for-hire stuff.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2015)

Henry said:


> (35) as my personal favorite, they claim COPYRIGHT ON the concept of TIME HEALING INJURIES. Someone alert doctors and physical therapists everywhere!
> 
> Or wait, were doctors derivative of Clerics in the PHB?



It's fun to make fun, but your paraphrase of the claim isn't accurate.

They claim copyright in respect of "The method . . . in which rest is used to remove characters' points of physical damage". That may well be derived from D&D. What game measured physical damage in points, that recovered with the passage of ingame time, before D&D? (Doctors in the real world are irrelevant to this: they don't measure damage or recovery in hit points.)

I think the part of the claim that is more open to dispute than the claim of derivation is the claim that this game mechanic was one in respect of which copyright could arise.


----------



## Henry (Feb 14, 2015)

pemerton said:


> It's fun to make fun, but your paraphrase of the claim isn't accurate.
> 
> They claim copyright in respect of "The method . . . in which rest is used to remove characters' points of physical damage". That may well be derived from D&D. What game measured physical damage in points, that recovered with the passage of ingame time, before D&D? (Doctors in the real world are irrelevant to this: they don't measure damage or recovery in hit points.)
> 
> I think the part of the claim that is more open to dispute than the claim of derivation is the claim that this game mechanic was one in respect of which copyright could arise.



I hyperbolized, but I do agree - if copyright is allowed to cover the things a limited-time patent should be covering, innovation is pretty much destroyed, if not put in a chokehold. But that's been a consistent issue for a while now.

However, i could swear i remember some mini wargames that had "partial damage" to units, and recovery of those units in later turns(spring, summer, fall, etc), but since i never had as much of an interest in wargames as rpgs, my knowledge is limited in rules history there - especially since Gary was involved in quite a few wargames too!


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 14, 2015)

Henry said:


> However, i could swear i remember some mini wargames that had "partial damage" to units, and recovery of those units in later turns(spring, summer, fall, etc), but since i never had as much of an interest in wargames as rpgs, my knowledge is limited in rules history there - especially since Gary was involved in quite a few wargames too!




Campaign systems in wargames usually have some sort of mechanism to replace losses in units of troops, but the likely source of hit points is naval wargames where it makes a lot of sense for ships not to be destroyed by single hits and for repairs to restore the damage they've taken. Which specific one it might hve been is hard to say, but systems which operate that way predate D&D by a generation or more - Fletcher Pratt's wargame predates WW2, for example.


----------



## Ranes (Feb 14, 2015)

Bluenose said:


> ...the likely source of hit points is naval wargames where it makes a lot of sense for ships not to be destroyed by single hits and for repairs to restore the damage they've taken. Which specific one it might hve been is hard to say…




Here's Arneson's recollection of events.



Bluenose said:


> ...but systems which operate that way predate D&D by a generation or more...




That's true.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2015)

Henry said:


> if copyright is allowed to cover the things a limited-time patent should be covering, innovation is pretty much destroyed, if not put in a chokehold.



I'm certainly not here to pass judgment on the merits (or otherwise) of US IP laws!



Henry said:


> However, i could swear i remember some mini wargames that had "partial damage" to units, and recovery of those units in later turns(spring, summer, fall, etc), but since i never had as much of an interest in wargames as rpgs, my knowledge is limited in rules history there - especially since Gary was involved in quite a few wargames too!





Bluenose said:


> Campaign systems in wargames usually have some sort of mechanism to replace losses in units of troops, but the likely source of hit points is naval wargames where it makes a lot of sense for ships not to be destroyed by single hits and for repairs to restore the damage they've taken. Which specific one it might hve been is hard to say, but systems which operate that way predate D&D by a generation or more - Fletcher Pratt's wargame predates WW2, for example.



These examples aren't the same as hit points, though.

Like the campaign systems in wargames, recovery is via passage of ingame time, but recovery is of an individual's personal injury, not of a unit.

Like the naval systems, recovery is in respect of harm to an individual entity, but it is personal injury, not repairs to a machine.

Were there hit point mechanics in the distinctive RPG style - "hit points" or "life points" as a measure of individual well being which are restored by the passage of ingame time - before D&D? I don't know the pre-D&D boardgame scene anywhere near well enough to answer. Non-RPGs that do use hit points (like, say, Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, which call them "Stamina"), post-date D&D.


----------



## Bluenose (Feb 15, 2015)

I don't know of anything that works exactly like D&D-style hit points. I've seen discussion from wargaming journals of the 1960s and early 1970s where figure casualties would be rolled for to see what actually removed them from the field, with various options including wounds that would take (1d6 months) to recover from. Some talk about "hero" units/individuals and how to make them survive better on the battlefield and what the consequences should be if they are put out of the fight. A lot of things were being tried out, so it's hardly a surprise that some of them are echoed in a game written by people familiar with the wargaming scene of the time. A lot of other things - personality traits that influence behaviour - don't appear.


----------



## TheSwartz (Mar 1, 2015)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...Allows-a-DM-To-Run-The-Adventure#.VPOiX_nF83I

Looks dang good to me. Will have to see how it turns out, but apparently it's possible for other studios can also create cool D&D video games.

Now, that being said, there have also been a LOT of bad D&D games made... I hope this is more like Neverwinter Nights then something like TOEE


----------

