# Decline of RPG sales



## Belen (Nov 15, 2005)

So I thought this may deserve its own thread rather than be lost in the file sharing argument.  Here are my thoughts and opinions.  Feel free to roast me...

I think you are ignoring one fact:  The sheer volume of d20 garbage released.  

If anything is causing the decline in RPG sales, it would be the large volume of material available.  The variety of books and companies are killing sales.  Other than WOTC, no other company can create a large enough fan base for d20 material.  Non-d20 material can create a larger base because they are not competing with other companies plus the crazy PDF publishers in places like RPGnow.

Here are some of the reasons I see contributing to the decline of d20 and RPG sales:

1.) Market size vs. # of Producers: We have too many companies producing too many games for a limited audience.  

2.) Older audience: No company, including WOTC, has found a way to market and sell to a younger audience.  D&D is no longer in the public eye.  It is more like the old anime of scifi clubs that you find on college campuses.  People find the game by accident rather than design.  Also, an older audience buys less books.  They have limited time to play multiple games.

3.) New media: MMORPGs, CCGs, and PC games have eroded the existing audience and stolen the potential audience.  

4.) Advertising:  No one promotes the hobby.  We promote it to ourselves.

5.) Shared experience:  There is a lack of shared experience.  Companies promote their IP, even WOTC.  We see a lot of drive to pormote Eberron or FR, but very little to promote D&D.  

6.) Standards or lack thereof: d20 publishers would have been wise to cooperate and create a list of standards for books such formats etc.  I am surprised that we never saw a development company or editing company form.  There is a need for such a centralized company that could promote standards or evaluate books.

7.) Development and release schedules:  Too many companies announce books and then fail to release on schedule or in a timely manner.  It sucks to wait a year for a book and a book is sometimes off your schedule by the time it is released.  

8.) Know you audience:  A lot of companies do not know their audience.  They are run by gamers who produce what they think is cool rather than what people want.  When I was working for a d20 company, this was a problem.  We never attempted to ask what people wanted and then produce it.  We kinda thought we knew and just wrote what we wanted to write.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2005)

All this is secondhand.

There are few companies doing well. Some even have sellouts of their print runs such as Castels & Crusades or the original Mutants and Masterminds which went through several printings.

Other companies aren't selling in a year what they used to sell in 90 days.

Some companies like Decipher and Guardians of Order, are having problems that have little to do with the RPGs themselves like exchange rates or internal issues.

D&D brand managers claim that they've had their biggest year.

Sounds like D&D is doing fine and many are suffering on the wayside.


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 6.) Standards or lack thereof: d20 publishers would have been wise to cooperate and create a list of standards for books such formats etc. I am surprised that we never saw a development company or editing company form. There is a need for such a centralized company that could promote standards or evaluate books.



This sounds interesting to me, but I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at — you mention "formats," which leads me to believe you're talking about having standard organization and appearance in things like modules, which I wouldn't be a fan of, but then you talk about a development company or editing company, which I think could be great depending on execution.  Coincidentally, this dovetails into my reading material right now: Thomas Friedman's _The World is Flat_.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're essentially talking about outsourcing the mechanical stuff (editing) so that the parent company could then focus itself on the higher level functions (such as creative work, marketing, and things), which is the same thing Reuters has accomplished, for example, by outsourcing some of its wire services to India (basically, they've moved the instantaneous news items reporting on things like quarterly earnings to India and left the analysis and what not to their offices in places like London).  Interesting.  On some level, this is done a bit with freelance editors, but having an actual company to outsource the editing to would be a drastically different and positive thing.

Nick


----------



## Munin (Nov 15, 2005)

I agree with JoeG's post on general terms. 

As a DM who runs a weekly game, I only need so much material. As it is, I think I purchase more than my fair share. I alternate regularly between two games, Mongoose's Conan and  a standard d&d game (currently The Banewarrens). I also run a Savage Worlds game when I can squeeze it in (check out Rippers...it is a VERY cool setting). I've already pre-ordered Ptolus, and will be dropping another $50 so I can run it using the Arcana Evolved rules. 

I'd say, using my case as ancedotal evidence, the D20 market is doing pretty well earning my dollar. 

I have to disagree with point #3 though. I think just the opposite has happened. Those other forms of entertainment only open the door for the traditional RPG. In my experience, once people get a taste of a well-run game, they never look at computer game quite the same.


----------



## Hjorimir (Nov 15, 2005)

Speaking personally, my D&D purchases have gone WAY down. This is really more a fact that I just don't wany any more crunch and nobody is really producing fluff that draws my interests.

But as far as non-D&D, my purchases are going up. I just grabbed Mutants and Masterminds 2e and True20. A little while back I grabbed Grim Tales and Thieves' World Player's Manual. I'm eyeing Dawning Star: Operation Quick Start and if I get that I'm sure to pick up Helios Rising and Silver Eclipse when available.

But as far as D&D goes, I already have like ten books I have to reference to find all the feats, spells, PrCs, etc. for a single character. I refuse to add in any more crunch.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Nov 15, 2005)

While I agree that there is a glut of poor d20 stuff out there, good product will always sell. I personally believe that the future of RPG publishing is in electronic PDFs. A DM can go to RPGNow, ENGS, DTRPG, etc. and cherry-pick exactly what he needs. The days of buying a $20-30 book just because you need a few pages inside of it are over. 

As far as getting kids into it, I have seen more young kids start playing D&D in the last two years than the last 15. Games like heroclix, Yu-gi-oh, etc. are getting them into the game stores. Once there, they see games being played and try it. I wish WOTC would start a very frequent and agressive demo program for D&D/D&D minis all over the country, not just on world D&D day each November. On this year's day, I saw six young kids playing their first D&D game at our local venue. Also, as discussed in another thread, 3.5 is NOT a good gateway RPG. WOTC needs to expand on the basic D&D line to get the kids entrenched into the game before they have to shell out $100 for three core rulebooks. Bring on the Expert, Companion and Immortal sets...


----------



## Belen (Nov 15, 2005)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:
			
		

> As far as getting kids into it, I have seen more young kids start playing D&D in the last two years than the last 15. Games like heroclix, Yu-gi-oh, etc. are getting them into the game stores. Once there, they see games being played and try it. I wish WOTC would start a very frequent and agressive demo program for D&D/D&D minis all over the country, not just on world D&D day each November. On this year's day, I saw six young kids playing their first D&D game at our local venue. Also, as discussed in another thread, 3.5 is NOT a good gateway RPG. WOTC needs to expand on the basic D&D line to get the kids entrenched into the game before they have to shell out $100 for three core rulebooks. Bring on the Expert, Companion and Immortal sets...




My experience as a WOTC delegate has fewer kids entering the hobby.  It has been months since I introduced someone new.


----------



## tf360 (Nov 15, 2005)

My opinion, and this is strictly my opinion, is that there are two factors influencing rpg sales.
The basis for this opinion comes from a conversation I had with several longtime industry insider/distributor. The theory was that an rpg store needs to be in one of three areas. And in this day and age, rpg stores still account for a large percentage of sales.

1) population base of 50,000+
2) close proximity to a military base
3) close proximity to a college campus.

The first is fairly static, but the second two are not. With a large percentage of military personnel overseas and/or actively engaged in combat, rpg's are going to suffer. But I think that the competitor that's really hurting rpg's is online and casino poker. It sounds like the two aren't related, but here's the coorelation. College campuses were typically strongholds for rpg's but with so many college students playing poker rpg's have clearly suffered. College students playing poker a) no longer have time to play rpg's and b) no longer have the money to spend on them. I play on several of the online poker sites and they are crawling with college kids and I'm not talking about guys playing for nickels and dimes. So if they're spending $100+ per week playing poker, and in a lot of cases much more than that, guess what they're not spending their money on.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 15, 2005)

Other than the one company whose name I never can remember but is easily confused with a producer of quality games (FF....something), I don't know where you're seeing this tide of d20 garbage. Name companies, titles, etc. I know some people count things like Frostburn and Sandstorm as 'garbage' because they're such a niche publication or because it's perceived as 'Well, WoTC has run out of ideas and they have to produce X number of books this quarter, so they had to come up with something'. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about? Or is it something different? All the stuff I'm seeing in the game stores looks pretty cool to me, even though it might not be something I myself am in the mood to purchase right now.


----------



## wedgeski (Nov 15, 2005)

Assuming I agree with the inference that RPG sales are declining (jury's still out I guess, we're getting conflicting reports all over the place), a few comments:



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 1.) Market size vs. # of Producers: We have too many companies producing too many games for a limited audience.



And yet many of these products are smaller, more bite-sized, and cheaper. I don't think the number of producers is necessarily a factor other than potential purchasers are drowned in material as soon as they visit RPGNow. When that happens it's almost inevitable that they gravitate to someone already in the top-20 list.



> 2.) Older audience: No company, including WOTC, has found a way to market and sell to a younger audience.  D&D is no longer in the public eye.  It is more like the old anime of scifi clubs that you find on college campuses.  People find the game by accident rather than design.  Also, an older audience buys less books.  They have limited time to play multiple games.



And yet in theory they have more disposable income as they get older. I know that's true for me and most of my gaming friends, anyway. I buy things now that I wouldn't even consider buying when I was 15 and dreaded a new Monstrous Compendium Appendix because I knew I wouldn't be able to afford it.



> 3.) New media: MMORPGs, CCGs, and PC games have eroded the existing audience and stolen the potential audience.



I would have to say I agree with this. CRPGS and MMORPG's offer a quite different gaming experience than a true RPG, but they're hugely addictive, limited-disposable-income-swallowing monsters, highly accessible, with a ready-made gaming group of hundreds of thousands always on-line. Compare this to the headache of building and maintaining a regular gaming group. As bandwidth and technology improve, these games will get closer to a tabletop experience, and the problem will only get worse.

Having said that, I successfully play both without much trouble, but only because I have enough money to support both hobbies, and because I was playing D&D long before Everquest or Baldur's Gate hit the scene. If I was a fresh-faced entertainment-seeking gaming virgin, and I was presented with both options, I fear the flash-and-grab of World of Warcraft would appeal to me more than the 1000+ pages of D&D rules. Even if I gave D&D a go, the (likely) poor level of gratification I would achieve from my first few sessions would be a turn off, unless I got lucky and found a good group with a patient, imaginative DM.



> 4.) Advertising:  No one promotes the hobby.  We promote it to ourselves.



Too true. I'm not sure, even after years of thinking about it, how tabletop roleplaying can be effectively mass-advertised though. Only those who commit themselves to getting a good experience will get one - in other words, you get out what you put in. A movie, a book, a CD, a video game.. all of these media can value-add to the participant with words, sounds, a visuals.



> 6.) Standards or lack thereof: d20 publishers would have been wise to cooperate and create a list of standards for books such formats etc.  I am surprised that we never saw a development company or editing company form.  There is a need for such a centralized company that could promote standards or evaluate books.



I agree and have thought this myself in the past. Some kind of industry-approved 'Certified By' sticker would certainly start to separate the wheat from the chaff, and I'm sure we can all think of a few people we'd like on the review board.  Whether it would serve only to bolster the more cash-rich publishers and unfairly label the poorer ones as inferior is a problem, though.



> 7.) Development and release schedules:  Too many companies announce books and then fail to release on schedule or in a timely manner.  It sucks to wait a year for a book and a book is sometimes off your schedule by the time it is released.



This is not endemic to the RPG industry (see: Diablo, Doom, Half-Life, and countless other absolutely massive computer games which have gone on to make shed-loads of cash). It may contribute to user dissatisfaction, though.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> My experience as a WOTC delegate has fewer kids entering the hobby.  It has been months since I introduced someone new.



That hardly means that nationwide that new players aren't coming to the system.  I've seen a lot of kids get into D&D via DDM and SWM.  There are a couple kids (16 - 18 years old I guess) that got into D&D via Warmachine.  While I don't really think that the hobby is growing in stride with video games and their ilk, it's not getting all that weaker either.  The RPG market has always seen lulls and highs in interest.  We just happen to be seeing a lull ATM.

Like others have said, there is still great material being put out by Blue Devil, Ronin Arts, RPGObjects, Malhavoc, Green Ronin, and so forth.  You may have to look online to find some of this material, but it's there.  WotC's product schedule is still going strong.  While I may not buy everything that they put out, there are still quite a few people that do.  

The idustry isn't in trouble as a whole, but they will be if they don't roll with the punches and follow the tides of technology.

Kane


----------



## Belen (Nov 15, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> This is not endemic to the RPG industry (see: Diablo, Doom, Half-Life, and countless other absolutely massive computer games which have gone on to make shed-loads of cash). It may contribute to user dissatisfaction, though.




The difference here being that a late PC game is still an entire game.  A late RPG book may affect your ongoing game or you may have moved on to a different type of campaign by the time it arrives.

Not to mention that you can rent the video game...


----------



## Kanegrundar (Nov 15, 2005)

Renting really isn't an option in the matter of PC RPG's.


----------



## Sejs (Nov 15, 2005)

Man, has it been 15 years already?  I seem to recall this exact same kind of banter back in the days of 2nd edition, though admittadly the glut then was far worse.

Take heart - the sky isn't falling.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 15, 2005)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:
			
		

> While I agree that there is a glut of poor d20 stuff out there, good product will always sell.




I think that this is not completely accurate.

The poor D20 stuff has been there from the start of D20.  Heck, by natural causes there is a lot less of it coming out now than there was.  Both in raw amount and as a fraction of the overall amount.  

But sales are still down for good stuff.  I buy less stuff now because there is so much less that I need. If someone came out with the greatest book on dragons ever imaginable, I would be hesistant to buy it.  I've got Draconomicon and no matter how great the new book is, the added value would be marginalized.  

I'm not saying that there is no room for good product.  But at this point it takes more than just being good.  It is hard to find untilled ground right now.


----------



## wedgeski (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The difference here being that a late PC game is still an entire game.  A late RPG book may affect your ongoing game or you may have moved on to a different type of campaign by the time it arrives.



Or the look and feel of the videogame may be out-of-date, or the console on which it is published may be going out-of-fashion, or the company which created it may be going down the tubes... Every industry is hit by lateness in a different fashion, but they are all hit.



> Not to mention that you can rent the video game...



Um, I have no answer to that.  I'm sot sure it's really relevant anyway: you can 'rent' RPG's if you feel so inclined and have the right software.   (edit: not that I condone such a practice of course, but it is mooted as one of the primary 'justifications' of file sharing).


----------



## The Sigil (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I think you are ignoring one fact:  The sheer volume of d20 garbage released.



Personally, I don't buy this argument... at least not if you read it as "being released now" (instead of "already released").  When d20 was first released, there was a wave of garbage released.  However, as time passed, people got more and more discriminating in what they purchased, and in general, companies had to raise their standards or die.  Most of the "poorer quality" companies are long gone from the d20 scene, and even the high-quality ones have gotten better.


> If anything is causing the decline in RPG sales, it would be the large volume of material available.



Again, provided you're including "backlist" titles in this, fine.  In terms of new material coming out... honestly, there's not nearly as much coming out as there used to be.  As was already mentioned, though, there is the little matter of finding "untilled ground."  Even the best book for Dwarves or Dragons or what have you is not going to be well-received because, well, there's already 3 or 4 or 10 out there, how much more stuff can I pull out of "yet another one?"


> The variety of books and companies are killing sales.  Other than WOTC, no other company can create a large enough fan base for d20 material.  Non-d20 material can create a larger base because they are not competing with other companies plus the crazy PDF publishers in places like RPGnow.



Hey, I'm one of those crazy PDF publishers.  And I think it's worth noting that nearly all of the major d20 players - WotC included - have (albeit in many cases reluctantly) embraced PDF publishing at this point (if nothing else, as a supplemental source of revenue).


> 1.) Market size vs. # of Producers: We have too many companies producing too many games for a limited audience.



I disagree.  Again, this argument is 5 years out of date... these days (at least in print), there's basically WotC, SSS/Malhavoc, Mongoose, Green Ronin, and Troll Lord (and to a smaller degree, Bastion Press and Bad Axe Games are still around, if I'm not mistaken).  Many of the formerly big names are gone... AEG has gotten out.  Atlas Games has gotten out.  Mystic Eye basically collapsed (due to health problems with both founders).  I'm probably leaving some people out of that list, but in general, it seems to me that the number of producers is way down from even a couple of years ago.


> 2.) Older audience: No company, including WOTC, has found a way to market and sell to a younger audience.  D&D is no longer in the public eye.  It is more like the old anime of scifi clubs that you find on college campuses.  People find the game by accident rather than design.  Also, an older audience buys less books.  They have limited time to play multiple games.



To be honest, a LOT of this is due to the older gamers themselves.  What do you CONSTANTLY hear on RPG.net and ENworld every time an introductory product is introduced?  "This is crap!  I already know this!  Cater to me, the experienced gamer - I don't have time to deal with the inexperienced younger generation!"  The older generation villifies introductory products, and won't support them - by which I don't mean buying them for themselves, I mean that because they don't happen to need the material, they won't consider buying it - not even for their kids, or a niece or nephew or what have you.  The "younger audience" has to rely on birthday presents, etc. to get into the game and those come from the "older audience" and if the older audience refuses to buy "on principle" then there's no way to get the stuff into the hands of the young.  That's the way it is.

As to the older audience buys less books, this is probably true... while older folk have more disposable income, they have less time.  Which means they're able to buy more expensive books, but have time to read (and thus buy) fewer of them.  In my mind, this is largely responsible for the recent spate of "super-huge hardbacks" that cost ungodly sums of money.  Single product, high price... that caters to the older folks who have disposable income but no time.  Of course, it has the problem of "shutting out" the "young 'uns" who we in theory should be recruiting because they have lots of time, but little in the way of disposable income.

There's also the problem of modern business demands... the modern business demands escalating profits, quarter-after-quarter.  No long-term plans, we need to squeeze every drop we can out today, and if it screws us tomorrow, that's too bad.  IMO, it would be a healthy thing long-term to try to grow the gamer base by pushing inexpensive introductory products.  However, I recognize that because these products are inexpensive, there's less money to be made, and most companies are unwilling/unable to make less money today even if it will make them able to make more money tomorrow (because bills come due today, not tomorrow).  I am still working on finishing up my Basic GM's Guide for Lite Fantasy (I have the player's guide out), on the theory that since I'm a one-man shop and not beholden to anyone in terms of profits, I have an obligation to fill the void that a profit-driven company simply cannot by its nature.  This is personal more than business - I have received so much richness in my life from gaming that I feel personally responsible to finish creating some sort of vehicle - flawed and imperfect though it may be - to at least give youngsters a chance to be introduced to gaming.


> 3.) New media: MMORPGs, CCGs, and PC games have eroded the existing audience and stolen the potential audience.



You see, I think it should be the other way around.  PC Games have made role-playing games more mainstream, more accepted.  Why aren't we tapping into the audience that thought RPG games were suck until they tried Warcraft/Everquest/etc.?


> 4.) Advertising:  No one promotes the hobby.  We promote it to ourselves.



Agreed.  But then, I don't recall anyone promoting the hobby in the late 70's/early 80's, either.  I picked up an interest in finding out about D&D from reading "The Winner's Guide to Board Games" published by Playboy Press.  It was a book of several hundred pages that laid out basic rules and strategies ranging from basic to advanced for essentially every tabletop game in existence at the time, from Mastermind to Chess to Risk to Diplomacy to Cosmic Encounter to Nuclear War... to D&D.


> 5.) Shared experience:  There is a lack of shared experience.  Companies promote their IP, even WOTC.  We see a lot of drive to pormote Eberron or FR, but very little to promote D&D.



Part of this is a side-effect of companies needing to show a profit now and there being a lot of companies "in the game."  Back in the day, everyone ran Keep on the Borderlands because that's all there was.  That's why we all have that shared experience.  I'm not sure that's possible today, because no one company/product can be the starting point for everyone... there are too many choices.


> 6.) Standards or lack thereof: d20 publishers would have been wise to cooperate and create a list of standards for books such formats etc.  I am surprised that we never saw a development company or editing company form.  There is a need for such a centralized company that could promote standards or evaluate books.



Will never happen.  When the d20 license added the standards clause, you saw a huge hue and cry.  The problem with having a "centralized company" is that writers are, by and large, creative types, and creative types despise having to let someone else tell them what is and is not acceptable.  Besides, who is going to fund the centralized company?  How will you trust them?  The problem with standards is everyone thinks their way is the One True Way and so you'll never get consensus. 


> 7.) Development and release schedules:  Too many companies announce books and then fail to release on schedule or in a timely manner.  It sucks to wait a year for a book and a book is sometimes off your schedule by the time it is released.



This is why I never announce a release date unless that release date is in the past (or "today"). 


> 8.) Know you audience:  A lot of companies do not know their audience.  They are run by gamers who produce what they think is cool rather than what people want.  When I was working for a d20 company, this was a problem.  We never attempted to ask what people wanted and then produce it.  We kinda thought we knew and just wrote what we wanted to write.



The problem is, how do you get to know your audience?  Messageboards can be disproportionately skewed by a few loudly squeaking wheels - the squeaky wheels want X, but 95% of your audience wants Y.  Worse, every time I've seen a survey of "what do you want" on RPG.net or ENWorld, we wind up with 20 answers, each with 5% of the vote.  I submit to you that the audience is so diverse and fractured, it is well nigh impossible to get a product that will even appeal to a majority of them, much less all of them.

IMO, there are some valid complaints there, and some less than valid ones.  There's my 2 cents. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Kristivas (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 3.) New media: MMORPGs, CCGs, and PC games have eroded the existing audience and stolen the potential audience.




Oh man, I'm a huge WoW fan, but I tell everyone:  "I'd much rather be playing DnD right now." because I would.  Online games have limits, and DnD has none.

For example:  My level 60 Orc Hunter on WoW can't walk up to the Warchief and plunge her Ice Barbed Spear into his chest.  If it were DnD, she could.  She might die a horrible death from the guards or from Thrall himself, but she has no boundaries on what she can and can't attempt to do.  (yes, I play a female on WoW.  she's a lesbian... on a role playing server....)

...However, a lot of people in my guild are younger and have never played DnD.  They also don't intend to.  When not playing WoW, they're doin' the school thing and then doing other teenage activities.

The reason I started playing EQ was for lack of a DnD game.  I;ve been a huge DnD fan since 11, and it's the number 1 thing I'd probably be wanting to do at all times (except for spending time with the young'uns).  I just can't.  My friends have jobs, or moved, or joined the military, or got p-whipped (lol shane).  A gaming group is hard to find, people in a MMO are not.


----------



## Kristivas (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 3.) New media: MMORPGs, CCGs, and PC games have eroded the existing audience and stolen the potential audience.





OH!  One thing I forgot!

Rules arguements.  There are none in a MMO.  There's no stopping the game and fighting about what spell does what or how the DM and the players interprit(sp) a rule.  There are no house-rule add-ons and no "God NPC syndrome DMs" (where the DM makes an NPC he really likes and plays it as one of the PCs, ect.)

So, you have none of that in a MMO, which is the only thing I think is superior to RPGs.


----------



## buzz (Nov 15, 2005)

Man, these threads are awful popular lately.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> D&D is no longer in the public eye.



D&D, as a brand, is. D&D has movies. D&D has ads in maagzines other than _Dragon_. D&D has TV commercials. D&D has top-selling computer/console titles. D&D has comic books. D&D has multiple shelves of novels in every major bookstore. "Dungeons & Dragons" has entered common parlance.

It's not the boom of the early '80s... but that's never going to happen again. It doesn't change the fact that there are up to 4.6 million poeple who play D&D in the US (according to Charles Ryan), and GenCon sees more and more attendees each year.

As for the points you made, some I agree with, some I don't. Ultimately, they address more general issues with the industry and hobby rather than current problems. And until an acutal industry person contributes to this thread, all people can do is speculate and provide anecdotal evidence.

And even if they do, there's so little data made public by the industry, that we still end up speculating.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 15, 2005)

Incredible. About all the points about what's going wrong are pretty much what Wizards is *not* doing.

Cheers!


----------



## Munin (Nov 15, 2005)

> My experience as a WOTC delegate has fewer kids entering the hobby. It has been months since I introduced someone new.




I've introduced three people to gaming over the past year, the oldest being mid-20s and the youngest around 14 or so and female. I think there is plenty of potential for new blood, it just has to be cultivated by an active community that is willing to reach out. I know a few dms who actively _dissuade_ young people from joining their groups because they don't want to be troubled with what might be perceived as immature play. 

I still think that the supply/demand arguement is very much relevant. It's true that there are fewer publishers out there, but those that remain not only have to compete with one another, but also with _everything else_ that has been published for 3/3.5. For example, if I want to run a published adventure, I start by flipping thru my stack of _Dungeon_ magazines, then through the modules on my shelf that I haven't yet run, THEN I might look around for something new. The same goes for other material.

This isn't to say that new material is particulary good or bad, but that one has to consider the total of gaming STUFF that is out there, past and present, when considering what a publisher is up against, not just present competition.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 15, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> And until an acutal industry person contributes to this thread, all people can do is speculate and provide anecdotal evidence.
> 
> And even if they do, there's so little data made public by the industry, that we still end up speculating.




Any time an actual industry person reports anything threatening to the image of a healthy hobby, he or she is greeted with raging disbelief by enough people to render any thread about the fortunes of the hobby useless.


----------



## Hjorimir (Nov 15, 2005)

Kristivas said:
			
		

> OH!  One thing I forgot!
> 
> Rules arguements.  There are none in a MMO.  There's no stopping the game and fighting about what spell does what or how the DM and the players interprit(sp) a rule.  There are no house-rule add-ons and no "God NPC syndrome DMs" (where the DM makes an NPC he really likes and plays it as one of the PCs, ect.)
> 
> So, you have none of that in a MMO, which is the only thing I think is superior to RPGs.



You must not visit the associated message boards of those MMOs then. There is nothing but rants about nerf this nerf that. People have been crying for nerfs in MMOs so long it goes back to when Zug wanted Roog's rock nerfed because it was shinier than his. Or what I'd call the, "Hi, I'm scissors, paper is balanced, nerf rock" posts.


----------



## Rasyr (Nov 15, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Any time an actual industry person reports anything threatening to the image of a healthy hobby, he or she is greeted with raging disbelief by enough people to render any thread about the fortunes of the hobby useless.



Which is why I am staying out of THIS discussion.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Nov 15, 2005)

Three Possible Additions:

1. An increase in the cost of RPG books without an increase in wages. 

Some people claim that RPG books are not high-priced, or use the "cost of a dinner and a movie" sales pitch. This is pretty subjective, and I'm not arguing it. YMMV.

2. Residual ".5" edition revision negativity. While 3.5 is an improvement, I know many 3.0 players who refused to switch, and others who are wary of buying 3.5 lest 3.75 come out next year.

Some people claim that persons with 3.0 and 3.5 rulebooks can play in the same game without distraction or frustration. This may be the case in your groups, but it hasn't been the case in mine. YMMV.

3. World of Warcraft. 'Nuff said.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Any time an actual industry person reports anything threatening to the image of a healthy hobby, he or she is greeted with raging disbelief by enough people to render any thread about the fortunes of the hobby useless.




Or if someone points out something positive how those are all exceptions and that D&D CANNOT be doing as well as they claim it is and they must, despite saying they're not, be counting the miniatures into their RPG numbers.


----------



## buzz (Nov 15, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Any time an actual industry person reports anything threatening to the image of a healthy hobby, he or she is greeted with raging disbelief by enough people to render any thread about the fortunes of the hobby useless.



Ditto when said persons report positive and supportive data. It's just a different group of ragers.

EDIT: Joe beat me to it. There's also some irony I could point out (not Joe-related), but that wouldn't be particularly productive.


----------



## Belen (Nov 15, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Incredible. About all the points about what's going wrong are pretty much what Wizards is *not* doing.
> 
> Cheers!




huh....are you smoking crack?  I referenced Wizards twice and only minor examples.  I think you're a bit paranoid about people who dislike Wizards.

If anything, the hobby needs a organization that remains untied to the publishers that is capable of generating longterm interest in the hobby.  The publishers are not doing it and we have way too many "fans" who think they are publishers who are producing a lot of material and causing a glut in the market by competing for money.

There was a time when most of these people would publish the items on the web for free.  Now we have a million PDF producers for a tiny market.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> There was a time when most of these people would publish the items on the web for free.  Now we have a million PDF producers for a tiny market.




We should kill them and take their stuff!   

But there is still a ton of stuff out there for free. Heck, even the official publishers put out a lot of stuff for free. Not seeing the issue with this bit here outside of maybe saying that because they're not brick and morter publishers that they should just be publishing it for free when people are willing to pay for it. Curse you Phil Reed, the mind control devices are working!


----------



## Belen (Nov 15, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> We should kill them and take their stuff!
> 
> But there is still a ton of stuff out there for free. Heck, even the official publishers put out a lot of stuff for free. Not seeing the issue with this bit here outside of maybe saying that because they're not brick and morter publishers that they should just be publishing it for free when people are willing to pay for it. Curse you Phil Reed, the mind control devices are working!




I am not really referencing people such as Phil Reed.  I like, and buy, his stuff.  However, there is a glut of material that is competing for dollars.


----------



## buzz (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> If anything, the hobby needs a organization that remains untied to the publishers that is capable of generating longterm interest in the hobby.



WotC is pretty much the only entity with enough resources to have any impact. Maybe WW, too. A non-profit "Society for the Furtherance of Gaming" is an unrealistic hope, IMO. I'm not sure it's even necessary.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The publishers are not doing it and we have way too many "fans" who think they are publishers who are producing a lot of material and causing a glut in the market by competing for money.
> 
> There was a time when most of these people would publish the items on the web for free.  Now we have a million PDF producers for a tiny market.



And the ones that can't survive, won't. Competition is what markets are all about.

If there's anything wrong with the RPG industry, a plethora of PDF products available for purchase is not it.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am not really referencing people such as Phil Reed.  I like, and buy, his stuff.  However, there is a glut of material that is competing for dollars.



Most of which goes ignored and unbought, so while they may be technically competeing with the Phil Reeds of the PDF market, they really aren't.


----------



## buzz (Nov 15, 2005)

(Thinks some more about this.)



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> If anything, the hobby needs a organization that remains untied to the publishers that is capable of generating longterm interest in the hobby.



This is also conflating discussion about the _industry_ with discussion about the _hobby_. Which is pretty much par for the course when discussions like these come up.


----------



## JohnNephew (Nov 15, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Or if someone points out something positive how those are all exceptions and that D&D CANNOT be doing as well as they claim it is and they must, despite saying they're not, be counting the miniatures into their RPG numbers.




I participate in a private industry forum where there are monthly polls on retailer sales.  Month after month after month this year, the numbers have been weighted on the downside.

I read Comics & Games Retailer every month, as I have for years.  Consistently, the numbers reported by retailers for RPGs have been reflecting declining sales.  I'm looking right now at the September 2005 issue.  While one must take C&GR's numbers with a grain of salt (due to issues of methodology, sample size, etc.), you can see a pretty clear pattern -- there's a graph of average monthly sales of the reporting stores' best selling RPGs.  The month of April 2005 is lower than any previous month on the graph (going back to July 2001), May is lower, and June (the month with the new numbers in this issue) is lower again.  Not just down from a peak, but the lowest numbers reported in the past four years; not just for d20, but for all RPGs.

Like I said, there's lots of reason to handle C&GR numbers with caution, but what is reported there is in synch with what I have heard from retailers, distributors, and other publishers.

If you look at the publishing schedules of the major and minor players in RPGs and more particularly in d20, over the past two or three years, there are some patterns to be seen. Maybe these patterns are not at all apparent to the end consumer, who perhaps does not read the distributor catalogs each month and compile a mental graph of who is producing how many titles in which areas over the years.  If you walk into a game store, you see a big pile of d20 books, most of which you've probably never seen before; so it must be still booming, right?  Ask the retailer what his turn rate on d20 inventory has been this year, versus last year, versus the year before; ask how many titles they pre-order today on a new d20 release from a major publisher, versus one, two, or three years ago; what their average monthly buy is in the RPG category now versus the past.

For a while, I actually charted the number of new d20 products solicited each month in Game Trade Magazine, to understand what was going on.  At the same time that retailers and distributors were starting to sound warnings about a glut in product and talking about paring back on their pre-orders, publishers were still increasing the number of releases...it was clear that this was headed for a crash.  At the time, some publishers who were churning out the releases were often still claiming that business had never been better, each book sold more than the one before, and so on.  At a Christmas party one year, a distributor told me that he had ordered 100 copies of a new book from one well-known d20 publisher...and sold less than 10.  So maybe the publishers thought they were doing great, and didn't realize that this distributor was likely to cut his pre-order on their next book by 90%.  Eventually, those slashed distributor orders resulted in inevitable consequences: delayed and cancelled books, and reduced production schedules.

If somebody wants to chart this out, here's a simple way to analyze the market situation in an empirical manner: Take the top 10 d20 publishers (to eliminate debates over who might have been just doing it as a hobby rather than a business or whatever else), and total up the number of products they have released each month, going back to August of 2000.  Anyone want to take it on?  It would not be conclusive, but it would provide an objective set of data that would at least provide insight into publishers' willingness to invest in new RPG titles, which should bear a meaningful relation to how well the category is doing.

The ideal way to do it would be to compile the weekly receiving reports of a major distributor -- that would reflect what actually was delivered to a distributor warehouse and released to the market, as opposed to what was announced and solicited but may never have been published (conversely, in a hot market products sometimes get released without advance solicitation -- a publisher churns something out on short notice and needs orders sooner than the 3-4 month catalog pre-order cycle).


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 15, 2005)

tf360 said:
			
		

> The basis for this opinion comes from a conversation I had with several longtime industry insider/distributor. The theory was that an rpg store needs to be in one of three areas. And in this day and age, rpg stores still account for a large percentage of sales.
> 
> 1) population base of 50,000+
> 2) close proximity to a military base
> ...




Indeed,  Ryan Dancey recently mused that this was a large reason for the "bottom dropping out of the market."  A good percentage of the customer base is overseas in Iraq.  Also, another related segment is having financial problems, the immediate family of those overseas.



> But I think that the competitor that's really hurting rpg's is online and casino poker.




My understanding from one of my local FLGS owners is that it seems the poker boom is starting to go down.  People are still playing, but it's reached the point where sales of poker products are way, way down.


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 15, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> And yet in theory they have more disposable income as they get older. I know that's true for me and most of my gaming friends, anyway. I buy things now that I wouldn't even consider buying when I was 15 and dreaded a new Monstrous Compendium Appendix because I knew I wouldn't be able to afford it.




Except, they tend to have less, often _much less_ disposable time.  In my experience, most of the players I've gotten to play D&D recently have been in the teenage years (mostly from other games).  They have the time to play, and get the "disposable income" from their parents (a side effect of this tends to be that they are often the spoiled children who come into the game).


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 15, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But sales are still down for good stuff.  I buy less stuff now because there is so much less that I need.




When d20 products first came out, I bought all of them.  I'm buying very little now (admittedly,some of that is personal financial hardships - but not that much).  The main reason for me is compatability.

I found I wasn't using the 3rd party products because they often weren't compatible.  Book A would have some good ideas I'd like to use.   Book B would have other ideas I'd like in that area, but they didn't work with Book A's ideas.  Plus, I'd only be using a fraction of things from a dozen books, which caused all sorts of checking and referencing between a dozen books.

Sure, I could site down and reconcile the differences and tie them into my campaign.  However, at this time in my life, I don't have time for that.  Building a campaign and adventures takes enough time out of me, I don't have any extra to build something from a mish-mash of products.  

Right now, I mostly buy WotC products.  If I buy a 3rd party product, it's because I want to use everything in the product for my campaign (for example, if I decided I wanted a pirate series, I'd likely pick up a book on seafaring adventures).

Now, my choice of campaign setting has something to do with the WotC dominance.  I love Eberron, and have focused on things that work there.  If I choose to run in the Diamond Throne campaign, then I would focus on those products.  Still, my purchases would still be limited to those that directly tie into that, and those I want to use completely.


----------



## philreed (Nov 15, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> There was a time when most of these people would publish the items on the web for free.




I used to produce a healthy amount of free stuff. I stopped when I realized that only 1 in 1000 people took the time to e-mail a simple "thanks" to me. Even the free stuff I've released this year has generated very, very few "thank you" messages.


----------



## philreed (Nov 15, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> Most of which goes ignored and unbought, so while they may be technically competeing with the Phil Reeds of the PDF market, they really aren't.




But they are taking up valuable space and make it harder for people new to PDFs to know what is worth spending money on. And we can't forget about the people that buy a few PDFs, hate them, and swear off of PDFs. This exact problem has seriously impacted the M&M Superlink license -- I regularly encounter people that hated some early purchases and refuse to buy anything for Mutants & Masterminds that isn't published by Green Ronin.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 15, 2005)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Man, has it been 15 years already?  I seem to recall this exact same kind of banter back in the days of 2nd edition...



Actually, it's been about a week and a half. Or maybe it just seems like it.


			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> ...the hobby needs a organization that remains untied to the publishers that is capable of generating longterm interest in the hobby.



Gee, how did I know this was coming? Let me guess, you think there should be an RPG Society or some such thing.

You know, I have so much material right now that it would literally take me years to make use of it all. To run an Iron Kingdoms game, an Exalted game, a Call of Cthulhu game, a d20 Modern game, an Iron Lords of Jupiter game, not to mention EPIC Modern or DINO-PIRATES OF NINJA ISLAND (or whatever JPL's next brainwave is), is going to take me years to do.

I still buy stuff, of course (I'm weak), but if every d20 publisher on the planet disappeared tomorrow, my gaming would carry on just fine, thank you.

Especially since, as a d20 publisher myself, I'd presumably be off with all the rest, and we'd have nothing to do but game all day.

But seriously, associating industry profitability with enjoyment of the hobby just isn't logical. The one is unconnected to the other. Selling RPGs is NEVER going to be very profitable. RPGs are hard to explain, appeal to very few people, are expensive to produce, and are difficult to market and sell. Every now and then some innovation will spark a resurgence and there'll be a rush of profitability, and for the top producers there's probably some return on investment, but it's always going to be small, and it's always going to be risky.

But the games will always be around. And all you really need is some imagination, a lot of time and few things to kickstart your head. Heck, I started my Barsoom campaign without ANY products whatsoever. I made up some rules and let fly. I can pretty easily do that again. Gaming will always be available, it'll always be fun, and I'll never have trouble finding players.

Industry != Hobby


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 15, 2005)

D&D 3.75?

  Who says the Hobby is diminishing, anyhow?


----------



## tf360 (Nov 16, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> My understanding from one of my local FLGS owners is that it seems the poker boom is starting to go down.  People are still playing, but it's reached the point where sales of poker products are way, way down.




One important fact to consider is that poker supplies are no longer the exclusive domain of FLGS or other niche shops. They're sold practically everywhere, from high-end gift shops to supermarkets.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Nov 16, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> But they are taking up valuable space and make it harder for people new to PDFs to know what is worth spending money on. And we can't forget about the people that buy a few PDFs, hate them, and swear off of PDFs. This exact problem has seriously impacted the M&M Superlink license -- I regularly encounter people that hated some early purchases and refuse to buy anything for Mutants & Masterminds that isn't published by Green Ronin.



Isn't this less of a problem now at RPGNow?  I mean with the small publishers with their own site.

As far as the problem with some people swearing off pdfs after one purchase...well, that's dumb.  PDF's aren't the problem, crappy product is the problem.  I've been burned a couple times with some bad Superlink product, but I still buy from the guys I know and trust to put out quality material (like Ronin Arts, RPGObjects, Blue Devil, LPJ Design, etc.).  All it's going to take to win those guys back is a solid pdf product that gets great word of mouth.  With more and more publishers turning to pdfs (this is a good thing, IMO) it's going to be harder for gamers that want new material to ignore the format.  It may take a little time, but things are moving steadily in that direction.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Nov 16, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> WotC is pretty much the only entity with enough resources to have any impact. Maybe WW, too. A non-profit "Society for the Furtherance of Gaming" is an unrealistic hope, IMO. I'm not sure it's even necessary.




It already exists. The Committee for the Advancement of Role-Playing Games, CAR-PGa, has been around for years. Paul Cardwell, the founder, is a font of information about early RPGs and a tireless advocate doing more good on his own to set the story straight about RPGs than the average gamer. I was in an APA with him years ago, and he's a great guy. That said, have I had the money to send him or do much to support his work? Sadly, no. Which is probably the story of most gamers who even think about it.


----------



## buzz (Nov 16, 2005)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> It already exists. The Committee for the Advancement of Role-Playing Games, CAR-PGa, has been around for years. Paul Cardwell, the founder, is a font of information about early RPGs and a tireless advocate doing more good on his own to set the story straight about RPGs than the average gamer. I was in an APA with him years ago, and he's a great guy. That said, have I had the money to send him or do much to support his work? Sadly, no. Which is probably the story of most gamers who even think about it.



Ah, yes. I think I've been to their site in the past. Great collection of literature.

But what do they do on a day-to-day basis?


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 16, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I used to produce a healthy amount of free stuff. I stopped when I realized that only 1 in 1000 people took the time to e-mail a simple "thanks" to me. Even the free stuff I've released this year has generated very, very few "thank you" messages.




Most of the free items have released have gotten worse notices, and less attention, than things I paid for. 

Its odd, but its my personal experience nontheless.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 16, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Ditto when said persons report positive and supportive data. It's just a different group of ragers.
> 
> EDIT: Joe beat me to it. There's also some irony I could point out (not Joe-related), but that wouldn't be particularly productive.




Actually, those "ragers" are the pros you theoretically wishes would chime in, like Rasyr. At this point, I doubt that you or Joe have any real interest in hearing what anyone who works in gaming has to say that doesn't support your current positions, as especially after looking at the last time Joe started threads like this, wherin he yet again ignored anyone pros who didn't tell him how well things were going.

But hey, I see you folks are now going 2 for 2 by telling Phil Reed he doesn't know what he's talking about either, so none of us should get our hopes up, should we?

I keep thinking I should get a colleage to start an account here are parrot the whole, "The Industry is doing great and there's enough room for all the small press outfits!" line people are so fond of, and see how he/she is instantly acclaimed as being informative and wise.

Enh. I'll be over with Tim.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 16, 2005)

Oh -- cooperatuve promotion of the hobby is supposed to be one of GAMA's jobs, isn't it?


----------



## Kristivas (Nov 16, 2005)

Hjorimir said:
			
		

> You must not visit the associated message boards of those MMOs then. There is nothing but rants about nerf this nerf that. People have been crying for nerfs in MMOs so long it goes back to when Zug wanted Roog's rock nerfed because it was shinier than his. Or what I'd call the, "Hi, I'm scissors, paper is balanced, nerf rock" posts.





Oh, I visit them, but while I'm playing, I don't have to stop over such an arguement: We're going to run over and attack General Drakkisath..  and the whole game stops because the Warrior's player goes:  "Guys, I don't think his AoE is supposed to do that!  Don't I get a save?!  I didn't get to roll!"  Then, the priest goes "Yeah, that was way too much damage, this must be broken."

No, his ass doesn't get to roll and that AoE *IS* supposed to do that.  You just deal with it and continue, because it's a gaming system with set rules _as you're playing_ .  It's not a few people's personal interpritation of a system.

It might change later after some board whining, but it will never change mid-play.


----------



## Belen (Nov 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Oh -- cooperatuve promotion of the hobby is supposed to be one of GAMA's jobs, isn't it?




Yes, but GAMA is a joke.  They focus on the retailers, but never seem to find there tail end where is concerns anything else.  Besides, GAMA promotes all games and I do not think that RPGs are much of a concern for them any longer.


----------



## Belen (Nov 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, those "ragers" are the pros you theoretically wishes would chime in, like Rasyr. At this point, I doubt that you or Joe have any real interest in hearing what anyone who works in gaming has to say that doesn't support your current positions, as especially after looking at the last time Joe started threads like this, wherin he yet again ignored anyone pros who didn't tell him how well things were going.
> 
> But hey, I see you folks are now going 2 for 2 by telling Phil Reed he doesn't know what he's talking about either, so none of us should get our hopes up, should we?
> 
> ...




That's because no one from Steve Jackson, WOTC, or WW seems to be posting about the issue.  And John is correct about game store owners.  Even WOTC RPG orders have been halved in my area lately.  The gamestores that are managing to stay afloat are diversifying away from RPGs and even TCGs.  The only TCG that seem to be selling is Magic.


----------



## Belen (Nov 16, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Gee, how did I know this was coming? Let me guess, you think there should be an RPG Society or some such thing.
> 
> You know, I have so much material right now that it would literally take me years to make use of it all. To run an Iron Kingdoms game, an Exalted game, a Call of Cthulhu game, a d20 Modern game, an Iron Lords of Jupiter game, not to mention EPIC Modern or DINO-PIRATES OF NINJA ISLAND (or whatever JPL's next brainwave is), is going to take me years to do.




Fine....let's just imagine that the concern does not revolve around you or even many ENWorlders.  Maybe I want my future kids to be able to find a D&D group etc.  You have established that you do not agree with me on several occasions, so why bother posting?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I participate in a private industry forum where there are monthly polls on retailer sales.  Month after month after month this year, the numbers have been weighted on the downside.




Which I wasn't arguing with. Even in the downside though, there are still publishers doing well even if they are in the minority or are printing to demand (similiar to manufacturing with a JIT, just in time, system). and selling out, even if it's of a smaller print run.

Which still doesn't count the big dog, WoTC, claiming that they've had their best year ever, without miniatures.

Perhaps D&D is it's own industry with the rest of the companies falling in a way distant second.


----------



## buzz (Nov 16, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> But hey, I see you folks are...



I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from lumping me in with any nebulous "you" you wish to discredit. I'm just pointing out that the disbelief goes both ways.

I've also said nothing in reference to Mr. Reed. If anything, I'm eager to hear what he says.


----------



## buzz (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Maybe I want my future kids to be able to find a D&D group etc.



As long as WotC is doing well, this should not be a problem. Assuming that the industry is in threat of dying, WotC, or whomever ends up owning D&D, will survive. Just be sure to teach your kids how to play.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You have established that you do not agree with me on several occasions, so why bother posting?



IMO, becasue barsoomcore has a proven track record of knowing what time it is, IYKWIM.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You have established that you do not agree with me on several occasions, so why bother posting?



I'm not following where you're going with that line of thought.  If someone disagrees with you they shouldn't post?  Your debatable statements should be let to stand without contesting?

I always appreciate it when Corey posts.  He's one of my favorite posters.  The only times I don't find his posts insightful and interesting is when they are funny and interesting.  If I had to make a list of people that I only know online but I'd like to meet and hang out with in real life, he'd be near the top of that list.  Especially if it means playing in his stewardess game, naturally.  

In other words, I'm very glad he bothers posting.  And I tend to agree with him 100% in this regard.  The Gaming Hobby != the Gaming Industry, and I'm fine with that.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> That's because no one from Steve Jackson, WOTC, or WW seems to be posting about the issue.  And John is correct about game store owners.  Even WOTC RPG orders have been halved in my area lately.  The gamestores that are managing to stay afloat are diversifying away from RPGs and even TCGs.  The only TCG that seem to be selling is Magic.




An interesting thing about store orders is that WoTC noted that more than half their sales come from nontraditional venues. I imagine that's probably things like amazon,buy,walmart, and other online sellers.


----------



## Belen (Nov 16, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm not following where you're going with that line of thought.  If someone disagrees with you they shouldn't post?  Your debatable statements should be let to stand without contesting?




Nope, I was refering to his disdain for my idea regarding an RPG society and decision to denigrate it every time I mention it anything like it.  It's like me following him around complaining about his campaign world...constantly...every time he mentions it,


----------



## Belen (Nov 16, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> An interesting thing about store orders is that WoTC noted that more than half their sales come from nontraditional venues. I imagine that's probably things like amazon,buy,walmart, and other online sellers.




I am sure that online retailers have hit the store orders hard, but that happened a while ago.  They have had their orders cut in half recently, especially their preorders from people who want the book when it is released rather than waiting a month for amazon.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Nope, I was refering to his disdain for my idea regarding an RPG society and decision to denigrate it every time I mention it anything like it.  It's like me following him around complaining about his campaign world...constantly...every time he mentions it,



Ah, I see.  I hadn't noticed that.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am sure that online retailers have hit the store orders hard, but that happened a while ago.  They have had their orders cut in half recently, especially their preorders from people who want the book when it is released rather than waiting a month for amazon.




afaik, it's an ongoing thing as it was mentioned fairly recently by WoTC no? It wasn't like it was an issue and then stopped being one. And of course this doesn't count second hand redistribution through sources like e-bay or second hand sellers through Amazon.

While the preorder thing sucks for amazon, I've heard it doesn't happen all the time, it doesn't happen with every web site (for example, wallmart seems to do a pretty good job which sounds odd), and some people are going to cancel and reorder to get that 30-40% discount.


----------



## Belen (Nov 16, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> afaik, it's an ongoing thing as it was mentioned fairly recently by WoTC no? It wasn't like it was an issue and then stopped being one. And of course this doesn't count second hand redistribution through sources like e-bay or second hand sellers through Amazon.
> 
> While the preorder thing sucks for amazon, I've heard it doesn't happen all the time, it doesn't happen with every web site (for example, wallmart seems to do a pretty good job which sounds odd), and some people are going to cancel and reorder to get that 30-40% discount.




Not sure if it is still policy, but WOTC had been holding new releases from Amazon in order to give stores first dibbs, but that could have changed recently.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not sure if it is still policy, but WOTC had been holding new releases from Amazon in order to give stores first dibbs, but that could have changed recently.




I know it still happens with a lot of things, not just WoTC. I've always figured it was poor management by Amazon.com. Nothing like seeing the new manga you're collecting in the store and Amazon telling you it's still not out yet! :\


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Yes, but GAMA is a joke.  They focus on the retailers, but never seem to find there tail end where is concerns anything else.  Besides, GAMA promotes all games and I do not think that RPGs are much of a concern for them any longer.




The important point is, I think, that GAMA supports RPGs, board wargames, which are piddly compared to RPGs and cards, which are about a zillion times as huge as RPGs.

I think there are some serious problems with one organization dealing with such different scales. Certainly, there are exceptions where the scales cross over (Most commericial print game companies don't need Curt Schilling -- yet, and there are definitely card games that sell worse than middling RPGs), but each section really desrves its own treatment. The Origins Awards keep underlining this year after year, because their relevance suffers for their over-broad scope.


----------



## Diremede (Nov 16, 2005)

I think that the problem is that the big boom is over, its time to face that fact.  If publishers think that they are going to continue to sell products at the volume they have in the past they are just fooling themselves.  Lets take a good look at the overall picture here.  

1.  D20 and 3rd edition are released along with the birth of the OGL allowing other companies to print material to support D&D through the D20 system, but other games that use the D20 system.  This leads to a massive sales of the core books and fresh and new 3rd party materials from new publishers, the market is new and few products are out there, so people are splurging to build up some good reference books for campaigns and optional rule supplements for new classes etc.  Many good 3rd party books came out of this, and others were left in the dust to die.

2.  Not just a few short years later D&D and essentially most D20 games and rules get an overhaul, this prompts another boom in core book sales and gives previous 3rd party publishers an opportunity to reintroduce their previous products, perhaps polishing them up and fixing some of the short comings.  This leads to several upgraded products and new products to be published, and again in my opinion we saw many good 3rd party books and supplements and some good campaign settings come out of this second boom.

3.  The Present.  Its two years after the overhaul and 5 years, yes 5 years since the release of 3rd edition.  The market has many, many, many 3rd party publishers not to mention the many, many supplements that WoTC itself has published in support of D20 and 3rd edition rules.  

Now if you step back and take a look at everything and how long it has been, how many more books do you really think you are going to sell, unless you just have some kind of stellar must have product.  In my opinion, not many.  As a DM I own many supplements, I have bought many many books in the past 5 years, but I can tell you that I have bought only 5 books in 2005, and at this point have no plans to buy any future books that I see coming out.  Why??

1.  I have a fairly extensive library at this point of monster resource books, character class supplements, several setting books ( D&D Core, Forgotten Realms, D20 Modern, Stargate, Oriental Adventures, and Spycraft ), and several over all game supplements concerning optional rules, new ways to use skills, etc. 

2.  With my current library I can GM or play several different game genres, as well as supplement those games with ideas given in the books I own or ideas I come up with myself.

The point is I don't need any more books, there are probably very few books in the future that will have any appeal at all, as they will most likely be niche books that are specific to either a setting or dedicated theme.  Like most gamers the books I have amplified by a gamers imagination allows me to use what I have to make new things all the time, and I know I am not unique in this or alone.  This is why most publishers are probably seeing a decline in their sales and will probably continue to see a decline as most gamers are building up large libraries that they will soon no longer need to expand upon.  Sure there will probably be some good books to hit the shelves in the future, but I see that as a 1-2 book purchase per year at best.

All in all unless there is another big boom in the RPG mainstream, that is unless there is a D&D 4th edition on the horizon I don't see how publishers can hope to see the high number of sales like they have in the past.  Also as a side note, with all the D20 supplements and optional rules one could make a good theoretical "4th" edition D&D already, without needing new core books, so in truth for the industious gamer and the thinker, I don't see how even a 4th edition could ignite the mainstream success of the 3rd edition release, at least not for another 5 years or so when 3rd edition gaming would be slowing down with fewer and fewer players and a new younger generation of gamers can once again be tapped to lead the charge.

Just my opinion, but I think its a good view on the current state of the market and the D&D and RPG communities.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 16, 2005)

The overall ecline in the industry is not just RPGs. Hasbro has reported that CCG sales are down for the nine month period ending Oct; GW has reported their first year of contracting sales; sales of heroclix is waning, and a couple of new releases by WK have  simply bombed.

Interestingly, board gamaes are again on the rise.

Personally, the recent five year boom was a perfect conjunction: new D+D release, OGL, and LoTR. Yes, do not dicount the the effect of LoTR movie trilogy on the RPG boom.

The perfect storm is over.


----------



## buzz (Nov 16, 2005)

FYI, re: WotC promting the hobby/D&D:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=156542

EDIT: And: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=156412


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Personally, the recent five year boom was a perfect conjunction: new D+D release, OGL, and LoTR. Yes, do not dicount the the effect of LoTR movie trilogy on the RPG boom.
> 
> The perfect storm is over.



AND NOW THE SKY IS FALLING!!!11

Or, as has been reported many times, maybe D&D sales are at an all time high, at least since WotC took over the brand.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 16, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You have established that you do not agree with me on several occasions, so why bother posting?



Because it amuses me to do so.


JD: I hope the check arrived okay. Let me know if it bounces, alright?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> JD: I hope the check arrived okay. Let me know if it bounces, alright?



All I really wanted was for you to use your influence at Adamant to score me a free copy of that Mars book they're working on...


----------



## Graf (Nov 17, 2005)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> 2. Residual ".5" edition revision negativity. While 3.5 is an improvement, I know many 3.0 players who refused to switch, and others who are wary of buying 3.5 lest 3.75 come out next year.




I think the only peopel who have "residual 3.5 negativity" are people who are part of the book writing industry.
The vast majority of players happily adopted 3.5 and its improvements in gameplay and moved on.

Practically speaking the hobby is doing fine. A lot of smaller poor quality publishers are going out of business. A lot of other publishers find themselves nosing back toward the center (i.e. Monte Cook returning to DnD publishing with the new Ptolus book).
There was expansion, now there is contraction, then there will be expansion again.

I tend to think that the expansion this time around with probably center around WotC more than it did last time as they have finally gotten out of a defensive position and started to play aggressively enough to produce some more creative products.
Green Ronin is good for them. And Mr. Ryan's OGL system has forced Wizards to compete on quality for the first time ever.

And if you're the next Keith Baker you can get your ideas out to the masses with PDFs and either launch your own company or (more likely) get picked up by a competitor.

People, including Wizards, need to do a better job editing. But that's always the case.


----------



## zorlag (Nov 17, 2005)

I think people who are talking about financial situation influencing rpg market the most are right. This is especially true in USA. More and more citizens are drowning in debt, inflation is desperately covered by trickery in government statistics but still you can see prices rising despite of "core rate" (which is absurd way of reporting small part of the inflation as real inflation) percentage being fairly low. Although people often think inflation is same as prices rising, it's just a symptom. Real cause is inflation of the money supply, which happens through bank loans and the like. Federal reserve has been on print and let government spend - binge for a long time and game is just about up. Another reason is that good paying middle class jobs are moving overseas (manifacturing and some design jobs) and are replaced by low-wage sales jobs or nothing at all.

www.financialsense.com is very good site if you want to stay up on what's going on behind the scenes of real life, and who's literally stealing from your vallet everyday because they print and lend more money on the markets.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 17, 2005)

Please do not make this a discussion about politics in the real world.


----------



## philreed (Nov 17, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Interestingly, board gamaes are again on the rise.




I think this is because that while CRPGs can easily replace tabletop RPGs (for most people and, in fact, draw a crowd that would never touch a tabletop rpg), the computer still can't defeat the joy of playing with a well-produced boardgame. I mean, boardgames are social, some of the best are packed with fun toys, and pretty much everyone in the US has played a boardgame at least once in their life.


----------



## zorlag (Nov 17, 2005)

Board games are easier to approach than pure RPG's. Not everyone can visualize situations in their head comfortably. And board-games don't have "stigma" of geekiness that RPG's still have. And picking up board-game and possibly one add-on is cheaper than buing main books and setting books and then learning all the rules.   

Btw, my earlier post doesn't have much to do with politics, it's just pure financial stuff... Stuff that this thread is all about. I don't care about partisan issues at all. Sorry if someone felt offended but truth needs to be said now and then. You won't know anything about small market like RPG market if you don't know what's happening in the upper circles.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 17, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The gamestores that are managing to stay afloat are diversifying away from RPGs and even TCGs.  The only TCG that seem to be selling is Magic.




I was under the impression that Pirates was selling very well.  I don't know about Rocket Men, but I do see it in various locations.  Pirates, however, I see at Toys'R'Us and Target, not just at game stores.  Neopets continues to sell decently, afaik, and so does Yu-Gi-Oh, although that's on the decline.


----------



## Razuur (Nov 17, 2005)

I can't speak for game companies, only as a consumer.  I used to spend $75 to $100 on RPG products a month.  Now I am lucky if I spend that over 3 to four months.  Why?

There is simply less to buy within my tastes.  I am not a WOTC purchaser - I purchase all d20 and OGL.  

Everytime I walk in the gamestore I find less and less to purchase.  Now it is mostly a big book every couple of months (Black Company, WoW, Spycraft, Game of Thrones, etc)  There are very few "smaller" titles to purchase from.  Many of the game companies that used to release a book every month or three have been diversifying into other gaming systems (not interested al all) so then I am not buying from them.

It is kind of depressing actually.  I remember going into the game store and having to "choose" from a more neat products than I could afford.  Now, I wander into the games store once a month and see if there is anything there for me.

I just figured that I purchased more than most, and when the companies suffered from others not purchasing, now I am suffering because the companies I love can't afford to produce the product I love any more.

I take it back.  It is not kind of depressing - it is depressing.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 17, 2005)

In simple terms – 

With the advent of Open Gaming – the gaming industry changed completely. D20 is still a relatively new market; and like all new markets those that get in it first gain the market share; then bizzilions of others join in (as long as they can get the capital to start up – which does not take much in this case), then those that cannot survive fall off (these hundreds of tiny companies) and what is left are the core competitors that have the products that people want. 

Anyone with a business or economics major (or perhaps others) will recall how to create the more complex accounts of the above. 

While I don’t follow this market it seems in this case WoTC is the biggest and best; mongoose (with Monte Cook) seems like it might be the #2 (a distant one, but there still).

Think about this – with all the choices and such – would not one go with the tried and proven? WoTC is the original; the proven - if you play D&D you need the WoTC PHB, DMG and MM (at least) and of course WoTC books go best with other WoTC books (with rare exceptions).

Perhaps this is what is driving those record sales referred to above - I myself (and almost all of my fellow gamers I know personally) looked at various non WoTC books here and there and either are unimpressed with the quality or unsure about it; so why spend the money when right next to it I have a similar book with something I know will fit in with what I already have – and been proven to work. 

There are a rare few specific books that are the exception to the rule; such as “Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe.” (I forget the publisher – out of print anyways) which is outstanding and pretty much buries its WoTC competitor (for that type of book). And sure WoTC produces some disappointments (I own a couple) but if you actually look at all the stuff out there; MANY of these companies (not all!) produce 90%-100% garbage. WoTC and mongoose are the two that CLEARLY have quality products on the market that people buy regularly.

As far as DnD spreading; actually it is I think (I can’t prove that of course - I am sure someplace the market growth is measured by someone) – people young and old are looking for a way to get out from behind their game cube and socialize. Original TSR gamers kids are getting older; requiring less attention; and they are wanting back into the game (look at the Bboards advertising games and players; lots and lots) – with money – and kids that may very well follow in their parents footsteps (my young kids are showing interest).

Of course the theft of copyrights (i.e. shareware) cuts into sales – but then again nothing beats that actual book in your hands; reading online and reading at the gaming table before the session are two very different experiences.

And for JohnNephew:

I see what your talking about however how long as D&D v3.0 been out? Then v3.5? You are looking at raw numbers and not the entire business scenario.

The decline in sales is actually expected – or should be. 

With the v3.0/3.5 - Everyone had to buy the three core books (DM’s more); now they don’t, there was something new in the air: people get excited and buy impulsively, places like Amazon.com have the products at 30% off – so the decline in sales; since the previous numbers were skewed – however you are also not noting that once those “core products” were sold now you have guaranteed some repeat purchases over time as well as lowered the possibility of brand switching. Companies such as WoTC have the staying power to sustain those sales and still turn a profit.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 17, 2005)

zorlag said:
			
		

> Btw, my earlier post doesn't have much to do with politics, it's just pure financial stuff... Stuff that this thread is all about. I don't care about partisan issues at all. Sorry if someone felt offended but truth needs to be said now and then. You won't know anything about small market like RPG market if you don't know what's happening in the upper circles.




Perhaps not, but then you'd have been better served not discussing fiscal policy, goverment 'trickery' and money being "stolen" from consumers.  The fact of the matter is that there isn't a direct correlation between the economy and RPG spending.  If there was, then 3.5 would be a total flop.  The consumer confidence index hit an all time low 2 years ago...right when 3.5 debuted.  D&D 3.0 came out just as unemployment numbers were really starting to rise.  The consumer confidence numbers plummeted earlier this year...which makes it hard to believe that WotC had a great year, if the numbers were directly related.

The fact is that the equation is much more complex than a simple question of market downturns or upturns.  I was unemployed through part of 2000 and practically all of 2002, yet now I'm making a better salary than at any time previously in my life.  In fact, the market was going gangbusters amidst the bursting of the tech bubble, which one would think would target a higher percentage of D&D players than otherwise.  Of course, many D&D players are in high-school or college, where they are immune to the direct effects of the economy on their regular budgets.  Older gamers, by contrast, find D&D to be a good entertainment value compared to other options; one of the many reasons that RPG sales don't correlate direclty with the economy.

I think the idea that the market is saturated has much more to do with the downturn in sales (if such is the case) much more than an economic factors.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 17, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> There are a rare few specific books that are the exception to the rule; such as “Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe.” (I forget the publisher – out of print anyways) which is outstanding and pretty much buries its WoTC competitor (for that type of book).




That would be Expeditious Retreat Press, and no, it's not.  You can get it in print or PDF form.  And I think we can't sell short the idea of PDF sales and their impact on non-Wotc publishers.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 17, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> There are a rare few specific books that are the exception to the rule; such as “Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe.” (I forget the publisher – out of print anyways) which is outstanding and pretty much buries its WoTC competitor (for that type of book).





What book would be the WotC equivalent?

/M


----------



## buzz (Nov 17, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Older gamers, by contrast, find D&D to be a good entertainment value compared to other options; one of the many reasons that RPG sales don't correlate direclty with the economy.
> 
> I think the idea that the market is saturated has much more to do with the downturn in sales (if such is the case) much more than an economic factors.



I see your point, but I don't know if we can totally discount the effects of the economy. It affects the producers as well as the consumers. E.g., we saw how the US-Canadian exchange rate destroyed GoO, and the high price of gas is having an impact on everybody.

Basically, I think that it comes down to the RPG business always operating on the edge of profitability/sustainability. The problems Belen enumerated in the initial post have always been so. Booms and busts (e.g., d20), economic factors, oversaturation, etc. will always have an exaggerated effect on any company that is not WotC. There would need to be fundamental change in almost all aspects of the industry for this to ever not be true.

The fact that, as you rightly point out, _spending_ on RPGs isn't always linked to the economy is what keeps it alive in general. As a luxury (i.e., a hobby), it can thrive even in bad times; people need their escape from the day-to-day.


----------



## jgbrowning (Nov 17, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> That would be Expeditious Retreat Press, and no, it's not.  You can get it in print or PDF form.




He's right in that it's OOP in the distribution channel. I have a personal stash of about 30 at home that I'm selling down and that's it. I could have put the 30 back into the channel, but that would have just led to more headaches for the distributors and retailers.

joe b.


----------



## JohnNephew (Nov 17, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> And for JohnNephew:
> 
> I see what your talking about however how long as D&D v3.0 been out? Then v3.5? You are looking at raw numbers and not the entire business scenario.




The problem I face in these discussions is that when I present a "big picture" view, I get criticized for a lack of raw numbers or objective data.  But then when I then present specific data, or a methodology for studying the market by analyzing verifiable facts (such as the rate of new releases as reported in distributor weekly receiving e-mails over an extended period of time), I get criticized for presenting raw data rather than the big picture.  Hrm.



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> The decline in sales is actually expected – or should be.




I agree.  There's a natural decline in sales as a product line ages; certainly that has long been the pattern in the RPG field, at least in going-on-twenty-years that I've been involved.  Still, this thread is full of people who deny that there is any decline.

Well, whatever.  People can believe whatever they like.  I may care more about having an accurate picture of what's going on, since I have to make expensive decisions based on what I know and what I believe are the trends in the adventure game market.  Since we just surpassed our 2004 total year's sales, and 2004 beat 2003, I'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, but I suppose it's possible that we've just been lucky, or that if we'd stayed focused on d20 (and made strategic changes to compete more aggressively in that category) we would have done just as well.  Looking at the industry landscape today, even among the biggest survivors in the d20 space, I just don't believe it.


----------



## buzz (Nov 17, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Well, whatever.  People can believe whatever they like.  I may care more about having an accurate picture of what's going on, since I have to make expensive decisions based on what I know and what I believe are the trends in the adventure game market.  Since we just surpassed our 2004 total year's sales, and 2004 beat 2003, I'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, but I suppose it's possible that we've just been lucky, or that if we'd stayed focused on d20 (and made strategic changes to compete more aggressively in that category) we would have done just as well.  Looking at the industry landscape today, even among the biggest survivors in the d20 space, I just don't believe it.



I'm happy that you made the decisions you did; otherwise I might not have a shiny new copy of Ars Magica 5e sitting on my game shelf. 

Though, dang, you guys made some awesome d20 products. Dare I ask how Northern Crown is doing?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 17, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Well, whatever.  People can believe whatever they like.  I may care more about having an accurate picture of what's going on, since I have to make expensive decisions based on what I know and what I believe are the trends in the adventure game market.  Since we just surpassed our 2004 total year's sales, and 2004 beat 2003, I'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, but I suppose it's possible that we've just been lucky, or that if we'd stayed focused on d20 (and made strategic changes to compete more aggressively in that category) we would have done just as well.  Looking at the industry landscape today, even among the biggest survivors in the d20 space, I just don't believe it.




Heck I'm glad that we have Gloom and Happy Homes! A nice little card game even though it has some production problems. Any future sets forthcoming or other sets using a similiar layout? (the quality seems to have gone up in Happy Homes so I'm thinkin it's gone up again!)

Or how about a boxed set collection of Dungeoneer?


----------



## SBMC (Nov 17, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> What book would be the WotC equivalent?
> 
> /M




Well taht is why I called this one of the "rare few" - there is no equal to it in WoTC's library. The 3.0 Builders guide (or whatever it is called; can't recall) does not even come close to this book - while were at it I HIGHLY recomend it!


----------



## SBMC (Nov 17, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> That would be Expeditious Retreat Press, and no, it's not.  You can get it in print or PDF form.  And I think we can't sell short the idea of PDF sales and their impact on non-Wotc publishers.




Awesome! Thank you so much!!!! I was told it was out of print! Now my x-mas shopping woes are over!!!


----------



## SBMC (Nov 17, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> The problem I face in these discussions is that when I present a "big picture" view, I get criticized for a lack of raw numbers or objective data.  But then when I then present specific data, or a methodology for studying the market by analyzing verifiable facts (such as the rate of new releases as reported in distributor weekly receiving e-mails over an extended period of time), I get criticized for presenting raw data rather than the big picture.  Hrm.




You need both for any proper analysis – words to describe things and numbers as well





			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I agree.  There's a natural decline in sales as a product line ages; certainly that has long been the pattern in the RPG field, at least in going-on-twenty-years that I've been involved.  Still, this thread is full of people who deny that there is any decline.




That is not what I am talking about – I am saying that WoTC introduced a new gaming system that many current gamers adopted – as such sales were higher at the onset as those players bought the “foundational” products (three core books) then waned as the supplements came out and people cherry picked which ones they want. 

In other words when v3.0/v3.5 came out EVERYONE who wanted to keep gaming had to buy the core books; sales go way up – a skew. 

As far as 20 years; D20 along with 3.0/3.5 is a completely different product line than way back when. Professionally; I don’t see the real value of comparing the TSR products to the WoTC ones especially considering all of the social and economic factors over that many years. That is why most firms look at 5 years; not 20 unless they are in a very stagnant market.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Well, whatever.  People can believe whatever they like.  I may care more about having an accurate picture of what's going on, since I have to make expensive decisions based on what I know and what I believe are the trends in the adventure game market.  Since we just surpassed our 2004 total year's sales, and 2004 beat 2003, I'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, but I suppose it's possible that we've just been lucky, or that if we'd stayed focused on d20 (and made strategic changes to compete more aggressively in that category) we would have done just as well.  Looking at the industry landscape today, even among the biggest survivors in the d20 space, I just don't believe it.




Look at this website; look at WoTC website; at the very least there is enough long term interest to support a few gaming companies over the long haul. Also note that WoTC is owned by Hasbro; not a pushover company by any means – a top notch industry leader they are. If they thought gaming was dying I am sure they would strip themselves of it.

I personally don’t care if they break even or not as long as they produce the quality I want for my own recreational gaming experience. I also think that there are enough creative gamers with capital to spend out there that if WoTC went out of business someone (like Monte Cook & Mongoose) would easily pick up the pieces and keep the industry moving forward. Supply will always meet demand – whomever is the supplier or demander.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 17, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> He's right in that it's OOP in the distribution channel. I have a personal stash of about 30 at home that I'm selling down and that's it. I could have put the 30 back into the channel, but that would have just led to more headaches for the distributors and retailers.




Oh, I dig...I just meant that he could still order a printed copy if he wanted.  Which I think he did.  I can say, without hyperbole, that it is the ONLY D&D related book that I have read completely cover-to-cover since the core 3.  And that it is one of the most useful reference tomes written for DMs. EVAR.



			
				John Nephew said:
			
		

> 'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, but I suppose it's possible that we've just been lucky, or that if we'd stayed focused on d20 (and made strategic changes to compete more aggressively in that category) we would have done just as well. Looking at the industry landscape today, even among the biggest survivors in the d20 space, I just don't believe it.




Well, I think you know your business much better than I do.  But I think there are separate discussions there: a decline in the RPG industry, a decline in the d20 market therein and a decline for the _non-Wotc_ d20 market.  I'm sure if you'd stayed solely in the d20 market, you would have been in dire circumstances.  But if WotC has record sales, I think that upsets the overall applecart, perspective-wise, and that maybe the source of the disconnect.  I certainly think there's been a serious decline in the a large segment of the RPG market...but overall it's difficult to tell the effect on the WotC's and WW's of the world, especially when they claim to be doing well.  Take them out the of the equation, and the numbers change a great deal, I'd imagine.


----------



## JohnNephew (Nov 17, 2005)

Thanks for the nice words about ArM5.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Dare I ask how Northern Crown is doing?




Editorially speaking, I'm really pleased with the books, and very happy to have done them.  As for sales, they have been about what I expected.  They couldn't exist but for the fact that Doug Anderson created it as a labor of love (both as a writer and and artist), and Michelle and I were both so impressed with the setting that we wanted to see it in print regardless of the profitability or lack thereof.

In terms of comparative numbers -- the two Northern Crown volumes have each sold more than the last of the Penumbra titles did (that was Seven Civilizations, published in September 2004), which is a good thing and speaks well of the books' quality and appeal.  However, they've sold less than any of the adventures or supplements we've published for Ars Magica 5th Edition.


----------



## JohnNephew (Nov 17, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Heck I'm glad that we have Gloom and Happy Homes! A nice little card game even though it has some production problems. Any future sets forthcoming or other sets using a similiar layout? (the quality seems to have gone up in Happy Homes so I'm thinkin it's gone up again!)




The reprint + Unhappy Homes have still had a lot of problems with production, unfortunately.  Some improvements we were able to do have helped (such as the change of typeface to increase legibility on the rules box on each card), but I still spend too much time sending people repacements for cards that are illegible.  I wish our printer was giving us the quality of, say, Hecatomb.  If the sales remain strong, though, we may be able to do future runs at volumes that would allow us to hit economy of scale with other printers who might have better quality control or superior technology.

There is a future set in the works -- "Unwelcome Guests."  Keith Baker sent us a first draft card list just this past week, and I think he's going to try it out on some hapless victims at GenConSoCal this weekend.



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Or how about a boxed set collection of Dungeoneer?




At a future point in the lifecycle, this is something that would be fun to do (like, when multiple sets are out of print at the same time, and we might just bundle them all together in a new and bigger package, perhaps with other trinkets like figures for the characters rather than cardboard cut-outs).  Probably not until a few years from now, though...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 17, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> There is a future set in the works -- "Unwelcome Guests."  Keith Baker sent us a first draft card list just this past week, and I think he's going to try it out on some hapless victims at GenConSoCal this weekend.




Great news.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> At a future point in the lifecycle, this is something that would be fun to do (like, when multiple sets are out of print at the same time, and we might just bundle them all together in a new and bigger package, perhaps with other trinkets like figures for the characters rather than cardboard cut-outs).  Probably not until a few years from now, though...




Hmmm... perhaps you could team up with Fantasy Flight Games or have them do a board game version of it? Their tolkeens in Doom and that new board game they have, are fantastic and combined with the great visuals of Dungeonner, would be a great set to have.


----------



## rgard (Nov 17, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> So I thought this may deserve its own thread rather than be lost in the file sharing argument.  Here are my thoughts and opinions.  Feel free to roast me...
> 
> I think you are ignoring one fact:  The sheer volume of d20 garbage released.
> 
> ...




FLGS owner here.  Haven't seen a drop in RPG sales here, but keep in mind I've only been in business since March this year.

Most of the youngins coming in are looking for Yu-Gi-Oh or MtG cards...then they see the Star Wars and D&D minis...they get Mom or Dad to buy some, then it's a slippery slope to buying and playing RPGs.

We have 2 Star Wars and 3 D&D and 2 D20 Modern campaigns played here during the week.  Over half the players never RPG'd a pencil and paper RPG prior to visiting my store.

Doing my best here to keep the hobby alive...and pay the rent.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## rgard (Nov 17, 2005)

rgard said:
			
		

> FLGS owner here.  Haven't seen a drop in RPG sales here, but keep in mind I've only been in business since March this year.
> 
> Most of the youngins coming in are looking for Yu-Gi-Oh or MtG cards...then they see the Star Wars and D&D minis...they get Mom or Dad to buy some, then it's a slippery slope to buying and playing RPGs.
> 
> ...




One other insight to this.  Tell a parent that RPG's are cooperative games that require the players to work together rather than try to beat/annihilate each other...that gets a smile and a probable sale.


----------



## pogre (Nov 17, 2005)

What the industry really needs is a shot of sizzling excitement! Bring on 4th edition baby!!! The sooner the better.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Nov 17, 2005)

Blast you, Pogre!!!


----------



## philreed (Nov 17, 2005)

pogre said:
			
		

> What the industry really needs is a shot of sizzling excitement! Bring on 4th edition baby!!! The sooner the better.




I suspect your wish will come true soon enough. 

While you wait, though, keep your eyes open for those shooting stars. May as well have some backup wishes in place just to be certain it comes true.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 17, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> AND NOW THE SKY IS FALLING!!!11




Why does the shy have to be falling just because sales are down, and they are, despite brand manager comments.

D+D mini sales have bolstered the D+D brand sales, and Eberron releases have boosted campaign sales. Expansion books have suffered the same malaise that has affected 3rd party products.

This cycle decline is normal at this stage of a product life that doesn't have an accelerated at the point of inflection. Simply, after a growth spurt an opportunity for a nother spurt was missed and sales slowed alittle.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 17, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I think this is because that while CRPGs can easily replace tabletop RPGs (for most people and, in fact, draw a crowd that would never touch a tabletop rpg), the computer still can't defeat the joy of playing with a well-produced boardgame. I mean, boardgames are social, some of the best are packed with fun toys, and pretty much everyone in the US has played a boardgame at least once in their life.




True. I've found myself palying more board games just for the fun of playing. Also helps that some of the new board games have tons of cool minis aw well, re- Descent.

I wonder if GW will wake upto the massive demand that a heroscape has and re-release Hero Quest... dare I say even Talisman (and not for $150)


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 17, 2005)

The economy sucks, nerds are losing their cushy tech jobs due to bean counters & automation and money is getting tighter all around.


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 17, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Incredible. About all the points about what's going wrong are pretty much what Wizards is *not* doing.
> 
> Cheers!




Rhetorically speaking, do you _ever_ come up for air?

Rant On:

More to the topic of the thread, like some others have said, I have found my game purchases dropping off sharply this year, although they decreased in 2004 as well. (My wife is good enough to track my game expenditures and at periodic intervals confront me with what I have spent.  Bless her heart.   )  In both years, I have simply found less to buy that grabbed my attention.  I also noticed just less product on offer (John Nephew's point).  If there is a glut of print products, I am not seeing it.

It seems to me, rather, that too much of the product on offer is a rerun of ideas that have already been around the block.  E.g., Heroes of Horror?  Been there done that. Forgotten Realms?  The proverbial dead horse now being beaten for the umpteenth time and beyond recognition.  Stormwrack?  Let's see.  How many sea supplements do I have/need?  Only Eberron holds out any promise for something new/different.  

While the examples I use are from Wotc, much the same goes for d20 publishers, albeit to a much lesser degree.  D20 products are, in fact, one of the few bright spots.

Northern Crown (the first book anyway) was great.  Liber Mechanus for IK was good to see.  Legends of the Samurai is awesome beyond words.  

It seems d20 publishers can still turn out top notch products not thematically done to death already, while Wotc hasn't had an original thought since Eberron.  Oh, wait!  Wotc had to get that idea off someone not at the time working for Wotc.  Oh wait!  Incarnum!  Oh wait! Incarnum sucks beyond words!  (See reviews of Incarnum, this site, for details)

If there is a downturn in the market, I blame Wotc as industry leader for not leading with better, more imaginative products.  Spell Compendium?  Yawn.  Pact/True Name/Shadow Magic?  Yawn.  "More of the same only different!"  That should be Wotc's moto.

Part of the problem, IMO, is Wotc's blind adherence to the "too many settings killed TSR so we offer you Eberron and the moldy oldy Forgotten Realms."  This is a large load of bilge trowelled out by persons desparate to keep the spotlight on their fading place in the RPG universe and Wotc fellow travellers for whom it seems from outward appearances that "good enough" is "good enough" so long as they continue in their employment.  TSR did not fail because it fractured its market with too many settings; it failed because it did not grow its market with those settings.  With no growth, then, and only then, did all those settings fracture the market in a way that hurt the company.  Wotc is correct not to follow suit only if they admit of no ability to grow their market with a new setting.  That would be a sorry admission for a company that trades in the imagination.

New settings spur new ideas - E.g., Birthright, Darksun, Ravenloft etc..  By eschewing new settings, and unable to otherwise match the innovation of the d20 publishers, Wotc lowers the creative and imaginative bar with a desultory effect on the market.  Like 'em or not, agree with 'em or not, Wotc is the market leader; they shape the market.  And they are, IMO, boring the market to death.

I do not mean to dismiss all the posts that look to various socio-economic data to explain why there is a bit of a malaise.  I think there are valid points there and there are certainly multiple factors at work.  One of those factors I believe to be Wotc's hyper-conservatism as regards the imagination and the trickle down effect when its widely marketed products suggest same old, same old.

That Wotc is enjoying "record sales" with its strategy says nothing at all contrary to my point.  The market leader is leading the market.  Duh! Rather, Wotc's success butresses my point - they are shaping the market  - with same old, same old conservative imaginings and wringing the excitement and energy out of consumers thereby.  They are literally depressing the market for other than their cookie cutter, retreads of the imagination.  Works for them as a business.  Okay.  For the market . . . As Wotc might say to the d20 market (has said with its eternal sunshine of the spotless mind posts) - "It must suck to be you."

Rant off.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 17, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> New settings spur new ideas - E.g., Birthright, Darksun, Ravenloft etc..  By eschewing new settings, and unable to otherwise match the innovation of the d20 publishers, Wotc lowers the creative and imaginative bar with a desultory effect on the market.  Like 'em or not, agree with 'em or not, Wotc is the market leader; they shape the market.  And they are, IMO, boring the market to death.




But do new ideas spur new sales?  Apparently not as strongly as you seem to imply, or else much of the d20 market would be thriving much more than it currently is.  You seem to imply that WotC has some duty to prop up the market, though I'm not sure how I see what benefit that strategy offers them.  Is Ravenloft only good if WotC, and not S&S, publishes it?  Is Dragonlance only a proven seller if Wotc, not Soverign Stone, sells it?  That seems to imply that the ideas aren't important, but the publisher.

Northern Crown certainly sounds like a great idea (clearly inspired by series like Alvin Maker and Newton's Cannon)...but sales are good, not amazing, from what John reports to us.  And you seem to be limiting the discussion purely to d20 games; isn't the market larger than that?  GURPS just came out with a new edition, for example....do they count towards the industry's condition?  I mean let's be honest here, the different D&D settings you named aren't really all that different from core D&D in the grand scheme of things.  A game like Northern Crown, Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds is much more removed than they are.  I'm just not sure I take it as fact that more settings support would somehow alleviate any declining sales in the market...and especially not for other publishers.


----------



## buzz (Nov 17, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> ...while Wotc hasn't had an original thought since Eberron.  Oh, wait!  Wotc had to get that idea off someone not at the time working for Wotc.  Oh wait!  Incarnum!  Oh wait! Incarnum sucks beyond words!  (See reviews of Incarnum, this site, for details)



I think juxtaposing those two specific products is unfair. WotC produces consistently good, if not always great, products. Not to mention, all of the Eberron content has been designed and developed with the involvement of the WotC R&D staff. 

And despite possible failings in implementation, I don't see how, e.g., Incarnum, the environment books, or the upcoming alternate magic system products are any less innovative than most third-party products.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Spell Compendium?  Yawn.



This was one of the products everyone at the D&D sneak-peek seminar at GenCon were most excited about. Buying it is a no-brainer for me, while I'd have next to no interest in yet another campiagn setting. Heck, I want a feat compendium, too.

Good thing WotC cares about making products people actually want to buy.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Part of the problem, IMO, is Wotc's blind adherence to the "too many settings killed TSR so we offer you Eberron and the moldy oldy Forgotten Realms."  This is a large load of bilge trowelled out by persons desparate to keep the spotlight on their fading place in the RPG universe...



It's well documented by people actually invovled with TSR at the time that, while not the only reason, the glut of settings being cranked out for D&D back then was indeed among the reasons for their financial problems. Saying that repeating these mistakes is a good idea for WotC is nonsensical.

The fundamental problem with your rant is that it ignores d20 publishers. WotC does what it does best, and what makes good business sense: "core" products and two key settings (one of them the most popular RPG setting on earth). They may play it a little safer than d20 publishers becasue they have the integrity of the D&D brand riding on them. Thankfully, they do a very good job.

If you want campiagn settings and adventurous, risky d20-bending products, head on over to Amazon.com, RPGnow, or the ENWorld gameStore and you'll find 1,058 of them.


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 17, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> But do new ideas spur new sales?  Apparently not as strongly as you seem to imply, or else much of the d20 market would be thriving much more than it currently is.  You seem to imply that WotC has some duty to prop up the market, though I'm not sure how I see what benefit that strategy offers them.  Is Ravenloft only good if WotC, and not S&S, publishes it?  Is Dragonlance only a proven seller if Wotc, not Soverign Stone, sells it?  That seems to imply that the ideas aren't important, but the publisher.
> 
> Northern Crown certainly sounds like a great idea (clearly inspired by series like Alvin Maker and Newton's Cannon)...but sales are good, not amazing, from what John reports to us.  And you seem to be limiting the discussion purely to d20 games; isn't the market larger than that?  GURPS just came out with a new edition, for example....do they count towards the industry's condition?  I mean let's be honest here, the different D&D settings you named aren't really all that different from core D&D in the grand scheme of things.  A game like Northern Crown, Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds is much more removed than they are.  I'm just not sure I take it as fact that more settings support would somehow alleviate any declining sales in the market...and especially not for other publishers.




New settings spur new ideas.  At TSR, they did not spur new sales.  Hence, the proliferation of settings that did not equally spur sales fractured the market, the error not being in creating new settings but in creating settings that could not be leveraged to increase the number of gamers playing in and buying those settings.

We need to differentiate between (1) new ideas, (2) new sales and (3) an expanded market, ie new gamers.

New settings spur new ideas.  While Birthright, Ravenloft and Dark Sun may seem old hat now, at the time, they shed new light on the possibilities of the game - new ideas.

New settings should spur new sales.  Obviously, that is what any producer will be looking for.  How do they do that?  There are two choices.  Sell to those already playing - which risks fracture of the market.  Or.  Use the setting to try to expand the number of gamers - in other words attracting new gamers.

TSR failed with its proliferation of settings not because they merely existed but because they both failed to sell to the converted without fracturing the market and failed to bring in new gamers.

The size and resources of the publisher cannot be ignored in this calculus.  Wotc, with Hasbro’s backing and previously powered by Pokemon money, has a unique ability to promote its products.  If we assume that imagination is equal among all producers, d20 publishers will never be able to have a market effect with a new setting comparable to Wotc’s.   An idea can be equally good in a d20 publisher and Wotc’s hands but only Wotc has the ability to shape the market with the setting because it enjoys comparatively unequaled resources.  

Wotc obviously owes no duty to the d20 market, hence my last paragraph (Wotc to the d20 market - “It must suck to be you.”).  Nonetheless, their actions will inevitably impact the d20 market.  As a consumer, however, I think I can fairly note when I perceive Wotc’s impact as negative - and without thereby implying that Wotc owes the d20 market any duty. They are simply having a noticeable effect, without any consideration of a duty.

With respect to other, nond20 or D&D games, you are correct, I think, that they factor in.  However, their impact is negligible overall, IMO.  While the RPG market is gradually emerging from being d20ed some years ago, the gaming market is still predominantly d20 dominated.  This limits but does exclude the impact of nond20 games.  Overtime, I think nond20 games will play a greater role in defining the market and at that time Wotc’s impact will still be the strongest but not as strong as presently.  In this way, I am rather positive about the future.  The sky is not falling; the clouds are simply lowering at this time.  The d20 market outside Wotc may, however, be seriously hurt even under a lowering sky, and that concerns me, even if Wotc owes them no duty.


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 17, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> I think juxtaposing those two specific products is unfair. WotC produces consistently good, if not always great, products. Not to mention, all of the Eberron content has been designed and developed with the involvement of the WotC R&D staff.
> 
> And despite possible failings in implementation, I don't see how, e.g., Incarnum, the environment books, or the upcoming alternate magic system products are any less innovative than most third-party products.




It is a marketplace of ideas kind of thing.  Wotc is not innovating IMO in the marketplace as much as they are sticking to well worn paths that they know they can sell.  There is nothing wrong with this from a business standpoint and it makes for good business from what we hear.  It is, however, not a triumph of innovation but of market shaping power.

You are correct that some d20 publishers are following Wotc's lead.  This is a testament to Wotc's ability to shape the market, IMO.  Without Wotc's ability in that respect, however, we will see how this works out for the d20 publishers trying the "more of the same only different" or "everything old is new again" approach.  With Wotc shaping the market toward "more of the same only different," they are levraging their marketing strength that that the d20 publishers do not enjoy to an equal degree.  I imagine this is putting d20 publishers in something of a quandry of how best to respond beyond following suit.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> This was one of the products everyone at the D&D sneak-peek seminar at GenCon were most excited about. Buying it is a no-brainer for me, while I'd have next to no interest in yet another campiagn setting. Heck, I want a feat compendium, too.
> 
> Good thing WotC cares about making products people actually want to buy.




LOL!  Of course people will want to buy this!  That hardly makes it innovative, which then side slips my point.  I'm not saying Wotc is practicing bad business, quite the opposite!  "The same only different" sells.  If you like macaroni and cheese last night, you will probably buy it again in the future.  Wotc has no need to innovate if mac and cheese continues to sell out the doors.  Great business!  Not innovative.  You missed my point.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> It's well documented by people actually invovled with TSR at the time that, while not the only reason, the glut of settings being cranked out for D&D back then was indeed among the reasons for their financial problems. Saying that repeating these mistakes is a good idea for WotC is nonsensical.




Again.  You miss my point.  The "glut of settings" is the most obvious symptom but it is not the cause.  Over simplification, which seems to have a universal appeal, stops the thought process right there.  When you asl why the "glut" fractured the market, you get to the next layer of the onion - the "glut" fractured the market not simply because it was a "glut" but because it failed to either (1) sell without fracture to existing gamers or, and to my point, (2) failed to attract new gamers to the settings.  I will postulate - a new setting, beyond those settings already doing well, to be justified should be believed to hold the realizable potential to attract new players to the game.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> The fundamental problem with your rant is that it ignores d20 publishers. WotC does what it does best, and what makes good business sense: "core" products and two key settings (one of them the most popular RPG setting on earth). They may play it a little safer than d20 publishers becasue they have the integrity of the D&D brand riding on them. Thankfully, they do a very good job.
> 
> If you want campiagn settings and adventurous, risky d20-bending products, head on over to Amazon.com, RPGnow, or the ENWorld gameStore and you'll find 1,058 of them.




Begging your pardon, I do not ignore d20 publishers.  To the contrary, I note them as a bright spot for innovation.  What I do is grant Wotc its due - it is the market shaper and only Wotc presently enjoys that ability.

You seem, as far as I can tell, to be pleased with what Wotc has on offer.  I have no problem with that.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Wotc material is predominantly "more of the same only different."  If you like that, more power to you and Wotc as a business.  For me whoever, I see a negative market shaping effect that is negatively impacting other d20 publishers.  While Wotc owes these folks no duty, that does nothing to negate the negative impact of shaping the market to expect and accept but "more of the same only different."


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 17, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> When you asl why the "glut" fractured the market, you get to the next layer of the onion - the "glut" fractured the market not simply because it was a "glut" but because it failed to either (1) sell without fracture to existing gamers or, and to my point, (2) failed to attract new gamers to the settings.




Honestly, I think it's being overly optimistic to believe that a new _setting_ will attract new gamers.  I just don't see it.

It's possible that a licensed setting might possibly attract new gamers.  However, these will be gamers already attached to the setting, being brought into gaming.  It would also have to be something that already had an "RPG ready" audience, too.   Star Wars was a good example of that.


----------



## buzz (Nov 18, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> You seem, as far as I can tell, to be pleased with what Wotc has on offer.  I have no problem with that.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Wotc material is predominantly "more of the same only different."  If you like that, more power to you and Wotc as a business.  For me whoever, I see a negative market shaping effect that is negatively impacting other d20 publishers.  While Wotc owes these folks no duty, that does nothing to negate the negative impact of shaping the market to expect and accept but "more of the same only different."



The point is that I don't agree with your point.  I neither think that WotC is exclusively about "more of the same, only different" (no more so than any other d20 company, much less RPG publishers in general), and I don't think they are having any demonstrable negative impact on the d20 market as a whole, especially considering *they are the primary dirver of that market*. You're basically asserting your opinion of their products as irrefutable, and then making an inexplicable leap to citing it as the reason for some perceived _qualitative_ malaise in the d20 market.

Unfortunately, this doesn't really make any sense. The "decline" being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the _quality_ of products being produced, but the _sales_ of the products being produced. If anything, there's moire amazing product out there than anyone knows what to do with!

The time when third-party d20 publishers were aping the choices of WotC and producing derivative drivel that was "more of the same only different" is _long past_. The oceans of class splats, _settings_, and umpteen new feats and PrCs are gathering dust in discount bins. If d20 and OGL material is doing anything, it's straying _further_ from the "baseline" of WotC. What we're seeing are d20 games going OGL, and publishers trying to supply what they specifically know WotC _will not_. At least, the companies that aren't actively trying to go out of business are doing so.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> TSR failed with its proliferation of settings not because they merely existed but because they both failed to sell to the converted without fracturing the market and failed to bring in new gamers.
> 
> The size and resources of the publisher cannot be ignored in this calculus. Wotc, with Hasbro’s backing and previously powered by Pokemon money, has a unique ability to promote its products. If we assume that imagination is equal among all producers, d20 publishers will never be able to have a market effect with a new setting comparable to Wotc’s. An idea can be equally good in a d20 publisher and Wotc’s hands but only Wotc has the ability to shape the market with the setting because it enjoys comparatively unequaled resources.



TSR failed with its proliferation of settings because it's a flawed business practice. Like adventures, settings have a limited appeal, i.e., to DMs who use published settings and who are not currently satisfied using an existing one. I.e., a tiny slice of their fanbase. An even tinier slice is going to want to actively consume more than one.

The quality of the setting is irrelevant (unless you want to argue that Greyhawk, FR, Planescape, DL, Brithright, Dark Sun, Mystara, and Spelljammer were "more of the same, only different").

On top of this, creating a setting whole cloth, and then supporting it, requires a great deal of development resources. WotC learned from TSR that they cannot viably sustain 7-10 campiagn settings. To do so would be idiotic. Were WotC to announce yet another campiagn setting, with Eberron out only a few years now, the reaction would likely be a collective groan. No one is interested.

Whatever the reason for the current state of the industry, the lack of settings from WotC is not it.


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 18, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think it's being overly optimistic to believe that a new _setting_ will attract new gamers.  I just don't see it.
> 
> It's possible that a licensed setting might possibly attract new gamers.  However, these will be gamers already attached to the setting, being brought into gaming.  It would also have to be something that already had an "RPG ready" audience, too.   Star Wars was a good example of that.




I agree on both counts.  It would be necessary to do more than role out the setting and say "Here it is.  Come get it."  TSR basically did little more and paid for their sloth.  Wotc has demonstrated that when they want to they can "push" a setting with tie-ins etc.  Eberron has been pushed pretty well.  I do not know how well it is doing but my sense is it is doing fairly well.  How much of this is due to it being the only "official" alternative to the Forgotten Realms and how much is do to its own merits that are being pushed, I do not know.  I like Eberron for what that may be worth.  I firmly believe that if Wotc got serious about growing their business beyond FR and Eberron, they could do so and do so well.  But if mac and cheese is selling reliably, no need to risk a new receipe from a business standpoint.  Thus, I imagine, what I see as their conservatism. 

I definitely agree with your second point.  Hence, my interest in another thread where
someone speculated that the Magic the Gathering Worlds might be somehow tied into a 4E (not necessarily making 4E card based but just using the settings).  Now, _that_ seems like a way to grow the business with a new setting attracting new gamers if ever there was one.  Someone else said the MtG business unit nixed plans to hook up the two titles in the past; I hope that is no longer the case, if it ever was.

People complain about there not being enough new players coming into the hobby.  I don't see that changing by "playing it safe" with the Realms Mk6 or whatever iteration it is in, etc. nor with simply more "marketing," whatever that means.  I think to get new gamers you need to offer them something aimed squarely at them that you have reason to believe will prove attractive - a setting that speaks to them.  And only Wotc has the power and it _is_ in their business interest to have more customers.  But I'm roaming off topic here.


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 18, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> The point is that I don't agree with your point.  I neither think that WotC is exclusively about "more of the same, only different" (no more so than any other d20 company, much less RPG publishers in general), and I don't think they are having any demonstrable negative impact on the d20 market as a whole, especially considering *they are the primary dirver of that market*. You're basically asserting your opinion of their products as irrefutable, and then making an inexplicable leap to citing it as the reason for some perceived _qualitative_ malaise in the d20 market. .




Well, it is my opinion and I'll state it without flinching.  I'm not demanding you agree with me, however.  Certainly, Wotc reports that things are rosy for them.  I'd then expect my opinion would not meet with universal acclaim, if any at all.  It remains, however, my opinion.  



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this doesn't really make any sense. The "decline" being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the _quality_ of products being produced, but the _sales_ of the products being produced.




I think there is a connection between the two.  



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> If anything, there's moire amazing product out there than anyone knows what to do with!




I'd like to shop where you do.  Seriously, I am not stingy with spending for games (I have a large number) and I just continue to find less I am genuinely interested in.  



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> The time when third-party d20 publishers were aping the choices of WotC and producing derivative drivel that was "more of the same only different" is _long past_. The oceans of class splats, _settings_, and umpteen new feats and PrCs are gathering dust in discount bins. If d20 and OGL material is doing anything, it's straying _further_ from the "baseline" of WotC. What we're seeing are d20 games going OGL, and publishers trying to supply what they specifically know WotC _will not_. At least, the companies that aren't actively trying to go out of business are doing so.




Yes and no.  The d20 publishers do not all march in lockstep.  Wotc still significantly shapes the market and the d20 folks have to do business in the market so shaped.  Wotc is presently sending the message, IMO, "more of the same, only different."  This influences expectations in the market, IMO.  If Wotc conditions the market to expect A, B can still sell but it is somewhat going against the grain as Wotc's market shaping power is, IMO, considerable as they are far and away the market leader.  This is not saying "Wotc can tell customers what to buy."  That would not be true.  They can, however, exert influence through the management of their brand and the people who follow "officialdom." 




			
				buzz said:
			
		

> TSR failed with its proliferation of settings because it's a flawed business practice. Like adventures, settings have a limited appeal, i.e., to DMs who use published settings and who are not currently satisfied using an existing one. I.e., a tiny slice of their fanbase. An even tinier slice is going to want to actively consume more than one.




No.  It is flawed as it was executed by TSR.  The fallacy is excluding "as executed by TSR" from the statement  If executed well, I believe, multiple settings would expand the market and _thereby_ succeed.  TSR had half the puzzle but couldn't draw flies with its settings.  The problem was not uniquely the number of settings but also and more importantly their inability to draw new gamers to them.  I think everyone would agree if 10 new settings exponentially increased the market, that would be a good thing.  The key then is finding the settings that will draw.

The only DMs will buy setting material is another half-truth that ignores (1) how that "setting material" is put together and (2) all the DMs who complain because their players already have and have read the latest supplements.  But that is another topic. 



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> The quality of the setting is irrelevant (unless you want to argue that Greyhawk, FR, Planescape, DL, Brithright, Dark Sun, Mystara, and Spelljammer were "more of the same, only different")..




Quality is irrelevant?  I think not.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> On top of this, creating a setting whole cloth, and then supporting it, requires a great deal of development resources. WotC learned from TSR that they cannot viably sustain 7-10 campiagn settings. To do so would be idiotic. Were WotC to announce yet another campiagn setting, with Eberron out only a few years now, the reaction would likely be a collective groan. No one is interested.




If you have the resources, which I will imagine Hasbro could provide Wotc, there would not be an issue. 

If Wotc "learned" that you cannot support more than two settings and nothing more, they didn't learn much.  Sorry but the "common wisdom" is overly simplistic, IMO.

The reaction to a new setting would depend on how it was rolled out and what it's its target audience was determined to be and how its content looked to approach the target audience.  If they just went, "Here it is.  Come get it,"  sure, it would flop.  I would hope for a more thoughtful approach.  If it was aimed at Eberron and FR fans, it would also likely tank.  Unless the industry is more niche than I imagine, not everyone who might game does game, leaving lots of potential targets out there to be wooed, however.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Whatever the reason for the current state of the industry, the lack of settings from WotC is not it.




Correct.  My note in that regard is just that - a note.  New settings are not a panacea in and of themselves.  They are merely symptomatic of Wotc's "play it creatively safe" model that appears to be doing well enough for them.  Incarnum was a good try, even if it failed to fully achieve its promise.  I would like to see Wotc try more creative things.  That is not what I am seeing, however, and I believe their "play it safe" mode is coloring the market, boring it into a stupor.  As goes Wotc, so goes the hobby, 5 times out of 7.


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 18, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I do not know how well it is doing but my sense is it is doing fairly well.  How much of this is due to it being the only "official" alternative to the Forgotten Realms and how much is do to its own merits that are being pushed, I do not know.  I like Eberron for what that may be worth.




I'm speaking as a fan of the setting here.  I honestly think the best thing the setting has going for it is Keith Baker.  He's as supportive of his setting as he can been since it's not _his_ setting (i.e. not owned by him, and not exclusively developed by him).  I really think the Eberron/Keith Baker relationship is very close to the Glorantha/Greg Stafford connection.  WotC is certainly necessary for Eberron to have the audience it does, but I also think if it sinks, it will be because of decision made withink WotC.



> Someone else said the MtG business unit nixed plans to hook up the two titles in the past; I hope that is no longer the case, if it ever was.




As a former player, I would have liked to have seen a MtG world expansion for D&D.  I wonder how much the avoidance of doing so was avoiding the negative reaction such an announcement would make.  I remember early comments on Eric's boards about the possibliity being all negative to the idea.  Of course, this was from D&D player's perspectives.

Again, I would like to have seen it.  I wouldn't have bought it though, unless it was exceptionally well done and had an attraction besides it's connection to MtG.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 18, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I used to produce a healthy amount of free stuff. I stopped when I realized that only 1 in 1000 people took the time to e-mail a simple "thanks" to me. Even the free stuff I've released this year has generated very, very few "thank you" messages.




I'd like to take this moment to thank Phil Reed for all the free stuff he's made availabel for me, which honestly I can't separate from the stuff I've bought from him over the years.

Thank you Phil!


----------



## philreed (Nov 18, 2005)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I'd like to take this moment to thank Phil Reed for all the free stuff he's made availabel for me, which honestly I can't separate from the stuff I've bought from him over the years.
> 
> Thank you Phil!




You're very welcome. I'm glad you can get use out of the stuff.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 18, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> New settings spur new ideas - E.g., Birthright, Darksun, Ravenloft etc.. By eschewing new settings, and unable to otherwise match the innovation of the d20 publishers, Wotc lowers the creative and imaginative bar with a desultory effect on the market. Like 'em or not, agree with 'em or not, Wotc is the market leader; they shape the market. And they are, IMO, boring the market to death.




Not everyone wants new stuff – reason – I want to do it myself! What I need is a foundation to start with (Forgotten Realms for example) where I pick and choose what I want out of the setting then do the rest on my lonesome; and if new settings popped out from everywhere then my ideas would probably be a “copy” of some published material and not mine anymore…

You see Hasbro did their research here (a friend of mine took part in a huge marketing operation with them) – look at the products – each supplement has all kinds of stuff – so that folks can pick and choose what they want and the baseline stuff is there so you don’t have to do the actual “work” to start things from scratch.

Market research showed that gamers like – by a wide margin – to create their own settings but at the same time realized that the work of creating that foundation was vast. Thus most of them do and did use an existing one as the base/foundation for their own world; and that foundation is modified as the individual chooses.

That is one primary reason that WoTC does not have more settings – research said people did not want them – you can’t really tell me you can’t run a solid campaign with what WoTC has right now? We use things form FR and Ebberon – names of nations, cities, monsters, political ideas and exclude others – that my friend is what most gamers do and exactly what the research showed.




			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> But do new ideas spur new sales?  Apparently not as strongly as you seem to imply, or else much of the d20 market would be thriving much more than it currently is.  You seem to imply that WotC has some duty to prop up the market, though I'm not sure how I see what benefit that strategy offers them.  Is Ravenloft only good if WotC, and not S&S, publishes it?  Is Dragonlance only a proven seller if Wotc, not Soverign Stone, sells it?  That seems to imply that the ideas aren't important, but the publisher. .




This points out what I had said earlier – we all know that we need the DMG, PHB and MM (at least) to run a DnD campaign – all by WoTC – and what books go best with WoTC books? If you have “X” dollars to spend; how would you go? With the tried and proven or the little untested guy?


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> No.  It is flawed as it was executed by TSR.  The fallacy is excluding "as executed by TSR" from the statement  If executed well, I believe, multiple settings would expand the market and _thereby_ succeed.  TSR had half the puzzle but couldn't draw flies with its settings.  The problem was not uniquely the number of settings but also and more importantly their inability to draw new gamers to them.  I think everyone would agree if 10 new settings exponentially increased the market, that would be a good thing.  The key then is finding the settings that will draw.




This seems to advocate the '_if only they did it the RIGHT way, they'd be beating off new gamers with a stick_' theory that I often hear advocated, but never substantiated.  If attracting new gamers was this simple, it would have been done many times over by now.  Attracting new gamers isn't nearly as difficult as RETAINING them.  The huge leap in sales from the release of 3.0 and the OGL is owed, in large part, to attracting old gamers back to the brand who had long since left.  

TSR's settings were VERY popular within the existing fanbase...the problem was that most consumers could not afford to be fans of more than one or two settings, due to the volume of materials TSR released.  TSR's critical mistake was to assume that each settings rabid fanbase would dictate it's sales...but all that happened was that they cannibalized their own sales.  TSR was releasing ten times as much material, but selling less than WotC currently does.  It wasn't the settings that were the problem, or support for them...it was that most consumers have a relatively fixed budget for gaming products, and TSR was forcing them to choose amongst their products.

A large part of the equation that is ignored is that there are different classes of consumers.    During the big wave in the early 80s, many non-gamers purchased the game, tried it perhaps once to see what the fuss was about...and then never played again.  This surely happened during the 3.0 release, as well.  Many gamers purchase a few core books and then never purchase another...they don't HAVE to.  After the core three books, one could play happily ad infinitum.  Most gamers purchase occasionally, for either interest or actual need...but more often interest.

I don't see the current decline in sales as much more than the tide going out.  For all but the most serious of gamers, their needs have been sated.  By being on ENWorld, by definition, you are in a minority.  I've been to plenty of smaller cons where most of the RPGA members I meet have heard of ENworld, but never been here.  Two years ago, many hadn't even heard of it.  Consumer opinions here do not necessarily represent the majority or the average gamer.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 18, 2005)

Just a little anecdote about the numbers of younger gamers out there.

I play on OpenRPG exclusively.  I've been playing in various campaigns for the last three years, both as a DM and occastionally as a player.  In that time, I've DM'd about 30 players and played with about a dozen more.  Of those forty people, at least 15 have been 20 or under and about 30 have been 25 or under.  So, you can figure that about a third of the people I've gamed with on OpenRPG have been teens.

Think about that for a second.  

OpenRPG isn't exactly the most accessible medium for playing DnD.  People first have to be interested in the game and then submit themselves to the problems and bugs of an open source chat program that is not terribly user friendly.  This shows a fair bit of dedication and intestinal fortitude on the part of the players.  People who have only a casual interest would not put up with it.  Yet, over the last three years, I have consistently seen high school students playing the game over Open.  

You'd think that if there was such a drying up of gamers, it would only be old buggers like me playing there.  I've got one kid in my game that games four times a week!  (Ah to have that kind of time....)  Every time I put an ad up for a game, I consistently see that 1/3 number crop up with new gamers.  

I wonder if the drop in numbers that people reportedly see has more to do with a change of venue for teen gamers.  Instead of playing tabletop, I wonder if more and more teen gamers are playing in PbP games or chat based games with Fantasy Grounds, Ghost Orb or OpenRPG.  It certainly seems to me that perhaps it's not a case of less and less gamers getting into the game, but, rather, gamers get into the game in non-traditional means.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 18, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Rhetorically speaking, do you _ever_ come up for air?



 

*GVDammerung*, please let me just say that I strongly agree with your take. Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast has adopted an apparently successful business plan, offers perhaps the highest production values, can mount the biggest strategic marketing effort - and so far this year, I purchased one WotC title, because I find most of their products to be bland and rote, "fifty-one flavors of vanilla," not worth the cover price for the two or three bits that I might actually use when I play.


----------



## buzz (Nov 18, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I think there is a connection between the two.
> 
> I'd like to shop where you do.  Seriously, I am not stingy with spending for games (I have a large number) and I just continue to find less I am genuinely interested in.



So, unless your'e trying to objectively prove that there's a lack of good product out there, your hypothesis is: "There's a decline in RPG sales because there's not much out right now that I like."



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Yes and no.  The d20 publishers do not all march in lockstep.  Wotc still significantly shapes the market and the d20 folks have to do business in the market so shaped.  Wotc is presently sending the message, IMO, "more of the same, only different."  This influences expectations in the market, IMO.



Again, I don't buy this, and I don't think the market reflects it. Show me the trend of publishers making "more of" DMG2, HoB, HoH, WoL, Stormwrack, MoI, Fantastic Locations, and the Spell Compendium. Show me the Eberron and FR clones.

What I'm seeing is:

Atlas Games's _Northern Crown_
FFG's _Midnight_
Malhavoc's _Iron Heroes_, _Arcana Evolved_ and Ptolus
Green Ronin's _Thieve's World_, _Black Company_, and Advanced guides
Goodman Games's Power Gamer guides, Blackmoor, and classic adventure series
Necromancer Games's ToH books, Wilderlands setting, and "1st edition feel" adventure series
Mongoose having _completely dropped_ their generic d20 support in favor of Conan, Wars, Starship Troopers, B5, and Paranoia
Ronin Arts prodcuing, in general, products nothing like what WotC provides
Sword & Sorcery Studios focusing on Warcraft and supporting releases of Malhavoc, Necromancer, Goodman, etc.
Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms setting
Kenzer focusing on HackMaster and card games
AEG dropping d20 RPGs entirely

What I an _not_ seeing is "more of the same" stuff that WotC is doing. The days of Mongoose, S&SS, and FFG pumping out splats is gone.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> No.  It is flawed as it was executed by TSR.  The fallacy is excluding "as executed by TSR" from the statement  If executed well, I believe, multiple settings would expand the market and _thereby_ succeed.



Campaign settings do not expand the market. Campiagn settings are only of use to _people already in the market_. All campiagn settings do is cannibalize sales from other campaign settings.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> TSR had half the puzzle but couldn't draw flies with its settings.  The problem was not uniquely the number of settings but also and more importantly their inability to draw new gamers to them.



So, it's marketing, not settings, that matter.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> I think everyone would agree if 10 new settings exponentially increased the market, that would be a good thing.  The key then is finding the settings that will draw.



I think everyone would agree that if Bill Slavicsek praying to an elephant idol increased the market, that would be a good thing. Your second sentence doesn't follow your first. The key is finding out how to increase sales. WotC releasing 10 new settings, based on past precedent and basic knowledge of marketing, would be a phenomenal mistake.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> The only DMs will buy setting material is another half-truth that ignores (1) how that "setting material" is put together and (2) all the DMs who complain because their players already have and have read the latest supplements.  But that is another topic.



This is anecdotal and illogical. Besides collectors, setting products are of primary appeal to people actually playing in the setting, and of them, of even more appeal to the person running the campaign. A setting-neutral book, like the _Spell Compendium_ appeals to _everyone who plays D&D_.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Quality is irrelevant?  I think not.



It is to your argument. The quality of the various settings certainly didn't keep TSR from going out of business. You were arguing above that it wasn't the quality of the settings that TSR got wrong.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> If you have the resources, which I will imagine Hasbro could provide Wotc, there would not be an issue.
> 
> If Wotc "learned" that you cannot support more than two settings and nothing more, they didn't learn much.  Sorry but the "common wisdom" is overly simplistic, IMO.



It makes more sense than your argument.

WotC is supporting the number of settings for which they have resources to do profitably. If it were profitable or advantageous to support more than they do, they'd be doing it; the bean-counters would be making sure of that. WotC has access to more and better market research and buisness expertise than all other RPG publishers combined. If they're not doing something, there's a damn good reason.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> The reaction to a new setting would depend on how it was rolled out and what it's its target audience was determined to be and how its content looked to approach the target audience.  If they just went, "Here it is.  Come get it,"  sure, it would flop.  I would hope for a more thoughtful approach.  If it was aimed at Eberron and FR fans, it would also likely tank.  Unless the industry is more niche than I imagine, not everyone who might game does game, leaving lots of potential targets out there to be wooed, however.



So, your'e talking about expanding the hobby as a whole, and you're trying to put forward the idea that _more people would play tabletop RPGs_ if only WotC would heavily market more campign settings? This makes absolutely no sense. People not yet in the hobby _don't even know what a campaign setting is_.

Heck, in the 2e days when TSR was flooding the marklet with campign settings was when interest in TRPGs was at its _lowest_.

I'm also still not sure how setting material, i.e., the kind of thing that would never in a million years be open content, is of any benefit to the d20 publishing world.



			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> New settings are not a panacea in and of themselves.  They are merely symptomatic of Wotc's "play it creatively safe" model that appears to be doing well enough for them.  Incarnum was a good try, even if it failed to fully achieve its promise.  I would like to see Wotc try more creative things.  That is not what I am seeing, however, and I believe their "play it safe" mode is coloring the market, boring it into a stupor.  As goes Wotc, so goes the hobby, 5 times out of 7.



WotC focuses on providing products they believe will appeal to their fanbase. They also heavily promote the D&D brand, which is effectively general promotion of tabletop RPGs as a hobby. These actions make them a profitable business, and apparently provide them with record-breaking years even when the industry as a whole is in a slump.

The notable absence of a "flooding the market with campaign settings" strategy in WotC's business plan is telling. It's a stupid idea, one that's proven to be bad business.


----------



## buzz (Nov 18, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I find most of their products to be bland and rote, "fifty-one flavors of vanilla," not worth the cover price for the two or three bits that I might actually use when I play.



Do you find other publishers' material to be "bland and rote"? Do you see them all striving to release producs that are "bland and rote" because that's supposedly what WotC is doing? That's the idea GVD is putting forth.

I'm not seeing it. I also don't agree that everyhting WotC releases is blah, but that's another issue.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *GVDammerung*, please let me just say that I strongly agree with your take. Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast has adopted an apparently successful business plan, offers perhaps the highest production values, can mount the biggest strategic marketing effort - and so far this year, I purchased one WotC title, because I find most of their products to be bland and rote, "fifty-one flavors of vanilla," not worth the cover price for the two or three bits that I might actually use when I play.




So basically you're saying "Well, Wizards may be making a good chunk of change...but not from me."  Are you implying, then, that if they produced more stuff you liked that their sales are sure to improve?  Because I've bought 10 WotC titles this year, not including the D&D minis I've purchased.  I'm not saying they couldn't change their material to appeal to you (and I won't say that every book has had equal value for me)...but clearly they're not suffereing from their current strategy.

For that matter, how many non-WotC RPG books have you purchased this year?


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 18, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Other than the one company whose name I never can remember but is easily confused with a producer of quality games (FF....something), I don't know where you're seeing this tide of d20 garbage.




Check FATDRAGONGAMES' sig.


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Nov 18, 2005)

zorlag said:
			
		

> www.financialsense.com is very good site if you want to stay up on what's going on behind the scenes of real life, and who's literally stealing from your vallet everyday because they print and lend more money on the markets.




LITERALLY?    You mean someone is *literally* pulling my wallet out of my back pocket, removing money, and putting it back without me knowing it? EVERY DAY?

Wow!   

(Or maybe you meant 'figuratively'?)


----------



## SBMC (Nov 18, 2005)

shaman said:
			
		

> GVDammerung, please let me just say that I strongly agree with your take. Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast has adopted an apparently successful business plan, offers perhaps the highest production values, can mount the biggest strategic marketing effort - and so far this year, I purchased one WotC title, because I find most of their products to be bland and rote, "fifty-one flavors of vanilla," not worth the cover price for the two or three bits that I might actually use when I play.






			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> So basically you're saying "Well, Wizards may be making a good chunk of change...but not from me."  Are you implying, then, that if they produced more stuff you liked that their sales are sure to improve?  Because I've bought 10 WotC titles this year, not including the D&D minis I've purchased.  I'm not saying they couldn't change their material to appeal to you (and I won't say that every book has had equal value for me)...but clearly they're not suffereing from their current strategy.
> 
> For that matter, how many non-WotC RPG books have you purchased this year?




Well said WizarDru.

Shaman:

Exactly what is not bland to you?

Like I said - WoTC is after creating options; environments, monsters, etc for you to build your world with or incorporate into one of theirs. If you equate "that is not my style" with "garbage" then you are essentailly insulting everyone who bought any such publication. I think they do a darn good job at trying to put something out there for everyone in a format that is open and non-restrictive (as a setting as it stands is). I can takle aspects from 10 books and blend them into my own world; all because they are not exclusivly part of something else. My world is mine - marketing says that is what the majority wanted; you are in the minority.

I doubt that anyone would buy all their books right at print (including me); but if they have enough out there for long enough you might. The books are for reference and if you play long enough you'll probably use most of all of them in part or whole (unless you play the same setting/environment forever) - most worlds have deserts, seas, mountains, jungles...dwarves, mountians, giants, etc. 

Anything you do costs money - gaming included. People go to bars and drop 50 bucks on beer in a night without blinking an eye; you can buy a book for half that and have it for decades - less the intestinal issues and hangover. People will go skining for 10 times that in a weekend - gamers like to game that is our recreation and social life; or at least a part of it.

If one thinks things are overpriced; perhaps you should find a new hobby that is less costly. There is a reason I do not own a collection of vintage muscle cars, Rolls Royces and/or Ferraris (or even one of any of those!).


----------



## helium3 (Nov 18, 2005)

tf360 said:
			
		

> College students playing poker a) no longer have time to play rpg's and b) no longer have the money to spend on them. I play on several of the online poker sites and they are crawling with college kids and I'm not talking about guys playing for nickels and dimes. So if they're spending $100+ per week playing poker, and in a lot of cases much more than that, guess what they're not spending their money on.




Their education?


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 18, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> So, unless your'e trying to objectively prove that there's a lack of good product out there, your hypothesis is: "There's a decline in RPG sales because there's not much out right now that I like." . . . Campaign settings do not expand the market. Campiagn settings are only of use to _people already in the market_. All campiagn settings do is cannibalize sales from other campaign settings. . . . So, it's marketing, not settings, that matter. . . . This is anecdotal and illogical.  . . . It makes more sense than your argument.






			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Do you find other publishers' material to be "bland and rote"? Do you see them all striving to release producs that are "bland and rote" because that's supposedly what WotC is doing? That's the idea GVD is putting forth.




Our discussion is now subject to the law of diminishing returns.  I have failed to articulate my point sufficient for you to grasp it (let alone agree with it) beyond a point where you misconstrue me and the move is toward merely repeating or rephrasing what has gone before with more vigor.  Suffice then to say we are of differing viewpoints and do not agree.  Enjoy your sunny skies.  I'll keep my fingers crossed.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 18, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Do you find other publishers' material to be "bland and rote"? Do you see them all striving to release producs that are "bland and rote" because that's supposedly what WotC is doing? That's the idea GVD is putting forth.



I don't think that's what being argued at all - I believe you're missing the point.

The argument is that Wizards of the Coast's 'safe' strategy produces vanilla books which sell well, but that doesn't make them particularly 'good' (read: innovative and interesting, moving the hobby in new directions) unless one defines quality by sales figures.

There seems to be a boom-and-bust integral to the gaming 'industry' - a new product is released, people snap it up, more product is released, fewer and fewer people buy it, and so a new edition is released, and the process starts all over again. I believe that it would be healthier for the cottage industry that is RPGs if the focus was on creating sustained growth, rather than simply trying to ride out the rough patches until the next boom rolls around.

Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time: "Okay, people like Jedis and the Force from _Star Wars_, so let's turn that into a 'new' magic system and new classes for _Dungeons and Dragons_!" "Great idea!" And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.







			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I also don't agree that everyhting WotC releases is blah, but that's another issue.



You're right - some of it's completely execrable.







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> So basically you're saying "Well, Wizards may be making a good chunk of change...but not from me."  Are you implying, then, that if they produced more stuff you liked that their sales are sure to improve?



No, I consider my tastes pretty far outside the mainstream.

However, I'm still capable of weighing a book on its merits as an RPG resource, and comparing it to similar products from other publishers, even if it doesn't appeal to me personally or is something that I plan to use in my own games. WotC products rarely deliver the same level of innovation that third-party publishers provide, even when it's the same authors working on the respective WotC and third-party books. To me this reflects a middle-of-the-road design strategy that permeates WotC's decision making, one that I find produces bland books.







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> For that matter, how many non-WotC RPG books have you purchased this year?



Including .pdfs, about a dozen.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 18, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Please do not make this a discussion about politics in the real world.




Heh heh. Yes. We only want to discuss politics in the pretend world.  But I know what you mean.


----------



## buzz (Nov 18, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Enjoy your sunny skies.  I'll keep my fingers crossed.



OKey-doke. Enjoy fantasyland.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 18, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> The problem I face in these discussions is that when I present a "big picture" view, I get criticized for a lack of raw numbers or objective data.  But then when I then present specific data, or a methodology for studying the market by analyzing verifiable facts (such as the rate of new releases as reported in distributor weekly receiving e-mails over an extended period of time), I get criticized for presenting raw data rather than the big picture.  Hrm.




That's exactly what it's like when trying to talk about Psionics on these boards in the "is psionics unbalanced?" threads. The fundamental mistake you're making is in expecting a coherent, logical discussion. We don't do that here at ENWorld. Instead, we like to get into exceedingly passive aggressive (lest we get banned) flame-wars with people we disagree with where we say things like "clearly", "obviously" and "from my perspective."

And yes, I agree that it's silly for people to be surprised that sales have decline over time. There's this thing called the business cycle. The primary product of the d20 market is the core players handbook and attendent rule books. Any major product advances are going to come out of refinement of those products, so it's pretty much up to WOTC to drive that. Product advances that came out of other publishers would have to either come in the form of a new, competing game system to d20 or entirely knew gaming technology.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 18, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time: "Okay, people like Jedis and the Force from _Star Wars_, so let's turn that into a 'new' magic system and new classes for _Dungeons and Dragons_!" "Great idea!" And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.You're right - some of it's completely execrable.No, I consider my tastes pretty far outside the mainstream.




Why exactly is Incarnum dreck? Because you don't like it? What exactly is wrong with a different mechanics system?


----------



## buzz (Nov 18, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> The argument is that Wizards of the Coast's 'safe' strategy produces vanilla books which sell well, but that doesn't make them particularly 'good' (read: innovative and interesting, moving the hobby in new directions) unless one defines quality by sales figures.



And my argument is that I don't necessarily buy that WotC's strategy is to produce nothing but "safe" vanilla books. Eberron alone is evidence against this. You and GVD seem to be assuming that your personal opinion of their books is fact, and thus proof of a strategy.



			
				The Shama said:
			
		

> I believe that it would be healthier for the cottage industry that is RPGs if the focus was on creating sustained growth, rather than simply trying to ride out the rough patches until the next boom rolls around.



The former is sort of the whole point of the OGL.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time: "Okay, people like Jedis and the Force from _Star Wars_, so let's turn that into a 'new' magic system and new classes for _Dungeons and Dragons_!" "Great idea!" And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.



I don't understand why MoI is being singled out as representative of WotC's entire design strategy and R&D capability. Why is the fact that you didn't happen to like the book proof that WotC solely targets the lowest common denominator? Isn't the book actually proof that WotC was willing to take a risk on something different? Isn't Eberron?



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> No, I consider my tastes pretty far outside the mainstream.



Then how are you qualified to make blanket assessments about the objective quality of WotC's products?

This whole line of argument reminds me a lot of a thread from a while back where one person was laying blame for the RPG industry malaise (yup, still talking about it then) on the fact that WotC didn't produce enough adventures. Or, more specifically, enough adventures _that he considered to be really good_. Just like here, the thesis boiled down to "WotC is the source of all evil because I don't like their products."


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 18, 2005)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Why exactly is Incarnum dreck? Because you don't like it? What exactly is wrong with a different mechanics system?




Might as well let it go. There are three reviews of it right now, two four star and one two star. It's either something you like or something you dislike. Unlike psionics, another love/hate idea, Icarnum doesn't have a lot of history with the D&D game.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 18, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.




Of course, some of us look at Incarnum and see something completely different than a Star Wars rip-off and useful, at that.  I threw a dozen 20th level Incarnates at my players last week, for example, and it worked very well.  They were elves who had been corrupted by Far Realms parasites, giving them bizarre powers...but Incarnum provided an enjoyable combat and campaign option.  YMMV and obviously does.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> WotC products rarely deliver the same level of innovation that third-party publishers provide, even when it's the same authors working on the respective WotC and third-party books. To me this reflects a middle-of-the-road design strategy that permeates WotC's decision making, one that I find produces bland books.




Well, I won't disagree that third-party publishers do much more diverse things than WotC...that's demonstrably false.  But I'm still not seeing _why_ WotC should be doing that...I was under the impression that was one of the core advantages of the OGL in the first place.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Including .pdfs, about a dozen.



Well, unless those PDFs were more than $20 each, at least, you're not really taking money away from WotC regardless...which indicates that adapting their current strategy to be more diverse wouldn't garner them that much more business, but would risk alienating their existing customer base.  I purchased about 5 or 6 PDFs this year, but most were only about $5...impulse buys, mostly.  The most expensive thing I bought was a $9.95 PDF.  All told, the PDFs equaled maybe the same investiture as one WotC book.  My investment in other games, like M&M, is not as strong...but only because there wasn't more product to purchase.  Not because the market is weak...but because there are only so many products necessary to purchase or that I desire in that space.

I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown.  But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry.  The core argument sounds like, to me, "_WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy_".  As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers.  From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do.  That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.

You suggest that the market has a problem in the form of the cyclical nature of RPG releases.  I agree that it's the prevailing model...but what could replace it, really?  There really are some people who buy the core game and nothing more.  How do you get off of that cycle and remain profitable?  I certainly prefer WotC's 'add more options' approach to White Wolf's "sure you bought the core book, but it'll be a year before you have all the clan books and information" strategy.  Is there another way?


----------



## buzz (Nov 18, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown.  But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry.  The core argument sounds like, to me, "_WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy_".  As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers.  From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do.  That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.



WizarDru is a wise man.


----------



## rogueattorney (Nov 18, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Is there another way?




They don't repackage Monopoly over and over again hoping to get all Monopoly owners to purchase yet another Monopoly game.  Rather, what the Monopoly makers are trying to do is get a game of Monopoly in ever single house in the country.  You can say the same of pretty much every single other mainstream game ever made except for RPGs.  Only with RPGs is there this expectation of support and revision followed by support and revision.

To me, rpg makers should try to break down the perceived differences between rpgs and "regular" games.  RPGs should be less complex, have less supporting materials, and there should be more of them in more different genres.  A mother or father or girlfriend should be able to walk into any toy store in the country and buy their loved one a box of Dungeons & Dragons or Call of Cthulhu or whatever.  (That's actually started to become closer to reality with the new D&D Basic game.)

Of course all of the above is the absolute anathema to the hardcore gamers who want, more, more, more specialization.  And for that reason alone the above strategy will never, ever, ever be attempted by an established game maker.

R.A.


----------



## JamesDJarvis (Nov 18, 2005)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> They don't repackage Monopoly over and over again hoping to get all Monopoly owners to purchase yet another Monopoly game.  Rather, what the Monopoly makers are trying to do is get a game of Monopoly in ever single house in the country.




Well actually yes, the monopoly makers do in fact want you to buy a Monopoly game over and over again.  That is one reason they package deluxe, anniversary, themed and travel editions of games to get people to buy the game again not just to find that part of the market that didn't want the original version.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 18, 2005)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Why exactly is Incarnum dreck? Because you don't like it? What exactly is wrong with a different mechanics system?





			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I don't understand why MoI is being singled out as representative of WotC's entire design strategy and R&D capability. Why is the fact that you didn't happen to like the book proof that WotC solely targets the lowest common denominator? Isn't the book actually proof that WotC was willing to take a risk on something different? Isn't Eberron?



I mentioned _Magic of Incarnum_ simply because I was reading the thread about it before I read this one, so it was foremost in my mind.

What I don't like about _MoI_, the reason I call it "dreck," is that it's neither different nor risky. It's just recycled concepts from _SWRPG_ given a fantasy veneer. As I said, I find it bland and rote.







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Of course, some of us look at Incarnum and see something completely different than a Star Wars rip-off and useful, at that.



As Mark Twain wrote, "Difference of opinion is what makes a horse race."

I'm glad you found your investment worthwhile - for me it's a pass.







			
				buzz said:
			
		

> And my argument is that I don't necessarily buy that WotC's strategy is to produce nothing but "safe" vanilla books. Eberron alone is evidence against this. You and GVD seem to be assuming that your personal opinion of their books is fact, and thus proof of a strategy.



First *buzz*, nothing that you or I or (with a few exceptions) anyone else says on the boards should be taken "proof" of anything. They are opinions regarding the topic, based on our respective experiences. There is no argument to be won here or solution to suss out, just the sharing of differing ideas about what we enjoy in gaming and why.

Eberron, IMHO, is the least risky move that WotC could make on a new setting - it is a mish-mash of "pop fantasy" elements designed to capture as many people as possible by appealing to whatever is deemed hip in the genre at the moment. I see it as the natural evolution of a gaming style that originated with _Myst_. That doesn't make it 'bad' - in fact, I don't think Eberron is a poorly-done setting at all, though it holds no appeal for me, but I do think that once again it was a risk-avoidance strategy, a grab-bag setting so that people could play lycanthropes and droids and fly around in zeppelins while taking advantage of a wealth of anachronisms.

_Ghostwalk_ was a risky choice. _Midnight_, had it come from WotC, would be a risky choice. Eberron was about the safest choice that WotC could make.







			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Then how are you qualified to make blanket assessments about the objective quality of WotC's products?



*buzz*, first, I'm not making blanket assessments about the objective quality of the books - I'm offering my subjective opinion of the quality of WotC's product, just like you. My "qualifications" are the same as yours: I'm an informed consumer. 

and if you go back to my post, you'll see that I already answered your question: I read the books, read reviews, and compare different approaches. I don't have to like something or play it to appreciate the fact that it's innovative or not: I'm not interested in playing _Blue Rose_ or _Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay_, but I think they're both excellent games mechanically and thematically. I don't have to 'like' something in order to appraise it's relative merits.

Without access to the planning notes, marketing research, and sale figures generated by Wizards of the Coast, all any of us can do is speculate as to their decision-making. However, all of us see what's released and when, can look at the products and develop informed opinions, and are entitled to have an opinion on the end result.]







			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Just like here, the thesis boiled down to "WotC is the source of all evil because I don't like their products."



No one has said anything of the kind, and as for me I'll thank you to not ascribe quotes to me that I didn't write.

To make sure that my point isn't lost here, I'll restate it: I think WotC is the undisputed leader in marketing, production values, and perhaps business strategy, but I think that most of their products are dull and uninspired, that more innovative game design happens elsewhere.







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> But I'm still not seeing _why_ WotC should be doing that...I was under the impression that was one of the core advantages of the OGL in the first place.



My feeling is that the OGL was intended for one purpose: to sell _Player's Handbooks_.

The fact that third-party publishers did something different with it (there's innovation again) has produced comments from WotC about "splitting the market" and how it's bad for gaming. Looking over my gaming books, as a consumer I benefit directly from the market splitting, since none of the games I play require the _PHB_.







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown.  But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry.  The core argument sounds like, to me, "_WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy_".  *As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers.*  From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do.  That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.



This is a really interesting point, *WizarDru*. I agree with much of what you're saying -the only place I'm inclined to disagree is with respect to the fact that the OGL is working out as planned.

To be fair, I am anything but an expert on the OGL, but I've heard rumblings several times to the effect that the third-party publishers didn't "play along" as planned, that instead of taking on the peripheral parts of the games that weren't profitable enough for WotC to invest in, the third-party publishers came straight at WotC's core supplements instead, so much so that the market was glutted and a thinning of the herd was necessary. If I was a publisher, I know that would've been my strategy as well - why settle for being a bottom-feeder when there's all those juicy fish floating around?







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> You suggest that the market has a problem in the form of the cyclical nature of RPG releases.  I agree that it's the prevailing model...but what could replace it, really?  There really are some people who buy the core game and nothing more.  How do you get off of that cycle and remain profitable?  I certainly prefer WotC's 'add more options' approach to White Wolf's "sure you bought the core book, but it'll be a year before you have all the clan books and information" strategy.  *Is there another way?*



I don't know yet, but I'm thinking about it.  

Excellent post, *WizarDru*.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 18, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I mentioned _Magic of Incarnum_ simply because I was reading the thread about it before I read this one, so it was foremost in my mind.




I might have missed someting of vital importance, so I might as well ask. You haven't bought any books from WotC for some while, if I read your comments correctly? But I also gather from your comments that you have read them thoroughly enough to form an opinion of their relative worth(lessness). 

I'm curious as to how thorougly you have reviewed the books?

I'm aware that my question may very well be construed as snark, but for me this information is of interest when reading your comments about quality.

Cheers!

/M


----------



## helium3 (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> To make sure that my point isn't lost here, I'll restate it: I think WotC is the undisputed leader in marketing, production values, and perhaps business strategy, but I think that most of their products are dull and uninspired, that more innovative game design happens elsewhere.




WOTC is part of a publicly held company with a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Now, one can argue about whether or not this is a good thing, but you can't argue about whether or not this is the true. I agree that innovation is great. If WOTC really thought it sold, they'd be doing a lot more of it. So, it's probably likely that innovation rarely sells well enough to justify the development costs.

For example, can you imagine the collective freak-out that would occur if WOTC decided to introduce an innovative new version of D&D next year? In fact, I see many posts on this message board decrying the possibilty that WOTC might do just that, and I find it hard to believe that they're unware of this.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I mentioned _Magic of Incarnum_ simply because I was reading the thread about it before I read this one, so it was foremost in my mind.
> 
> What I don't like about _MoI_, the reason I call it "dreck," is that it's neither different nor risky. It's just recycled concepts from _SWRPG_ given a fantasy veneer.




I see. The fact that almost the only point of comparison between the Force and Incarnum is "energy field that connects living creatures" makes it a recycled concept? Oh well. Psionics is also dreck, I take it?

Mechanically, the Force in either edition of the Star Wars RPG (d6 or d20) is quite different to Incarnum.

Conceptually, the Force is *also* different to Incarnum. 

A Totemist may tap into the essence of the souls of Pegasi and create a pair of magical wings that bear him aloft. The Incarnate taps into the soul essence of the Copper and Black dragons and gains the ability to breathe acid at his foes.

That's nowhere near the Force.

Cheers!


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I might have missed someting of vital importance, so I might as well ask. You haven't bought any books from WotC for some while, if I read your comments correctly? But I also gather from your comments that you have read them thoroughly enough to form an opinion of their relative worth(lessness).
> 
> I'm curious as to how thorougly you have reviewed the books?



I fine-tooth-comb anything for d20 _Modern_, with the exception of d20 _Cyberscape_ - the genre holds no appeal for me, so while I'll give it a cover-to-cover read-thru somewhere down the line, I have no opinion on its strengths and weaknesses at present.

As far as _Dungeons and Dragons_, I look at most of the new books when they are released - one of the reasons I gave _MoI_ a close look is that I'm very interested in alternate magic systems.

I'll pick up the books I'm interested in at my LGS and read through the index, pick out a couple of topics that catch my eye as well as a couple of topics that don't really appeal, so I can compare them. This happens several times - it took me seven or eight months of this to finally decide to buy _Libris Mortis_, and I never did warm up to _Draconomicon_ even after a couple of years.

I'll look for other books on the similar topics, if they're available, to see how they compare in terms of mechanics.

I read reviews, then look at the book again in light of those reviews, to weigh the reviewers take.

And I read the threads here, at WotC, and occasionally at RPG.net to see how others are actually using the content, and gauge their opinions as well.

I pulled up WotC's list of _D&D_ products (since very few people on this forum care about Modern stuff) for 2005, and in addition to _MoI_ I've looked at _DMG II_, _Heroes of Battle_, _Heroes of Horror_, _Lords of Madness_, _Races of the Wild_, and _Weapons of Legacy_ this way.

(And in looking over the list, I realized I bought two WotC books this year - I forgot that _Sandstorm_ was a 2005 release. My bad.)

I won't spend money on books sight-unseen any longer, so I tend to be a careful and prudent shopper - I'm rarely the first one on my block to have the latest and greatest.

Does that answer your question adequately?


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2005)

helium3 said:
			
		

> WOTC is part of a publicly held company with a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Now, one can argue about whether or not this is a good thing, but you can't argue about whether or not this is the true. I agree that innovation is great. If WOTC really thought it sold, they'd be doing a lot more of it. So, it's probably likely that innovation rarely sells well enough to justify the development costs.



This holds true for every public company - are you suggesting that innovation only comes from fringe companies with nothing to lose?


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *snip*



And yet somehow, as I was reading it, I kept hearing the swoosh of lightsabers in the back of my mind.

File off the serial numbers if you like, but it wasn't hard to see where "Incarnum" came from.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And yet somehow, as I was reading it, I kept hearing the swoosh of lightsabers in the back of my mind.
> 
> File off the serial numbers if you like, but it wasn't hard to see where "Incarnum" came from.




Dan Simmons, "Endymion" and "The Rise of Endymion"

Those books come to mind far more than the Star Wars universe when reading Magic of Incarnum.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 19, 2005)

Pardon me for being a tad on the stupid side, but I don't understand something.

How can appealing to the largest segment of the consumers possibly be considered a bad thing?  Whether you like WOTC material or not, that's precisely what publishing mainstream material means.  That some call it "appealing to the lowest common denominator" seems a little counter intuitive.  Just like any entertainment medium, you will always have "mainstream" and the "fringe".  Mainstream keeps the medium alive. 

Without mainstream producers, the fringe producers would cease to exist.  It takes the mainstream to keep people interested in the medium.  The mainstream is mainstream precisely because it appeals to the widest possible audience.  That means that it doesn't take a lot of risks and that mainstream material, be it RPG's, music, movies or whatever, appears to be "31 flavours of vanilla".  

The reverse is also true.  Fringe elements are required to inject new material into the mainstream.  New ideas are developed on the fringe, bounced around by the brownian motion of consumers fed up with mainstream and either die a quiet death or become popular enough that they become adopted by the mainstream.

The mainstream maintains the system and the fringe insures that the system doesn't stagnate.  But, blaming the mainstream element for not taking risks looks like a misunderstanding of the system.  The mainstream can't take major risks because it risks losing the largest fan base.  Fringe elements can afford to take risks because they have much less to lose.

So, is much of what WOTC cranks out derivative?  Of course it is.  They take ideas that look viable and turn them into mainstream works.  In doing so, they are going to lose a lot of the more radical ideas, but, they are also going to introduce this idea to a much larger consumer base.  

Maybe I'm missing something, but, why isn't this a valid model of doing business?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2005)

Hussar, its like when fans of an underground band or music form suddenly find their pet bands have gotten popular..."THEY'VE SOLD OUT!" becomes the fans' battlecry.

There is nothing wrong with catering to the mainstream.  Eventually, someone will appeal to the fringe and satisfy their desires- be it the big companies or the little guys.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something, but, why isn't this a valid model of doing business?



Yes, I think you are missing something:







			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast has adopted an apparently successful business plan, offers perhaps the highest production values, can mount the biggest strategic marketing effort - and so far this year, I purchased one WotC title, because I find most of their products to be bland and rote, "fifty-one flavors of vanilla," not worth the cover price for the two or three bits that I might actually use when I play.



Small correction here - I actually purchased two WotC books - I forgot that _Sandstorm_ was a 2005 release and not 2004.







			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> The argument is that Wizards of the Coast's 'safe' strategy produces vanilla books which sell well, but that doesn't make them particularly 'good' (read: innovative and interesting, moving the hobby in new directions) unless one defines quality by sales figures.
> 
> There seems to be a boom-and-bust integral to the gaming 'industry' - a new product is released, people snap it up, more product is released, fewer and fewer people buy it, and so a new edition is released, and the process starts all over again. I believe that it would be healthier for the cottage industry that is RPGs if the focus was on creating sustained growth, rather than simply trying to ride out the rough patches until the next boom rolls around.
> 
> Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time...





			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> To make sure that my point isn't lost here, I'll restate it: I think WotC is the undisputed leader in marketing, production values, and perhaps business strategy, but I think that most of their products are dull and uninspired, that more innovative game design happens elsewhere.



I can't speak for anyone else of course, but nowhere have I said that it's not a valid model, if your concern is selling more widgets than anyone else.

But I'm not a Hasbro shareholder, so I don't really care if Wizards of the Coasts is moving more units of product per quarter than the next five RPG publishers combined - what I care about as a consumer is a product than enhances my gaming experience and good value for my dollar.

There's a strange undercurrent that I pick up from some posters that goes something like the old Charlie Wilson quote about General Motors: "What's good for Wizards of the Coast is good for gamers!" I don't understand this idea that if WotC is successful (and there's little question that they are), that somehow that inherently translates into better gaming for everyone. The only way I can even come close to wrapping my head around this is to consider that (1) Wizards of the Coast 'shapes' the marketplace, as *GVDammerung* phrased it, so the success of the smaller publishers is hitched to WotC's star, for better or worse, or (2) the fact that Wizards of the Coast is churning out its fifty-one flavors of vanilla is what creates the opportunity for the more novel third party publishers to stand out, like rubies displayed on a bit of vanilla-white satin.

I'm not entirely convinced that either of these examples are true; I think one could make the case that WotC helps to stagnate the market by its business practices (e.g., release of 3.5) and its corporate competitive advantages (i.e., what would the RPG market look like if it was big enough to attract the attention of Mattel, bringing its resources to one of WotC's competitors? would we see more innovation from Wizards of the Coast then?). I honestly don't know enough about it to say for sure without access to a whole lot of proprietary business data, so unfortunately I can only speculate with the rest of the bunch.

What I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the gaming books produced by Wizards of the Coast rarely excite me, so my consumer dollar goes elsewhere. (And in that I cannot be disputed!  )


----------



## Glyfair (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> but that doesn't make them particularly 'good' (read: innovative and interesting, moving the hobby in new directions) unless one defines quality by sales figures.





> WotC products rarely deliver the same level of innovation that third-party publishers provide, even when it's the same authors working on the respective WotC and third-party books.




You seem to be equating "good" with "innovative."  They aren't the same thing.

Yes, innovation is good to have.  However, all innovative things aren't good (indeed, I'd say the worst "excrement" out there were because the person producing it was being innovative and assumed that meant it would be good) and all non-innovative things aren't bad.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2005)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> You seem to be equating "good" with "innovative."  They aren't the same thing.



When I'm speaking of something being "innovative," I'm talking about something that improves upon what came before, not different for difference sake.

So in that context, yes, I think innovative is good.


----------



## Sanackranib (Nov 19, 2005)

how about the obvious? already bought it and dont need 2. isnt this why they keep releasing "new" versions? so they can grab your money all over again and sucker you into "its better" like they did with 3.0 then right after I upgraded AGAIN with 3.5


----------



## Justin Bacon (Nov 19, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> At a Christmas party one year, a distributor told me that he had ordered 100 copies of a new book from one well-known d20 publisher...and sold less than 10.  So maybe the publishers thought they were doing great, and didn't realize that this distributor was likely to cut his pre-order on their next book by 90%.




Part of the problem is that the retailers in this industry, as a general rule, don't understand inventory tracking and discrimination. Part of that is because they never really had to: You could look at a given product line (Heavy Gear or Ars Magica, for example), judge whether or not the game was selling well, and simply make sure you laid in an appropriate order for each and every supplement.

That works for Heavy Gear and Ars Magica. It doesn't work for a product line with wide variations in quality and with a size that makes it impossible for even the die-hard fans to buy every release (thereby forcing discretion).

In other words, it doesn't work for the D20 market.

I knew there were going to be problems when I saw my local retailer buying 5 copies of every single D20 module released regardless of whether they were good, bad, or a piece of . And never re-ordering the ones which sold out. (Thereby creating a burgeoning Wall of Crap.)

Eventually when this retailer realized they had a problem, they backlashed hard against the entire market segment of D20 modules: They cleared the shelves of all the non-WotC, non-S&S adventures and stuck them into clearance boxes. Penumbra, Necromancer, Green Ronin, and a lot of other top-tier module producers went into those clearance boxes right along with THE HORROR BENEATH. And their next releases weren't ordered either.

Now if this retailers, and hundreds like them, had been practicing discretion earlier (recognizing that THE HORROR BENEATH was crap and refraining from ordering it) or if they had even rudimentary inventory tracking and a way of analyzing it (allowing them to realize that THE HORROR BENEATH was a problem but TERROR IN FREEPORT wasn't), this wouldn't have happened: They'd have trimmed back their orders on crap, they'd have stepped up their orders on the stuff that was actually appealing to customers, and the Wall of Crap (which turned off casual browsers from third-party products) wouldn't have gotten itself established.

Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com


----------



## Hussar (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> When I'm speaking of something being "innovative," I'm talking about something that improves upon what came before, not different for difference sake.
> 
> So in that context, yes, I think innovative is good.




However, the problem with that is, how many products are innovative vs the number that do not improve on what came before or are just different for difference sake?  For every great, innovative product that comes out, there are a huge number that suck.  I'm sure that the writers of most of those products "thought" that they would be innovative, but, let's face it, not every product can be.

Now, as far as WOTC lacking in innovation, well, that's quite possibly true.  Then again, how much damage would it do to WOTC to drop three or four lame duck products on the market?  If WOTC crashes, it's going to take the innovators out there right along with them.  A point you mentioned before.

Saying that they are marketing to the "lowest common denominator" is incredibly insulting.  While some gamers may enjoy taking the risk on the next latest thing and trying out material which is frequently fairly far below WOTC standards, I don't think that consumers who stick with a tried and true provider should be seen as somehow less important or less valuable to the game. 

A recent thread talked about d20 products that "owned" WOTC products.  And there were quite a few.  But, one thing I took from that thread was that while a given company might produce a single better book, WOTC produced the second best book in pretty much any given category.  That means that WOTC, rather than simply catering to the masses, is actually producing very good products, just not the best product every time.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 19, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Now, as far as WOTC lacking in innovation, well, that's quite possibly true.  Then again, how much damage would it do to WOTC to drop three or four lame duck products on the market?  If WOTC crashes, it's going to take the innovators out there right along with them.  A point you mentioned before.




Actually, I think that is why things were better in the earlier days for d20 companies other than WOTC.  Most of the early WOTC 3.0 products were pretty bad. Lots of the hallmarks of the bad old days of TSR - poor editing, poor rules complience, low production values.

The class splatbooks, especially. 

Even when the 3rd party stuff wasn't better, the poor quality stuff still looked okay compared to WOTC's output.

Nowadays, though, WOTC has improved its quality immensely, particularly the production values. So 3rd party stuff can look a lot worse in comparison.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Does that answer your question adequately?




Absolutely. Thank you very much.

/M


----------



## SBMC (Nov 19, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to say that WotC is the most innovative publisher around...clearly nothing they've done this year is as innovative as Mutants and Masterminds second edition or Northern Crown. But I have a hard time correlating that with the fall of the industry. The core argument sounds like, to me, "WotC should do more diverse and experimental things, because that spurs new ideas and creativity from third-party publishers and competition, which in turn grows the industry and keeps it healthy". As I understood it, the OGL was essentially enlightened self-interest; it shifted the burden for a lot of material OFF of WotC, while at the same time empowering other parties to both bolster WotC's core sales, enhance their brand, provide support for more niche interests and make a few bucks for those third party publishers. From what I can tell, it's done exactly what it was supposed to do. That it is no longer the gravy train it once was doesn't signal to me that the industry has fallen on hard times...just that growth is not permananetly sustainable, and a natural correction of the market has taken place.





Sometimes things are obvious and no one sees it…except a choice few
Damn…what a way with words! A Wise man indeed!


----------



## SBMC (Nov 19, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Pardon me for being a tad on the stupid side, but I don't understand something.
> 
> How can appealing to the largest segment of the consumers possibly be considered a bad thing?  Whether you like WOTC material or not, that's precisely what publishing mainstream material means.  That some call it "appealing to the lowest common denominator" seems a little counter intuitive.  Just like any entertainment medium, you will always have "mainstream" and the "fringe".  Mainstream keeps the medium alive.
> 
> ...




Darn your good! Textbook Good! An excellent explanation of the basics of complex market structure without the technical jargon – THANK YOU

A point I think many (including me) were trying to make but failed to you have so eloquently articulated! Thank you!


----------



## SBMC (Nov 19, 2005)

rogueattorney said:
			
		

> They don't repackage Monopoly over and over again hoping to get all Monopoly owners to purchase yet another Monopoly game.  Rather, what the Monopoly makers are trying to do is get a game of Monopoly in ever single house in the country.  You can say the same of pretty much every single other mainstream game ever made except for RPGs.  Only with RPGs is there this expectation of support and revision followed by support and revision.
> 
> To me, rpg makers should try to break down the perceived differences between rpgs and "regular" games.  RPGs should be less complex, have less supporting materials, and there should be more of them in more different genres.  A mother or father or girlfriend should be able to walk into any toy store in the country and buy their loved one a box of Dungeons & Dragons or Call of Cthulhu or whatever.  (That's actually started to become closer to reality with the new D&D Basic game.)
> 
> ...




Err…then why the insane number of books with an insane variety of feats, classes, spells, etc? They are trying to meet as many tastes as possible.

It is getting frustrating listening to folks talk about marketing and business that seem to have a minimal understanding of it based upon what is being posted by some.

And to quote JamesdJarvis:



			
				JamesDJarvis said:
			
		

> Well actually yes, the monopoly makers do in fact want you to buy a Monopoly game over and over again. That is one reason they package deluxe, anniversary, themed and travel editions of games to get people to buy the game again not just to find that part of the market that didn't want the original version. .




And he is 110% correct – same foundation product with a new cover to appeal to a wider range of customers; coke and diet coke, fat free and not, etc…same thing.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> The argument is that Wizards of the Coast's 'safe' strategy produces vanilla books which sell well, but that doesn't make them particularly 'good' (read: innovative and interesting, moving the hobby in new directions) unless one defines quality by sales figures.




So what you are saying is that WoTC material is not up to your own artistic standards? Ok – but then again that is you and you seem to be in the minority by far



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> There seems to be a boom-and-bust integral to the gaming 'industry' - a new product is released, people snap it up, more product is released, fewer and fewer people buy it, and so a new edition is released, and the process starts all over again.




I already said that. And in addition; every other product does the same thing; even toothpicks. 



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> I believe that it would be healthier for the cottage industry that is RPGs if the focus was on creating sustained growth, rather than simply trying to ride out the rough patches until the next boom rolls around.




Now here you are starting to preach to the choir; based on various posts there are a good number of business, accounting and economics folks out here on this thread (or at least they looked up what they were saying and interpreted it well)

Cottage industry? I do think you need to look that up; this is not a cottage industry by any means per the actual definition.

Sustained growth – every single industry has it’s own unique lifecycle for its products based upon a nearly infinite number of variables. In the case of RPG’s that is the cost of software, paper, ink, gas (distribution), cost of living in the cities where the company is located, etc, etc. 

How can you possibly know how to create sustained growth in this industry? Sustained growth to you as a long term gamer is very different to a newbie who never saw what was going on 10 years ago – the books, concepts etc are all new to him. 

Growth is about two things, in simple terms – taking market share (stealing others clients) and growing the market (new customers to the industry). The auto industry pretty much has no more actual growth save the increase in the worlds population that comes to driving age; as anyone who is going to own a car does (generally in the aggregate). Thus the focus there is market share. In other industries such as a new software tool; it is about both; getting those new customers to buy into your industry and also to buy you product. Example; Financial Services.

IMO, as I stated in earlier posts, it seems that the growing of the market is happening at the same time that WoTC is grabbing up more of the actual market share out there for the same reasons I posted before; you can rely on their products to work mechanically in your campaign (or at least have enough clarity to interpret the RAW well or house rule well). 

Why is it that when you make a copy of something people still call it “Xeroxing”? Why when you are inline skating do you call it “Rollerblading”. Why, even with all of its problems, to companies and people still go to Microsoft? Because you are the core product of the industry – when someone wants to know what they are getting they go to you. That is WoTC; and Hasbro made sure that happened.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Now WotC seems to have figured this out, but while they're the industry leader in terms of business planning, they seem to think that this also means playing to the lowest common denominator most of the time: "Okay, people like Jedis and the Force from _Star Wars_, so let's turn that into a 'new' magic system and new classes for _Dungeons and Dragons_!" "Great idea!" And so the dreck of Incarnum was born.You're right - some of it's completely execrable.No, I consider my tastes pretty far outside the mainstream.




Do you think that any of these companies sits there and designs their products around you? Don’t you think that WoTC did some market research on this and other things? I don’t have that/those books yet but some people may love the idea; just like some folks like horror movies and others don’t – individual taste – which change over time. These RPG companies are trying to cover as much ground regarding various tastes as they can in order to get as many customers as possible - but it is impossible to do it in the core books alone or in just a few products.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> However, I'm still capable of weighing a book on its merits as an RPG resource, and comparing it to similar products from other publishers, even if it doesn't appeal to me personally or is something that I plan to use in my own games. WotC products rarely deliver the same level of innovation that third-party publishers provide, even when it's the same authors working on the respective WotC and third-party books. To me this reflects a middle-of-the-road design strategy that permeates WotC's decision making, one that I find produces bland books.Including .pdfs, about a dozen.




Again:

Do you think that any of these companies sits there and designs their products around you? Don’t you think that WoTC did some market research on this and other things? I don’t have that/those books yet but some people may love the idea; just like some folks like horror movies and others don’t – individual taste – which change over time. These RPG companies are trying to cover as much ground regarding various tastes as they can in order to get as many customers as possible - but it is impossible to do it in the core books alone or in just a few products.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 19, 2005)

In response to Hussar you posted:


			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Yes, I think you are missing something:




Shaman – I am sorry but you truly don’t know what you are talking about. You really and truly don’t.

And with that you are saying that the core concepts and realities of the market place are incorrect? I think a good number of folks at Harvard, Yale and Wharton might have a little something to say about that.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> But I'm not a Hasbro shareholder, so I don't really care if Wizards of the Coasts is moving more units of product per quarter than the next five RPG publishers combined - what I care about as a consumer is a product than enhances my gaming experience and good value for my dollar.




No your not – you want a product that you like and if you don’t like it you call it crap; am I missing how many times you refer to your own purchases and tastes here? To quote you:



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> What I do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the gaming books produced by Wizards of the Coast rarely excite me, so my consumer dollar goes elsewhere. (And in that I cannot be disputed!  )




And exactly what does this have to do with your claim regarding the overall market”? you are one of millions; your individual purchasing choices are irrelevant to your arguments in any of your posts.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Saying that they are marketing to the "lowest common denominator" is incredibly insulting.  While some gamers may enjoy taking the risk on the next latest thing and trying out material which is frequently fairly far below WOTC standards, I don't think that consumers who stick with a tried and true provider should be seen as somehow less important or less valuable to the game.



If "lowest common denominator" bothers you, then read it as "most common denominator," or the "core audience," or "the mainstream gamer," or whatever you prefer.

(For what it's worth, I think "lowest common denominator" is much less perjorative than "sheeple.")

I take exception with the claim that third-party products are "frequently far below" the qulity of Wizards of the Coast - I have yet to buy a Green Ronin, AEG, The Game Mechanics, or RPGObjects hard- or softcover that I would consider inferior to a WotC book except in a limited range of production values, and since mechanics and thematics are far more important to me than full-color artwork on every page, those production values are not a significant factor to me as a consumer.

(That said, I think Green Ronin's _Nocturnals_ source book is the most 'attractive' game book in my collection, followed by 1e _Mutants and Masterminds_.)







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> A recent thread talked about d20 products that "owned" WOTC products.  And there were quite a few.  But, one thing I took from that thread was that while a given company might produce a single better book, WOTC produced the second best book in pretty much any given category.  That means that WOTC, rather than simply catering to the masses, is actually producing very good products, just not the best product every time.



They should try that as a marketing slogan: "Wizards of the Coast - makers of the second- or third-best books in a given category!"

*Hussar*, do you really think it's in the long-term interest of a company to cede the creative initiative to others in its field?

It seems to me that Wizards of the Coast relies on competitive advantages that have nothing to do with the quality of its products to maintain its market dominance, and I think that stifles entrepreneurship and innovation.

I don't buy the argument that Wizards' goal is to "sell to the mainstream." I think their products, by virtue of WotC's position in the RPG market, define the mainstream - if Wizards of the Coast published _Black Company_ or _Iron Heroes_ or _Midnight_, the same gamers who bought _Magic of Incarnum_ or _Heroes of Battle_ or _Eberron_ would buy those books instead.


----------



## The Shaman (Nov 19, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> Shaman – I am sorry but you truly don’t know what you are talking about. You really and truly don’t.



It certainly wouldn't be the first time.







			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> And with that you are saying that the core concepts and realities of the market place are incorrect? I think a good number of folks at Harvard, Yale and Wharton might have a little something to say about that.



Then please, by all means, gather them together and ask them weigh in - if someone can adequately explain to me how selling the most widgets automatically makes your widgets the best, I'm all ears.

But for now, I'll consider BMW to make better cars than GM, even if GM sells three or four or ten times as many in a year.







			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> No your not – you want a product that you like and if you don’t like it you call it crap; am I missing how many times you refer to your own purchases and tastes here?



Well, then let's try this: I think _Iron Heroes_ is an innovative product - so is _Black Company_. I think _Midnight_ and _Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay_ have fascinating settings. I think the approach to character abilities in _Blue Rose_ is really interesting.

I don't own any of these books, nor am I invovled in games in which these books are used. In fact I can honestly say that I don't 'like' _Blue Rose_ - the style of fantasy from which it draws doesn't interest me. I can still appreciate the quality of the mechanics and thematics these books bring to the hobby, however.

I can look at something and appreciate its values whether I 'like' it or not, whether I use it or not.







			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> And exactly what does this have to do with your claim regarding the overall market”? you are one of millions; your individual purchasing choices are irrelevant to your arguments in any of your posts.



I think I answered this in my post to *Hussar* already.

*Edit:* Kids, I'm done here - I've already spent way too much time on this thread as it is. I think I've made my position abundantly clear at this point, and y'all are welcome to agree or disagree (probably the latter) as you see fit. Have a good weekend!


----------



## Maggan (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I take exception with the claim that third-party products are "frequently far below" the qulity of Wizards of the Coast - I have yet to buy a Green Ronin, AEG, The Game Mechanics, or RPGObjects hard- or softcover that I would consider inferior to a WotC book except in a limited range of production values, and since mechanics and thematics are far more important to me than full-color artwork on every page, those production values are not a significant factor to me as a consumer.




But that's a very small range of third party publishers. I have in my shelf products from some 35 or so third party publishers. Out of some hundred books, a very small amount are equal to or superior to the WotC offerings.

And yes, those that are very, very good are often from Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, AEG and a few more. But the really, really bad stuff comes from third party publishers such as Fast Forward Entertainment, Nightshift Games and a score of other smaller publishers.

So in my experience, third party products are often far below the quality WotC offers. There are far more misses than there are hits, at least in my shelf. There are publishers that rise above the doldrum, and they are truly shining stars. But they are also a minority in numbers.

Cheers!

/M


----------



## buzz (Nov 19, 2005)

helium3 said:
			
		

> For example, can you imagine the collective freak-out that would occur if WOTC decided to introduce an innovative new version of D&D next year?



Can I step in here and make the point that, as far as innovation goes, WotC needs to be given credit for releasing 3e and putting forward the OGL concept in the first place? Shaman keeps talking about "innovation". Well, I for one think that d20 and the OGL was massively innovative. Wihtout it, the d20 market being discussed wouldn't even exist.

WotC could have kept on releasing AD&D2.x ad infinitum and made tidy profits. Instead they took a _massive_ risk in rebuilding the most popular RPG on earth from the ground up in order to make it better, as well as provide a business model that would be profitable for both themselves and other gaming companies.

Ergo, you'll need to excuse me if I balk at accepting the idea that WotC is in no way "innovative".


----------



## buzz (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I don't understand this idea that if WotC is successful (and there's little question that they are), that somehow that inherently translates into better gaming for everyone.



You're confusing the hobby ("better gaming") with the industry. In terms of the industry, it's well established that its overall health is related to the health of D&D. The current downturn seems to be the result of market ebb and flow, IMO. I can't see anything WotC is doing that is directly the cause. Honestly, we've seen them have to tighten their belt over the last few years as well.

Better _gaming_ is subjective, and is mostly dependent on your game group.


----------



## buzz (Nov 19, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Well, then let's try this: I think _Iron Heroes_ is an innovative product - so is _Black Company_. I think _Midnight_ and _Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay_ have fascinating settings. I think the approach to character abilities in _Blue Rose_ is really interesting.



Well, again we're seeing here that "innovative" seems to equate with "prodiucts I like", and that the existence of innovative products doesn't seem to have been affected by the existence of WotC products you don't consider innovative.

So, basically, we're back to the quality of the products out there right now having nothing to do with current economic issues in the industry. If it were the mid-'90s, I might think your and GVD's position had some merit, but not now.

As for your comments about Eberron... see above. "Safe and not innovative" would have been releasing a FR2 or a revised Greyhawk. Given the @#$%storm of commentary about Eberron when it was being previewed, I consider it to have been a bold move on WotC's part.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Nov 19, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Mongoose having _completely dropped_ their generic d20 support in favor of Conan, Wars, Starship Troopers, B5, and Paranoia




Umm, no we haven't.  In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that, over the next 12-18 months, the D20 badge will become more important, not less. . .


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 19, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Umm, no we haven't.  In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that, over the next 12-18 months, the D20 badge will become more important, not less. . .



Glad to hear it. I'm really looking forward to the Expert Player's Guides.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 20, 2005)

Shaman wrote:



> I have yet to buy a Green Ronin, *AEG*, The Game Mechanics, or RPGObjects hard- or softcover that I would consider inferior to a WotC book except in a limited range of production values, and since mechanics and thematics are far more important to me than full-color artwork on every page, those production values are not a significant factor to me as a consumer.



  (bold mine)

Pardon?  Have you actually bought that many AEG d20 products?  I unfortunately have.  While I love the WLD, I'm by no means going to try to defend it in terms of any production values.  When, in a single 150 encounter region, I have to fix the errors in about 35 encounters, that says some pretty shoddy editting to me.  Looking through their one word title series (I own Evil, Mercenaries and Secrets) and I see page after page of typos, mechanical errors and outright mistakes.  

AEG getting out of the RPG biz was mentioned earlier as an example of the downturn in the industry.  I'm sure that's part of it.  But, I'm also pretty sure that book after book of crap quality had a big part of it as well.  Scarred Lands suffered the same way despite claims that it was the release of 3.5 that sunk the setting.  Let's face it, if you keep publishing crap books, people are going to go where the quality is.  If I pick up a WOTC book, while I know there may be errors in it, I also know that in very short order, there will be errata issued and I know that I'm not going to see the word "orc" replaced with the word "ore" by someone's word processor spellchecking program.

Before anyone accuses me of being unduly unfair, let me relate a recent example.  I've just finished going over Region B in the World's Largest Dungeon.  Region B has about 150 numbered encounters.  I found mistakes in about 1/5th of them.  Mistakes ranged from relatively minor errors - misprints, bad cut and paste jobs, things like that, to fairly serious mistakes - mislabeld rooms on the map, descriptions not matching the map making the descriptions invalid, poor mechanics like hobgoblins riding worgs (sorry, worgs are medium creautures and cannot be ridden by hobgoblins); to very serious errors like the entire premise of the region being physically impossible.  Let me explain.  The basic plot of the region is that a group of cultists must move from area X to area Y in order to worship at an idol.  However, there are only two possible routes to the idol, one leads to a certain death at the hands of a group of really cool undead fallen paladins and the other route leads straight through the center of an enemy camp after passing through an area that the group refuses to enter.  This makes the entire premise of the region impossible.

Now, I can fix this without too much difficulty.  I knocked a couple of holes in some walls and opened a new route.  But, my point still remains that this is shockingly poor editting and design.  And I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if the WLD had been produced by WOTC, that this sort of thing would not happen.  Trying to argue that the only advantage WOTC books have over other books is pretty pictures is silly.  Something I have always argued is that if d20 publishers really want to be taken seriously, they must start making a concerted effort to properly proofread their works.  This sort of thing is far too common in d20 books and it makes people seriously question all d20 publishers, not just the one that happens to be making the mistakes.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 20, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Looking through their one word title series (I own Evil, Mercenaries and Secrets) and I see page after page of typos, mechanical errors and outright mistakes.
> 
> AEG getting out of the RPG biz was mentioned earlier as an example of the downturn in the industry.  I'm sure that's part of it. .




Hey, if you think you think  Mercenaries is crap quality, you can send it my way


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Nov 20, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Have you actually bought that many AEG d20 products?  I unfortunately have.




I got a chuckle out of that too. I have quite a few AEG products and they're good for little more than mining ideas; the mechanics are so broken they're nearly useless. And yes, they are (were) in need of a professional editor, big-time.

[I should note that I haven't purchased anything recently, however, so maybe the quality is much improved. They've lost me as a customer though]


----------



## buzz (Nov 20, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Umm, no we haven't.  In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that, over the next 12-18 months, the D20 badge will become more important, not less. . .



I stand corrected, though looking at your website, the emphasis seems to be on the products I mentioned. Effectively, this is a compliment; you're not churning out splats, you're doing interesting and varied things with the OGL.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 20, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> I got a chuckle out of that too. I have quite a few AEG products and they're good for little more than mining ideas;




Well, I personally will take   AEG products for their ideas over the majority of WOTC stuff that I have seen. Then again, I am one of those people that tends to find the majority of WOTC's generic supplement material  unappealing.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 20, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Might as well let it go. There are three reviews of it right now, two four star and one two star. It's either something you like or something you dislike. Unlike psionics, another love/hate idea, Icarnum doesn't have a lot of history with the D&D game.




Oh, I'm not necessarily sticking up for Incarnum. I actually don't know a lot about it. Rather, I'm responding to a rhetorical technique I see used a lot on these boards that I find very annoying. Basically, it's the technique of strong language. My friends with PhD's in political science do it all the time. They use words like clearly, obviously (and note that there's usually an volume inflection there so that the "power-word" is spoken at a higher volume then the other words in the sentence) or a more cunning assembleage of similiar words that states the same thing with the intent of tricking the listener into making the assumption that the speaker is a bona fide expert on the subject. It's a way of taking control and asserting dominance in a debate without actually proferring a specific argument. Engineers and science types are using the same technique when they say something along the lines of "it follows from first principles."

I hate it, and whenever I see it, I challenge the speaker to give an actual reason. In this case, he (she?) did and pointed out that Incarnum is apparently just the SWRPG force system ported over to a fantasy setting. While I don't necessarily agree that this is a great thing, I don't think it automatically qualifies the Incarnum book as Dreck. I don't own the SWRPG, so having ported to a fantasy setting for me isn't such a terrible thing.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 20, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> This holds true for every public company - are you suggesting that innovation only comes from fringe companies with nothing to lose?




No. Don't be silly. I'm not stupid.

It depends on the industry, sir. Do you see innovation in companies that produce physical products where personal taste isn't a factor? All the time. Why? Because it's almost guarenteed that an innovation that makes a physical product tangibly better in some way will sell better than products without that innovation.

Whenever you throw personal taste into the mix, however, innovation is not a sure fire winner. Companies introduce innovative products that fail ALL THE TIME because the average customer simply does not like the product for reasons of personal taste. When personal taste is a factor, you have to look at what your market generally wants. To do so anything else is ludicrous.

So, while you can complain that WOTC is too conservative for your tastes, I think it's highly unreasonable of you to expect them to be less conservative unless you've got some special information in hand that proves that more innovation would improve their profit margin.

And if you're suggesting that WOTC not care about their profit margin, well, I just don't know where to go from there.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 20, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Can I step in here and make the point that, as far as innovation goes, WotC needs to be given credit for releasing 3e and putting forward the OGL concept in the first place? Shaman keeps talking about "innovation". Well, I for one think that d20 and the OGL was massively innovative. Wihtout it, the d20 market being discussed wouldn't even exist.
> 
> WotC could have kept on releasing AD&D2.x ad infinitum and made tidy profits. Instead they took a _massive_ risk in rebuilding the most popular RPG on earth from the ground up in order to make it better, as well as provide a business model that would be profitable for both themselves and other gaming companies.
> 
> Ergo, you'll need to excuse me if I balk at accepting the idea that WotC is in no way "innovative".




I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the argument "innovative=good" is false. Innovation (since we seem to be talking about innovation in a more artistic sense) is not always good. Sometimes it flops badly.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 21, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> It certainly wouldn't be the first time.Then please, by all means, gather them together and ask them weigh in - if someone can adequately explain to me how selling the most widgets automatically makes your widgets the best, I'm all ears.




Wow…should I actually answer that question? OK – fine you asked – if someone sells the most of something does that not then mean that the marketplace deems it the best? Hint – It does. 

Now before you go off talking about Microsoft and such; those cases are by far the rarity. RPG is about as free a market as one can get given the vast outlets available. 



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> But for now, I'll consider BMW to make better cars than GM, even if GM sells three or four or ten times as many in a year.




Err…guess what most of BMW’s sales are NOT in the U.S. it is in Europe by far where it is a domestic company; and outsells GM by far. On the contrary Japan sells most of its cars here in the U.S. and guess what; they actually sell a heck of a lot; commonly more than GM in the Japanese core models that is (Sedans). Why? Because Japanese brands (in sedans) are considered superior; so the marketplace buys them.





			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Well, then let's try this: I think _Iron Heroes_ is an innovative product - so is _Black Company_. I think _Midnight_ and _Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay_ have fascinating settings. I think the approach to character abilities in _Blue Rose_ is really interesting.
> 
> I don't own any of these books, nor am I invovled in games in which these books are used. In fact I can honestly say that I don't 'like' _Blue Rose_ - the style of fantasy from which it draws doesn't interest me. I can still appreciate the quality of the mechanics and thematics these books bring to the hobby, however.
> 
> I can look at something and appreciate its values whether I 'like' it or not, whether I use it or not.I think I answered this in my post to *Hussar* already.




So again…your opinion – beating up other companies in the context of fact instead of opinion and personal taste.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> *Edit:* Kids, I'm done here - I've already spent way too much time on this thread as it is. I think I've made my position abundantly clear at this point, and y'all are welcome to agree or disagree (probably the latter) as you see fit. Have a good weekend!




One of the points of a Bboard is to create points and arguments for and against them – Your abandoning the conversation certainly says something.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> And my argument is that I don't necessarily buy that WotC's strategy is to produce nothing but "safe" vanilla books. Eberron alone is evidence against this. You and GVD seem to be assuming that your personal opinion of their books is fact, and thus proof of a strategy.




How is Eberron not a "safe" book?  At the most, it can be said that it was a timely book.  It takes a lot of the new type anime final fantasy elements that have crept into the newer generation over the last decade.  The setting is not really that innovative.

Actually, the campaign book is fairly good, but their later releases have brought back the bland where Eberron is concerned.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> So again…your opinion – beating up other companies in the context of fact instead of opinion and personal taste.




Actually, he has never stated that his opinion was fact.  He has maintained that his statements are generated through his own personal tastes.  So you are attacking him because you do not like his opinion.  Let's not fall for any other illusion on that score.

Here is the core of Shaman's argument:  In many industries, the giant can be puttering along making the same type of material, then get hosed one day because someone made it better.  Someone can make a better screwdriver one day and people will begin buying it because this particular screwdriver has the extra long snout that makes it easier to use than any other screwdriver made.  Suddenly, dewalt or black and decker have real comptetion because they did not try to innovate to make that screwdriver better.  In many cases, they have learned their lesson by now because they have a lot of equal competitors.  They have to innovate.

WOTC is different.  They have no competitor.  The small size of the hobby and there level of market dominance keeps them from having to effectively compete.  No one can invent a better wheel in the hobby because no one can ever get access to all the channels needed to sell the product and no one can get the amount of free advertizing that TSR managed to develop back in the 80s.

Now, if Mattel decided to buy Green Ronin, then WOTC would have a serious problem.  However, I doubt that will happen.

However, it is a possibility that a company can churn out consistantly good products that are a little bland, yet sell well.  It is equally possible that a continuous lack of innovation combined with a stagnate or negative growth in the consumer base could create an even larger exodus of the base and push them towards other mediums for enjoyment.

I am not saying that this is happening, but it could happen, and could be one way to describe the current marketplace situation.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> How is Eberron not a "safe" book?  At the most, it can be said that it was a timely book.  It takes a lot of the new type anime final fantasy elements that have crept into the newer generation over the last decade.  The setting is not really that innovative.




Which elements of Eberron are from 'Anime' or 'Final Fantasy', specifically? 

With additions of things like Dragonmarks, Dragonshards, artificers, warforged, action points, schemas and a bunch of other mechanical elements, I think Eberron was certainly something of a risk.  Maybe you forgot all the frothing at the mouth about dino-riding halfling barbarians, the warforged or the lightning rail?  Dwarves as perfumed bankers?  Gnomes as masters of intrigue?  Orcs as guardians of nature?  Elven undead-worshipping cults that are non-evil?  Eberron had the serious potential to be a major misstep for WotC.  Fans could have rejected it in droves.  The heated debate here and at Wizard's boards certainly didn't paint the impression that Eberron was a safe, sure thing.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Fans could have rejected it in droves.  The heated debate here and at Wizard's boards certainly didn't paint the impression that Eberron was a safe, sure thing.




Rabid fanboys on the internet do not equate with overall audience.  The fact that WOTC produced the setting alone would generate a high number of sales.  It was not that risky a move.

Also, Wizards is really pushing Eberron.  The Delegate program is only allowed to demo and support Eberron, the Worldwide gameday adventure was Eberron (no choice this year), and they have really cut down on the number of FR releases.

The fact that they never updated the core FR book to 3.5 means that they are already planning the coffin for that setting.  3.0 FR setting books are not selling.  Not one store in my area bothers to stock them anymore.

Eberron wasn't risky.  It had the benefit of being a new setting from WOTC.  They would get sales based on that alone.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Which elements of Eberron are from 'Anime' or 'Final Fantasy', specifically?




Lightning rails, airships, technomages, robots, mutants, crystals, trantor/coruscant(sp?), and the artwork has a serious cartoon/anime feel in the Eberron products.

None of this stuff is especially bad, but it is not hard to see where things were influenced.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Lightning rails, airships, technomages, robots, mutants, crystals, trantor/coruscant(sp?), and the artwork has a serious cartoon/anime feel in the Eberron products.
> 
> None of this stuff is especially bad, but it is not hard to see where things were influenced.




Actually, the artwork looks more like Hellboy than anime, IMO.  And I've seen a lot of anime.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Actually, the artwork looks more like Hellboy than anime, IMO.  And I've seen a lot of anime.




The Magic of Eberron moves a bit away from that pulpy feel into high fantasy again I thought. But do agree with the Hellboy bit.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Rabid fanboys on the internet do not equate with overall audience.  The fact that WOTC produced the setting alone would generate a high number of sales.  It was not that risky a move.




[snip]



> _Eberron wasn't risky.  It had the benefit of being a new setting from WOTC.  They would get sales based on that alone._





So, WotC is criticized for not producing any risky products, and many would apparently like WotC to take risks and innovate. However, the fact that WotC produces a product means, appearently by definition, that the product is not risky. Am I the only one who sees the problem in the train of logic?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 21, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> Wow…should I actually answer that question? OK – fine you asked – if someone sells the most of something does that not then mean that the marketplace deems it the best? Hint – It does.




It doesn't.

It could be the cheapest.  It could be the most visible due to advertising or other factors.  It could be that volume production gets it into more stores than superior products.  It could be regionally popular in an area with a large population that isn't representative of the population on a whole.  It could simply be more convenient to buy.  It could be more convenient to buy _right now_.  It could be you never heard of superior products.  It could be that there is status attached to the product that has nothing to do with quality.  It could be that buying the product makes you feel popular or attractive.  It could be that it's what you've always bought and you don't want to change your habits.  It could be that you ran into a good salesman.

There are many reasons why people buy products that have nothing to do with the quality of the products.  If people were concerned with only buying the best product, marketing would look completely different than it does and we'd all have toasters that worked after a year and cars that didn't break down until 500,000 km.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 21, 2005)

Note: in economics best does not equate to the most quality, but to the rational decision that yields the most optimal returns; eg best selling.

Compare WOTC to Games Workshop, the dominant player in sci-fi and fantasy table top playing. Players continually complain about prices (4-5 price hikes in 3 years doubling the price of nearly everything); Players gripe about the rules; Players gripe about how the company continually favors key races (read as key products)...

For years people have claimed any company that has its act together could take the market. But companies have come and gone in their attempts to do so.

Is GW the best? Yes. Are they the best minis (No); best rules (No); best marketing (possibly though IK is well supported); best company to work with (hell No).

WoTC is in a similiar position of dominance, though it does have the best quality, if not the best content.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Note: in economics best does not equate to the most quality, but to the rational decision that yields the most optimal returns; eg best selling.
> 
> Compare WOTC to Games Workshop, the dominant player in sci-fi and fantasy table top playing. Players continually complain about prices (4-5 price hikes in 3 years doubling the price of nearly everything); Players gripe about the rules; Players gripe about how the company continually favors key races (read as key products)...
> 
> ...




I don't know about that. Privateer Press and Rakcham have both been eating away at the foundations of GW, especially after the LoTR Movies were out of the theaters. Add to this the random painted minis and they're not as unassailable as they once were.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 21, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It doesn't.
> 
> It could be the cheapest.  It could be the most visible due to advertising or other factors.  It could be that volume production gets it into more stores than superior products.  It could be regionally popular in an area with a large population that isn't representative of the population on a whole.  It could simply be more convenient to buy.  It could be more convenient to buy _right now_.  It could be you never heard of superior products.  It could be that there is status attached to the product that has nothing to do with quality.  It could be that buying the product makes you feel popular or attractive.  It could be that it's what you've always bought and you don't want to change your habits.  It could be that you ran into a good salesman.
> 
> There are many reasons why people buy products that have nothing to do with the quality of the products.  If people were concerned with only buying the best product, marketing would look completely different than it does and we'd all have toasters that worked after a year and cars that didn't break down until 500,000 km.




Sorry - you are incorrect - beyond incorrect. When one makes the statement I did then that incorporates all that you have outlined. It does not matter how it occurred – the fact of the matter it did occur. 

The details you outline are symptoms and consequences of the product becoming the “best in the market”. Sales/revenue/net income defines the best; defining the best does not come from how it got there in economic or business terms but only the fact that it did. 

Want an example? Apple was far better quality then Microsoft; but Microsoft won that war and became the “best”; the highest seller with the most customers. Apple started out way ahead; and still failed.

Want another example? Japanese Cars; because of the exchange rate and labor advantages Japan could produce superior cars at an equal or lower price than the U.S. could. Because the Japanese companies essentially owned their workers (provided housing, food, schooling etc.) and the government would intentionally induce inflation into their own economy alongside core price controls (and still do it) to keep that exchange rate as high as possible does that mean that the Japanese cars are not “the best”? Based upon how they got there? In the early days to make a Japanese car the way the did in Japan would cost double (just the cost mind you not retail price) the price of a U.S. car. Technically in ethical terms - the Japanese had an unfair advantage.

The market decides it all; everything else is aside. If you want to dig down and do comparisons that is fine; sales = best = the market says so; every economist since Adam Smith says so; economists and business folks (of which I am both) are trained in this way and always have been for decades and always will be – why – because it holds true.

You can argue the morality and environmental causes all day long; but at the end of the day the market decides who is the best which is defined by sales. 

Now as I had stated before; once a monopoly condition (or close to it) occurs (such as Microsoft today) things are far different as the laws and theories of economics are then skewed. However the RPG industry is far from this; excessively far.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, he has never stated that his opinion was fact.  He has maintained that his statements are generated through his own personal tastes.  So you are attacking him because you do not like his opinion.  Let's not fall for any other illusion on that score.





I am not the only one who stated that nor the first – I suggest you read all 5 pages of posts. 

“Let's not fall for any other illusion on that score.”:  Interesting choice of words – as if you are the final word in the universe that decides what is being said and how.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Here is the core of Shaman's argument:  In many industries, the giant can be puttering along making the same type of material, then get hosed one day because someone made it better.  Someone can make a better screwdriver one day and people will begin buying it because this particular screwdriver has the extra long snout that makes it easier to use than any other screwdriver made.  Suddenly, dewalt or black and decker have real comptetion because they did not try to innovate to make that screwdriver better.  In many cases, they have learned their lesson by now because they have a lot of equal competitors.  They have to innovate.
> 
> No that was not his core – that was others core not his.
> 
> WOTC is different.  They have no competitor.  The small size of the hobby and there level of market dominance keeps them from having to effectively compete.  No one can invent a better wheel in the hobby because no one can ever get access to all the channels needed to sell the product and no one can get the amount of free advertizing that TSR managed to develop back in the 80s.




Everyone can get access to the channels; the internet has assured that. The fact that so many folks here talk about buying other company’s products could be said to confirm that. Monte Cook is doing well, as is Green Ronin. However as well as they could? Marketing choices is part of what makes someone or something the best. It happens in the software industry all the time; an innovator shoots to the top.

What the issue is - is time like ANY industry the guy that has been there the longest will dominate and it takes time to develop ones own market – unless of course the big player keeps turning out a better and better product (real or perceived). D20 has not been out long enough for anyone to start making general statements regarding long term market trends.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Now, if Mattel decided to buy Green Ronin, then WOTC would have a serious problem.  However, I doubt that will happen.




You are correct in that – then Green Ronin would have the finances to grow more quickly. If Monte Cook suddenly got a big investor of any kind so would he. But there is a reason that WoTC bought TSR and why Hasbro bought WoTC – and why Mattel has not bought any of these other competitors (of which Monte Cook’s company would be the most appealing given the name of MC). 



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> However, it is a possibility that a company can churn out consistantly good products that are a little bland, yet sell well.  It is equally possible that a continuous lack of innovation combined with a stagnate or negative growth in the consumer base could create an even larger exodus of the base and push them towards other mediums for enjoyment.




True; if you think things are bland. Sales at WoTC and a couple of other companies says folks don’t.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I am not saying that this is happening, but it could happen, and could be one way to describe the current marketplace situation.





But it seems not to be the current situation


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the argument "innovative=good" is false. Innovation (since we seem to be talking about innovation in a more artistic sense) is not always good. Sometimes it flops badly.



Gotcha, and agreed.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Lightning rails, airships, technomages, robots, mutants, crystals, trantor/coruscant(sp?), and the artwork has a serious cartoon/anime feel in the Eberron products.
> 
> None of this stuff is especially bad, but it is not hard to see where things were influenced.




As others have mentioned, if anything, Eberron does a direct steal from Mike Mignola and Tim Truman's artwork, not anime.

As for the other elements, I'm not sure why you classify those as exclusively Final Fantasy's domain.  Elements like these appear, for example, in Fred Saberhagen's Empire of the East from the 70s and his Swords series from the 80s.  The Dark Crystal is about as classic to the tropes of High Fantasy as you can get.  Artificers are hardly 'technomages'....at least any more than the conventional magic item crafter is.  Gnomes as techno-cogwork makers have been a part of D&D for some time, too.  Airships are hardly new to D&D fandom, either.  I remember those in one of the realms comics, and I had them in my games all the way back in the 80s. (and let's be honest, flying airships aren't that unique an idea).  I'm just not seeing something specific here to anime and it's ilk.  Exalted this ain't.

You lost me with the Asimov reference, there.  What's that referring to?



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Rabid fanboys on the internet do not equate with overall audience. The fact that WOTC produced the setting alone would generate a high number of sales. It was not that risky a move.




That's circular logic, isn't it?  By that definition, WotC is unable to take a risk because everything they publish is a guaranteed success.  That's clearly not the case, though.  Even now, people on the DDO boards are talking about the lightning rail  and debating it as a choice for the setting, and in fact are debating the use of Eberron itself ...and while they may be fanboys, many aren't D&D fanboys.  If everything WotC touched was a success, they wouldn't have farmed out material to companies like Sovereign Stone or S&SS.  Clearly, they perceive some risk.  That they worked long and hard on Eberron before releasing it is an indicator of how seriously they took the setting...and how they planned to agressively market it.  But agressive marketing doesn't equal sales; take a look at things like the Pokemon RPG and Harry Potter TCG...failures that WotC cut their losses with and moved on.

As to the 'best' issue, I think you guys are arguing different points.  From a companies perspective, whatever produces the most profit is, by their definition, the best.  From a consumer's standpoint, whatever produces the highest quality product is best.  The two are note necessarily mtually exclusive.


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> How is Eberron not a "safe" book?  ...The setting is not really that innovative.



Well, basically we have an "is" vs. "is not" argument here. I don't think Eberron is much like any other campiagn setting TSR or WotC has ever released, nor much like other campiagn settings released by d20 publishers. I also don't think it was particularly "safe" based on initial public reaction. "Safe" would have been something like Kalamar.

The point is really that, regardless of whether you've seen elements in the setting elsewhere (e.g., the "It's just Final Fantasy!" argument), it was _released as an official setting by WotC_. It seemed to polarize the fanbase, and then gradually win people over. Ergo, there was risk. WotC tried something different, and succeeded.


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So, WotC is criticized for not producing any risky products, and many would apparently like WotC to take risks and innovate. However, the fact that WotC produces a product means, appearently by definition, that the product is not risky. Am I the only one who sees the problem in the train of logic?



Bingo. Give that man a prize.


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The fact that they never updated the core FR book to 3.5 means that they are already planning the coffin for that setting.  3.0 FR setting books are not selling.  Not one store in my area bothers to stock them anymore.



This is BS anecdotal evidence. First off, I can't think of a single game store or bookstore (that carries RPGs) near me that doesn't stock FR books. Second, the PGtF updated the setting to 3.5, and the FR release schedule hasn't slowed down; it's keeping pace with Eberron.

Honestly, if WotC had released a revised 3.5 FRCS, you'd probably be criticizing tem for that "money grab", too. 

The argument you three are making here seems to boil down to "WotC bad."


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> However, it is a possibility that a company can churn out consistantly good products that are a little bland, yet sell well.  It is equally possible that a continuous lack of innovation combined with a stagnate or negative growth in the consumer base could create an even larger exodus of the base and push them towards other mediums for enjoyment.
> 
> I am not saying that this is happening, but it could happen, and could be one way to describe the current marketplace situation.



What exodus? There's a NPR story on the ENWorld news page right now that was spurred on by  D&D having "made a surprising comeback as of late".

WotC is doing good work; the d20/OGL thing alone merits them much karma. d20 publishers are producing amazing stuff. Quality is not the issue.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> This is BS anecdotal evidence. First off, I can't think of a single game store or bookstore (that carries RPGs) near me that doesn't stock FR books. Second, the PGtF updated the setting to 3.5, and the FR release schedule hasn't slowed down; it's keeping pace with Eberron.
> 
> Honestly, if WotC had released a revised 3.5 FRCS, you'd probably be criticizing tem for that "money grab", too.
> 
> The argument you three are making here seems to boil down to "WotC bad."




No.  I am not saying that Wizards is bad.  I like Wizards, obviously, or I would not be a delagate for them.  I enjoy their product and choose to purchase it above other companies.  However, I can say that I am not allowed to demo D&D with any world other than Eberron.  

Also, PGtF may have updated the rules to 3.5, but you still need a 3.0 book to run the setting.  The stores in my area will not stock the FRCS because it is 3.0.  They will not stock the PGtF because it is incomplete.  Anyone interested in 3.5 FR who has never played before needs both.

FR may be supported, but it is not being promoted.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> No.  I am not saying that Wizards is bad.  I like Wizards, obviously, or I would not be a delagate for them.  I enjoy their product and choose to purchase it above other companies.  However, I can say that I am not allowed to demo D&D with any world other than Eberron.
> 
> Also, PGtF may have updated the rules to 3.5, but you still need a 3.0 book to run the setting.  The stores in my area will not stock the FRCS because it is 3.0.  They will not stock the PGtF because it is incomplete.  Anyone interested in 3.5 FR who has never played before needs both.
> 
> FR may be supported, but it is not being promoted.





By your store. Games Plus and all the Gamer's Paradise stores in the Chicago land area have no problem stocking it. Or the Borders. Or the Barnes & Nobles. Or the Waldenbooks.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So, WotC is criticized for not producing any risky products, and many would apparently like WotC to take risks and innovate. However, the fact that WotC produces a product means, appearently by definition, that the product is not risky. Am I the only one who sees the problem in the train of logic?




Actually, I am not condemning them for a lack of risky products.  I am only saying that Eberron was not that risky in hindsight.  It is more modern, which is a good thing.  They have even added a good amount of flavor to the setting, which is also a good thing.

I just wanted to say that I thought Shaman had a valid opinion.  It is an opinion that can only be proven in hindsight or by gathering a large amount of data that we do not have.

As for the decline, I think that is an industry wide syndrome where the presence of WOTC plays a part, although I think that Wizards may understand the problem better than I had first thought now that I have learned they will be attending ALA this year.  That is an extremely savvy business move.

The decline has a lot of components to it and a ton of them can be laid at the feet of the other publishers.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> By your store. Games Plus and all the Gamer's Paradise stores in the Chicago land area have no problem stocking it. Or the Borders. Or the Barnes & Nobles. Or the Waldenbooks.




On the shelves or will the special order?  And how long have then been there?

The B&N and Borders are not carrying the FRCS around here.  I just visited them recently and had some discussions with the store managers.  I am hoping that they will let me run a marketing campaign there for the Wizards products they are carrying.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> It is more modern,




I agree.     



> which is a good thing.




I disagree.     



> They have even added a good amount of flavor to the setting,




I agree.     



> which is also a good thing.




I really disagree.     



> The decline has a lot of components to it and a ton of them can be laid at the feet of the other publishers.




I really agree.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2005)

Consider also that Wizards considers 3e books to be mostly compatible with 3.5e. We *also* haven't seen a reprint of the Manual of the Planes (one of the best-received 3e books). 

The ongoing argument of "innovation is good" generally boils down to "innovating away from D&D is good" and is utterly against my interests and the interests of Wizards, and only serves a minority of people.

That's the problem with Iron Heroes, despite Mike's best intentions: it requires all PCs and character-based NPCs be Iron Heroes-based. Magic Items (a core part of the normal D&D experience) are sidelined.

(Indeed, if it doesn't have notes for adapting prestige classes, then a great deal of the four most popular D&D supplements, the Complete series, is also made useless).

One of the fascinating things about both the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Magic of Incarnum is the way they just slot into D&D without upsetting anything. (Compare to the Complete Priest's Handbook back in 2e, which required you to redesign the cleric class and all the gods to use its rules!)

Cheers!


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 21, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I don't know about that. Privateer Press and Rakcham have both been eating away at the foundations of GW, especially after the LoTR Movies were out of the theaters. Add to this the random painted minis and they're not as unassailable as they once were.




Joe

PP is a great game, as skirmish game, as is Rackham. Rackham's venture into "full scale armies" - Ragnarok - has been an unmittigated failure. Not a suprise when each model costs $14, plus they are too beautiful to paint quick.

But, this is nothing new. Less than 5 years ago it was Chainmail and Apocalyse; 5-10 years ago it was Clan Wars, Chronopia and Void. There is always someone nipping at the heals of the $250million GW.

Pre-paint seems to be acting as a gateway into minis rather than eating at its share. But, hopefully someone will find a way to topple GW arroagance.

(Note: GW hired a couled of sculptors from Rackham and boy does it show in the new wood elf characater models)


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> On the shelves or will the special order?  And how long have then been there?
> 
> The B&N and Borders are not carrying the FRCS around here.  I just visited them recently and had some discussions with the store managers.  I am hoping that they will let me run a marketing campaign there for the Wizards products they are carrying.




The Games Plus has 'em in the stores. The Gamer's Paradise has the Player's Guide and will order the Campaign setting. 

How long have they been there? Probably since they came out. As they're core books, if they sell out, they reorder 'em.

Borders especially carries all the FR stuff. Pretty big selection.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 21, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The ongoing argument of "innovation is good" generally boils down to "innovating away from D&D is good" and is utterly against my interests and the interests of Wizards, and only serves a minority of people.




Must say I don't read this thread this way. But, after the glut of 3rd party producers adding to 3e without much differentiation, setting and rules differentiation is bound to be a marketing repsonse.



> That's the problem with Iron Heroes, despite Mike's best intentions: it requires all PCs and character-based NPCs be Iron Heroes-based. Magic Items (a core part of the normal D&D experience) are sidelined.




That's the _intent_ of Iron Heroes, to generate a completely different feel, with learning a whole new rule mechanic.



> One of the fascinating things about both the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Magic of Incarnum is the way they just slot into D&D without upsetting anything.




Becuase they are designed to fit in from a mechanics perspective. Now, there are certainly flavor issues. Aside, how exactly does Incarnum plug right into Eberron, the now defacto setting (based on recently published books).


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> That's the _intent_ of Iron Heroes, to generate a completely different feel, with learning a whole new rule mechanic.




...at the same power level as 3e, so you can still use existing monsters.

That's a vital point. Iron Heroes doesn't throw out the CR/EL mechanic. Mike is to be commended for that. From what I've read, Mike didn't want too much of existing D&D abandoned when you use Iron Heroes.

However, because magic items are so much a core part of balancing D&D characters, the character side of things must be abandoned when playing Iron Heroes. That's fine. I'm sure many people will have a blast with it. (I tend to like magic too much )

If Wizards had published this innovative product (and it's something that The Shaman brought up as innovative), then they would have drastically split their market. 

The trick is to innovate whilst not destroying what has come before. I see this kind of innovation all the time from Wizards. However, when I bring up these innovations, the drastic innovation lobby don't consider them worth mentioning. "It's still D&D" is their catchcry. Well, yes. Isn't that the point?



> Aside, how exactly does Incarnum plug right into Eberron, the now defacto setting (based on recently published books).




Ask Keith.  Personally, I use the Kosh explanation. "It has always been here". 

For the most part, I envision Incarnum as using the normal magical energies. The one difference is that tapping into the souls (of aligned creatures or magical beasts) gives you the ability to shape magic as those creatures or beasts do.

The Eberron "Mark of Heroes" RPGA campaign allows Incarnum, incidentally.

Cheers!


----------



## rounser (Nov 21, 2005)

> and is utterly against my interests and the interests of Wizards



Arguably, Eberron is an innovation against D&D...I get the feeling from WOTC that they'd really rather be developing for some pulp RPG.  I got that vibe from Dungeon when it was still at WOTC.  I can see how you could get thoroughly sick of D&D - maybe that's where it's coming from.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> The ongoing argument of "innovation is good" generally boils down to "innovating away from D&D is good" and is utterly against my interests and the interests of Wizards, and only serves a minority of people.




To be fair, I do not think that Shaman meant for innovation in the sense that people are referring to it.  I took it more as "building" the better screwdriver with the extra widget that makes it more useful.


----------



## Belen (Nov 21, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> Arguably, Eberron is an innovation against D&D...I get the feeling from WOTC that they'd really rather be developing for some pulp RPG.  I got that vibe from Dungeon when it was still at WOTC.  I can see how you could get thoroughly sick of D&D - maybe that's where it's coming from.




Not really.  Eberron is an innovation against previous cultural offerings of D&D.  It is not traditional fantasy.  This is fine.  Eberron is meant to be marketed to people who are more familiar with pokemon, final fantasy, and x-men than with more traditional styles.

I like the concept, but find it horribly complex to demo to kids.  It has so much backstory that explaining the setting can be a bear.  I'd much prefer they have a generic setting or materials for this regard, but that is a preference.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not really.  Eberron is an innovation against previous cultural offerings of D&D.  It is not traditional fantasy.  This is fine.  Eberron is meant to be marketed to people who are more familiar with pokemon, final fantasy, and x-men than with more traditional styles.
> 
> I like the concept, but find it horribly complex to demo to kids.  It has so much backstory that explaining the setting can be a bear.  I'd much prefer they have a generic setting or materials for this regard, but that is a preference.




Must be in the way you're demoing it. I mean if you look at Forgotten Realms, do you get into the Avatar series or any of the dozens of novel stores? And Greyhawk... man, do you GM pre-Wars, post Wars, or something else?

Backstory is only as important as you make it. I've seen many a sucessful demo using the adventure right from the back of the book. Players usually don't demand huge swathes of background knowledge their first game out.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Not really.  Eberron is an innovation against previous cultural offerings of D&D.  It is not traditional fantasy.  This is fine.  Eberron is meant to be marketed to people who are more familiar with pokemon, final fantasy, and x-men than with more traditional styles.




I wonder why I like it so much, then, as Greyhawk is my preferred setting and I don't enjoy Pokemon or Final Fantasy, and gave up the X-Men years ago.  

Although Eberron draws on more outside the Tolkienesque settings, I don't think you can boil it down to Pokemon, Final Fantasy and X-Men. That ignores the wider trends of popular fantasy fiction. If anything, the world of Harry Potter bears more resemblance to Eberron to anything than in Pokemen or the X-Men. (I'm not familiar with Final Fantasy).

It's an interesting feature that D&D itself is so against traditional fantasy - because, in traditional fantasy, wizards are rare and mostly the enemy. If they are friends, their magic is hidden and secretive (see Gandalf). What a contrast to the magic-user of D&D, throwing fireballs everywhere!



> I'd much prefer they have a generic setting or materials for this regard, but that is a preference.




Does default D&D/Greyhawk fill that need for you? 

Cheers!


----------



## rounser (Nov 21, 2005)

> Eberron is an innovation against previous cultural offerings of D&D. It is not traditional fantasy.



At it's heart, D&D is just a bunch of favourite sword and sorcery fantasy cliches.  I suppose my distaste for the setting revolves around it muddying those waters without having a strong theme to it to latch onto ("It's D&D with this twist:").  Even Dark Sun and Spelljammer had that, and you could sum up that twist in a few words.  Instead it's a kind of unfocused mishmash, part this that and the other...

And when it was launched, they promised that a focus of the setting was "making the impact of magic on the world make sense", which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes D&D tick, IMO.  I really wanted them to go back to D&D's roots and do something like Wilderlands - that's how the game could have been reinvented in terms of D&D doing what D&D does best, but I suppose they were gunshy after TSR reinventing the wheel and failing so many times.  Instead they played some weird novelty card that seems related to a fascination over at WOTC with pulp.

Heck, I can even see why a novel setting won: After reading 1000 proposals of the same-old same-old derivative D&D drek, something novel would seem like a really good idea.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> At it's heart, D&D is just a bunch of favourite sword and sorcery fantasy cliches.  I suppose my distaste for the setting revolves around it muddying those waters without having a strong theme to it to latch onto ("It's D&D with this twist:").  Even Dark Sun and Spelljammer had that, and you could sum up that twist in a few words.  Instead it's a kind of unfocused mishmash, part this that and the other...




I well understand that. There's a bunch of really unfocused bits in Eberron. (The same also applies to Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, btw, but they're off to the edges a lot more).

I boil down Eberron to "It's Indiana Jones in a fantasy world!" as a starting point. That covers most of the adventures. (Occasionally substitute "James Bond" in there). 

Looking at the published adventures:
* The Forgotten Forge - Indy Jones
* Shadows of the Last War - Indy Jones
* Whispers of the Vampire's Blade - James Bond
* Grasp of the Emerald Claw - Indy Jones

Cheers!


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 21, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> And when it was launched, they promised that a focus of the setting was "making the impact of magic on the world make sense", which displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes D&D tick, IMO.




Wouldn't that be 'players'?  The ones who are buying the game in droves?  I would think successful sales show a pretty good understanding of what makes D&D tick.


----------



## rounser (Nov 21, 2005)

> I would think successful sales show a pretty good understanding of what makes D&D tick.



Slap WOTC production values and the D&D logo on something more traditional; would it have sold better?  We'll never know.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> I really wanted them to go back to D&D's roots and do something like Wilderlands - that's how the game could have been reinvented in terms of D&D doing what D&D does best, but I suppose they were gunshy after TSR reinventing the wheel and failing so many times.




I don't think it's entirely that. I think the ongoing trends of fantasy have taken us far away from the Lieberesque worlds. When I think of the major fantasy books of recent times, most have magic front and centre, and often integrated into the world.

Cheers!


----------



## rounser (Nov 21, 2005)

> I don't think it's entirely that. I think the ongoing trends of fantasy have taken us far away from the Lieberesque worlds. When I think of the major fantasy books of recent times, most have magic front and centre, and often integrated into the world.



That's a good point.  Nonetheless, I'm not sure that there was a need to go Indiana Jones to update things, either.

It's interesting to look where they've landed out of the original directions of "back to the dungeon", "crunch good, fluff bad", "balance is king", "let those d20 guys make the modules, we'll make a fortune selling PHBs" and "keep the number of settings to an absolute minimum".

I think all of those had unintended side effects which proved that the issues weren't quite as black and white as these policies suggested they were.  They've all been very good for sales, but I'm not sure if they're sustainable.  Likewise, if Eberron comes to define what D&D is because the alternatives aren't there, that could have unintended side effects too.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 21, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> Likewise, if Eberron comes to define what D&D is because the alternatives aren't there, that could have unintended side effects too.



You talk as if the FR were already dead and buried .


----------



## MerricB (Nov 21, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> You talk as if the FR were already dead and buried .




That's an important point. I know that the primary problem of FR vs Greyhawk is that they're so similar. (Look, I much prefer Greyhawk to the FR, but I can look at them objectively and say that the play experience is very similar in both). Both cater for what we probably agree on is the core D&D experience.

The second D&D setting was _required_ to be different than FR. It's D&D with a twist. 

Eberron doesn't supplant the Forgotten Realms. The FR is still extremely viable, and, indeed, more visible than Eberron. Look in the bookshops and tell me how much shelf space the Eberron novels take compared to the FR novels.

As an aside, one can see that the Dragonlance novels are still a going concern. Why then are the Dragonlance setting books not still published by Wizards? My theory is that the actual world is terribly difficult for DMs to come up with viable adventures in it. Great to read about, much harder to play in. (Consider also that all the Weis & Hickman DL novels are about big, world-changing events, which can't really be translated to D&D games on an ongoing basis. The RPG needs more stability in the game world).

There's an interesting divergence: Novels are often about a world-changing event. RPGs are often about preventing a world-changing event. Discuss. 

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Eberron is meant to be marketed to people who are more familiar with pokemon, final fantasy, and x-men than with more traditional styles.




Yep.  Which is why I really don't care for it.
It is a genre soup mis-mash of magitech, supers, sci-fi and fantasy.  Nothing is automatically any one of those, but they are all blurred together.

If that is what younger audiences want, then good on WotC.  I've got no gripe with them choosing the up and coming audience over my personal preference.  

But I'm still going to spend my money on what I do want, and this ain't it.


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> The B&N and Borders are not carrying the FRCS around here.



This probably has a lot more to do with the fact the FRCS was released four years ago than WotC not being interested in promoting it. I don't see Border's carrying the LG Gazetteer or MotP, either. They do, however, have all the latest FR books.

Eberron needs to promoted. It's new. The new D&D Online game is going to be set there. FR, otoh, already sells millions of Salvatrore novels and has a huge fanbase.


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Eberron is meant to be marketed to people who are more familiar with pokemon, final fantasy, and x-men than with more traditional styles.



Oh, where is the rolleyes smiley when you need it?


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> Slap WOTC production values and the D&D logo on something more traditional; would it have sold better?  We'll never know.



Um, Kalamar? Granted, the production values were't quite up to the current standards (but weren't too off back in 2001/2002), but it had a big honkin' D&D logo on it. Even DL doesn't have that anymore.


----------



## buzz (Nov 21, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> I really wanted them to go back to D&D's roots and do something like Wilderlands - that's how the game could have been reinvented in terms of D&D doing what D&D does best, but I suppose they were gunshy after TSR reinventing the wheel and failing so many times.



Might I ask, why does it matter that Wilderlands got published by a company other than WotC? You want Wilderlands' old-school feel... you got it. Just not from WotC. Why doesn't that count?

WotC _is_ giving you what you want... via the OGL. Pretty innovative...

I'm much happier that WotC chose to do something unusual. I'm playing in a Wilderlands campiagn right now, and it's lots of fun. But honestly, the setting is nothing that I couldn't see any DM coming up with; it's merely giving D&D a map and encounters. Eberron, otoh, does interesting things with D&D tropes and introduces unconventional ideas, yet still delivers the basic D&D experience. IMO.


----------



## rounser (Nov 21, 2005)

> Why doesn't that count?



Well it does (thank you Necromancer Games/Judges Guild), but the path WOTC takes sculpts the game moreso than d20 companies.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 22, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider also that Wizards considers 3e books to be mostly compatible with 3.5e. We *also* haven't seen a reprint of the Manual of the Planes (one of the best-received 3e books).
> 
> The ongoing argument of "innovation is good" generally boils down to "innovating away from D&D is good" and is utterly against my interests and the interests of Wizards, and only serves a minority of people.
> 
> ...





Yup - great way to put it


----------



## Hussar (Nov 22, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Consider also that Wizards considers 3e books to be mostly compatible with 3.5e. We *also* haven't seen a reprint of the Manual of the Planes (one of the best-received 3e books).
> 
> The ongoing argument of "innovation is good" generally boils down to "innovating away from D&D is good" and is utterly against my interests and the interests of Wizards, and only serves a minority of people.
> 
> ...





Darn you SBMC, I was going to quote that too and you beat me to it.  Quoted for Truth.

That last bit that MerricB put up is very important IMO.  The fact that I can (usually) pick up any WOTC product and be fairly certain that I can use it with any other WOTC product without a great deal of work is one of the main benefits of buying only WOTC.  Sure, it might lead to more "bland" works, that's true, but, then again, the idea of "bland" depends on the buyer as well.

To someone who is new to the game, the magic system in DnD is not bland or vanilla.  It's new and interesting and, above all, it WORKS.  Someone with say, less than 5 years gaming experience, doesn't need an entirely new magic system.  It's very doubtful he's gotten his full run with the existing one.  

By ensuring that their products hang together and are (more or less) compatible with all their other products, WOTC does make life a lot easier on the newer gamer.  If the newer gamer has to rewrite, edit and rework a book to make it function, then most people will stop gaming.  That's what we saw in the 2e days.  Book after book that contradicted everything before it and no guidance as to how to fit things together.  

New gamers don't need alternatives that may or may not work as advertised.  

Something that baffles me about all of this.  If I were to publish a book with typos and editting errors every ten pages, no one would buy it.  If I were to make a video game where there were major bugs every ten minutes, I'd get hosed.  If I made a board game where the players were expected to rewrite the rules constantly, it would never sell.  Why, then, is it considered acceptable to inflict gaming books on the market that have mechanical and language errors throughout?


----------



## Turjan (Nov 22, 2005)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Something that baffles me about all of this.  If I were to publish a book with typos and editting errors every ten pages, no one would buy it.  If I were to make a video game where there were major bugs every ten minutes, I'd get hosed.  If I made a board game where the players were expected to rewrite the rules constantly, it would never sell.  Why, then, is it considered acceptable to inflict gaming books on the market that have mechanical and language errors throughout?



Because you don't get any others? Even if the quality level of WotC books is generally pretty high, there are a few WotC books that show horrible editing with typos and errors galore, whereas there are 3rd party companies that show a very high standard of editing (e.g., Malhavoc Press). I just mention this because I think it's better to refrain from over-generalizations .


----------



## buzz (Nov 22, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> Well it does (thank you Necromancer Games/Judges Guild), but the path WOTC takes sculpts the game moreso than d20 companies.



Then isn't it nice that WotC is leading with something unusual like Eberron (while supporting something traditional like FR), rather than putting out _Greyhawk 2: Electric Booglaoo_? Or even, "We've got the basics covered; you d20 folk, go nuts."


----------



## SBMC (Nov 22, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Then isn't it nice that WotC is leading with something unusual like Eberron (while supporting something traditional like FR), rather than putting out _Greyhawk 2: Electric Booglaoo_? Or even, "We've got the basics covered; you d20 folk, go nuts."




I think that folks should also recall that one thing that WoTC wished to do; via market research; was to allow material to be released for folks to create their own worlds in that spirit, Eberron, IMO, was designed to be different; everyone knows Greyhawk and FR - a whole lot of home spun worlds are closly related to these (and most worlds are actually homespun - with bits of FR and GH in there).

Why? because Eberron is different; why release the same thing? Worse; why release a replica of a major competitor - anyone remember the "New Coke" catastrophe? For you young ones; Coke released a new product; repalcing the old that was very similar to Pepsi. As such, among other things, they admitted Pepsi had a better product. I forget the number but a huge chunk of sales (double didgets percetage wise) was lost. It is considered one of the top business mistakes of the 20th century; right up there with Apple's marketing failure.

If Monte Cooks company released something similar to FR what would you say? Eberron is distinctly different from anything out there (or at least that is in major circulation; I have never seen anything similar).


----------



## Emirikol (Nov 22, 2005)

..just thought I'd better respond to this postfest so Google can find me a little easier...

I love that there's lots of stuff out there..game stores make their real livings off of GDW and CCG's anyways...

Jay Hafner
Lakewood, CO
Emirikol


----------



## Hussar (Nov 23, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Because you don't get any others? Even if the quality level of WotC books is generally pretty high, there are a few WotC books that show horrible editing with typos and errors galore, whereas there are 3rd party companies that show a very high standard of editing (e.g., Malhavoc Press). I just mention this because I think it's better to refrain from over-generalizations .




Fair enough.  But, for every Malhavoc Press, how many d20 publishers foist off books full of typos and glaring errors?

That's the point I'm trying to make.  Many people, myself included, tend to lump products into two categories:  WOTC and Everyone Else.  I'm very sure that there are many people like me who have bought d20 products only to see such horrible quality that they'll never buy another.  I've yet to see a 3.5 WOTC book that has those kinds of errors.  Maybe I just don't buy enough books.  

It does seem to me that WOTC is in a bit of a catch-22.  They are getting blasted for not being original enough while at the same time are getting hammered for not bringing in new gamers.  I really don't think you can do both.  Let's face it, Eberron is NOT geared to older gamers like me.  It doesn't draw from the traditional fantasy elements like Howard or Tolkein.  It draws from what's popular now - anime, Harry Potter, and the like.  And that's great.  Drawing on traditional fantasy elements would have about zero interest value to a fourteen year old gamer.  What do they care about Conan?  Conan is something their GRANDPARENT'S read.  Would you be interested in a game based on books your parents read?  By drawing on what's popular now (and has been popular for long enough to say that it's not just a fad), hopefully they can start to draw in a younger audience.  A younger audience doesn't need a spiffy new magic system because the standard system is new to them.  They don't need an alternative character system, because the class based system is new to them.

WOTC is doing exactly what the market leader should be doing - expanding the market.  If WOTC started publishing "innovative" alternative rule books, people would be complaining about how they are agressively forcing the d20 publishers out of business.  WOTC is catering to new gamers, the ones that are going to have to buy PHB's in addition to their Explorers Guide to Eberron.  And I say more power to them.  So long as they keep targetting new gamers by publishing books that stay fairly true to "core", they will continue to draw new gamers.  And that can't be bad for the hobby.


----------



## wedgeski (Nov 23, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> As such, among other things, they admitted Pepsi had a better product.



Them's fighting words, varmint!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 23, 2005)

Eberron does get points for originality, but...I still wish they'd do _official_ D20 versions of Spelljammer and DarkSun (which, for all their warts, were a little more innovative than Eberron is).

Don't get me wrong- I do have a couple of Eberron books, but thats about as far as I'll go with it.

(For that matter, I'd like to see the return of quasi-historical settings, like Maztica).


----------



## rounser (Nov 23, 2005)

> Then isn't it nice that WotC is leading with something unusual like Eberron (while supporting something traditional like FR), rather than putting out Greyhawk 2: Electric Booglaoo? Or even, "We've got the basics covered; you d20 folk, go nuts."



Well, technically, TSR already did Greyhawk 2: Electric Boogaloo several times over:
Forgotten Realms
Mystara
Birthright
Dragonlance

They also did some fresher stuff too:
Spelljammer
Planescape
Dark Sun

Some culture-specific fantasy:
Al Qadim
Kara Tur
Maztica
The Horde

European historical stuff:
Celts
Vikings
Mighty Fortress

They're maintaining Forgotten Realms, so that's their Greyhawk 2: Electric Boogaloo setting, but it's long in the tooth, and I suppose it can't really be dropped because it still spins money.  So Eberron is a compromise; an attempt to have another Forgotten Realms, but different enough not to be Greyhawk 2 and compete directly with FR...but not to have too much of a twist either (like Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Planescape had) because it had to support novels.  So Eberron is perhaps a result of Forgotten Realms not being retired, and for  criteria which it can support with regards to selling novels (must have enough Greyhawkesque generic fantasy tropes not to be alien) and D&D product (e.g. all inclusiveness of monsters and races).

When viewed in this light, it's more about compromise than leading the market - TSR's more off-the-wall settings were leading.  Eberron is aimed directly at the markets, and at least partially defined by that.  So in a way, it's a world of compromise.  Forgotten Realms saw compromise from the early days too (thinking mainly of stuff like importing the "British Dragonlance" setting as Moonshae and the slapping on of all the culture-specific settings), but perhaps in a less calculating way, and not at a foundation level...but then, WOTC is better at making money than TSR was, so they're just doing what good corporations do.

Still can't help thinking that the criteria which were being looked for were a result of thinking inside the box....that maybe some sort of Setting Construction Kit or something (not suggesting this idea is any good, just pointing that other possibilities are there) would have been a better path (given that that's something DMs love, so helping them with it seems a potential source of income - TSR dipped their toes in that area a couple of times, but something much grander might take off more), if not for the fact that that doesn't generate novels and computer games.  It'll be interesting to see whether Eberron supports all of D&D, novels and computer games - or only one or two of them - successfully.  Dragonlance supports only the former, whereas FR seems to manage all three.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

Mongoose just had a post where they noted they've had another increase overall this year.

But they must be lying because the market is dying!


----------



## J-Buzz (Nov 23, 2005)

The reason I have not been buying many WOTC books lately is they are all the same.

4-6 Prestige Classes
10-12 New Feats
Hand Full of new Spells and Weapons

And that pretty much sums up all the book put out by Wizards.  I have been getting some of the FR books because they throw in some regional information as well.

That is why I have backed off my purchases.


----------



## Numion (Nov 23, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> Them's fighting words, varmint!




Did they really admit that? I thought it was rather that they admitted that Pepsi was usually ranked better in blind taste tests. They also wanted to change their recipe to use cheaper ingredients.

Some have speculated that they could've gotten away with the changes if done gradually over, say, 5-10 years. But I guess this is beside the thread.


----------



## John Desmarais (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Mongoose just had a post where they noted they've had another increase overall this year.
> 
> But they must be lying because the market is dying!




An individual company can still do well in a weak market - just like one could do poorly in a strong market - without being in any way indicative of the market as a whole.  If Mongoose is doing well, more power to them. 

JD


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

John Desmarais said:
			
		

> An individual company can still do well in a weak market - just like one could do poorly in a strong market - without being in any way indicative of the market as a whole.  If Mongoose is doing well, more power to them.
> 
> JD




This is true. But since Mongoose isn't the only company doing well, per Wizard's general reports... it's not a single company crying out in the wilderness. This doesn't count sell out products like Serenity, Artesia (at Gen Con), Mutants & Masterminds 3 printings and a second edition (with a sell out at Gen Con), Castles & Crusades sell out or other high profile books that have gone through multiple editions like Warhammer.


----------



## Belen (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> This is true. But since Mongoose isn't the only company doing well, per Wizard's general reports... it's not a single company crying out in the wilderness. This doesn't count sell out products like Serenity, Artesia (at Gen Con), Mutants & Masterminds 3 printings and a second edition (with a sell out at Gen Con), Castles & Crusades sell out or other high profile books that have gone through multiple editions like Warhammer.




In this case, I would like to know what type of print runs we are talking about.  If a run of 5k sold out, then that is much different than a run of 20k.


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> In this case, I would like to know what type of print runs we are talking about.  If a run of 5k sold out, then that is much different than a run of 20k.




These days 1k-3k is the most common size of a run. Very few publishers print over 3k.

And while M&M 2e sold out at GenCon it was an advance shipment of something like 300 copies.


----------



## buzz (Nov 23, 2005)

rounser said:
			
		

> Well, technically, TSR already did Greyhawk 2: Electric Boogaloo several times over...



Right, so why demand WotC do it yet again?



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> When viewed in this light, it's more about compromise than leading the market - TSR's more off-the-wall settings were leading.



Leading how? By not being successful enough to sustain themselves? And leading whom? What other companies from the time can you point to that were "lead" by TSR's efforts, in ways other than not wanting to repeat their mistakes?

Again, I'm seeing "innovateive"/"leading" = "stuff that I liked".



			
				rounser said:
			
		

> Still can't help thinking that the criteria which were being looked for were a result of thinking inside the box....that maybe some sort of Setting Construction Kit or something...



Well, that's pretty much what the DMG is.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> In this case, I would like to know what type of print runs we are talking about.  If a run of 5k sold out, then that is much different than a run of 20k.




Well, you contact Green Ronin, Black Industries, Troll Lords and other companies and ask to see them. Can't help you there.


----------



## Belen (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> These days 1k-3k is the most common size of a run. Very few publishers print over 3k.
> 
> And while M&M 2e sold out at GenCon it was an advance shipment of something like 300 copies.




Which is why someone saying that a 3rd party publisher "sold out" of a book is irrelvant.  1-3k is a joke in the publishing world.  I work for a specialty non-profit with 3500 members and our journal prints at 5500 every month and our book prints at 15k every year.

1-3k in an industry where there are supposedly 4 million active players is not even a blip on the radar.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Which is why someone saying that a 3rd party publisher "sold out" of a book is irrelvant.  1-3k is a joke in the publishing world.  I work for a specialty non-profit with 3500 members and our journal prints at 5500 every month and our book prints at 15k every year.
> 
> 1-3k in an industry where there are supposedly 4 million active players is not even a blip on the radar.




You're right. They should just stop publishing them.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 1-3k is a joke in the publishing world.  I work for a specialty non-profit with 3500 members and our journal prints at 5500 every month and our book prints at 15k every year.
> 
> 1-3k in an industry where there are supposedly 4 million active players is not even a blip on the radar.




Which I think is more a commentary on the nature of the industry itself than of relative success of third-party publishers.  I mean, if WotC is the only of perhaps three publishers who can even sell a book and get over 10,000 copies sold...doesn't that say more about the industry than about the state of the industry overall?

After all, 4 million active players does NOT translate into 4 millions consumers.  A group only NEEDS 1 copy of each of the three core books.  What they purchase above that is a totally different story.  WotC would _like_ if all of them bought books, but the truth is that only a fraction purchase anything after the initial investment.


----------



## Belen (Nov 23, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Which I think is more a commentary on the nature of the industry itself than of relative success of third-party publishers.  I mean, if WotC is the only of perhaps three publishers who can even sell a book and get over 10,000 copies sold...doesn't that say more about the industry than about the state of the industry overall?




Most probably.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Which is why someone saying that a 3rd party publisher "sold out" of a book is irrelvant.  1-3k is a joke in the publishing world.  I work for a specialty non-profit with 3500 members and our journal prints at 5500 every month and our book prints at 15k every year.
> 
> 1-3k in an industry where there are supposedly 4 million active players is not even a blip on the radar.





I think you have an idea of the general workings of what is being discussed but might have lost sight of the context.  There are economics of scale being ignored in your example.  You seem to be saying a dandelions aren't viable as a plant in a flower arrangement because you can squeeze more breakfast juice from a grove of oranges.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 23, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Which I think is more a commentary on the nature of the industry itself than of relative success of third-party publishers.  I mean, if WotC is the only of perhaps three publishers who can even sell a book and get over 10,000 copies sold...doesn't that say more about the industry than about the state of the industry overall?
> 
> After all, 4 million active players does NOT translate into 4 millions consumers.  A group only NEEDS 1 copy of each of the three core books.  What they purchase above that is a totally different story.  WotC would _like_ if all of them bought books, but the truth is that only a fraction purchase anything after the initial investment.





Plus, many companies are trying to sell a luxury item that is dependent on the ownership of another luxury item that might be, in turn, dependent on yet another luxury item, etc.  However, many of those companies do not have a huge overhead and require much smaller margins of profit than those selling the initial luxury item.


----------



## Belen (Nov 23, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I think you have an idea of the general workings of what is being discussed but might have lost sight of the context.  There are economics of scale being ignored in your example.  You seem to be saying a dandelions aren't viable as a plant in a flower arrangement because you can squeeze more breakfast juice from a grove of oranges.




It's not that it is not a viable business model.  Print runs of 1-3k are really only meant to sell to ENWorlders or RPGneters though.  So, in this instance, a decline in sales for such small print runs would have no bearing on the "market" at all.  Wizards could be perfectly correct that the industry is fine and doing better than ever while those people who print such small quanities are dying off due to a strong competition with PDF sellers.  

A print run of 1-3k is no competition for WOTC market share.  It is competition for savvy online consumers who may be switching to PDFs because of price.


----------



## buzz (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> 1-3k is a joke in the publishing world.



But it's pretty good for an RPG company that isn't WotC, WW, GW/BI, or Mongoose. For a PDF publisher, it's a runaway hit.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> A print run of 1-3k is no competition for WOTC market share.  It is competition for savvy online consumers who may be switching to PDFs because of price.




I could be way off but NO other publisher is in competition for WOTC market share. No one. Not White Wolf, not Steve Jackson Games, not Atlas and not Mongoose. 

I could be 100% wrong but don't think so and don't think that they ever were or will be in a position to get market share fro mWOTC.


----------



## buzz (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Print runs of 1-3k are really only meant to sell to ENWorlders or RPGneters though.  So, in this instance, a decline in sales for such small print runs would have no bearing on the "market" at all.



But this is the scale at which most RPG publishers exist. As I mentioned above, there's only a handful of companies regularly dealing with bigger numbers than this.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 23, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> So, in this instance, a decline in sales for such small print runs would have no bearing on the "market" at all.





Did *I* miss *your* point then?  Why did you bring them up at all?  Was it only to make sure that small print runs and the companies who exist on them were addressed and discarded as not a significant factor of the "Industry in Decline" conversation?  (A perfectly legitimate point and one I'm willing to concede.)  It may be that I have unnecessarily sidetracked the discussion further by picking up on that point and, if so, I apologize.


----------



## buzz (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I could be way off but NO other publisher is in competition for WOTC market share. No one. Not White Wolf, not Steve Jackson Games, not Atlas and not Mongoose.



You're not off. To paraphrase Monte Cook, a scale which includes all RPG publishers is one on which anyone who isn't WotC doesn't even register. WotC isn't in competition with any other company in the industry. If anyone, they're in competition with video game makers.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> You're not off. To paraphrase Monte Cook, a scale which includes all RPG publishers is one on which anyone who isn't WotC doesn't even register. WotC isn't in competition with any other company in the industry. If anyone, they're in competition with video game makers.




And if that's the case, and WoTC is telling the truth about their sales, then the market is not in decline since they've had another  great year.


----------



## William Ronald (Nov 23, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> You're not off. To paraphrase Monte Cook, a scale which includes all RPG publishers is one on which anyone who isn't WotC doesn't even register. WotC isn't in competition with any other company in the industry. If anyone, they're in competition with video game makers.




Scale is an important factor to consider.  I do not have any real insights into how sales are doing over all, just my own observations.  I think one thing that has to be remembered is that WotC is not just the largest RPG publisher, it also benefits from a powerful corporate parent in terms of distribution.

Monte Cook may well be right about how other companies stack up to WotC in terms of sales.  So, if this is the case, then monitoring WotC sales would probably be the best easy measure of the health of the industry.  Thus, if Wotc had an 875 percent market share -- as an example -- then looking at WotC sales might be a bit more important as an indicator of overall industry health than looking at the next largest  company or smaller companies.


----------



## buzz (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And if that's the case, and WoTC is telling the truth about their sales, then the market is not in decline since they've had another  great year.



The health of D&D is generally a good indicator of the health of the industry. However, I can see putting forth the idea that, since they are on a whole different scale from most other publishers, it's possible for small companies to be languishing despite WotC's success. I don't know if that's what Belen was trying to get at.

Still, if WotC had their best year ever, and Mongoose (the top d20 publisher) apparently just had their best year ever, I'm not sure whether there's a lot of evidence for an industry-wide malaise. As I said many pages ago, the economy has not been great and gas prices are up. Given that many RPG publishers live on the edge of profitability, I can see how a lot of them might be hurting. I can also see how publishers trying to do the same-old, same-old --especially w/r/t d20-- would be hurting.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2005)

If you look back to John Nephew's post earlier in this thread (it's on the first page), you'll see there is a downwards trend for RPG sales through retailers.

I'm wary of such figures, however, as they are unlikely to take online sellers into consideration - and such are likely to have a huge effect in what is really quite a small market.

Consider this as well: D&D had its best year ever this year. These figures do *not* count the sales of D&D miniatures, which have been very healthy as far as I can tell.

Have the sales of DDM impacted on the purchase of 3rd party products? When we are talking about such small sales in the first place, I think it is extremely likely.

A person who would otherwise buy 1-3 d20 System products a month could get 1-10 boosters for the same price. Hmm.

Cheers!


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I could be way off but NO other publisher is in competition for WOTC market share. No one. Not White Wolf, not Steve Jackson Games, not Atlas and not Mongoose.
> 
> I could be 100% wrong but don't think so and don't think that they ever were or will be in a position to get market share fro mWOTC.




It is not a competition. D&D, the World of Darkness and GURPS are not really competing brands. They do spin variations out to compete with each other (like horror genre stuff for D&D and fantasy stuff for GURPS), but the core brands themselves are not in competition with each other.

Talking in terms of marketshare for different lines is like asking what the effects of Gwen Stefani's sucess with LAMB are on Toby Keith's sales. It's  nonsensical and chiefly important to companies in terms of the PR the hurl at gamers on message to hawk a brand, because gamers on message boards seem to believe in this "competition."


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 23, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> But it's pretty good for an RPG company that isn't WotC, WW, GW/BI, or Mongoose. For a PDF publisher, it's a runaway hit.




Not really. It's just that the average company works on that scale because it's not doing well. Most healthy companies print 2-4 times as many core books and the top 5 print that many supplements, as far as I can estimate based on Best Books' (an former printer) RPG runs a couple of years back.

With the exception of runaway hits, .pdfs sell at 5-10% of this scale if profitable, even less if not. This is why the less successful publishers were in an uproar after RPGNow briefly posted sales number ranges for their copper-platinum rankings. I wager that many customers don't know that the average .pdf (the average not being profitable) sells in the low double digits.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Not really. It's just that the average company works on that scale because it's not doing well. Most healthy companies print 2-4 times as many core books and the top 5 print that many supplements, as far as I can estimate based on Best Books' (an former printer) RPG runs a couple of years back.
> 
> With the exception of runaway hits, .pdfs sell at 5-10% of this scale if profitable, even less if not. This is why the less successful publishers were in an uproar after RPGNow briefly posted sales number ranges for their copper-platinum rankings. I wager that many customers don't know that the average .pdf (the average not being profitable) sells in the low double digits.




Let's see.. on this post, John Nephen noted "Since we just surpassed our 2004 total year's sales, and 2004 beat 2003, I'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, " So that's an upswing.

On the Publisher board, Mongoose noted that they did better than last year. another upswing.

Wizards of the Coast noted that they've done better than previous years. Biggest dog in the park.

And once again, this doesn't count sell throughs from other companies becuase they don't talk about the size of their print runs... oh where are the rolly eyes when you need them.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> A person who would otherwise buy 1-3 d20 System products a month could get 1-10 boosters for the same price. Hmm.





Don't you start putting no idears in folkses heads, SMilinB!


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Let's see.. on this post, John Nephen noted "Since we just surpassed our 2004 total year's sales, and 2004 beat 2003, I'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, " So that's an upswing.




If I remember correctly that also includes card game sales.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly that also includes card game sales.




Then we get into the tricky slope of chopping card game sales out of the RPG sales. It'd be possible to do, but then we have to define the industry. Is Atlas in the industry or do we just count what Atlas contirubes towards the RPG field as being in the industry? A slippery slope if you ask me. "Well, they released PDFs of their normal catalog and thus unfairly supplemented their income unlike a true publisher" or some nonsense will them crop up.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Then we get into the tricky slope of chopping card game sales out of the RPG sales. It'd be possible to do, but then we have to define the industry. Is Atlas in the industry or do we just count what Atlas contirubes towards the RPG field as being in the industry? A slippery slope if you ask me. "Well, they released PDFs of their normal catalog and thus unfairly supplemented their income unlike a true publisher" or some nonsense will them crop up.




No, not really. This is a discussion of RPGs. Card sales are irrelevant. If card sales are being counted it is a mistake to take these figures into consideration. It has nothing whatsoever to do with rendering a value judgment about the publisher.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 23, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, not really. This is a discussion of RPGs. Card sales are irrelevant. If card sales are being counted it is a mistake to take these figures into consideration. It has nothing whatsoever to do with rendering a value judgment about the publisher.




Since most RPG companies also do other things, including Steve Jackson Games, Wizards of the Coast, Green Ronin (through Human Head), Mongoose (miniatures), and others, how do you propose to seperate the two since you don't have the sales data of the RPG units in the first place?  :\ 

Cutting hairs here.


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> how do you propose to seperate the two since you don't have the sales data of the RPG units in the first place?




I do. On average, across the industry, per SKU sales of RPG products are down from where they were 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 23, 2005)

Uh, Joe, did you actually read my post? 'Cuz you're not responding to it. That's not an attack, since I honestly don't know what your response has to do with my comment about "competition" being somewhat illusory between different brands.

But what the heck. I'll respond to what you *did* write:



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Let's see.. on this post, John Nephen noted "Since we just surpassed our 2004 total year's sales, and 2004 beat 2003, I'm pretty confident that I have a handle on these things, " So that's an upswing.




Good for John.



> On the Publisher board, Mongoose noted that they did better than last year. another upswing. Wizards of the Coast noted that they've done better than previous years. Biggest dog in the park.




I continue to be amazed that people take PR dumps as gospel truth.



> And once again, this doesn't count sell throughs from other companies becuase they don't talk about the size of their print runs... oh where are the rolly eyes when you need them.




You're mistaken. I know the size of print runs because I actually gathered data about print run sizes from a printer that produced runs for GoO, White Wolf and others. I know the scale of .pdf sales because I write and develop .pdf products and network with others that do.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I do. On average, across the industry, per SKU sales of RPG products are down from where they were 5, 10, 15, and 20 years ago.




That's per product, isn't it? 

If in 1985, a product sold 20 copies, whilst in 2005, two products each sold 15 copies, the per SKU sales would be down despite the actual total volume being higher?

Cheers!


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> If in 1985, a product sold 20 copies, whilst in 2005, two products each sold 15 copies, the per SKU sales would be down despite the actual total volume being higher?




You're close. Change that "15" to "3" (or maybe even "4") and you're a lot closer to the reality of sales in today's market.

I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this. Across all entertainment industries, per unit sales are down. Comics. Books. CDs. Hell, even TV ratings are down from where they used to be. Yes there are hits that break the average sales numbers. Yes there are hits that set records. I'm talking about average unit sales, here.

It's because there are more choices today.


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> I continue to be amazed that people take PR dumps as gospel truth.




I think the people that do that don't want to accept that sales are down. They _want_ us to tell them that things are better than ever.

I know why companies say things are going great when they're not. I can't understand why fans tell publishers things are going great -- after publishers come out and say that times are hard.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 23, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It is not a competition. D&D, the World of Darkness and GURPS are not really competing brands. They do spin variations out to compete with each other (like horror genre stuff for D&D and fantasy stuff for GURPS), but the core brands themselves are not in competition with each other.




I beg to differ.  I used to run GURPS 3rd edition as my primary choice for RPGs.  I currently still own approximately 65+ GURPS settings books.  Since 2000, I have purchased...none.  Zero. Zip. Nada.  Haven't purchased the Fourth Edition, either.  NOR HAVE ANY OF MY PLAYERS.

Why?  Because I'm playing D&D, not GURPS.  Certainly, there are folks who own and play both.  I was one of them, a long time ago.  But every dollar I spend on one game is a dollar I DON'T spend on another.  I didn't pick up Magic of Eberron the other day.  Why?  Because I wanted Mutants & Masterminds, Second edition.  I've made it clear to my gaming group that I want to run M&M soon...and since four members of my group play City of Heroes/City of Villains, they're willing to go.  I've just sold four copies of that book (two purchased, two actively searching this week).

My budget and my players budgets are not infinite.  There is plenty of room for multiple systems to survive and even thrive...but they most certainly are in direct competition; for shelf space, for consumer dollars and for mindshare.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> You're close. Change that "15" to "3" (or maybe even "4") and you're a lot closer to the reality of sales in today's market.
> 
> I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this. Across all entertainment industries, per unit sales are down.




It's because you're talking about something different from what others are.

"Per unit" sales means little when you discuss "total sales".

So, change my example to:
In 1985, there was only 1 book. It sold 20 copies.
In 2005, there were only 10 books. Each sold 3 copies.

In my example 2005, the actual total industry sales have grown, but the actual publishers are making much less profit (if any at all). More money being divided between far more people.

That this may be happening is not surprising. What is more unclear is whether the *total* market is currently shrinking.

I believe that the traditional distributor/retailer market is breaking down. I've been reminded that not only are online sellers now part of the market, but we also have the book trade. As D&D will sell through Amazon and big book chains, that would seriously distort sales through the comic stores and retailers that CGR and then Ken Hite gets his figures from, surely?

Personally, I think Wizards, since 3.5e, have produced a much greater range of products and thus come into competition far more with d20 System publishers than before. If you're a d20 System publisher, this is unlikely to be a good time for you unless you're very good at what you do. 

As for the non-D&D market, that is one area I'm currently extremely unqualified to comment on. Hopefully, Palladium is continue to slip, but the other companies are at least holding steady.

Cheers!


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 23, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I beg to differ.  I used to run GURPS 3rd edition as my primary choice for RPGs.  I currently still own approximately 65+ GURPS settings books.  Since 2000, I have purchased...none.  Zero. Zip. Nada.  Haven't purchased the Fourth Edition, either.  NOR HAVE ANY OF MY PLAYERS.
> 
> Why?  Because I'm playing D&D, not GURPS.  Certainly, there are folks who own and play both.  I was one of them, a long time ago.  But every dollar I spend on one game is a dollar I DON'T spend on another.  I didn't pick up Magic of Eberron the other day.  Why?  Because I wanted Mutants & Masterminds, Second edition.  I've made it clear to my gaming group that I want to run M&M soon...and since four members of my group play City of Heroes/City of Villains, they're willing to go.  I've just sold four copies of that book (two purchased, two actively searching this week).
> 
> My budget and my players budgets are not infinite.  There is plenty of room for multiple systems to survive and even thrive...but they most certainly are in direct competition; for shelf space, for consumer dollars and for mindshare.




Actually, it's because you and your players have decided that you don't want to play a universal, gritty system. At no point did D&D sell itself to you on its ability to do what GURPS does. You did decide you wanted to play a superhero game. At no point did you agonize over whether D&D or Mutants and Masterminds was the best out of book choice for playing superheroes.


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> "Per unit" sales means little when you discuss "total sales".
> 
> So, change my example to:
> In 1985, there was only 1 book. It sold 20 copies.
> ...




You're absolutely correct. Thank you for understanding!


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> "Per unit" sales means little when you discuss "total sales".




One more important point.

What was the retail price of that 1 release in 1985 and what was the price of those 10 releases in 2005?

Now same question, but what were the production costs?

I think it becomes very clear why so many publishers are saying things are down.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> You're absolutely correct. Thank you for understanding!




I *like* understanding.  Thanks for bearing with me.

That state of things isn't good for individual publishers (although a few might be doing fine). So, what is likely to happen? Publishers get out of the industry. Hey, isn't that happening now?

The question is: what then? Do they take their buyers with them, or do their buyers adapt? If they (mostly) adapt, we get back to only a handful of big dominant companies, and only a handful of "hobby" publishers.

Conversely, if the total sales of the entire industry are down as well (which is very hard to tell just from per SKU sales), then we're definitely in trouble.

For the actual retailers and distributors, the problem with thousands of SKUs becomes a real one of storage and display. If you had one product that sold 100 copies, it's quite easy to deal with. 100 products that sell 1 copy each? Ergh. Not good. The profit from both may be the same, but the pain of dealing with them is much worse.

What is worse is 50 products that sell 2 copies and 50 products that don't sell at all, because those 50 non-sellers sit there and take up valuable space which could be devoted to actual selling products. But how do you tell these products are non-sellers?

(There are reasons that D&D Minis are so popular with retailers and distributors, and that's one of them).

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I think it becomes very clear why so many publishers are saying things are down.




Oh, absolutely. For many publishers, this isn't a good time. 

Cheers!


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Conversely, if the total sales of the entire industry are down as well (which is very hard to tell just from per SKU sales), then we're definitely in trouble.




This I'm not sure of. I've heard distributors and retailers say both, that overall sales are equal and that overall sales are down. I think the only way we'll discover the truth is through patience -- wait and see how many more businesses in the industry scale back, change to card/board only, or just die.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 23, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, it's because you and your players have decided that you don't want to play a universal, gritty system. At no point did D&D sell itself to you on its ability to do what GURPS does. You did decide you wanted to play a superhero game. At no point did you agonize over whether D&D or Mutants and Masterminds was the best out of book choice for playing superheroes.




No, it's because I wanted to play a fantasy game in a system I perceived as better.  We didn't play GURPS as a grim-and-gritty game.  We DID use GURPS for our Supers game.  I started with D&D, moved to GURPS for Fantasy and Supers, then moved back to D&D & to d20 for those genres.  D&D MOST CERTAINLY DID sell me on it's ability to do what GURPS did.

You're trying to make a case that D&D doesn't cannibalize sales of a game like M&M or Vampire because they cover different topics.  I'm telling you that, at least in the case of my gaming group, that is demonstrably wrong.  Your core assumption is that I decided to purchase a superhero game FIRST, and then I decided upon M&M instead of Godlike, Champions or a host of d20 supers options.  I didn't make that decision.  I decided that M&M looked good, after hearing a lot of good press, and decided to put D&D down for a while to play M&M.  I consciously chose not to purchase Races of the Wild, for example, so I could purchase Freedom City.  WotC lost my money in favor of Green Ronin.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> This I'm not sure of. I've heard distributors and retailers say both, that overall sales are equal and that overall sales are down. I think the only way we'll discover the truth is through patience -- wait and see how many more businesses in the industry scale back, change to card/board only, or just die.




Indeed.

You see, I think the distributors and retailers are correct: their sales *are* down. However, I'm sure that there's now a big portion of trade going on outside those areas: online and through the regular book trade.

I see a lot of DDM being ordered online. I think this applies to RPGs as well, and it has to have an effect.

Cheers!


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> You see, I think the distributors and retailers are correct: their sales *are* down. However, I'm sure that there's now a big portion of trade going on outside those areas: online and through the regular book trade.




I _completely_ agree with you on this. Unfortunately, many of the smaller publishers can't get into the book trade. And the one consolidator that seemed to specialize in the book trade went down taking tens of thousands of dollars with them, hurting the publishers.

I think PSI is working to repair that damage, though, and could become a valuable tool for a lot of smaller publishers. I'll be curious to see how they work out.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 23, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I _completely_ agree with you on this. Unfortunately, many of the smaller publishers can't get into the book trade. And the one consolidator that seemed to specialize in the book trade went down taking tens of thousands of dollars with them, hurting the publishers.




We saw from TSR's example how tricky the book trade could be for *big* publishers. It says a lot for Wizards that they seem to be reliably selling through that channel.

It's a lot riskier for small publishers, that's for sure.



> I think PSI is working to repair that damage, though, and could become a valuable tool for a lot of smaller publishers. I'll be curious to see how they work out.




I wasn't aware of that. (Not really surprising, as I'm not a publisher. )

Even so, if I understand how the book trade works at all - I'm taking about returns - it will still be very risky.

Cheers!


----------



## philreed (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Even so, if I understand how the book trade works at all - I'm taking about returns - it will still be very risky.




Well, I think the people behind PSI* have enough experience in this area -- and enough business sense -- so that it won't be quite as risky as it first appears.

* Another White Wolf-related company. I _think_ they're separate from White Wolf but still related. I'm not 100% certain on the relationship.


----------



## rounser (Nov 23, 2005)

> Again, I'm seeing "innovateive"/"leading" = "stuff that I liked".



I was thinking of "innovative"/"leading" but not necessarily "commercially successful", whereas I think you're thinking of "leading" = "commercial success".  It's subjective, but I don't really see Eberron as being particularly innovative in the former sense compared to those predecessor settings I brought up.

I think it would have been interesting to see the result if WOTC had gone fully Final Fantasy with Eberron...I think that's my main complaint with it - I think that if you're going to cross-pollinate D&D with other genres, it should be a focused and complete hybrid.  Or a full hybrid with pulp "indy jones" (i.e. introduce lots and lots of contemporary technology and 30s tropes - if enough come along it's no longer anachronistic).  But then, we're back into "what I like" territory there, obviously.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 23, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Indeed.
> 
> You see, I think the distributors and retailers are correct: their sales *are* down. However, I'm sure that there's now a big portion of trade going on outside those areas: online and through the regular book trade.
> 
> ...




I know I order most of my books online.  And I use Amazon's wishlist system to get other people to order me books online.  Given how many people on these boards complain about not having access to a local store they like to go to, I wouldn't be surprised if the market is moving online in fairly large numbers.  Maybe it's a good time to be an online retailer, and a bad time to be a meatspace retailer.  Hell, I just threw $60 at SJG for some old GURPS stuff when the prices all went $9.99.  If I order Ptolus for $120 it'll be online too.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 24, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I can't understand why fans tell publishers things are going great -- after publishers come out and say that times are hard.




Different points of view.

It is a buyer's market.  As you and Merric concluded, more money, but divided among a lot more publishers.

From my point of view, things are great.  There is a ton of stuff out there to buy.  I am buying less because I have so much already covered in my collection now.  But if I want something else I can very frequently find it.  

I think this is a great time to be a gamer.
That doesn't mean it is automatically a great time to be a game producer.  Though I do believe that there are some publishers doing well still.  It is certainly fair to take the insider statements of wonderful times with a grain of salt.  But it is equally fair to do the same when lesser achieving competitors "poo poo" those claims.

Anyway, as some publishers fall away the buyer's market will shift back toward publishers.  Though I don't bet it will go real far that direction soon.  But no matter what, we are not at all talkign doom and gloom from a buyer POV.  It could just go from GREAT to very good.

So I can agree with every fact you have offered up and still be a fan that is going to tell you that things are great even after you tell me times are hard.  And I am right about it.

That is why.


----------



## philreed (Nov 24, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So I can agree with every fact you have offered up and still be a fan that is going to tell you that things are great even after you tell me times are hard.  And I am right about it.




I've definitely never tried to say that now is a bad time to be a gamer. Now is a _great_ time to be a gamer. What I mean -- and this may be bugging me because it is the same few people -- is that every time a publisher comes out and says sales are bad a fan jumps in to say sales have to be better than ever.

In this thread alone we see sarcastic comments regarding sales. People insisting again and again that sales can't be bad when they have no information. I -- and many, many others that contribute to the discussions here -- have facts from other publishers, distributors, and retailers, and the facts say that sales are bad right now.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 24, 2005)

What I've also seen in these types of threads recently are repeated claims that Wizards and Mongoose must be lying when they say that they're doing well, because as other publishers aren't, _no-one_ can be doing well.

From John Nephew's comments, I get the impression that d20 System products are not selling well for him - or perhaps, profitably enough. That sounds accurate.

Producing RPGs is hard at the best of times. It's a lot harder if you're not Wizards with control of the D&D brand and the PHB. In fact, it's so hard that making a living from RPGs (as opposed to keeping it a hobby) is downright difficult.

Clark Peterson's still a practising lawyer, isn't he?

It is worth noting that in the fiction field, an author needs several books that continue to sell (and thus be paid continuing royalties) to make a living from it. The difference from novels to RPGs is likely several orders of magnitude!

Cheers!


----------



## BryonD (Nov 24, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I've definitely never tried to say that now is a bad time to be a gamer. Now is a _great_ time to be a gamer. What I mean -- and this may be bugging me because it is the same few people -- is that every time a publisher comes out and says sales are bad a fan jumps in to say sales have to be better than ever.
> 
> In this thread alone we see sarcastic comments regarding sales. People insisting again and again that sales can't be bad when they have no information. I -- and many, many others that contribute to the discussions here -- have facts from other publishers, distributors, and retailers, and the facts say that sales are bad right now.




I understand.

Like I said, it is point of view.

Even you said that you don't actually know how the overall industry total revenue compares to the past.  The people you are talking to here are the ones still spending the money.  The ones who have stopped spending are predominately no longer reading ENWorld (if they ever were).  

You are talking to gamers who see themselves still spending money and see a lot of money going into the overall industry.  They don't have any yardstick that will tell them this is great, or this sucks.  They just see what to them is a lot.  

Do you actually have data to show that WotC is not honest when they say their sales are very good?  Conclusively?  
Same for Mongoose?
It seems quite feasible to me that a decline from the massive boom of 2000 - 2003 combined with a consolidation into a few top players (no quality comment inplied) could be misinterpreted as a bust at an industry level that isn't really there.  

Do I know this is an accurate assessment?  Hell no.
But I think this assessment is just as reasonable based on the truly available fact as the assessment of bad times.  
The difference is much more in the bias than in the numbers.
I believe it is simply human nature that publishers having a hard time will use that as a basis to extrapolate limited data they have beyond what they really know.

So my bottom line point is that despite all your data, other points of view that contradict your conclusion may still be completely valid.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, it's because you and your players have decided that you don't want to play a universal, gritty system. At no point did D&D sell itself to you on its ability to do what GURPS does. You did decide you wanted to play a superhero game. At no point did you agonize over whether D&D or Mutants and Masterminds was the best out of book choice for playing superheroes.




None of which changes the fact that these products are competing with each other.

You're admitting that consumers are choosing between one or the other, but pretending it doesn't "count" somehow because of the particular criteria they're using to make their choice.

Which is, of course, a completely absurd thing to do.

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> None of which changes the fact that these products are competing with each other.
> 
> You're admitting that consumers are choosing between one or the other, but pretending it doesn't "count" somehow because of the particular criteria they're using to make their choice.
> 
> ...




Of course, by the standard you put forth, comic books and, er, bacon both compete with RPGs. People make choices between many things because they only have so much money. It does not necessarily follow that these things are in any meaningful competition with each other.

Of course, you could talk about how other media competes with RPGs, and the funny thing is, of course, that you must if claiming that the top few systems are in meaningful competition. What I mean is that you can argue that D&D competes with WoW at least as much as it does with the World of Darkness.

The trouble is that discussion on this scale is not actually the same as talking about whether major *roleplaying* games compete with each other. They don't. At least, they don't compete with each other much more significantly than with other media. As I noted (in what I actually wrote, mind. I have no idea what you *read*), there are exceptions where the leading systems do compete, such as in genre books. All the same, people don't get GURPS just because they want to replicate the D&D experience, and claiming that they do is self-evidently shallow analysis. This is true even though the system has a supported fantasy setting.

Plus, of course, there are second and third tier systems that want a slice of what WoD or whatever has, but, as what I wrote made abundantly clear, I wasn't talking about them.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> What I've also seen in these types of threads recently are repeated claims that Wizards and Mongoose must be lying when they say that they're doing well, because as other publishers aren't, _no-one_ can be doing well.




Uh, no.

In WotC's case, Charles Ryan represents a brand name owned by a large publically traded company. If he says anything damaging to the brand, he would not only lose his job, shareholders and licensors could actually take legal action.

This stricture does not mean he's lying. It means he's duty bound to promote as much confidence in the brand as possible.

As for Mongoose -- well, no comment, actually.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If he says anything damaging to the brand, he would not only lose his job, shareholders and licensors could actually take legal action.




As they also could if he over-represented the value of the brand.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> As they also could if he over-represented the value of the brand.




To shareholders, investors and licensors -- not gamers.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> To shareholders, investors and licensors -- not gamers.





By your own logic, that can't be right.  I would have to assume he couldn't mislead people anywhere in public view.  There's no way to know if some of those gamers might happen to also be shareholders, investors and/or licensors.  I've no doubt you must be mistaken.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> By your own logic, that can't be right.  I would have to assume he couldn't mislead people anywhere in public view.  There's no way to know if some of those gamers might happen to also be shareholders, investors and/or licensors.  I've no doubt you must be mistaken.




No. There's a difference between someone saying, "D&D is doing better than ever!" as PR and telling shareholders that net revenue in a product line increased in a quarter when it did not, or saying that there were so many SKUs sold when they were not, and so on. One is not a statement of fact in an actionable sense and the other is.

However, if someone says, This brand is a lame duck and after a recent spurt of growth, will most likely decline," to <i>consumers</i>, then they are damaging the brand in the eyes of consumers.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No. There's a diff-.





Nice try but nope.  Misleading is misleading.  A court is unlikely to to see any difference.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Nice try but nope.  Misleading is misleading.  A court is unlikely to to see any difference.




Uh, no. "D&D is having its best year ever!" is a qualitatively different statement than, "The 3.5 Players Handbook sold 25,000 more SKUs in the 3nd quarter of 2005."


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Uh, no.





As I said, a court is unlikely to make the distinction (according to a friend of mine in the legal profession who I asked about this) though you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  If I get the chance, I'll ask for some case law to cite or something, though I doubt I'll have the time to get into it much further.  Seriously, though.  You've expressed your opinion and I've expressed mine.  Without something along the lines of case law there's really no sense in arguing further except simply to be contrary, is there?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Uh, no. "D&D is having its best year ever!" is a qualitatively different statement than, "The 3.5 Players Handbook sold 25,000 more SKUs in the 3nd quarter of 2005."




If either of these statements are made by the company, and are false, and it causes someone to invest more money than they otherwise would in this particular brand, and they lose money over it, they would have grounds in either case to sue.  The statements might be qualitatively different, but they speak the same message to a potential investor.  A lie spoken to boost investment is a lie spoken to boost investment, no matter the form it takes.  You'll have to give a better reason than "there are no numbers involved" to make a case that they're different enough to be actionable on the one hand and not actionable on the other.  Or at least quote some cases for precedent.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If either of these statements are made by the company, and are false, and it causes someone to invest more money than they otherwise would in this particular brand, and they lose money over it, they would have grounds in either case to sue.  The statements might be qualitatively different, but they speak the same message to a potential investor.  A lie spoken to boost investment is a lie spoken to boost investment, no matter the form it takes.  You'll have to give a better reason than "there are no numbers involved" to make a case that they're different enough to be actionable on the one hand and not actionable on the other.  Or at least quote some cases for precedent.




Sure. Remember how I said that I don't think Charles Ryan is lying? At the same time, he is well able to say, "D&D is having its best year ever!" using data which you and I would probably not describe that way were we to have it in front of us (whether or not he *is* doing this is a different issue). An actual description of net profit/loss and sales by individual SKU are not so prone to massaging. In no way do these statements "speak the same message" to an investor.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2005)

Alright, it’s Thanksgiving, so I thought I would make some comments before the turkey causes me to sink into the slumber of an afternoon of football. Who am I? No one of any consequence, just someone who’s been gaming for more years than many of you have been alive and has seen the gaming scene boom and bust many, many times. Take EVERYTHING in this post with a strong “your mileage may vary” and “it’s just my opinion.”

Are sales declining for RPGs? Yes and no. That is to say they are declining for some publishers, but not for others. Are they declining overall? No one really knows, but my best guess from what has been said here and elsewhere is yes they are. That’s just an overall feeling that I have, based on the sense that gaming is really shifting back to the “big guys” and “everybody else” mode that is very typical for it. Say what you want about D20, but it did give many publishers a seat at the big table for several years.

If we agree that sales are declining the question is WHY. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

Lots of crap
This is something that the industry has largely worked through. When D20 was first announced, everyone and his brother came out with support for it. There were many new publishers, and also older ones who go on the D20 train. By the way, I’m going to use D20 to refer to core products, D20 lines of products, and OGL products as well. There were some good books published, but most of the stuff that came out was crap. A friend of mine asked me if I still have and use any of the stuff that came out in the first D20 year. I had to think about it for a long time before coming up with anything.

This was a problem that affected both the newcomers and the existing publishers, but in different ways. New publishers didn’t know anything about publishing, so they would put out horribly edited books that had abysmal artwork and were oftentimes completely unbalanced. This problem has largely corrected itself in print, as these companies are long gone. It is still a problem in PDF publishing, and it also started the slide of the hobby (which I’m going to talk about more below). 

Existing publishers were sometimes even worse, because they DID know how to put together a book, but many times were looking to get some quick cash from this new phenomenon rather than make a good book. I purchased a few books like this from companies that I really liked. Most of the time these were poorly thought out translations from their house system to D20 that were written by people who didn’t know, and many times didn’t even LIKE D20. This continues to be a problem to this day. D20 can learn a lot from different systems out there because it is not a be-all-end-all system. Still, if you’re going to port (say) your drama rules to D20, make sure you have someone design it who can translate your rules into the proper D20 mechanics. Don’t just slap something together that you think will work without ever playtesting it, okay?

Volume of Product
That brings us to problem #2: volume of product. This is another issue that has sorted itself out in many ways, but for a long time you couldn’t swing a cat about without hitting scores of D20 product, much of which was just about the same stuff with a different company’s take on it. How many elf books do we need? You could fill up a moderate sized library with all of the class/race books out there, and let’s face it, most of them were junk. That’s not to say all of them: the cream did rise to the top eventually, largely through some of the OGL material in those books gaining a larger audience and living on, as it were.

So we have a huge amount of product, much of it VERY similar, from established companies AND new players, and it starts off SELLING! Companies are producing tons of product, and it is moving! The problem is that there are a finite number of artists, writers and editors in the industry, not to mention a finite number of printers who can do this kind of work. Quality suffers. Books are physically defective, badly edited, not properly playtested, and many of the smaller new companies simply have no idea what they’re doing. So let’s take the next step:

Throwaway Product
We have huge amounts of product that is becoming more and more “throwaway” in nature. Make a spells book! Make a race book! FEATS! Does any of this stuff get properly produced? Well yes, some of it does, but that’s the exception (an exception that has, by and large, allowed those companies who made it to still be around today). Distributors are stocking product, but so much is coming out that we start to see the infamous “three month stocking” procedure, that product is expected to have a life span of about three months. Stop and think about that for a moment: you’re a game designer, and the lifespan of your product is becoming three months. What does that make you do? Crank out more product and spend less time on it. Does it really make any sense to playtest and edit your new race book for a year when it will be in stores for one quarter of a year? I would argue that, yes, it does, but only in the long term.

This is the point where we start to see gamers chiming in with “what gives?” This book is junk! Now some of the companies have very good net-reps who patiently look at what is being said. Errata is released. Whole lines or product are reprinted in some cases. What also happens is that some companies say: “Tough! No one cares about editing or quality bindings or playtesting anymore! Deal!” It’s funny, but most of those companies are either not around any more or are shadows of their former selves…

So now we bring things home: sales start to slump because of the quality and turnaround issues. This immediately kills some of the startup companies who had no plan for anything but continued growth. It makes some of the other companies drastically cut print-runs and also raise prices. That has two effects: one, it means that if you don’t buy a book right away, you’re likely going to have to go through a hassle to get it, since your FLGS won’t be able to restock it after the first two or three months. It also means that a lot of games that haven’t had pre-release hype generated for them become impulse buys. As prices go up, they become expensive impulse buys. Fewer products are sold.

Eventually we come to the now, where the mid-tier companies are having serious problems and are having to drastically cut staff to keep afloat.

So where do we go from here? I have a few suggestions to companies out there, which you may freely decide to ignore as you like:

First, strongly reconsider if you want to be publishing in the D20 arena. Remember that I’m using D20 to mean core books designed with WotC/D20 and OGL all in one term. Do you even like the system? If not, use your house system and leave all of this behind. Don’t stop reading this post quite yet, however just go down to the third point.

Second, if you do want to stay in the game, make sure you actually understand the rules. D20 has a lot of rules behind it, but there are also some very basic design elements that Monte, Sean and Jonathan used behind the scenes. Take a look at where Andy Collins and the new blood at WotC is going with the line, and see where your place is within it. You really need to understand the “whys” behind D20 if you’re going to write for it. Remember: it’s not YOUR system. You can make it yours with a good OGL product, but people come to D20 with a set of expectations. You can break them (see M&M) but you have to understand what they are first. It’s like my old writing coach used to tell me: you are free to break any rules of spelling and grammar, but you first must understand what they are. You think that E.E. Cummings never wrote anything in caps?

Third, you need to control the spread of throwaway product. If you’re going to charge $40 for a book, it is NOT throwaway product, whatever you might want to think. Fewer QUALITY releases are what is needed, because people aren’t buying as much crap any more.

Fourth, consider what you’re releasing and whether or not you actually can afford to do it. Will it sell? I mean REALLY will it sell. Your brand new book on poisons and herbs isn’t going to sell, no matter how cool it’s going to look or who the art is by. Consider what the market is asking for and give it to them. As an example, there is no D20 Exalted. Get someone who knows D20 and also knows crazy kung-fu movies (these don’t have to be the same person) and file the serial numbers off of WW’s product and you have something that will sell. A LOT. Make a game of tactical combat along the lines of a first person shooter or team “recon” game. If you make it with high production values: maps! Counters! Minis!...and have something with decent rules, it will sell! A lot.

Fifth, get ACTIVE. Promote your games like it’s your company’s life, because it is. Get a demo team together and get games running around the country or the world. Those hundreds of copies of your core rules sitting around in a warehouse? Give 100 of them away to people who will run events for you and create a buzz for your game! Can’t find 100 people willing to do that? Strongly reconsider your answer to point four above.

Finally, if you’re a good gamer, realize you’re not necessarily a good business manager. Find someone who is and use some of the same strategies that EVERY OTHER business uses to grow your product. I know that last one will come off as snarky, and if it does it probably wasn’t meant for you!

WHEW!


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> As I said, a court is unlikely to make the distinction (according to a friend of mine in the legal profession who I asked about this) though you're certainly entitled to your opinion.  If I get the chance, I'll ask for some case law to cite or something, though I doubt I'll have the time to get into it much further.  Seriously, though.  You've expressed your opinion and I've expressed mine.  Without something along the lines of case law there's really no sense in arguing further except simply to be contrary, is there?




Please describe to me what the objective, universally accepted definition of "best year ever," is. Describe to me what value this represents, whether it is net or gross, whether it is over the brand's entire history or history with a current owner and what products it does and does not relate to. Describe to me whether this does or does not include efficiency measures and speculative, projected information, such as estimates of externalities that are considered to add value.

The idea that someone would have legal recourse because they heard "D&D is having its best year ever!" and bought Hasbro stock because of it is, in itself, kind of wacky.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Please describe to me what the objective, universally accepted definition of "best year ever," is. Describe to me what value this represents, whether it is net or gross, whether it is over the brand's entire history or history with a current owner and what products it does and does not relate to. Describe to me whether this does or does not include efficiency measures and speculative, projected information, such as estimates of externalities that are considered to add value.





I'm not following you.  Seriously, without some case law, it's all just the same opinions being reworded.  There's no real point to that exercise.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Please describe to me what the objective, universally accepted definition of "best year ever," is. Describe to me what value this represents, whether it is net or gross, whether it is over the brand's entire history or history with a current owner and what products it does and does not relate to. Describe to me whether this does or does not include efficiency measures and speculative, projected information, such as estimates of externalities that are considered to add value.
> 
> The idea that someone would have legal recourse because they heard "D&D is having its best year ever!" and bought Hasbro stock because of it is, in itself, kind of wacky.



Please remember that in America anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Also remember that the statements of execs at large companies who are currently on trial for fraud are VERY MUCH front and center. EnWorld and RPG.NET are two of the largest and most visable places in the gaming world. An executive from a publicly traded company who came on and made statements that were demonstrably false (and "best year ever" would fall into that category) would place themselves in a bad spot.

When things go bad for large amounts of money, people come looking for someone to blame. That is the entire job of a large group of lawyers, actually. If things turn out very bad for Hasbro (and I have ABSOLUTELY no reason to believe that they will) you may rely on statements made by key players in the organization to be DIRECTLY referenced in court. Having worked as a peon for one of the largest companies in the world, I can tell you that I was told in no uncertain terms that making any statement about the health of the company when it wasn't my job would be immediate grounds for dismissal, because it could exactly be used in a court case.

So I guess that no one really needs to demonstrate what any of it means to you, just to a relevant lawyer.

--Steve


----------



## MerricB (Nov 24, 2005)

Other things I've heard Charles say... alright, seen him post... back up my impression of Wizards doing well:

* The number of people claiming to play D&D has increased by 15% over the past year. (wow!) The estimated total is now 4.6 million people in the USA.

* 2004 at the time had the biggest advertising budget they've had for D&D (to celebrate the 30th anniversary). 2005 increased the budget even more!

* "As I mentioned above, the overall trends are very strong: that 2 million or so regular players from 1999 has grown to over 4 million in 2004. (Monte mentioned that the market research number is probably larger than reality, and I tend to agree--but the trend has been consistent.)"

* "All of our data and experience tells us that, thankfully, new players are entering the marketplace. Indeed, the increase in players clearly tells us that new players are entering the hobby faster than old ones are leaving."

* "We’re doing great! 2004 was probably the best year ever for D&D (that's right: ever), as measured by a wide variety of standards. All of our key trends are up and continuing to accelerate upward. We expect 2005 to be the next best year ever for D&D." (and yes, 2005 was the new best year ever)

Cheers!


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 24, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Please remember that in America anyone can sue anyone for any reason. Also remember that the statements of execs at large companies who are currently on trial for fraud are VERY MUCH front and center. EnWorld and RPG.NET are two of the largest and most visable places in the gaming world. An executive from a publicly traded company who came on and made statements that were demonstrably false (and "best year ever" would fall into that category) would place themselves in a bad spot.
> 
> When things go bad for large amounts of money, people come looking for someone to blame. That is the entire job of a large group of lawyers, actually. If things turn out very bad for Hasbro (and I have ABSOLUTELY no reason to believe that they will) you may rely on statements made by key players in the organization to be DIRECTLY referenced in court. Having worked as a peon for one of the largest companies in the world, I can tell you that I was told in no uncertain terms that making any statement about the health of the company when it wasn't my job would be immediate grounds for dismissal, because it could exactly be used in a court case.
> 
> ...




True enough, but it is certainly possible to weigh how likely it is for a statement to be actionable.

On thing that seems to have been forgotten here is that I *don't* think Charles Ryan is lying. I have no explanation for the assumption that I said he was, given that I do not make that statement.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 24, 2005)

*Moderator note:* Just a polite reminder to keep cool, and while discussing issues remember that there are no points for attempting to provoke anyone else. Don't read more into someone's posts than they have written, and assume that they have the best possible motives in writing as they do. Much less likely to run into problems that way!

Regards,


----------



## SteveC (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> True enough, but it is certainly possible to weigh how likely it is for a statement to be actionable.
> 
> On thing that seems to have been forgotten here is that I *don't* think Charles Ryan is lying. I have no explanation for the assumption that I said he was, given that I do not make that statement.



You've made a very good point. I think that tempers always tend to get a little hot on these kinds of topics. I don't think that anyone is "lying" here, it's just that the industry is a very big place, and one where the big players don't always live in the same world as everyone else. It's quite possible that WotC is having a great year, but that doesn't mean that John and Atlas aren't seeing a lot less orders overall. I guess it's all a matter of perspective or something like that. I don't know how many people really understand how *small * a business RPGs are for everyone but the big guys...


----------



## Justin Bacon (Nov 24, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> All the same, people don't get GURPS just because they want to replicate the D&D experience, and claiming that they do is self-evidently shallow analysis.




And, once again, you're attempting to define "competition" in a way that renders it a meaningless term.

Nice strawman, BTW, since absolutely no one is arguing that people use GURPS to "replicate the D&D experience".



> Of course, by the standard you put forth, comic books and, er, bacon both compete with RPGs.




And this was a very nice example of a slippery slope fallacy. And another strawman.

The only real question left here is a simple one: Are you choosing to be intellectually dishonest or are you just incapable of participating in a discussion in any other fashion?

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## MerricB (Nov 24, 2005)

Just a note:

In 2004, the C&GR figures that Ken Hite use put Wizards at about 43% of the RPG market. (or thereabouts). White Wolf was 22%, Steve Jackson Games at 5%, with everyone else below that.

Because online and book trade figures are not included in those figures, Wizards could well be somewhat *higher* than that percentage. Charles Ryan claimed last year that Wizards was about 2/3rds of the industry. That might be a little high, but otoh... hmm.

I'd love to know how White Wolf are doing. They're in a state analogous to that of Wizards in 2000-2001, with the major revision of their core brand having occurred recently.

The bit-player stakes of everyone else is really represented by that 5% SJG figure. It's not an insignficant portion by any means, but it's much lower.

(Lovely quote from an anonymous, probably unreliable distributor: "Dungeons & Dragons sells four times World of Darkness and World of Darkness sells four times everything else.")

http://www.gamingreport.com/modules...Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=133

Cheers!


----------



## Turjan (Nov 24, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> In 2004, the C&GR figures that Ken Hite use put Wizards at about 43% of the RPG market. (or thereabouts). White Wolf was 22%, Steve Jackson Games at 5%, with everyone else below that.
> 
> Because online and book trade figures are not included in those figures, Wizards could well be somewhat *higher* than that percentage. Charles Ryan claimed last year that Wizards was about 2/3rds of the industry. That might be a little high, but otoh... hmm.



In 2004, WotC sold roughly 50% of their RPG books outside of the game and hobby market, tendency increasing. From what I see, White Wolf and SJG are reasonably well represented in that market segment, too, though to much lesser extent, and there are areas where WotC has a 100% share. If we take these numbers into account, all reported figures might fit together.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 25, 2005)

> > *eybeams*
> > Of course, by the standard you put forth, comic books and, er, bacon both compete with RPGs. People make choices between many things because they only have so much money. It does not necessarily follow that these things are in any meaningful competition with each other.
> >
> > Of course, you could talk about how other media competes with RPGs, and the funny thing is, of course, that you must if claiming that the top few systems are in meaningful competition. What I mean is that you can argue that D&D competes with WoW at least as much as it does with the World of Darkness.
> ...




Technically speaking, any luxury (i.e. non-neccessity) good "competes" with any other good since both leisure time and non-allocated money are both finite resources.

However, those would only be competition in the broadest sense.

True competition for a given RPG would be limited to 2 product categories: CRPGs (any platform) and traditional RPGs.  Either can be used to experience the same kind of entertainment.



> > *MerricB*
> > In 2004, the C&GR figures that Ken Hite use put Wizards at about 43% of the RPG market. (or thereabouts). White Wolf was 22%, Steve Jackson Games at 5%, with everyone else below that.
> 
> 
> ...




Careful, Turjan...I believe that MerricB was talking about total sales of RPGs, not RPG sales outlets, which is what you're describing.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 25, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Careful, Turjan...I believe that MerricB was talking about total sales of RPGs, not RPG sales outlets, which is what you're describing.




No, Turjan's right. The C&GR figures are based only on traditional distributor/FLGS figures, as I understand it. Turjan has merely clarified where Wizards sell 50%+ of their books: outside the FLGS! 

Cheers!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 25, 2005)

I "stand" corrected!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 25, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> True enough, but it is certainly possible to weigh how likely it is for a statement to be actionable.
> 
> On thing that seems to have been forgotten here is that I *don't* think Charles Ryan is lying. I have no explanation for the assumption that I said he was, given that I do not make that statement.




I never made that assumption.  My position, and that of some others, was that we can probably trust Ryan's statements because he's unlikely to say anything that could get Hasbro sued, as falsely representing their business success in a public forum could.  If he says it's the best year ever, then he's been given the green light to say so by a Hasbro lawyer.  Otherwise that same lawyer will read him the riot act.  The reason we're arguing is that you disagree with the reason why we can trust Ryan.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 25, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I never made that assumption.  My position, and that of some others, was that we can probably trust Ryan's statements because he's unlikely to say anything that could get Hasbro sued, as falsely representing their business success in a public forum could.  If he says it's the best year ever, then he's been given the green light to say so by a Hasbro lawyer.  Otherwise that same lawyer will read him the riot act.  The reason we're arguing is that you disagree with the reason why we can trust Ryan.




Well, to be frank, if you place your trust in corporate officers for that reason in general, I would say your trust is wildly misplaced. If this is specific to Charles Ryan, I'd be interested in knowing why.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 25, 2005)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> And, once again, you're attempting to define "competition" in a way that renders it a meaningless term.




Well no. That'd be you. If you want to frame the state that exists between the industry leaders as one of straightforward competition, then (with some caveats I've noticed), you must accept an absurd definition.



> Nice strawman, BTW, since absolutely no one is arguing that people use GURPS to "replicate the D&D experience".




Products are generally considered to compete if they fulfil the same desire. You can define this broadly, in which case the desire for amsuement includes a number of things, or tightly. By and large, competition to fulfil the "desire to play RPGs" is largely illusory. People want to play particular games, WotC market research shows that they play these games non-exclusively. Strictly speaking, the numbers may well indicate that competition between RPGs and other media is *more* relevant than competition between RPGs.



> And this was a very nice example of a slippery slope fallacy. And another strawman.




Nah, I explained it above just fine. It speaks to relevance. I would encourage you to rebut what I write, instead of what you choose to edit it down to, man, but I'm not the boss of you!



> The only real question left here is a simple one: Are you choosing to be intellectually dishonest or are you just incapable of participating in a discussion in any other fashion?
> 
> Justin Alexander Bacon
> http://www.thealexandrian.net




Well, you sure showed me, chief!


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 25, 2005)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> The only real question left here is a simple one: Are you choosing to be intellectually dishonest or are you just incapable of participating in a discussion in any other fashion?




Justin, please do not make statements like this here.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 25, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> To shareholders, investors and licensors -- not gamers.




That is a pretty absurd splitting of hairs.

It has already been covered in other posts though and it seems clear that your personal bias / grudge / whatever isn't going to be overcome by any reasoned position.  

So whatever.  

Go grind your teeth some more, I'll stay over here and keep trying to actually look at the issue from both sides.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Nov 25, 2005)

Merric,
I hate to say it, but you are seen as a WotC fanboy here. I don't think you are at the level some are making you out to be though.

As far as the statements below, Charles is not the only one to make comments like this in public.

The RPG market presently has a distribution/retail system that is antique and ready to break down completely in the "modern" world. Those publishers that are selling into the "book trade" are doing relatively well. The C&GR reports are pretty widely considered a joke, though they can be useful for detecting trends. The several local retailers I have spoken to about them scoff at them (they also don't send in any information).

Those few game stores that provide true service to their customers are, from what I have been told, thriving. One of my local "F"LGS (the "F" is of key importance) has had a great year. Their RPG sales have been as good this year as the year right after 3rd edtion came out. I believe that this is due to the services they offer. They know that they are competing with online stores and go out of their way to provide services that you can't obtain online. Based on sales through their 3 stores, Wizard's is indeed having a great year in 2005.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Other things I've heard Charles say... alright, seen him post... back up my impression of Wizards doing well:
> 
> * The number of people claiming to play D&D has increased by 15% over the past year. (wow!) The estimated total is now 4.6 million people in the USA.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 25, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, to be frank, if you place your trust in corporate officers for that reason in general, I would say your trust is wildly misplaced. If this is specific to Charles Ryan, I'd be interested in knowing why.




Because he likes his job and doesn't want to lose it, perhaps?  I don't find any reasons not to trust him that are as compelling as this.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 25, 2005)

eyebeams, what I said about Justin not speaking that way toward other posters applies equally to you and to anyone else.  If you cannot maintain a civil discourse, maybe you could take a couple days off?


----------



## Turjan (Nov 25, 2005)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> The RPG market presently has a distribution/retail system that is antique and ready to break down completely in the "modern" world. Those publishers that are selling into the "book trade" are doing relatively well. The C&GR reports are pretty widely considered a joke, though they can be useful for detecting trends. The several local retailers I have spoken to about them scoff at them (they also don't send in any information).



These are very important points, and I'm somewhat surprised that they often tend to be "forgotten" in these discussions, although I see some of the same people in all of these threads . The C&GR figures look only at a part of the RPG market (game and hobby stores), they have only part of the numbers of this segment (from volunteers) and, last not least, the big slump of sales reported for spring 2005 was simultaneous with a change in their method of data acquisition (which makes those data useless). Nevertheless, the crisis of the conventional distribution/retail system is obvious to everyone, and it's clear that this has consequences for those companies that depend on this system.

I don't use the (F)LGS system and make all my purchases online, not because I don't have a game shop in my vicinity (actually, there's one on my way to work), but because I made this choice. I use different online vendors, but let's just take amazon as a source for - purely anecdotal  - observations. 

Amazon offers discounts, and these discounts are usually coupled to product that moves or comes from an active distributor. WotC products are (nearly?) always discounted. The same is true for White Wolf stuff. In the same league as WW, we find those companies publishing through WW, like Malhavoc and Necromancer Games. They get the usual "one third off of MSRP" discount and the 24 hours shipment. Necromancer reported a slow but steady increase in sold units per product during the recent months (though coming from low level). If we look at a relatively small company without these benefits, like Goodman Games, we often see that ugly "usually ships in 4 to 6 weeks" tag, and I can only imagine that this hurts sales in a market that has a putative 12 week life cycle per product (_in the (F)LGS at least; who brought this up?_). This might explain why Goodman Games now used White Wolf for their "Etherscope" project; this should get rid of that ugly tag. Mongoose is an example where we saw a big change for the positive from the beginning of this year on. The discount went up, the delivery times went down; seems to fit Matthew Sprange's claims.

The whole Green Ronin debacle with their distributor was easily visible on amazon. At the turn of 2004/2005, they had 12 week delivery tags on most of their products. Amazon regularly canceled orders of Green Ronin product. Blue Rose was finally marked with "currently unavailable". They still don't offer the book, except through 3rd party vendors. Discounts vanished. Things changed for the better with the Black Industries stuff (WFRP2), but this might be due to GW behind it. Some of the actual Green Ronin stuff starts to re-appear in the system just now, though often still without discount. If you type in the search term "Green Ronin", you find exactly 21 products, and only 3 of those are not from Black Industries. If you look hard, you will find other titles, but still with the usual attributes: _"Advanced Gamemaster's Guide, usually ships within 4 to 6 weeks, $1.99 surcharge for "hard to find title" on top of full MSRP (no discount)"_. That's a nice glimpse on the distribution problem. No wonder that Green Ronin talks of a crisis in the RPG market.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 26, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> eyebeams, what I said about Justin not speaking that way toward other posters applies equally to you and to anyone else.  If you cannot maintain a civil discourse, maybe you could take a couple days off?




Seriously, these threads aren't just the same arguements every time, they're the same posters making the same arguements. ENworld needs to find a way to ban certain people from certain threads.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 26, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Sure. Remember how I said that I don't think Charles Ryan is lying? At the same time, he is well able to say, "D&D is having its best year ever!" using data which you and I would probably not describe that way were we to have it in front of us (whether or not he *is* doing this is a different issue). An actual description of net profit/loss and sales by individual SKU are not so prone to massaging. In no way do these statements "speak the same message" to an investor.






			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, to be frank, if you place your trust in corporate officers for that reason in general, I would say your trust is wildly misplaced. If this is specific to Charles Ryan, I'd be interested in knowing why.






As a professional who deals with these sorts of things; since Enron and such: the likelyhood that Charles Ryan is lying or misleading is indeed excessively remote. Beyond remote. Why? Becasue the CFO, CEO and he himself will be legally liable (as in jail time, loosing of professional licenses (CPA, CFA, etc) and personal financial liabity). This also goes without saying the liability (legal and civil) of every officer of that company.  

I suggest you go to the SEC website and take a peek at the regs that came out since Enron.…

You don’t believe me; than why is it that corps now all have a brand spanking new high level executive position: Compliance Officer (who by the way gets smacked right after the CFO and CEO)

If it is true that industry sales are down and WoTC is having record sales; then obviously those that are buying D20 are buying WoTC products more than ever before; in essense the total sales have shrunk buit WoTC is getting a larger peice of what is left.

The likelyhood that there are less sales is likely do to the fact taht D20 is a young system and lots of sales came out for EVERYONE who is a gamer and played the new D20 to buy all the D20 core books (a MUST buy to play in the system); hence a huge rise in sales - after eveyone has the corebooks; the products get cherry picked by consumers; lower sales.


----------



## Justin Bacon (Nov 26, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well no. That'd be you. If you want to frame the state that exists between the industry leaders as one of straightforward competition, then (with some caveats I've noticed), you must accept an absurd definition.




Okay, so you've backed off your original claim to one of "straightforward competition", thereby nicely conceding the point while trying to hide the fact.

Glad we got that settled. Thanks!

Justin Alexander Bacon
http://www.thealexandrian.net


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 27, 2005)

Justin Bacon said:
			
		

> Okay, so you've backed off your original claim to one of "straightforward competition", thereby nicely conceding the point while trying to hide the fact.
> 
> Glad we got that settled. Thanks!
> 
> ...





I'm curious, Justin: What did you think I was trying to say in the first place?


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 27, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> eyebeams, what I said about Justin not speaking that way toward other posters applies equally to you and to anyone else.  If you cannot maintain a civil discourse, maybe you could take a couple days off?




In all seriousness, I'm not sure what point inspired you to say this. Unless, of course, saying that one shouldn't trust corporate reps doing their jobs unconditionally is tatamount to a personal attack. If it is, that is extraordinarily unfortunate since it basically destroys any critical discourse about WotC.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 27, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> As a professional who deals with these sorts of things; since Enron and such: the likelyhood that Charles Ryan is lying or misleading is indeed excessively remote. Beyond remote. Why? Becasue the CFO, CEO and he himself will be legally liable (as in jail time, loosing of professional licenses (CPA, CFA, etc) and personal financial liabity). This also goes without saying the liability (legal and civil) of every officer of that company.




Theoretically, that sounds very comforting. Very theoretically.

But man: I find the idea that the post-Enron world features strictly honest corporate dealings and spin-free public relationships to be extremely silly. Perhaps that is not what you are trying to say, but that would be the natural outcome in a world where Charles Ryan could *not* apply spin to something as vague as the quip, "best year ever." Legally, whether deceit is actionable depends on whether a person could reasonably rely on it in such a manner as to have caused injury.

If Hasbro makes money for an investor but D&D isn't doing what that investor would call its "best ever" business (but another investor could argue was), is there any poential damage at all? Keep in mind that either way, people make money.

If the investor wanted to complain because Chyarles Ryan told some gamers that D&D was doing great and he assumed (despite the fact that Ryan said nothing of the sort) it was because the game was doing great and not because of internal reorganization and liability reduction it actually turned out to be, wwould he be taken seriously?

I'm sure the answer is "maybe," but "maybe" lots of things can happen that don't.

With something like a licensor there's a different story, but (as some may have forgotten), those lecenses already belong to somebody else and will do so for the next long while.



> You don’t believe me; than why is it that corps now all have a brand spanking new high level executive position: Compliance Officer (who by the way gets smacked right after the CFO and CEO)?




To maximize profit as safely as possible. Why is it that corporations always tout such basic precautions as examples of aproactive ethical position, but when the screw up, argue that they have no ethical duties outside of the law? Oh yeah -- it's because of that theoretically impossible spin.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Theoretically, that sounds very comforting. Very theoretically.




Really – sounds sort of like a subjective answer to a tangible question.

Again: go the SEC website; take a look at litigations

Additionally take a peek at the AICPA website and see how many CPA’s are getting slapped around.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> But man: I find the idea that the post-Enron world features strictly honest corporate dealings and spin-free public relationships to be extremely silly.




Actually I am saying that. The law always included language referring to “misleading” the public and investors; something which could only be overcome by a joint partnership in dishonesty with a “watch dog” organization (the function  on CPA’s). Hence Enron

These “cheating things” always went on however it was usually with smaller companies (as they have less scrutiny) and was done for perhaps a single quarter – just to “get by”. However in the wash; if anyone looked close enough they would have found it. Problem is no one did look that close. Now they do

Think about how many companies “restated” after Enron – think about that for just a moment. Why? Because they triple checked everything and did it again (as did the CPA firms). If they found a problem, intentional or not, coming from the CFO or CEO directly or not (as in for example a brand manager fudging a few sales numbers) they restated with all due haste. There were companies that did so (and big ones) even when the number was not material top the company (i.e. no impact to share price or EPS). 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Perhaps that is not what you are trying to say, but that would be the natural outcome in a world where Charles Ryan could *not* apply spin to something as vague as the quip, "best year ever." Legally, whether deceit is actionable depends on whether a person could reasonably rely on it in such a manner as to have caused injury.




Actually by making that statement there is language that could force him to prove it – if anyone thought it necessary. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> If Hasbro makes money for an investor but D&D isn't doing what that investor would call its "best ever" business (but another investor could argue was), is there any poential damage at all? Keep in mind that either way, people make money.




No – why  - because, like I said a lot of pages ago in this massive thread; sales, revenue, profit, etc. define it. There is no middle ground. He would have never said that without a go ahead from legal otherwise already Hasbro would have issued a written statement that it was false. Additionally I would not be even slightly surprised if that language is what will be used in PRINT in the quarterly and annual report of the firm. 


And I ask did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> If the investor wanted to complain because Chyarles Ryan told some gamers that D&D was doing great and he assumed (despite the fact that Ryan said nothing of the sort) it was because the game was doing great and not because of internal reorganization and liability reduction it actually turned out to be, wwould he be taken seriously?




Irrelevant question when you are talking about investments; however the cash was made it was made. And again I ask: did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I'm sure the answer is "maybe," but "maybe" lots of things can happen that don't.





How can you be sure? You don’t know enough about corporate governance outside of what any layman would.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> With something like a licensor there's a different story, but (as some may have forgotten), those lecenses already belong to somebody else and will do so for the next long while.




And exactly what does this have to do with anything? Most companies in the RPG market are not publicly traded and thus anything they say publicly is irrelevant. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> To maximize profit as safely as possible.




err…what is the function of a company again? Oh ya to make money! I forgot about that. Oh but let me complain about everything corporations due then get ticked when my 401k goes down in value. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Why is it that corporations always tout such basic precautions as examples of aproactive ethical position,





err…because it is. Just as Stop signs, yield signs, traffic lights, lines on the road, etc. Are proactive precautions for driving on the road. 

It is true – pre Enron perhaps not so much – now it is so.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> but when the screw up, argue that they have no ethical duties outside of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 27, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> Really – sounds sort of like a subjective answer to a tangible question.
> 
> Again: go the SEC website; take a look at litigations
> 
> Additionally take a peek at the AICPA website and see how many CPA’s are getting slapped around.




OK. Some companies are in litigation for some things. It amazes me that anyone would believe this magically ensures their honesty, unless of course, they were ideologically devoted to corporations. Hm -- and it's your job, you say?



> Actually I am saying that. The law always included language referring to “misleading” the public and investors; something which could only be overcome by a joint partnership in dishonesty with a “watch dog” organization (the function  on CPA’s). Hence Enron.




You're speaking from a position of incredible optimism, in my view. 

The fact is that post-Enron accountability measures are aimed mostly as boards and financial statements, such as the rules for outside board members and the cooling of period to ensure independence. Charles Ryan is not making a financial statement beyond saying that the D&D brand is driving more profit than it did before.



> These “cheating things” always went on however it was usually with smaller companies (as they have less scrutiny) and was done for perhaps a single quarter – just to “get by”. However in the wash; if anyone looked close enough they would have found it. Problem is no one did look that close. Now they do




Sure. That's why energy companies are testifying under oath right n . . . oh, wait, they aren't. Oops!



> Think about how many companies “restated” after Enron – think about that for just a moment. Why? Because they triple checked everything and did it again (as did the CPA firms). If they found a problem, intentional or not, coming from the CFO or CEO directly or not (as in for example a brand manager fudging a few sales numbers) they restated with all due haste. There were companies that did so (and big ones) even when the number was not material top the company (i.e. no impact to share price or EPS).




Charles Ryan cannot be fudging sales numbers because his statements say nothing of how many SKUs ae being moved. Making money hat can be categorized under a brand is not the same as moving SKUs. In fact, it is difficult to construct a scenario in which he might be lying, because his statements are materially vague.



> And I ask did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.




Nobody really seems to want to find this out s much as believe that it means that more PHBs are selling than ever.



> Irrelevant question when you are talking about investments; however the cash was made it was made. And again I ask: did Charles Ryan say just “best ever year” or did he say “best ever in sales”, “best ever in revenue” or “best ever in profit”, “best ever year sine 19xx”, etc., etc.




Actually, it is relevant to us, because details about what it means help determine why things are in their current shape.



> How can you be sure? You don’t know enough about corporate governance outside of what any layman would.




You don't know anything about the business of gaming outside of what a layperson would. It seems we're even, except of course that it's easier to educate yourself about corporate governance than the business of a specialized niche hobby.



> And exactly what does this have to do with anything? Most companies in the RPG market are not publicly traded and thus anything they say publicly is irrelevant.




It has nothing to do with that. Licensors are a special case because they rely on the value of somebody else's property. This means that false representation of the property can damage them (i.e. Activision vs, Viacom).



> err…what is the function of a company again? Oh ya to make money! I forgot about that. Oh but let me complain about everything corporations due then get ticked when my 401k goes down in value.




That is not really an ethical position beyond basic egoism.



> err…because it is. Just as Stop signs, yield signs, traffic lights, lines on the road, etc. Are proactive precautions for driving on the road.




You are arguing that the equivalent of these things in corporate governance will always work now. That's  . . . super.



> Because they actually don’t – and neither do you or I or anyone else. However reputation can suffer from such stances (i.e. as in Arthur Anderson going out of business, Exxon’s spill cleanup fiasco in the 8o’s (which still effects it today), etc.). If people are ticked at a company they don’t buy their products; clear and simple – to many iterations have proved that.




No, they haven't. The idea of hand-off market correction is a joke. Exxon never suffered a year where they lost money do to the Valdez. From LTCM to the less-known companies involved in Enron (RBC conspired with them to conceal losses and were not punished), the trend has been that only massive malfeasance can have consequences for individuals. And that's without getting into the Butcher of Bhopal . . . yet somehow, you think that a bank (RBC) that concealed billions in losses for Enron can get off scot-free while talking about D&D cannot even be phrased to put a company in the best light. This defies credulity.



> And if you got a speeding ticket that was questionable in nature (real or perceived) would you go to court to fight it? Most would (if the cost is high enough that is)




Well, no, they don't, because the cost isn't high enough. That speaks directly to the issue, really.



> How is it a “theoretically impossible spin” to claim no duties outside the law when it is true? There is no theory about that – it is fact.




You misread. You are saying that it would be impossible for Charles Ryan to say anoytjing without spinning it to look good. You are simultaneously asking for an unwarranted degree of trust and, of course, denying that companies should actually have to be any more trustworthy than the letter of the law defines. This is a contradiction.



> To be honest this is like a baby in a lion pit here – you are trying to think up ways of circumventing the knowledge of people who know exactly what they are talking about. I would never try to tell a NASA scientist how to build a better rocket but I would tell him other business related things and he should listen.




Nothing of the sort. I'm talking about making the most positive statements possible without drawing legal penalties. It is not "circumventing" anything to present those in the best light, even if it means not discussing certain particulars.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> You're speaking from a position of incredible optimism, in my view.




Perhaps.  But he is much closer to accurate than you are.

I can speak from personal experience that Sarbanes Oxley has greatly impacted the way companies present their financial data.  

You can call them all sorts of names, anything you want to.

They like making a lot of money and they are not going to screw it up.  And in the current climate it has very little to do with how good the people are.  The are working in their own self interest.

Not this this wild tangent is really all that relevant.  

If your only "evidence" to support your dispute of WotC and Mongoose doing very well is general defamation of all industry, completely lacking in specifics, then case dismissed and you lose.


----------



## eyebeams (Nov 27, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Perhaps.  But he is much closer to accurate than you are.
> 
> I can speak from personal experience that Sarbanes Oxley has greatly impacted the way companies present their financial data.




Charles Ryan isn't giving you any financial data.  



> You can call them all sorts of names, anything you want to.




Who am I calling names, again? It really amazes me how much people read into this stuff. I mean, people are reading all kinds of hostility toward WotC while, of course, reading all kinds of specific information into a set of relatively vague statements *from* WotC.



> They like making a lot of money and they are not going to screw it up.  And in the current climate it has very little to do with how good the people are.  The are working in their own self interest.




Sure.



> If your only "evidence" to support your dispute of WotC and Mongoose doing very well is general defamation of all industry, completely lacking in specifics, then case dismissed and you lose.




Where exactly did I ay that they weren't doing well? Look over the thread. Cite the post.

It is good to know what this is really about, though: political agendas with no place in this forum (like the pro-corporate propaganda espoused as "knowledge" earlier) and a burning esire to believe that, no matter what, RPGs are doing great.

These kinds of views are, like other articles of faith, not amenable to reasonable discussion, so I see no reason to talk about them further.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It is good to know what this is really about, though: political agendas with no place in this forum (like the pro-corporate propaganda espoused as "knowledge" earlier) and a burning esire to believe that, no matter what, RPGs are doing great.
> 
> These kinds of views are, like other articles of faith, not amenable to reasonable discussion, so I see no reason to talk about them further.



While that may be your assessment, that is just an opinion, not an objective fact. What I have seen here (and, this is just *my * opinion) is on the issue of what Charles said, you believe that what he said could very likely just have been corporate doublespeak. What I and others have said is that it would be very unwise for him to make such statements in a public forum.

Does that mean that you're not right? No, he might very well have been speaking that way. However, given the fact that no further clarification was made, it is unlikely to be the case. Is it impossible? No, certainly not, but it is unlikely. In the post Enron world, there have been many changes to the way businesses have been forced to operate. Some of them, to my mind, have even been overreaction and are downright silly, but, like it or not, the world has changed. Did all of these corporations suddenly become "good" in D&D terms? Of course not.

So we really are having three different discussions in this thread:

One: is there a decline in RPG sales?

Two: are companies like WotC and Mongoose lying when they say that they're increasing in sales and doing fine?

Three: If someone from a company that is publicly traded makes statements in a forum like ENWorld, can they become accountable for them?

My answers to these three questions:
One: Yes.
Two: No.
Three: Yes.

The third question is really the most off-topic, so that's the one we're debating the hottest. Perhaps we should stick to one and two?

Let me add a question four to this mix (and this will be the question that cares):

Is there a fundamental difference in the market between the companies that are distributed in traditional retail versus those who are only marketed the RPG channels?

I would say "yes" to this one, because it puts everything in this and other threads I have been reading recently into perspective.

Companies that are being distributed through traditional book chains and have proper distribution with companies like Amazon are doing well. Those that don't aren't.

Comments?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 28, 2005)

On question 4:

Any company that increases its availability to consumers increases its odds of success.  That's business 101.

If your normal distribution channels are not providing sufficient income for you to succeed, you need to improve/expand your distribution and/or examine the viability of your product.  That's business 102.

For a variety of reasons, traditional distribution channels for RPGs are not cutting it anymore for many RPG companies.

RPG companies must adapt or die.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 28, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Is there a fundamental difference in the market between the companies that are distributed in traditional retail versus those who are only marketed the RPG channels?
> 
> I would say "yes" to this one, because it puts everything in this and other threads I have been reading recently into perspective.
> 
> ...



Well, I obviously agree, because that was my interpretation of the numbers that we have up in post #327. I used the example of Green Ronin for a company that struggles because of their difficulties to get seen in book chains or on amazon. And Patrick Lawinger said something about the book trade and RPG companies before that.


----------



## Pielorinho (Nov 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It is good to know what this is really about, though: political agendas with no place in this forum (like the pro-corporate propaganda espoused as "knowledge" earlier) and a burning esire to believe that, no matter what, RPGs are doing great.
> 
> These kinds of views are, like other articles of faith, not amenable to reasonable discussion, so I see no reason to talk about them further.



*Moderator's Notes*:
*Eyebeams*, you're out of line here, and you've been warned recently.  I am giving you a three-day suspension.  If you find that you cannot discuss a subject without getting snarky, you need to walk away from the subject.

Daniel


----------



## SteveC (Nov 28, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, I obviously agree, because that was my interpretation of the numbers that we have up in post #327. I used the example of Green Ronin for a company that struggles because of their difficulties to get seen in book chains or on amazon. And Patrick Lawinger said basically the same before me.



Yes, you're the person that put it in perspective for me, actually.

Living in Madison puts me in a different position than a lot of people: I have a distributor in the same city with me. As a result, I don't really see a lot of the problems that many of you do: my FLGS can literally get anything that they have in stock the same day. That has really insulated me from the question of how different distributions methods distinguish a line of product.  

What it sounds like is that this is a relatively new issue, and one that is getting worse. Am I correct here, or is it just something I never saw before?

It seems to me, if all of this is true, that in order for a gaming company to be truly successful, they have to break into that traditional market, then. The ability to do that, or lack thereof, may determine the results for many on the border companies. I would imagine that getting into the more traditional distribution systems would be quite difficult to do, which is a real shame, since some of the companies who aren't there now are producing some of my favorite stuff. I wonder if there is anything we (as gaming consumers) can do to change this, aside from buying lots of product, that is...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 28, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> On question 4:
> 
> Any company that increases its availability to consumers increases its odds of success.  That's business 101.
> 
> ...




I think a part of it, is the rising prices of RPG books. RPG companies have to make a higher per book amount, so they charge more. The higher price drives more people to duscount online shops, hurting RPG stores. I cant' say whether overall sales have suffered, but I think the sales are moving from comic stores to discount stores.
It's all kind of interrelated. It's a shame there's not some system where the product could be sold to RPG shops at a price lower than to book dealers and such.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 28, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> On question 4:
> 
> Any company that increases its availability to consumers increases its odds of success.  That's business 101.
> 
> ...



Sure, that all makes sense. The question is: how long has the traditional gaming distribution method not been working? I've seen threads where companies have said "the traditional system is failing us because distributor X won't stock our stuff. We have a plan to get around them and get our product into the market."

This is usually followed by one of the distributors saying: *good luck*. I haven't seen any real success stories on doing this, outside of the largest gaming companies that use traditional book channels. I wonder if anyone who actually knows what the deal is with the distribution system would be willing to make a comment on the subject, or any of the publishers who've been trying to move to another kind of system.

Color me confused on the whole subject   but wanting to learn more   .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 28, 2005)

I won't name names, but some of the distribution companies are ridiculously incompetent.  There have been times when I have a book in my hand for weeks in Dallas before my buddy in Boston sees it in a store.  Result: he makes a lot of purchases online or when he visits.

This caused a lot of problems before the advent of internet shopping, and internet shopping has only made the problems more pronounced.

In the meantime, many books are being sold online at prices below the costs FRPGS are paying.

At least part of that is because the big online discount houses have the purchasing power to buy in bulk, earning discounts, which they pass along to the consumers.

HOWEVER...

There are allegations that those same discount resellers are engaged in predatory pricing- selling certain products below costs (usually while cross subsidizing with slightly higher prices on other products) in order to drive certain competitors out of business.

Why would an online seller want to go after the FRPGS?  FRPGS have a particularly good relationship with those companies that sell certain heavily marketed IPs- MOVIES.  They generally have a better selection of collectibles related to sci-fi/fantasy type films than other stores.  You want Star Wars or LoTR memorabilia or collectibles?  Generally, you're going to a FRPG or similar store.

And if THOSE are gone, you're going to Amazon & Ebay, etc.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 28, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> What it sounds like is that this is a relatively new issue, and one that is getting worse. Am I correct here, or is it just something I never saw before?




The following is just the gist of many similar threads, so bear with me :

Well, I heard it was starting around the release of D&D 3.5. Game shops couldn't sell D&D 3.0 stuff anymore. Without money from sales, they didn't order new stuff or only very small numbers. Many game shops died, and if I remember correctly, alone during the last year, one third of all game shops vanished (that's how I remember it; someone with exact numbers may correct me). This means that the number of sales points for RPGs that are dependent on game shops decreased dramatically.

Most customers who go to a shop in order to find a product do that exactly once. If the product isn't there, they go somewhere else. With less copies ordered, even product that would normally sell did not have any customers, because the latter used other channels to get it. This means: no reorders. Distributors didn't get rid of the stuff and didn't want to order much from RPG companies anymore. The main distributor of a big number of small to medium companies finally got bankrupt, not paying said RPG companies. For many RPG companies, this was the end.

Distributors also start with the "lean management" model. They keep only a very small number of product in stock. If the product unexpectedly sells well, they cannot fulfill reorders in a timely manner. This means more lost customers.

Companies like amazon don't like product that is not available from distributors in a timely manner. Amazon has small profit margins, but if customers complain about overdue deliveries, they usually hand out $5 compensations. Guess whose product will get penalized by surcharges, no discounts and, as final measure, be kicked out of the catalogue.


EDIT: As I wrote it, it looks as if I made 3.5 responsible for the game shop death; in reality, this was only one small aspect among others, like a decline in the important card sales.


----------



## philreed (Nov 28, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I won't name names, but some of the distribution companies are ridiculously incompetent.  There have been times when I have a book in my hand for weeks in Dallas before my buddy in Boston sees it in a store.  Result: he makes a lot of purchases online or when he visits.




And this doesn't even address the problem of some distributors not paying on time. It makes it increasingly more difficult for a publisher to release new products when they haven't been paid for the last batch.

Something to stick in your mind: Remember all of the delayed products in this industry? Some of those delays come about because the publisher hasn't been paid for earlier releases and now doesn't have the money to print the new stuff -- stuff that's done and waiting on cash before it can be printed.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 28, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> These kinds of views are, like other articles of faith, not amenable to reasonable discussion, so I see no reason to talk about them further.




EDIT: now seeing that I'm responding to a comment that got you temp banned, I'll remove my reply.

Though I'll retain a general objection to your parsing of your own words while substituting straw men for mine.  Oh well.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 28, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> And this doesn't even address the problem of some distributors not paying on time. It makes it increasingly more difficult for a publisher to release new products when they haven't been paid for the last batch.
> 
> Something to stick in your mind: Remember all of the delayed products in this industry? Some of those delays come about because the publisher hasn't been paid for earlier releases and now doesn't have the money to print the new stuff -- stuff that's done and waiting on cash before it can be printed.




Is this an result of problems within the gaming industry, or is it an outside factor that is a source cause of some of the problems?


----------



## philreed (Nov 28, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Is this an result of problems within the gaming industry, or is it an outside factor that is a source cause of some of the problems?




This doesn't apply to all distributors but what happens _sometimes_ is that a big, hot collectible product releases so the money goes to buying more from the publisher of the newest CCG, CMG, whatever is hottest, instead of paying the smaller publishers. It's actually a form of speculation in a much larger scale than single gamers take part in. (Think of it as: "If I take the $1,000 I owe this publisher and buy more of X then I'll be able to pay the original publisher his $1,000 in a few weeks and have more profits from X then if I hadn't done this.")


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Nov 28, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> This doesn't apply to all distributors but what happens _sometimes_ is that a big, hot collectible product releases so the money goes to buying more from the publisher of the newest CCG, CMG, whatever is hottest, instead of paying the smaller publishers. It's actually a form of speculation in a much larger scale than single gamers take part in. (Think of it as: "If I take the $1,000 I owe this publisher and buy more of X then I'll be able to pay the original publisher his $1,000 in a few weeks and have more profits from X then if I hadn't done this.")




It's not just the RPG distributers that do this. I have worked in the hobby industry (i.e. model kits) for a long time now and those distributers do the same thing. That's the great part of PDF publishing, all of that B.S. goes away for the most part.


----------



## BryonD (Nov 28, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> This doesn't apply to all distributors but what happens _sometimes_ is that a big, hot collectible product releases so the money goes to buying more from the publisher of the newest CCG, CMG, whatever is hottest, instead of paying the smaller publishers. It's actually a form of speculation in a much larger scale than single gamers take part in. (Think of it as: "If I take the $1,000 I owe this publisher and buy more of X then I'll be able to pay the original publisher his $1,000 in a few weeks and have more profits from X then if I hadn't done this.")




gotcha, thanks

So it sounds like this may be one piece of what is causing problems for some small guys, rather than the problems causing this.  Which is what I was really wondering: Is this a cause or an effect?

Sounds like it would be nice to get a better contract with the distributor.  But I understand how much easier said than done THAT is.....


----------



## SteveC (Nov 28, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> This doesn't apply to all distributors but what happens _sometimes_ is that a big, hot collectible product releases so the money goes to buying more from the publisher of the newest CCG, CMG, whatever is hottest, instead of paying the smaller publishers. It's actually a form of speculation in a much larger scale than single gamers take part in. (Think of it as: "If I take the $1,000 I owe this publisher and buy more of X then I'll be able to pay the original publisher his $1,000 in a few weeks and have more profits from X then if I hadn't done this.")



That is very interesting. That brings up a good question: what kind of contact does a publisher have with the distributor in these cases? I would think that there would be some language about being paid out in X days, but am I so far off the mark as to be laughable here?


----------



## buzz (Nov 28, 2005)

*Unrelated, sorry*



			
				FATDRAGONGAMES said:
			
		

> ...



FDG, would you mind reducing or eliminating the big graphics from your .sig? They're blowing the width of the thread page. Thanks!


----------



## Pramas (Nov 28, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, I obviously agree, because that was my interpretation of the numbers that we have up in post #327. I used the example of Green Ronin for a company that struggles because of their difficulties to get seen in book chains or on amazon. And Patrick Lawinger said basically the same before me.




Gee, I was trying real hard not to get involved in this thread, but now I must clarify. Green Ronin did not have a challenging 2005 because of theoretical lost sales in the book trade. Green Ronin had a challenging 2005 because our key business partner didn't pay us for months worth of actual sales through all channels. A side effect of our break with them was that we didn't have book trade disbtibution for a few months but we took care of that with a deal with Diamond Book Distribution. About a third of our Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition sales have been in the book trade, for example. At this point issues with Amazon are entirely the doings of Amazon, though we are working with them and Diamond to get everything ironed out. 

Regarding this thread in general:
* Remember that most companies are privately held and don't share their sales numbers. This makes it hard to get an accurate picture.
* Remember that some companies do indeed use PR spin to fluff themselves up. 
* Remember that every time a topic like this comes up, it devolves into an ultimately pointless argument because of the previous two points.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Nov 28, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Gee, I was trying real hard not to get involved in this thread, but now I must clarify.
> 
> <big Snip>
> 
> ...




Add to #3 the fact that when a publisher or someone involved in publishing does post, their posts can get "interpreted" through several rounds so that you don't even recognize what people say you posted ...


----------



## Turjan (Nov 28, 2005)

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Add to #3 the fact that when a publisher or someone involved in publishing does post, their posts can get "interpreted" through several rounds so that you don't even recognize what people say you posted ...



Sorry, I didn't want to imply that you said anything about Green Ronin. Upon reading my post again, I see that it could be interpreted this way, but this was not what my meant. I'll edit that post.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 28, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> Gee, I was trying real hard not to get involved in this thread, but now I must clarify. Green Ronin did not have a challenging 2005 because of theoretical lost sales in the book trade. Green Ronin had a challenging 2005 because our key business partner didn't pay us for months worth of actual sales through all channels. A side effect of our break with them was that we didn't have book trade disbtibution for a few months but we took care of that with a deal with Diamond Book Distribution. About a third of our Mutants & Masterminds Second Edition sales have been in the book trade, for example. At this point issues with Amazon are entirely the doings of Amazon, though we are working with them and Diamond to get everything ironed out.



Okay, not being paid for your sales is obviously the most important point. Nevertheless, not being able to sell anything through the book trade for several months when, afterwards, the book trade sales make up one third of the total doesn't exactly sound like nothing worth talking about. And the point that "issues with Amazon are entirely the doings of Amazon" doesn't help much with the problem, either. Once the damage is done, it's always hard to do something about it. But it's good to hear that everything seems to get on the right track again .


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 28, 2005)

It's interesting to note that the the statements "WotC has had its best year ever for D+D" and "RPG sales are declining" are not mutually exclusive.

Note two items: 
1st, D+D sales metrics at WoTC include the DDM line. This is a great revenue stream, with solid profitability.

2nd: The overall msrp of WoTC products has increased significantly in the last 2 years (I believe from an average msrp $20 to $30)

Combined, revenues and profits can be up, while the number of actual gamers is in decline.

Re the 4.6million D+D players. I believe that that is has played the game at least once in the last 12 months, plus now includes mini game (one wonders about crossover). This number is not materially different from the 4million players that has been quoted for the last 10+ years.

Of note, WoW online has really been drawing alot of gamers from traditional avenues: rpg, table top, and other crpg.

2c


----------



## buzz (Nov 28, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> Combined, revenues and profits can be up, while the number of actual gamers is in decline.



It should be pointed out that the original topic of this thead was a decline in _sales_. There's no evidence (that I've been privy to) saying that there's been a recent decline in _the number of people who play RPGs_. These are separate issues, and the thread is ostensibly discussing the former.

If we are to believe the words of Charles Ryan (indeed, a risky proposition given attitudes in this thread), the number of people regularly gaming has been icnreasing.



			
				Warbringer said:
			
		

> Re the 4.6million D+D players. I believe that that is has played the game at least once in the last 12 months, plus now includes mini game (one wonders about crossover). This number is not materially different from the 4million players that has been quoted for the last 10+ years.



Ryan's numbers do not include D&D minis, and counts the number of people playing at least on a monthly basis. It is up from the numbers WotC quoted the year before, the year before that, and significantly up from the WotC market survey in '99 which put the tabletop RPG popuation at 2.25 million. Whether this is an actual increase or different methodology, I dunno.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 28, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> If we are to believe the words of Charles Ryan (indeed, a risky proposition given attitudes in this thread), the number of people regularly gaming has been increasing.





I choose to believe.


----------



## buzz (Nov 28, 2005)

Pramas said:
			
		

> * Remember that every time a topic like this comes up, it devolves into an ultimately pointless argument because of the previous two points.



And unfortunately, much liek car wrecks, many of us have a hard time pulling ourselves away from them. 

I only wish there were some accurate data available, if only so problems could be identified and solved, rather than debated and speculated upon.


----------



## buzz (Nov 28, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I choose to believe.



As it mirrors my personal experience, I choose to believe as well.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 28, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> As it mirrors my personal experience, I choose to believe as well.





_Perhaps we can car pool in the ideal lane . . ?_


----------



## MerricB (Nov 28, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> As it mirrors my personal experience, I choose to believe as well.




As Charles has been so insistent that D&D has been doing well, I really have to believe him. (Along the same way that I believe that we're not going to see 4e any time soon).

I mean, this hasn't been one off-the-cuff remark we're talking about. Charles has repeated it in various sources (and in news interviews), and although he's been very careful to not give away sales data, I think there's no way you could interpret "best year ever" to not include increased sales.

Charles said that he thinks the numbers of people playing D&D are a little high - but that the trend has been upwards. Fascinating.

Does that mean that RPGs (in general) are doing well? Of course not. (It does mean the one I really care about is doing well, though )

Cheers!


----------



## Monte At Home (Nov 29, 2005)

You know, I believe Charles too. But not because he said it over and over.

There are a LOT of things I hear said over and over by people in this industry that I know not to be true.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 29, 2005)

We still have an industry? 

Cheers!


----------



## GMSkarka (Nov 29, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> I only wish there were some accurate data available, if only so problems could be identified and solved, rather than debated and speculated upon.




You clearly underestimate the propensity of gamers to debate and speculate, even when provided with accurate data.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 29, 2005)

*Amature vs. Professional*



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> OK. Some companies are in litigation for some things. It amazes me that anyone would believe this magically ensures their honesty,




err...excuse me; exactly what are laws by the way; and why is it that people obey them most of the time. Oh ya I forgot! Because there is a consequence AFTER the law is broken. 

In your logic we should assume all business are always guilty and thus levy punishments prior to the crime being committed. You talk as if Corps all over the world are all dishonest – horse crap. You have offered no tangible proof of any statement you have made at all – not a single shred. You simply make a statement as if it is true with zero backup or references. 




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> unless of course, they were ideologically devoted to corporations. Hm -- and it's your job, you say?




Of course I am devoted – devoted to an open economy that allows things…such as the internet to be invented and created. I am a business person. You know; the type of people that help keep the economy moving along and such - the kind you work for or will at some point. The kind that will run the companies that sustain your retirement account and currently sustain your parents, uncles etc. Ya I am one of those radicals.

Hypocrite.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You're speaking from a position of incredible optimism, in my view.




An opinion – relevance? Position of optimism; that MOST people are honest most of  the time? Hmmm seems so silly to me. After all we all know that on a daily basis 99% of all stop signs on the road are ignored and that people murder everyone all the time for the smallest slight…since of course you accuse corporations as a whole of such liberties.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> The fact is that post-Enron accountability measures are aimed mostly as boards and financial statements, such as the rules for outside board members and the cooling of period to ensure independence. Charles Ryan is not making a financial statement beyond saying that the D&D brand is driving more profit than it did before.




LOL (x100) [let me pick myself up off the floor – this is really pathetic]: this statement simply shows your complete (and I do mean complete) lack of knowledge regarding the subject you are arguing about. A company IS its financial statements! Everything it does comes out there! If Charles Ryan is talking about anything financial, even eluding to it – it is on the financials. If he is talking about anything the company does it is on the financials. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Sure. That's why energy companies are testifying under oath right n . . . oh, wait, they aren't. Oops!




Oh ya I forgot; everyone guilty of a crime always tells the truth on the stand...silly me. Oh ya and those that are actually innocent actually say they are guilty – silly me. Oh ya and prosecutors always take every case even with near zero evidence to the grand jury – just to waste everyone’s time for fun. I forgot about that. Oh and don’t forget that most corporations steal millions from everyone and are evil so we must prosecute them first.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan cannot be fudging sales numbers because his statements say nothing of how many SKUs ae being moved. Making money hat can be categorized under a brand is not the same as moving SKUs. In fact, it is difficult to construct a scenario in which he might be lying, because his statements are materially vague.




And exactly where does this SKU thing come from? That is not even a term; SKU is a bar code system; UNITS are what is used per product and per product line, and per brand name.

Second; Charles Ryan stated that sales are positive; he will have to prove that – period. Say what you will – you are flat wrong.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Nobody really seems to want to find this out s much as believe that it means that more PHBs are selling than ever.




Because one cannot know the details until the financials are produced.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Actually, it is relevant to us, because details about what it means help determine why things are in their current shape.




Then the entire thread is moot. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You don't know anything about the business of gaming outside of what a layperson would. It seems we're even, except of course that it's easier to educate yourself about corporate governance than the business of a specialized niche hobby.




LOL again…

Now lets just take the whole concept and abort it from the conversation since I am being constantly proven wrong. LOL

I forgot; we are talking about something unrelated to corporate governance…then why the focus on ethical issues in a corp? Silly statement you made.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with that. Licensors are a special case because they rely on the value of somebody else's property. This means that false representation of the property can damage them (i.e. Activision vs, Viacom).




Then let them get lawyers; and if Charles Ryan is full of it I assure you they will; whether it is made public or not. Not to mention that that is indeed a business risk of anyone licensing a product including the Windows software on your PC that you are using right now.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> That is not really an ethical position beyond basic egoism.




How can one discuss ethics within and between organizations without discussing law??? You can but it is pointless. Ethics discussion without law are not ethics; that is a discussion regarding morals (I don’t want to have to dig up the old college textbooks to find the exact book and such (which is a Harvard product BTW)).




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You are arguing that the equivalent of these things in corporate governance will always work now. That's  . . . super.




They do – and when someone finds a loophole (and they will – just like any other criminal) another law will have to fill it. And if not then when it happens again and again the public gets wind and things change; life is not fair, neither is anything else. The nation runs on voters and money. When the voters outweigh the money things happen. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, they haven't. The idea of hand-off market correction is a joke. Exxon never suffered a year where they lost money do to the Valdez. From LTCM to the less-known companies involved in Enron (RBC conspired with them to conceal losses and were not punished), the trend has been that only massive malfeasance can have consequences for individuals. And that's without getting into the Butcher of Bhopal . . . yet somehow, you think that a bank (RBC) that concealed billions in losses for Enron can get off scot-free while talking about D&D cannot even be phrased to put a company in the best light. This defies credulity.




LOL! Once again; re read your history.

RBC – you have proof that they actually assisted in this fiasco? Funny that the FBI, SEC, NASD…need I go on…did not. Boy you must really be a good investigator to come up with that with no actual evidence in your own hands. RBC actually did not; they executed instructions on accounts owned by the company in question; that is it. If anyone says different they are a flat out liar.

And where is RBC located?




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, no, they don't, because the cost isn't high enough. That speaks directly to the issue, really.




LOL once again – so that fact that any material error, intentional of not on any financial statement of any U.S. company will put the CFO behind bars and have his professional licenses revoked for life is certainly not an incentive to ensure what they sign off on is good. The fact that companies can face MILLIONS in fines for the slightest error; really come on now you again show that you know zilch about this.




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> You misread. You are saying that it would be impossible for Charles Ryan to say anoytjing without spinning it to look good. You are simultaneously asking for an unwarranted degree of trust and, of course, denying that companies should actually have to be any more trustworthy than the letter of the law defines. This is a contradiction.




How in the hell is that a contradiction? Un warranted? That my expectations match that of the law? That their sales via reputation suffer with bad press? (Been proven hundreds upon hundreds of times – say it ain’t true; you would be a liar)

Lets start off with exactly what the %$# do you want someone to say in his position? 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Nothing of the sort. I'm talking about making the most positive statements possible without drawing legal penalties. It is not "circumventing" anything to present those in the best light, even if it means not discussing certain particulars.




LOL once again – when you meet someone do you not put on your best face; this is laughable.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 29, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Most customers who go to a shop in order to find a product do that exactly once. If the product isn't there, they go somewhere else. With less copies ordered, even product that would normally sell did not have any customers, because the latter used other channels to get it. This means: no reorders. Distributors didn't get rid of the stuff and didn't want to order much from RPG companies anymore. The main distributor of a big number of small to medium companies finally got bankrupt, not paying said RPG companies. For many RPG companies, this was the end.



When I went to buy Magic of Incarnum, the shop got it on Friday, I went on Saturday. When I got there, they had sold out, which is fine, I can accept it...
Except, they had only gotten TWO copies in.

I mean, seriously, they stock the book, so they'd keep one copy on the shelf anyway, did they only expect to sell one of them? So, I bought MoI online, and also Heroes of Horror.

I have also gotten the vibe that the distributor often sends stuff that they want to, rather than what's ordered.


----------



## MongooseMatt (Nov 29, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I have also gotten the vibe that the distributor often sends stuff that they want to, rather than what's ordered.




Close.

What we have seen in some areas (Canada is good for this) is that a distributor will not order certain items automatically, unless a retailer puts in an order.

However, when a retailer puts in an order, it is reported as being out of stock - and so gets ignored!  As a Catch-22 goes, this one is up there.

This, by no means, happens throughout the distribution chain but it is very irritating when you do hear about it.  Ultimately, it means we have to do a distributor's job for them, in terms of marketing and support - it is no use complaining about it, you just have to swallow the situation and do it, or face losing sales.

This is rarer in the US, where there are several distrobutors for a retailer to go to.  However, if you live in another country and do not see books for at least a month after release, this is probably what is happening.  So, badger your retailer and get them to badger their distributor.

There is _nowhere_ in the world that should be more than a couple of weeks behind the US in terms of releases, with the possible exception of Australia and New Zealand (shipping times are a factor there).  Europe and Canada should not be more than a week or two behind, at the most.  You'll see this with good retailers who also happen to use good distributors (Leisure Games springs to mind here, though there are many others - I mention them because they are the shop I often use!).

BTW, Chris, if you are reading this, drop me a line with regards to the Diamond book distribution - there are some things you might find it helpful to know.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Nov 29, 2005)

SBMC, please moderate your tone when you post here.  In particular, as Charles Ryan does post here, we do not appreciate people calling him a liar flat out.  In addition, calling eyebeams a hypocrite is rude.  

In general please consider this to be the equivalent of Morrus' living room; then maintain decorum as if you were in someone's living room.  The moderators' philosophy is that this best helps us maintain a civil tone throughout.


----------



## wedgeski (Nov 29, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> And exactly where does this SKU thing come from? That is not even a term; SKU is a bar code system; UNITS are what is used per product and per product line, and per brand name.



SKU = Stock Keeping Unit, a saleable item. Eyebeams' usage was correct.


----------



## WizarDru (Nov 29, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I mean, seriously, they stock the book, so they'd keep one copy on the shelf anyway, did they only expect to sell one of them?




That's what you call a self-fulfilling prophecy.  They DID only sell one copy.  Of course, what they didn't do was get any sales beyond that copy because the consumer goes elsewhere.  Which is what the web has empowered the consumer to do.  When I can't locate something at a store and I don't need that item NOW, I may just opt to get it from Amazon or the like.

So what I seem to be getting out of this discussion is that companies that succeed do so in spite of the distribution channel, as opposed to because of it.  If the industry faces a threat, it sounds to me like this is the root cause.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 29, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> SBMC, please moderate your tone when you post here.  In particular, as Charles Ryan does post here, we do not appreciate people calling him a liar flat out.  In addition, calling eyebeams a hypocrite is rude.
> 
> In general please consider this to be the equivalent of Morrus' living room; then maintain decorum as if you were in someone's living room.  The moderators' philosophy is that this best helps us maintain a civil tone throughout.




I apologize for the tone.

I did not call Charles Ryan a liar; on the contrary actually.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 29, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> SKU = Stock Keeping Unit, a saleable item. Eyebeams' usage was correct.




Not in financial terms it is not.


----------



## buzz (Nov 29, 2005)

No offense, but why are your and eyebeams' posts always so negative? Or am I just reading the negative ones? Apologies in advance for possibly overstepping the bounds of Morrus' living room.  :\ 



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> You clearly underestimate the propensity of gamers to debate and speculate, even when provided with accurate data.



Perhaps. It'd be nice if we could at least know that something we were basing such debate upon was undisputed fact.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 29, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> No offense, but why are your and eyebeams' posts always so negative? Or am I just reading the negative ones




Good question.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Perhaps. It'd be nice if we could at least know that something we were basing such debate upon was undisputed fact.




In discussions such as these a lot of statements are made with the tone of strength behind them in an attempt to validate them as being true when in reality they are conjecture and/or opinion. This leads to more heated discussions with those who are actually in the know. If there was undisputed fact then there would be little room for debut, conjecture, opinion touting, dismissal of other/related facts as false (without proof of why they are false) or mud slinging. However, if undisputed, if one did not like that “undisputed fact” then the “facts” that underlie that “fact” would then somehow come into question…typical of most Bboards. 

Issues that do have a discernable answer that is not yet answered are usually the most argued.

There is no doubt that we would all fair better at discussing what we are all experts at (at some level or another) which is gaming. And it usually leads to far less heated discussions (of which I am equally as guilty as the next, if not more so).


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 29, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> It should be pointed out that the original topic of this thead was a decline in _sales_. There's no evidence (that I've been privy to) saying that there's been a recent decline in _the number of people who play RPGs_. These are separate issues, and the thread is ostensibly discussing the former.




Sorry. I simply meant to highlight the point that increasing sales does not mean increasing player base. Agreed, a different topic.



> Ryan's numbers do not include D&D minis, and counts the number of people playing at least on a monthly basis. It is up from the numbers WotC quoted the year before, the year before that, and significantly up from the WotC market survey in '99 which put the tabletop RPG popuation at 2.25 million. Whether this is an actual increase or different methodology, I dunno.




I never seen anywhere him exclude the minis. I know that from an accounting perspective the mini sales are hitting the D+D cost center. 

Apologies. I mixed up the US numbers and worldwide numbers. I know at Gen Con Ryan estimated 6-6.5 million players world wide.


----------



## buzz (Nov 29, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> I never seen anywhere him exclude the minis. I know that from an accounting perspective the mini sales are hitting the D+D cost center.



The 4.6 million figure has been specifically stated by Ryan to be players of the RPG, not RPG+Minis.


----------



## Warbringer (Nov 29, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> The 4.6 million figure has been specifically stated by Ryan to be players of the RPG, not RPG+Minis.




I missed that.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 29, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> I never seen anywhere him exclude the minis. I know that from an accounting perspective the mini sales are hitting the D+D cost center.




You would seem to be working for Hasbro/WoTC; question out of curiosity; do the Mini's line have their own management (per se' or official)? Or is that product line (all lines) managed as one?


----------



## MerricB (Nov 29, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> Do the Mini's line have their own management (per se' or official)? Or is that product line (all lines) managed as one?




Charles Ryan is the Brand Manager of the D&D RPG.
Mary Elizabeth Allen is the Brand Manager of the D&D Miniatures Game.

(At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it works).

Cheers!


----------



## Belen (Nov 29, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan is the Brand Manager of the D&D RPG.
> Mary Elizabeth Allen is the Brand Manager of the D&D Miniatures Game.
> 
> (At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it works).
> ...




You would be correct, sir.  The DDM line is separate from the RPG sales figures.  In fact, I have been begging Wizards to send some minis in their demo packs so that I have some cool giveaways.  We are just now starting to see a cross-marketing of the game, such as fantastic locations etc.


----------



## Zerovoid (Nov 29, 2005)

SBMC,

Per my understanding, companies can make silly claims in advertising like, "Pizza Hut is America's Best Tasting Pizza" or whatever, without having to prove these facts, or be liable to shareholders if it isn't really the best tasing pizza.

At the same time, I know that coporations and their officers can get in big trouble for lying to shareholders in their financial reports, as you have pointed out.

Now, I thought a casual statement like "DnD is having its best year ever!" would fall into the first catagory as meaningless PR speak, and not into the second catagory of serious financial data.  Especially since DnD might be selling well, but margins could have been reduced causing profits to go down.  Since you seem very confident in that this falls into the second catagory, could you explain why you think this?  It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me, and its not what I would have guessed, though I admit to not being an expert on such matters.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 29, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You would be correct, sir.  The DDM line is separate from the RPG sales figures.  In fact, I have been begging Wizards to send some minis in their demo packs so that I have some cool giveaways.  We are just now starting to see a cross-marketing of the game, such as fantastic locations etc.



 I think there's been cross marketing from the very beginning, though now it may be getting a bit more complex.  Plus, they're called D&D Miniatures, the cards have D&D stats, and the boxes have the D&D logo.  The DDM line started with teh coinciding release of the Miniatures Handbook.  There's also been lots of crose-over promotion on the website.

The Fantastic Locations product marks an increase in integratign D&D and DDM gameplay using a single product.  But I think crossover marketing has always been pretty heavy.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 30, 2005)

MongooseMatt said:
			
		

> Close.
> 
> What we have seen in some areas (Canada is good for this) is that a distributor will not order certain items automatically, unless a retailer puts in an order.



months ago, when I'd gone in to the store to get something, they had 2-3 copies of the recent WotC product, but 12 copies of Werewolf (just having released). I said "is it selling that well?" They said something to the effect of the distributor had just sent them, they only ordered 4.



> However, when a retailer puts in an order, it is reported as being out of stock - and so gets ignored!  As a Catch-22 goes, this one is up there.



We had a manufacturer announce a new product, publicize it, but they don't take preorders because they weren't sure when it would be released.
Months later, when I asked about it, they said it had been canceled for lack of orders.


----------



## helium3 (Nov 30, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> months ago, when I'd gone in to the store to get something, they had 2-3 copies of the recent WotC product, but 12 copies of Werewolf (just having released). I said "is it selling that well?" They said something to the effect of the distributor had just sent them, they only ordered 4.
> 
> 
> We had a manufacturer announce a new product, publicize it, but they don't take preorders because they weren't sure when it would be released.
> Months later, when I asked about it, they said it had been canceled for lack of orders.




Heh. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. Also, if I order four copies of something and a distributor sends me 12, do I have to pay them for all 12 or just the four I ordered? Is there some reason a store owner wouldn't send back the other eight copies other than sheer laziness?


----------



## Citizen Mane (Nov 30, 2005)

The only reason I can think of that a store owner wouldn't send back the other eight (aside from sheer laziness) would be the distributor's returns policy.  If he's not going to get close to full credit for them, it might be in his interests to hold onto them and see if he can sell them for a while, rather than eat the costs of returning all of them.  Just a guess based on having worked in a few different bookstores over the last six years.

Nick


----------



## tylerthehobo (Nov 30, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> My experience as a WOTC delegate has fewer kids entering the hobby.  It has been months since I introduced someone new.




Not disputing you, Belen - especially since you're a delegate and probably spend more times in games shops than I do - but anecdotally speaking (As I think almost all of us are in this thread), of the 3 tables that I ran on D&D Game Day this year, the ages spread from about 10-60.  Kids are still in it - I probably had more folks at the tables who were under 21 than over.  

It, like many folks have said, is a matter of marketing.  The marketing for d&d isn't all that different from when I was a kid in the early 80s - riding the coattails of Conan and the like.  ("Hey, like warriors?  You'll love this...")  I know that Eberron was a stab at attracting Gen Y, and it _is_ groovy, but it's really not accessible to a kid - it's accessible to a young teen who's into anime or someone older - not to a kid who is just trying to get a hang of the gaming system without having to learn what dragon shards and warforged are.  I really wish Wizards was pushing a more generic setting like Greyhawk or Mystara - or even FR just so long as the sourcebooks didn't make you have to relearn the past 30 DR years of history to play.  

Just my $0.02.


----------



## buzz (Nov 30, 2005)

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> I really wish Wizards was pushing a more generic setting like Greyhawk or Mystara - or even FR just so long as the sourcebooks didn't make you have to relearn the past 30 DR years of history to play.



GH, as it exists in the core books, is basically what you describe. It's all you need to play D&D.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Nov 30, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> GH, as it exists in the core books, is basically what you describe. It's all you need to play D&D.




Touche'

Just would be nice if there was a map or something generically sword-and-sorcery to get the ball rolling for players and dm's alike.  Heck, even the old blue-box Expert set had a town map and some adventure seeds to get the ball rolling...

(here I go again, crotchety older gamer whining about the old days...)


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 30, 2005)

Kajamba Lion said:
			
		

> The only reason I can think of that a store owner wouldn't send back the other eight (aside from sheer laziness) would be the distributor's returns policy.  If he's not going to get close to full credit for them, it might be in his interests to hold onto them and see if he can sell them for a while, rather than eat the costs of returning all of them.  Just a guess based on having worked in a few different bookstores over the last six years.
> 
> Nick




I can't discount laziness, but I also have no reason to accept what he said as truth either. Even if you get full credit for the books, you may still be out return shipping. Who knows...


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2005)

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> Touche'
> 
> Just would be nice if there was a map or something generically sword-and-sorcery to get the ball rolling for players and dm's alike.  Heck, even the old blue-box Expert set had a town map and some adventure seeds to get the ball rolling...
> 
> (here I go again, crotchety older gamer whining about the old days...)




There was...





...back in 2000 when 3e was released.

Cheers!


----------



## beaver1024 (Nov 30, 2005)

I wonder why declining sales come as such a surprise. The simple fact is, time is precious. Yet the game designers and gaming companies don't take this into consideration when writing their source materials.

The participants of an RPG has to expend considerable effort already in the communication/interpersonal spectrum and yet game designers expect RPGers to spend time to compensate for their poorly tested and badly proof read products in order to play? For example: the use of tables and explanatory text in many WoTC source material. Instead of fixing the inconsistencies between table summaries and detailed text they just institute a policy that detailed text takes precedence if there are conflicts. This then makes using the summary tables such a hassle as to make them useless. Additionally this makes WoTC designers have a huge blasse attitude about making their work actually consistent with numerous errors in stat blocks and summary tables hand all because they can hand wave the "detailed text takes precedence" policy.

For all of WoTC's bluster about listening to their customers and not repeating the mistakes of TSR, all they've done is to spin their mistakes in a better light. Nothing they've done is any different that what TSR did. As time become more and more of a precious commodity due to the demands of corporations on their employees, who wants to spend time fixing broken products that they paid good money for in the first place? In the real world, no one would put up with this why should RPGers be any different? WoTC and other RPG companies should well remember that their entertainment product is very price and quality elastic. Maintaining their arrogance is a sure way of alienating their customers, as TSR found out to their sorrow.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 30, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan is the Brand Manager of the D&D RPG.
> Mary Elizabeth Allen is the Brand Manager of the D&D Miniatures Game.
> 
> (At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it works).
> ...




I see - thanks.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 30, 2005)

Zerovoid said:
			
		

> SBMC,
> 
> Per my understanding, companies can make silly claims in advertising like, "Pizza Hut is America's Best Tasting Pizza" or whatever, without having to prove these facts, or be liable to shareholders if it isn't really the best tasing pizza.




Actually your statement is incorrect – if not proven it is false advertising – this is actually the very basis of consumer protection. A classic example of this is back in the 80’s Ford Motor Company had an Ad campaign that stated “Number one Quality in America”. That statement indicates that Ford’s quality is indeed better than everyone else’s. 

Chrysler (who was first in line) challenged this via government regulators and courts. Ford Immediately changed to its slogan “Quality is Job One” which it uses today. After all there is no way they could prove that their products are better – perhaps a few are – but all? And you still need to prove that your few are indeed better.

Ever wonder why industry puts so much time and effort into things like getting good ratings from private independent firms. “JD Power & Associates” for example – think about how many times you have heard that name quoted on TV commercials, especially for cars. Neilson (which rates more than just TV; which is what they are best known for). Harvard Pilgrim is rating the best HMO in the nation; that had to have been proven by a survey that was valid. 

If Pizza Hut says "Pizza Hut is America's Best Tasting Pizza" then they need to provide a basis for that statement; just because you don’t see it in the news does not mean that regulatory agencies do not question corporations advertising – they do it all the time. 

Pizza Hut would need to complete a survey, comparing their product to others of equal value in a large enough sample set over a large enough geographical area to be able to make that claim. Talk to a Statistician, or an Actuary. 

That is why so many ads, if you read the fine print or see it flash on the bottom of the TV screen for 5 seconds or so,  something to the effect of “according to an independent survey“ or “according to independent laboratory tests.” They use independent sources a great deal for a variety of reasons but one big legal one is that if the sampling is flawed a company like Pizza Hut can just say “hey we paid them to do a job…it ain’t our fault”. Thus if Pizza Hut gets fined they turn around and sue the firm that did the research for them (and usually win).

I can virtually guarantee that every single retail pizza company (and perhaps even their suppliers and advertising firms) contacted the authorities and their lawyers when that ad came up; why would Papa Gino’s, Papa John’s, Domino’s or anyone else allow that to go on if their competitor really had no basis for the statement? If they said it then why doesn’t everyone else? Advertising for products and services is very different than a political ad where you can claim almost anything.



			
				Zerovoid said:
			
		

> At the same time, I know that coporations and their officers can get in big trouble for lying to shareholders in their financial reports, as you have pointed out.
> 
> Now, I thought a casual statement like "DnD is having its best year ever!" would fall into the first catagory as meaningless PR speak, and not into the second catagory of serious financial data.  Especially since DnD might be selling well, but margins could have been reduced causing profits to go down.  Since you seem very confident in that this falls into the second catagory, could you explain why you think this?  It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me, and its not what I would have guessed, though I admit to not being an expert on such matters.




I think this because the bottom line is the bottom line. “Best Year Ever” will always be translated into things such as “Highest Sales”, “Highest Profit”, “Highest Margin”, etc. A for profit company cannot have a “Best Year Ever” based upon anything other than financial data – their function is to make money. One reason for this is that I, as a stockholder (not that I am) would perhaps make investment decisions based upon that very statement; people do this all the time. “Well if Charles Ryan says that they are having the Best Year Ever then I should buy more Hasbro Stock!”. If I do and in the end it turns out sales were low or whatever then here comes the Lawyers. Charles Ryan is a manager in that company (probably an officer as well) – making him an “agent” of the company - anything he says about WoTC or Hasbro has legal implications; ANYTHING. Anyone with the title “Supervisor” or above (as believe it or not titles such as these are defined by law) is also an agent of the company.

As I also pointed out earlier in previous posts; it could be just sales, just profit, just margin or a combination of them all. A company could have stellar sales and still loose money; or have a very small margin (all of which would come out at the end of the quarter; in this case December). If say Charles Ryan meant only sales, and indeed they were the best ever, that aforementioned investor would not be successful in his suit (but then again it may depend on who your lawyer is!). Why? Because it was a vague statement that was still true – shame on the investor for assuming it meant something it did not.

In the Pizza Hut example – it could be the only reason their Pizza scored higher on their own survey would be better tasting crust – but no one would say that; or even want to measure that particular thing; they want “Best in America (according to an independent survey)” or nothing


----------



## SBMC (Nov 30, 2005)

beaver1024 said:
			
		

> I wonder why declining sales come as such a surprise. The simple fact is, time is precious. Yet the game designers and gaming companies don't take this into consideration when writing their source materials.
> 
> The participants of an RPG has to expend considerable effort already in the communication/interpersonal spectrum and yet game designers expect RPGers to spend time to compensate for their poorly tested and badly proof read products in order to play? For example: the use of tables and explanatory text in many WoTC source material. Instead of fixing the inconsistencies between table summaries and detailed text they just institute a policy that detailed text takes precedence if there are conflicts. This then makes using the summary tables such a hassle as to make them useless. Additionally this makes WoTC designers have a huge blasse attitude about making their work actually consistent with numerous errors in stat blocks and summary tables hand all because they can hand wave the "detailed text takes precedence" policy.
> 
> For all of WoTC's bluster about listening to their customers and not repeating the mistakes of TSR, all they've done is to spin their mistakes in a better light. Nothing they've done is any different that what TSR did. As time become more and more of a precious commodity due to the demands of corporations on their employees, who wants to spend time fixing broken products that they paid good money for in the first place? In the real world, no one would put up with this why should RPGers be any different? WoTC and other RPG companies should well remember that their entertainment product is very price and quality elastic. Maintaining their arrogance is a sure way of alienating their customers, as TSR found out to their sorrow.




To be honest with you I own a ton of D&D WoTC stuff; and with the FAQ and Erratta out there I have not really had a problem. This is a complex gaming system - things can't be 110% perfect the first time. 

I am not a book editor nor an english teacher so a misspelled word here or there does not bother me at all.


----------



## Belen (Nov 30, 2005)

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> Not disputing you, Belen - especially since you're a delegate and probably spend more times in games shops than I do - but anecdotally speaking (As I think almost all of us are in this thread), of the 3 tables that I ran on D&D Game Day this year, the ages spread from about 10-60.  Kids are still in it - I probably had more folks at the tables who were under 21 than over.
> 
> It, like many folks have said, is a matter of marketing.  The marketing for d&d isn't all that different from when I was a kid in the early 80s - riding the coattails of Conan and the like.  ("Hey, like warriors?  You'll love this...")  I know that Eberron was a stab at attracting Gen Y, and it _is_ groovy, but it's really not accessible to a kid - it's accessible to a young teen who's into anime or someone older - not to a kid who is just trying to get a hang of the gaming system without having to learn what dragon shards and warforged are.  I really wish Wizards was pushing a more generic setting like Greyhawk or Mystara - or even FR just so long as the sourcebooks didn't make you have to relearn the past 30 DR years of history to play.
> 
> Just my $0.02.





I have about three kids who regularly show up whenever I run a demo.  However, I introduced them to the game a while ago, so they were not new.


----------



## Turjan (Nov 30, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> If Pizza Hut says "Pizza Hut is America's Best Tasting Pizza" then they need to provide a basis for that statement; just because you don’t see it in the news does not mean that regulatory agencies do not question corporations advertising – they do it all the time.



I don't want to doubt this, because my knowledge of US law is hazy at best . I can just say that, in my home country, you wouldn't have a chance in court against such a statement. They would tell you that taste is a highly subjective matter, and this means you would have to prove that the company itself does not believe in this statement, which is an impossible task. Even if an objective majority thought otherwise about the taste of that pizza, you would not stand a chance.


			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> I think this because the bottom line is the bottom line. “Best Year Ever” will always be translated into things such as “Highest Sales”, “Highest Profit”, “Highest Margin”, etc.



Nearly the same here. The point in case would be the context. Something like "In 2005, D&D had its best year ever. We had so much fun in producing [insert list of products]." would be hard to object. If you buy stock because other people had fun, it will be your own..., eh, fun .

But I understand that American law is very different.


----------



## GMSkarka (Nov 30, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> No offense, but why are your and eyebeams' posts always so negative? Or am I just reading the negative ones? Apologies in advance for possibly overstepping the bounds of Morrus' living room.  :\




Um....What?

I made ONE post to this thread, and it was to post a joke about the nature of gamers to debate everything to death.   Lighten up.....

Jeez....jump on people much?



As far as why eyebeams posts are negative (and, not coincidentally, why I haven't participated in this thread's main debate)....generally it's very frustrating to work in the industry and have people who don't (and who only know what corporate PR and personal anecdotal evidence tells them) insist that they know what's REALLY going on, and you don't.


----------



## Belen (Nov 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> As far as why eyebeams posts are negative (and, not coincidentally, why I haven't participated in this thread's main debate)....generally it's very frustrating to work in the industry and have people who don't (and who only know what corporate PR and personal anecdotal evidence tells them) insist that they know what's REALLY going on, and you don't.




The funny thing here is that your main source of evidence always revolves around the C&GR figures, which do not count online or bookstore sales.  

I would agree that I see a decline in the hobby, especially among the gamestores.  However, unless someone throws out some concrete numbers or facts or let us know what leads you to your conclusions, then people will not listen.  So people consider your statements just as anecdotal because they cannot see where you're coming from.


----------



## buzz (Nov 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Jeez....jump on people much?



My statement was based on a general trend I've seen in posts in various threads on various fora. Granted, it was probably not appropriate for me to bring it up, but I guess I was curious.



			
				GMSkarka said:
			
		

> As far as why eyebeams posts are negative (and, not coincidentally, why I haven't participated in this thread's main debate)....generally it's very frustrating to work in the industry and have people who don't (and who only know what corporate PR and personal anecdotal evidence tells them) insist that they know what's REALLY going on, and you don't.



Understandable. Granted, what I usually see (from many industry folk) is, "You can't trust what anyone at WotC has to say... but you can trust me."


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 30, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> My statement was based on a general trend I've seen in posts in various threads on various fora. Granted, it was probably not appropriate for me to bring it up, but I guess I was curious.
> 
> 
> Understandable. Granted, what I usually see (from many industry folk) is, "You can't trust what anyone at WotC has to say... but you can trust me."




Or Mongoose...


----------



## BryonD (Nov 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> As far as why eyebeams posts are negative (and, not coincidentally, why I haven't participated in this thread's main debate)....generally it's very frustrating to work in the industry and have people who don't (and who only know what corporate PR and personal anecdotal evidence tells them) insist that they know what's REALLY going on, and you don't.




hmmmm

That seems backward, at least for the past many pages.  The main issue has been specific to claims from WotC and Mongoose.  If eyebeams actually knows what is REALLY going on with those two companies, then he needs to come up with some evidence.

I think there are certain small time publishers that find it a lot easier to blame their problems on the industry as a whole than to look at their own products and business models.  When someone else claims they are doing well, it can mess with that rationalization.

(Phil Reed and Chris Pramas have both posted here and they are certainly not included in that[neither the "small time" nor "blame" comments], as well as the vast majority of others)


----------



## BryonD (Nov 30, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Understandable. Granted, what I usually see (from many industry folk) is, "You can't trust what anyone at WotC has to say... but you can trust me."




 

Exactly.  You get this line of "You are an outsider, so no one should listen to you.  Now, listen to me while I tell you all about WotC.  What?  Me work there?  No. But it doesn't matter."

sigh   :\


----------



## philreed (Nov 30, 2005)

I think something that all publishers would agree on, from the smallest to the largest, is that the current distribution systems is not helping to solve the problem.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that companies like WotC and White Wolf are doing better through mass market distribution than they are the hobby channels.


----------



## GMSkarka (Nov 30, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Granted, what I usually see (from many industry folk) is, "You can't trust what anyone at WotC has to say... but you can trust me."




...and what many industry folk see is "I don't actually know how the business works, but I'm going to tell you that you're wrong anyway....or make insinuations that you're somehow trying to blame others for your failures."

Plus, given the fact that some gamers seem to take the health of the hobby as some kind of validation of their self-worth, wrapped up in issues of social ostracization during adolescence.....and you end up with a subject that you're better off just not debating them on.

*EDIT:* _Upon reading this, I realize that it could be interpreted as a slap at some of the posters to this thread.   That is not my intention.  This was not aimed at anyone...only a reference to my experiences on this topic with many gamers, on many fora and at many conventions, over the past 10 years or so._


----------



## Belen (Nov 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> ...and what many industry folk see is "I don't actually know how the business works, but I'm going to tell you that you're wrong anyway....or make insinuations that you're somehow trying to blame others for your failures."
> 
> Plus, given the fact that some gamers seem to take the health of the hobby as some kind of validation of their self-worth, wrapped up in issues of social ostracization during adolescence.....and you end up with a subject that you're better off just not debating them on.




Really, it always seems to me that they could not care less.  The old "I have enough material to last me x" is always very annoying.  There seems to be a lot of selfishness among gamers.  It is more like "No one did anything for me, so why should I do anything for anyone else?"

This is not always the case, but it seems to be a strong theme.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Nov 30, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Really, it always seems to me that they could not care less.  The old "I have enough material to last me x" is always very annoying.  There seems to be a lot of selfishness among gamers.  It is more like "No one did anything for me, so why should I do anything for anyone else?"
> 
> This is not always the case, but it seems to be a strong theme.



 (on/devil's advocate) Yet at the same time, if the RPG industry quit printing games, it wouldn't affect the world as a whole in the least.  Even many (I daresay most) working in the industry are not doing so full time and therefore wouldn't be affected too negatively since they already have another job.  I'm not trying to be a heartless prick, but whether or not the industry is doing well has no affect on my day to day life.  I do have more than enough material to keep playing until I or the rest of my group falls dead. (off/devil's advocate)

In all seriousness, beyond knowing that my favorite writers will continue to have jobs tomorrow, the health of the RPG industry doesn't affect me.  I'd like to think that it's going to keep going for as long as I am interested in playing, but it doesn't keep me up at night.  I feel the same way about any entertainment industry.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 30, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Really, it always seems to me that they could not care less.  The old "I have enough material to last me x" is always very annoying.  There seems to be a lot of selfishness among gamers.  It is more like "No one did anything for me, so why should I do anything for anyone else?"
> 
> This is not always the case, but it seems to be a strong theme.





Well I mean why should I care if Wizards, White Wolf, or other companies I don't do buisness with go away?  What should I be doing in your estimation?  Buying books I have no interest in?   Supporting lines I don't think are worth my money?   I'm not saying you are inferring that but what are regular gamers supposed to do IYO?   The one game company I'm supporting, Troll Lord Games, I hope is doing well.  But if they aren't?  Well I'm not going to worry about it.  If they go out of buisness and C&C dies there is nothing I can do. Should I buy thier books out of a sense of charity to help buffer thier bottom line a bit?  I already buy what I need from them.

Should I game with people I wouldn't hang with otherwise to try and spread the hobby?  No thanks, my time is worth more than that to me. 

What is the answer to this "selfishness"?


----------



## BryonD (Nov 30, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Plus, given the fact that some gamers seem to take the health of the hobby as some kind of validation of their self-worth, wrapped up in issues of social ostracization during adolescence.....and you end up with a subject that you're better off just not debating them on.




   Just WOW

This is a pretty long thread.  Has that come up anywhere in it?

Again, it seems the overwhelming majority of debate has NOT been whether or not the industry as a whole is doing well, but rather WotC and Mongoose are doing well in an industry that has certainly declined from recent highs.  There really is an important difference there.


----------



## SBMC (Nov 30, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Exactly.  You get this line of "You are an outsider, so no one should listen to you.  Now, listen to me while I tell you all about WotC.  What?  Me work there?  No. But it doesn't matter."
> 
> sigh   :\




Well said!


----------



## SBMC (Nov 30, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> hmmmm
> 
> That seems backward, at least for the past many pages.  The main issue has been specific to claims from WotC and Mongoose.  If eyebeams actually knows what is REALLY going on with those two companies, then he needs to come up with some evidence.
> 
> ...




Well said!!!!


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 30, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Fourth, consider what you’re releasing and whether or not you actually can afford to do it. Will it sell? I mean REALLY will it sell. Your brand new book on poisons and herbs isn’t going to sell, no matter how cool it’s going to look or who the art is by. Consider what the market is asking for and give it to them. As an example, there is no D20 Exalted. Get someone who knows D20 and also knows crazy kung-fu movies (these don’t have to be the same person) and file the serial numbers off of WW’s product and you have something that will sell. A LOT. Make a game of tactical combat along the lines of a first person shooter or team “recon” game. If you make it with high production values: maps! Counters! Minis!...and have something with decent rules, it will sell! A lot.




In other words - follow the market, don't try to lead the market? See what else is selling and do your version of it?  This is my pet peeve - derivative or predictable products that duplicate rather than innovate.  A company is far more likely to get my gaming dollar if they show me something I have never or only rarely seen before.  Another book on, e.g., the sea, new/variant races, old products updated to the latest rules, the Forgotten Realms (again!) etc. will not find space on my bookshelf.  I know others live for this stuff and I know this "conservatism" is not wholly responsible for any market doldrums but, at least for me, it is big. 



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> Products are generally considered to compete if they fulfil the same desire.  . . . By and large, competition to fulfil the "desire to play RPGs" is largely illusory. People want to play particular games, WotC market research shows that they play these games non-exclusively. Strictly speaking, the numbers may well indicate that competition between RPGs and other media is *more* relevant than competition between RPGs.




I respectfully disagree based on personal experience with gamers who play in published settings but not with the rules designed for those settings.  Thus, e.g., GURPS Forgotten Realms campaigns, Runequest Greyhawks games, Hero System Warhammer Games.  These different systems all compete for these gamers' dollars.  These different systems are all platforms for RPGs from among which gamers will choose which they prefer for their RPG experience.  They are then in competition.  

On a larger scale, if a gamer wishes to play an RPG and has money to purchase and follow/support but a single system, all RPG systems are competing for that gamer's dollars.  I think you dismiss "the desire to play RPGs" too quickly.  Personal experience, again, but when I go into a game store with limited funds I must choose between Iron Kingdoms Libre Mechanus, Wotc's Heroes of Horror or Magic of Eberron, and Mongoose's Heretics of Tarantis.  All these and every other RPG I might buy are in competition for my gaming dollar.  I may, however, be unusual in playing broadly among RPG systems; I do not know.




			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I find the idea that the post-Enron world features strictly honest corporate dealings and spin-free public relationships to be extremely silly. Perhaps that is not what you are trying to say, but that would be the natural outcome in a world where Charles Ryan could *not* apply spin to something as vague as the quip, "best year ever." Legally, whether deceit is actionable depends on whether a person could reasonably rely on it in such a manner as to have caused injury.




"Best year ever" is not actionable without further details that Mr. Ryan is noted as having carefully avoided. See MerrickB quoted below.  "Best year ever" is devoid of a solid, quantifiable point or frame of reference and is thus puffery or spin, upon which no savy (or much less than savy) invester would rely.  I have no doubt Mr. Ryan is unquestionably _not_ lying.  Just as unquestionably, we have no idea what criteria he is referring to when he says "best year ever."  He could mean almost anything and be using almost any criteria; we simply do not know.  This does not mean his statement must be immediately discounted but it also does not mean his statement must be immediately accepted as synonymous with any particular rosy scenario.  

Posters here are often asked for proof of their statements which they may not have beyond personal experience or observation.  It is then fair to ask the same of Mr. Ryan, who because of his position, does have the ability to "prove" his statement.  That he does not offer to backup "best year ever" with hard data is neither crime nor fault but it does render his statement unproven, unless by his mere position one must believe anything and everything he says, which would make for very short and much fewer threads.  

Grains of salt are in order; season to taste.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> As Charles has been so insistent that D&D has been doing well, I really have to believe him.




So, insistence/persistence equals truth?  If you say it often enough and loudly enough, it is true?  UGH!  That may be how you "win" an internet argument but it is hardly a marker of veracity - one way or the other, mind you.



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> I mean, this hasn't been one off-the-cuff remark we're talking about. Charles has repeated it in various sources (and in news interviews), and although he's been very careful to not give away sales data, I think there's no way you could interpret "best year ever" to not include increased sales.




There is "no way" it cannot mean "increased sales?"  UGH!  Repetition does not signify any meaning beyond the four corners of the statement, which, as even you note, is devoid of specifics.  You are reading in with no basis upon which to do so other than mere repetition and an obvious jones for Wotc. 



			
				MerricB said:
			
		

> Does that mean that RPGs (in general) are doing well? Of course not. (It does mean the one I really care about is doing well, though )




And here we have the jones.  I'll credit your honesty and that information you can thereby cozen from Mr. Ryan or others at Wotc - but not much more.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> This is my pet peeve - derivative or predictable products that duplicate rather than innovate.




Which is why you keep bleating on about lack of Greyhawk product? Something that is derivative, predictable and duplicates rather than innovates?


----------



## GVDammerung (Nov 30, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Which is why you keep bleating on about lack of Greyhawk product? Something that is derivative, predictable and duplicates rather than innovates?




I am a Greyhawk fan.  I have had a single exchange of posts with Charles on the topic on the Wotc message boards, which I let drop after he made his position clear - no Greyhawk.

"Bleating on?"  Hardly.

My liking of Greyhawk does not speak to that which is derivative, predictable or duplicative as it is, very clearly, my personal preference, not business advice.  While I do not believe Wotc would be harmed by supporting multiple settings, including Greyhawk, if done properly, if asked, such would _not_ be my business advice.

My business advice, vis-a-vis published settings, would be to look for the next "omni-setting" that would replace the long in the tooth and overgrown with detail Forgotten Realms, which is not ideally new gamer friendly in its massive detail and learning curve.  Eberron is a niche setting and cannot replace the Forgotten Realms, IMO.  The Forgotten Realms themselves are perfectly positioned to remain a strong income producer in the vein of Dragonlance - through novels.  However, the Realms should not, IMO, be seen as the future of D&D or of Wotc.  

That Wotc clings to the Realms and can find nothing with which to match the Realm's model of success, now that the Realms increasingly labors under its own accumulated weight of material, is what is duplicative.  

I forget how many iterations of the Realms there have been, how many treatments of Waterdeep etc.  This is what is derivative.

What is predictable is your championing of Wotc at every turn and your attempt to nay-say anything not fully lauditory of Wotc.  They say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."  Your "good intentions" toward Wotc, if widely adopted, will lead just there through noncritical, "at-a-boy" thinking.  Innovate or stagnate.

The Wotc information you can obtain and then present here through your tireless efforts to ingratiate yourself with Wotc through your constant championing of their cause and defense of their "virture" is most appreciated.  I simply find your means to that end otherwise.

Btw, does Wotc pay you for your work on all these message boards on their behalf?  They really should.  Maybe they could give you some design work as a "reward?"  Designing the next Forgotten Realms iteration?  That would be perfect.

"Cheers."


----------



## MerricB (Nov 30, 2005)

I apologise for my words. They were ill-considered.

I also think my stated reason for believing Charles is rather stupid. (The real reason is irrational, and also likely stupid).

However, when Charles does say that play of D&D is trending upwards, it does seem to indicate that Wizards are doing something right. Doesn't it?

Cheers!


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 1, 2005)

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> ...and what many industry folk see is "I don't actually know how the business works, but I'm going to tell you that you're wrong anyway....or make insinuations that you're somehow trying to blame others for your failures."
> 
> Plus, given the fact that some gamers seem to take the health of the hobby as some kind of validation of their self-worth, wrapped up in issues of social ostracization during adolescence.....and you end up with a subject that you're better off just not debating them on.



The problem is that when an obvious bias is shown, it hurts the message. In addition, whenever the numbers are questioned, the questions are dismissed. As I mentioned on a previous page, the discussion is the same people saying the same thing every time, and ignoring others posting. I'd suggest just typing up a form letter that could be posted each time the topic comes up, then no more discussion from the Usual Suspects unless it's actually adding something new.


----------



## philreed (Dec 1, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> The problem is that when an obvious bias is shown, it hurts the message.




I completely agree. It's like when you watch the evening news and instead of getting a fair, balanced report you instead get an angle that demonstrates the station's political affiliation.

Of course, this may just be because I'm in Texas.


----------



## SBMC (Dec 1, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I completely agree. It's like when you watch the evening news and instead of getting a fair, balanced report you instead get an angle that demonstrates the station's political affiliation.
> 
> Of course, this may just be because I'm in Texas.




It ain't! I am in Massachusetts; same thing holds true (though most likely on the other side of the political fence I would think).

It's no wonder Yahoo News and the AP website get so much traffic...


----------



## Vocenoctum (Dec 1, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I completely agree. It's like when you watch the evening news and instead of getting a fair, balanced report you instead get an angle that demonstrates the station's political affiliation.
> 
> Of course, this may just be because I'm in Texas.



I'm in Florida, so we get equal parts bias, making the news often unfathomable and usually useless. The news has long since gone to creating stories, rather than reporting details.

I always wonder why publishers don't give more details, at least the mid sized ones. I can see not wanting to get into how much money someone makes (thus leaving information on single man operations out of the mix), but it seems odd to me that we don't get more percentages of sales here and there and... that stuff. 

But, you know what? These threads really are meaningless. Whether a publisher says the hobby is doing good or bad, all we need to know is how it affects the products and the quality. It'd be handy to know more, and I think more explanations on how/why shifts occur would help people reconcile the missed product, but it's not really important as long as the books are good.


----------



## buzz (Dec 1, 2005)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> It is then fair to ask the same of Mr. Ryan, who because of his position, does have the ability to "prove" his statement. That he does not offer to backup "best year ever" with hard data is neither crime nor fault but it does render his statement unproven, unless by his mere position one must believe anything and everything he says, which would make for very short and much fewer threads.



Ryan has offered what data he can (here or possibly another thread on this same subject I was reading; we were jsut hashing thsi all out on RPG.net a couple of weeks ago). The isssue is that apparently we're not supposed to believe anything he has to say.


----------



## BryonD (Dec 1, 2005)

buzz said:
			
		

> Ryan has offered what data he can (here or possibly another thread on this same subject I was reading; we were jsut hashing thsi all out on RPG.net a couple of weeks ago). The isssue is that apparently we're not supposed to believe anything he has to say.




We are supposed to remember that it is PR spin.  Which is then instantly inferred by some to imply that it is flatly false.  That is where it gets out of whack.

It is easy to understand that WotC will put a best face on their data.
But a reasonable observer who pays attention to what they have said would fairly conclude that they are NOT suffering.  
I can easily assume that "best ever" comments are PR and still conclude that this is far closer to the truth than the doom and gloomers insist we must believe.

If a publisher tells me that THEY are having a hard time, then I'll believe them.  But I won't confuse their internal issues with the industry, regardless of how much they may wish there was no such distinction.

On top of that, the distribution issue has been mentioned several times now.  Well, if that really is such a big deal (clearly it is) then that further implies that the hard times felt by some publishers are not fully related to market demand.  If a WotC or Mongoose can avoid this issue (perhaps they are even benefiting) then they have a leg up.

It really is easy to find a middle ground.  
It is less easy to convince some to let go of the all or nothing POV (or perhaps I should call it a nothing or nothing POV).


----------



## Henry (Dec 1, 2005)

GVDammerung, Merric: I appreciate Merric opening the fence-mending dialogue; but I heavily suggest that if it gets any more heated you might be better taking it to e-mail instead of this thread.

The posts have gotten out of hand in the civility department, and I've seen some rather nasty insults on character. I'd like it to stop.

This thread seems to be going back and forth between "Charles Ryan is a spinmeister; don't believe him" and "He's trustworthy" and everywhere in between. If it doesn't have anywhere but down to go, I'm going to close it tomorrow morning.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 1, 2005)

> Originally posted by me:
> Fourth, consider what you’re releasing and whether or not you actually can afford to do it. Will it sell? I mean REALLY will it sell. Your brand new book on poisons and herbs isn’t going to sell, no matter how cool it’s going to look or who the art is by. Consider what the market is asking for and give it to them. As an example, there is no D20 Exalted. Get someone who knows D20 and also knows crazy kung-fu movies (these don’t have to be the same person) and file the serial numbers off of WW’s product and you have something that will sell. A LOT. Make a game of tactical combat along the lines of a first person shooter or team “recon” game. If you make it with high production values: maps! Counters! Minis!...and have something with decent rules, it will sell! A lot.






			
				GVDammerung said:
			
		

> In other words - follow the market, don't try to lead the market? See what else is selling and do your version of it?  This is my pet peeve - derivative or predictable products that duplicate rather than innovate.  A company is far more likely to get my gaming dollar if they show me something I have never or only rarely seen before.  Another book on, e.g., the sea, new/variant races, old products updated to the latest rules, the Forgotten Realms (again!) etc. will not find space on my bookshelf.  I know others live for this stuff and I know this "conservatism" is not wholly responsible for any market doldrums but, at least for me, it is big.



I think you entirely missing my point. "another book on e.g., the sea, new/variant races, old products updated to the latest rules, the Forgotten Realms (again!)" is exactly what I'm suggesting a publisher *not * do. Determining what the market wants and doesn't currently have is what I'm suggesting. Sometimes that will mean taking something very successful and adapting it to your own world (as in my Exalted example) and other times it means doing something that no one has done yet (the example of taking a FPS/tactical combat game and turning it into a roleplaying game with top-notch components). You have to be very careful when you do something truly innovative that no one has ever seen before, because if there isn't a market for the product, you have to create it. You and I might enjoy some very innovative and creative stuff, but that doesn't mean that product will sell on any real level. If you're a name people have heard of before gamers will try something new because of the association with your name. 99% of all game companies aren't run by those kind of people.

So what I am suggesting here is that a game company should read what the market is looking for, doesn't have in abundance at the moment, and give it to them...that's just basic sound business practices. The really good writers in the industry do just that.

Big players in the industry can create the buzz that will sell a product, but they aren't the companies that are saying the market is shrinking. That product that you've never/seldom  seen before better have a built in market, or it will likely fail. Without real advertising, relying on RPG net and ENWorld won't likely create a buzz that sells a product on any real scale. And that's what's ultimately being discussed in this thread: if you can't sell your product on a mid to large scale, you're going to be hurting, and the hurt will keep getting worse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 1, 2005)

One factor that hasn't really been discussed is the "First Entrant/First Mover" factor.

That is, the single most accurate predictor of success of a given product or service is whether it is first in the market.  Its not_ universally_ true- first movers can make mistakes just like anyone else- but it is a common factor with more successful companies than any other.

Part of this is because the first mover gets a head start over any potential competition.  They are first in the consumers' minds (name brand recognition).  They are the benchmark by which all others are measured in terms of quality.  They get the first stab at grabbing market share.

Here, as much as any other product, as much as any other RPG, D&D is the first mover.  Sure, its flavor has changed somwhat over the years, but its name is the most recognizable one in the business.  Outside of participants in the hobby of playing RPGs and related games, D&D is virtually synonymous with the hobby..."Roleplaying games?  Oh- you mean D&D!" is a fairly common sentence.

As such, WOTC owns a product (the Dungeons & Dragon game, in whatever incarnation) that is going to be more resistant to downturns in the popularity of the hobby as a whole, and is likely going to be the among the first games a newbie will try out.

Thus...it is quite possible that WOTC's sales numbers will trend in directions different, possibly FAR different, from its competitors'- even its strongest ones.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 1, 2005)

See also the "Skaff Effect". 

Cheers!


----------



## JohnNephew (Dec 1, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> I think this because the bottom line is the bottom line. “Best Year Ever” will always be translated into things such as “Highest Sales”, “Highest Profit”, “Highest Margin”, etc. A for profit company cannot have a “Best Year Ever” based upon anything other than financial data – their function is to make money.




Sure they can.  If you look not too far back in time, you'll find a lot of dotcoms that claimed one "best year" after the next, right up until their liquidation in bankruptcy court.   They found all kinds of ways to measure performance (number of free user accounts, number of ad click-throughs, total dollar value of products sold at a loss as a "temporary" effort to build market share, number of underpants stolen by the gnomes, etc.) that, in truth, had little bearing on the ultimate success of their business model.  In some cases, the "better" they did, the more money they were losing.

Someone quotes Charles as saying there are now (according to their polling studies) 4.6 million active D&D players, the highest in all the time they've done their polling.  On that basis alone, he would be justified in calling it the best year ever for D&D.  In the odd chance that someone called him on it in a lawsuit (very unlikely, given the lack of any specific numbers and the round-off-error level of significance that D&D sales have in the big picture of Hasbro finances -- they don't even get broken out, as far as I've seen, in the 10Qs and 10Ks on file with the SEC), he's covered.  After all, his audience for these remarks is not an investor conference, but a congregation of fans -- and to the fan the important assurance is that there are people to play the game with, so this measure of "best" is entirely appropriate, regardless of whatever stats and figures may lurk behind the corporate curtain.

Investing in Hasbro because D&D has had its "best year ever" would be like investing in my company because I got a bargain price on my plane flight to Gen Con this summer.  Nice and all, but not really material to the bottom line.

Having said that, I know no specifics about worldwide sales of D&D, so I don't know how broadly Charles' claims should be interpreted...it just seems that they could be interpreted in multiple ways, without accusing him of being deceptive or dishonest.

---

As an aside: Some stores that send data to C&GR are bookstores, and some are online retailers.  This doesn't prove that the sample is representative of the industry at large or any segment thereof.  C&GR gets cited simply because it's numerical data that is available in public to be seen and discussed.

There are other sources of data, but anything that comes from the private realm couldn't be independently verified even if someone felt comfortable in sharing it.


----------



## mattcolville (Dec 1, 2005)

I talked to Charles about this at GenCon and he was pretty up front about it. As others have said to me, TSR kept no data. They have no way of tracking real numbers and they know it. But they can make some educated guesses.

They don't know, but they can guess. And when he says 4.6m, that includes ALL D&D players of every edition. "We have not sold 4.6 million PHBs!" he said.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Sure they can.  If you look not too far back in time, you'll find a lot of dotcoms that claimed one "best year" after the next, right up until their liquidation in bankruptcy court.   They found all kinds of ways to measure performance (number of free user accounts, number of ad click-throughs, total dollar value of products sold at a loss as a "temporary" effort to build market share, number of underpants stolen by the gnomes, etc.) that, in truth, had little bearing on the ultimate success of their business model.  In some cases, the "better" they did, the more money they were losing.
> 
> Someone quotes Charles as saying there are now (according to their polling studies) 4.6 million active D&D players, the highest in all the time they've done their polling.  On that basis alone, he would be justified in calling it the best year ever for D&D.  In the odd chance that someone called him on it in a lawsuit (very unlikely, given the lack of any specific numbers and the round-off-error level of significance that D&D sales have in the big picture of Hasbro finances -- they don't even get broken out, as far as I've seen, in the 10Qs and 10Ks on file with the SEC), he's covered.  After all, his audience for these remarks is not an investor conference, but a congregation of fans -- and to the fan the important assurance is that there are people to play the game with, so this measure of "best" is entirely appropriate, regardless of whatever stats and figures may lurk behind the corporate curtain.
> 
> ...


----------



## SBMC (Dec 1, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> *Sure they can.  If you look not too far back in time, you'll find a lot of dotcoms that claimed one "best year" after the next, right up until their liquidation in bankruptcy court.* They found all kinds of ways to measure performance (number of free user accounts, number of ad click-throughs, total dollar value of products sold at a loss as a "temporary" effort to build market share, number of underpants stolen by the gnomes, etc.) that, in truth, had little bearing on the ultimate success of their business model.  In some cases, the "better" they did, the more money they were losing.






Of course – ever seen or been part of one of the scores of lawsuits that follow; many of them based upon this very fact – the company said “best XYZ ever” and did not produce. Ever look at the pending legalities of a major corporation? Ever look at the pending legalities involving securities trading? If you did your statement would change.

I have – did it for years – do now. Your statement is true in that SOME companies do it and it is when they are typically falling down. But then again in those rare cases the companies really had little to loose – as the “company” was liable and they knew they were going down. NOW the PEOPLE are liable; very different story. I know since I was directly effected and still am by the regulatory and legal changes.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Someone quotes Charles as saying there are now (according to their polling studies) 4.6 million active D&D players, the highest in all the time they've done their polling.  On that basis alone, he would be justified in calling it the best year ever for D&D.




I was not privy to the exact language used; I had been told it was not “best year ever for D&D” but instead “best year ever for WoTC” or something that indicated that it was related to sales and the like. If this is true; then your statement is also true.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> In the odd chance that someone called him on it in a lawsuit (very unlikely, given the lack of any specific numbers and the round-off-error level of significance…




They would not call him – they would call Hasbro (it has deeper pockets). If say D&D had a bad year; fewer players per polling, low sales, lower revenue, etc. then he could be held liable (as in most financial things being negative not positive). Noting the COULD. As you noted above there could be one item he can claim that it is connected to.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> After all, his audience for these remarks is not an investor conference, but a congregation of fans…




From a legal standpoint unless he is talking inside his own home or to a professional bound by confidentiality laws; it is irrelevant. Him saying this on the commuter train home so others can hear is just as bad as him saying it at an investor conference. Why? Because it is far more than what goes on in the investor conferences that effects stock price, price of debt, lines of credit etc. “word on the street” is the term used in investment circles.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Investing in Hasbro because D&D has had its "best year ever" would be like investing in my company because I got a bargain price on my plane flight to Gen Con this summer.  Nice and all, but not really material to the bottom line.




People do it. Take a look at the financials again (I will note I never looked at Hasbro’s). You will note someplace the reserves for legalities and legality payouts. At the very least with the business they are in (kids) they have a healthy chunk in there.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Having said that, I know no specifics about worldwide sales of D&D, so I don't know how broadly Charles' claims should be interpreted...it just seems that they could be interpreted in multiple ways, without accusing him of being deceptive or dishonest.





To note I NEVER said he was being deceptive or dishonest; I was supporting him. All of my responses came from folks actually saying, to effect, that “…he, like all big company guys, is lying for some great evil purpose. You can believe me - I have a crystal ball!” (ByronD said it far better than I could (see his post above)).

---



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> As an aside: Some stores that send data to C&GR are bookstores, and some are online retailers.  This doesn't prove that the sample is representative of the industry at large or any segment thereof.  C&GR gets cited simply because it's numerical data that is available in public to be seen and discussed.
> 
> There are other sources of data, but anything that comes from the private realm couldn't be independently verified even if someone felt comfortable in sharing it.




To support this, note to all; privately held companies are subject to very different disclosure requirements than a corporation that is publicly traded (as in on the NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX, ext. Public companies have to report almost everything to everyone. Private companies do not – and they can lie without incurring the same legal risks as public companies; seeing as investors are unaffected (unless of course one of the co-holders of that private company is affected…doubtful scenario). They are still subject to advertising legalities however.


----------



## Belen (Dec 1, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Sure they can.  If you look not too far back in time, you'll find a lot of dotcoms that claimed one "best year" after the next, right up until their liquidation in bankruptcy court.   They found all kinds of ways to measure performance (number of free user accounts, number of ad click-throughs, total dollar value of products sold at a loss as a "temporary" effort to build market share, number of underpants stolen by the gnomes, etc.) that, in truth, had little bearing on the ultimate success of their business model.  In some cases, the "better" they did, the more money they were losing.




My sense is that WOTC is telling the truth.  They have dramatically upgraded the delegate program, including adding a messload of new delegates.  The program is not cheap.  I have a feeling that Hasbro corporate would not increase marketing on this level if Wizards was seeing a decline.


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 1, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> I apologise for my words. They were ill-considered.
> 
> I also think my stated reason for believing Charles is rather stupid. (The real reason is irrational, and also likely stupid).
> 
> ...




Not a problem.  I apologise, as well.  I do, however, appreciate your sleuthing.   

I agree with the idea that D&D is apparently trending upwards and that, to all appearances, Wotc seems to be doing well and thus doing something right.  Two points -

(1) Given Wotc's then apparent position, I find myself frustrated that they don't push the envelope more.  They would seem to have a cushion they could exploit.  Of course, "playing it safe" may be the better business strategy.

(2) As a consumer, "the industry" _to me_ consists of all the companies that produce the products I see at my FLGS - regardless of the market size of any one company.  If Wotc is doing well and then by their dominant market position the industry in absolute terms might be said to be doing well, this is as nothing to _my_ view of the industry as a consumer, if a number of the other d20 publishing are sucking wind.  I see Wotc as one d20 producer among equals as I only look to product on the shelf; at that level market size is largely beside the point.  Thus, even if Wotc has 80% of the RPG market and is going great guns but the other 20% can't catch a break, while the market is largely doing well, I see only that among all the d20 producers (of which Wotc is only one), things are not going well.  This is the luxury of being a consumer and not answerable to the accountants.  While it can be interesting or fun to play "fantasy RPG executive" at the end of the day, I am a consumer.  My interest is in a lively market that sees Wotc and at least a half dozen or more d20 producres all doing well enough to keep me having to make hard decisions over where I will spend my gaming dollar.

Cheers


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 1, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I think you entirely missing my point. "another book on e.g., the sea, new/variant races, old products updated to the latest rules, the Forgotten Realms (again!)" is exactly what I'm suggesting a publisher *not * do.  . . . You have to be very careful when you do something truly innovative that no one has ever seen before, because if there isn't a market for the product, you have to create it.  . . . Big players in the industry can create the buzz that will sell a product, but they aren't the companies that are saying the market is shrinking. That product that you've never/seldom  seen before better have a built in market, or it will likely fail. Without real advertising, relying on RPG net and ENWorld won't likely create a buzz that sells a product on any real scale. And that's what's ultimately being discussed in this thread: if you can't sell your product on a mid to large scale, you're going to be hurting, and the hurt will keep getting worse.




I stand corrected.    I then agree with you - particularly your latter points.  You articulate well what lies behind my frustration with Wotc.  They have the cushion to innovate more as they seem to be doing big boxoffice.  They also have the resources and market shaping power to "shape the battlefield" so that a more "risky" product stands a chance to catch fire.  The smaller d20 publishers are really "playing with fire" when they innovate because they lack the cushion, resources and market shaping power.

Smaller d20 companies who innovate usually need to hedge their bets.  I think Privateer Press is a good example.  I consider the Iron Kingdoms rather innovatative in its seemless presentation of "steam punk" and traditional D&D.  I think, however, Privateer could only do the job they did on IK because they hedged with a successful miniatures operation.  Good for them, but other companies may not be able to replicate the feat as with Warhammer, D&D minis and Privateer the field for this type of hedge may be largely occupied.  And what would IK's success be if IK had been produced with Wotc's much greater resources behind it?  I suspect IK would be even more successful.

Wotc is then in a unique position to "lead the market/industry" in innovative design.  It may not be in their business interest to always do so (giving them credit for Eberron) to the degree I would like to see but, I enjoy the luxury of being a consumer.  I am not a RPG executive.  My wants as a consumer, I would argue, are as legitimate in that vein as Wotc's business needs, particularly as I am not convinved the two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 1, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> One factor that hasn't really been discussed is the "First Entrant/First Mover" factor.
> 
> That is, the single most accurate predictor of success of a given product or service is whether it is first in the market.  Its not_ universally_ true- first movers can make mistakes just like anyone else- but it is a common factor with more successful companies than any other.
> 
> ...




Very good point.  They will not only enjoy the benefits on a sales or market share level but also in their ability to "shape the battlefield."  Wotc leads, intentionally or unintentially.  If they produce competent but otherwise unstartling designs, their status as first mover will have some tendency to shape the market toward acceptance of such as a norm.


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 1, 2005)

"Best year ever," without more, is not actionable as it lacks any foundation by which it can be judged.  To be actionable a statement must be "material."  Materiality requires context.  "Best year ever," without more, lacks any context of any sort.  A statement is not material if someone reads into it meaning that is not supported or encouraged by the statement itself upon a fair reading.  Sarbanes-Oxley does not effect this materiality requirement.  

Mr. Nephew is correct.  "Best year ever" could mean anything and be based on any number of possible criteria.  As such, without more, it is fatally vague and thus not actionable.  Any suit brought on the basis of "best year ever," without more, would not survive summary judgment and arguably would not survive a "12b6 motion" to dismiss for failure to state a claim.


----------



## JohnNephew (Dec 1, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> Of course – ever seen or been part of one of the scores of lawsuits that follow; many of them based upon this very fact – the company said “best XYZ ever” and did not produce. Ever look at the pending legalities of a major corporation? Ever look at the pending legalities involving securities trading? If you did your statement would change.




Yes, I've looked very closely at the press releases, SEC fiilings, and lawsuits related to many companies.  For example, I made a some nice money short selling eToys stock all the way to zero.  I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.

If you're interested in an extended analysis I wrote on the topic of one publicly trading company and their financial statements (a company that was planning to acquire three major game distributors some years back), look up an article I wrote on Pyramid entitled "Due Diligence."  (The deal subsequently fell through, and the would-be acquirer's stock did indeed go in the toilet as I predicted it would, and has never recovered.)

I stand by my original point.  Companies describe their performance by many measures, not simply gross sales or gross profits.  It is not wise to read too much into a single performance measure.



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> I have – did it for years – do now. Your statement is true in that SOME companies do it and it is when they are typically falling down. But then again in those rare cases the companies really had little to loose – as the “company” was liable and they knew they were going down.




I disagree.  Companies have totally legitimate reasons to provide performance metrics besides simple profit/loss/gross sales, and providing such metrics to investors or to the public at large is not evidence that a company is "going down."  In some industries, profit is a very unreliable measure of the performance of a company (for example, REITs, where depreciation and amortization have a huge impact on the P&L sheet and distort reported and taxable earnings).

As an example, Netflix reports their total subscribers.  In the context of describing their subscriber growth, they might quite accurately say that they are doing better than ever (i.e., they have more subscribers than ever), even if in the same quarter they might have lost money due to the cost of increased subscriber acquisition (advertising, free trial periods, lowering of monthly subscription rates, offering of cheaper but more limited subscription plans, etc.).  Depending on how you view things (and the market exists because people take different points of view),  you might care more about the subscriber growth figure (believing it is indicative of long term trends, and that ultimately more subscribers will translate into more bottom line profit growth), or you might care more about the profit today.  It cuts both ways -- you might sell a stock if subscribers are down (possibly indicating a plateau in growth or market potential), even if profits are up at the same time.

If the only thing you heard was "Netflix has more subscribers than ever before," and you leapt to the conclusion that the company had more revenues and more profit than ever before, you would be making a serious mistake.



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> People do it. Take a look at the financials again (I will note I never looked at Hasbro’s).




Perhaps you should.  They're easily accessible on the internet.  See if you can find anything concrete about D&D's performance in them.  Here's a direct link to the SEC filings on Hasbro's investor site: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68329&p=irol-sec



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> They would not call him – they would call Hasbro (it has deeper pockets). If say D&D had a bad year; fewer players per polling, low sales, lower revenue, etc. then he could be held liable (as in most financial things being negative not positive). Noting the COULD.




As others have noted, you can file suit against anyone for any reason.  My contention is that D&D's performance is pretty much not material to the performance of Hasbro.  If D&D revenues declined sharply or even vanished entirely, it would hardly register on Hasbro's P&L statements (and in any case it wouldn't be broken out in detail, so we wouldn't know).  According to their last Annual Report, Hasbro's FY2004 revenues were nearly $3 billion.  How much of that do you want to guess is D&D revenue?



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> Public companies have to report almost everything to everyone.




If this is true, then you don't need to guess how much of Hasbro's total revenue is provided by D&D...they'll have to report it to you.  Just give 'em a call, and report back when they tell you.  If you can, see if they will e-mail you a chart of PHB sales each year going back to WotC's purchase of the game from TSR.

Or, as I think is the case, they don't have to report trivial details about their financial results to you or anyone else outside the company -- whether it's how many player's handbooks sold, or how exactly many copies of Monopoly were returned as defective in the 1st quarter of 2005 (to pick a random statistic that they surely know, and certainly has some impact on their financial results, however tiny; but they have no obligation to tell the world at large).


----------



## buzz (Dec 1, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It really is easy to find a middle ground.
> It is less easy to convince some to let go of the all or nothing POV (or perhaps I should call it a nothing or nothing POV).



I'd be helpful if people (myself included, likely) could be more explicit about what can only be anecdotal data, as that's pretty much all we have to go on given the lack of public info in this industry. E.g., instead of proclaiming "the industry is dying because of X", people would post "I dunno about the industry, but I know I've been buying less product because of X."*

That, and giving publishers, big or small, who contribute to the discussion the benefit of the doubt when they talk about their own company's experience... but keeping the salt shaker handy.

But, I guess Web fora are pertty much all about hyperbole. 


*For the record, my gaming budget has remaind pretty steady for about four years now. If the industry is hurting, it ain't my fault.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 1, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Or, as I think is the case, they don't have to report trivial details about their financial results to you or anyone else outside the company -- whether it's how many player's handbooks sold, or how exactly many copies of Monopoly were returned as defective in the 1st quarter of 2005 (to pick a random statistic that they surely know, and certainly has some impact on their financial results, however tiny; but they have no obligation to tell the world at large).




Indeed, they have an obligation *not* to tell the world at large. In the very early days, Wizards reported on how many packs they made of Magic: the Gathering. This was quickly discontinued when they realised that it was giving their competitors way too much information.

For those interested in the primary quote from Charles Ryan, I reposted it earlier in this thread. Here it goes again, from a similar thread last year:

"We’re doing great! 2004 was probably the best year ever for D&D (that's right: ever), as measured by a wide variety of standards. All of our key trends are up and continuing to accelerate upward. We expect 2005 to be the next best year ever for D&D." - Charles Ryan.

It's a little more broad than just "best year ever".

Cheers!


----------



## jmucchiello (Dec 1, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> "We’re doing great! 2004 was probably the best year ever for D&D (that's right: ever), as measured by a wide variety of standards. All of our key trends are up and continuing to accelerate upward. We expect 2005 to be the next best year ever for D&D." - Charles Ryan.
> 
> It's a little more broad than just "best year ever".



I don't know if this has been touched on but do you know if he was referring to D&D RPGs or the D&D Brand. As I understand it, he's the brand manager for all of D&D and thus I would assume that him saying "D&D is doing well" means that its sublicenses, its books, its RPGs and its miniatures lines combined are doing well. That tells us nothing about how D&D RPGs are doing.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 1, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> I don't know if this has been touched on but do you know if he was referring to D&D RPGs or the D&D Brand. As I understand it, he's the brand manager for all of D&D and thus I would assume that him saying "D&D is doing well" means that its sublicenses, its books, its RPGs and its miniatures lines combined are doing well. That tells us nothing about how D&D RPGs are doing.




If you check earlier in the thread, you'll see that Charles Ryan specifically said that this comment did NOT include D&D Minis.


----------



## JohnNephew (Dec 2, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> For those interested in the primary quote from Charles Ryan, I reposted it earlier in this thread. Here it goes again, from a similar thread last year:
> 
> "We’re doing great! 2004 was probably the best year ever for D&D (that's right: ever), as measured by a wide variety of standards. All of our key trends are up and continuing to accelerate upward. We expect 2005 to be the next best year ever for D&D." - Charles Ryan.
> 
> It's a little more broad than just "best year ever".




Thanks for repeating that quote.  Do you recall when exactly he said it?  It may have been before the really sharp cratering in sales at the retail level that seems to have started around April or May of this year.

Apparently Charles was just laid off (http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=19503).  I suppose they may have let him go after he delivered two years of record sales or profits for his brand, but this seems like evidence that the year's sales didn't turn out as well as managers were predicting.  

Charles Ryan is a good guy and an asset to the industry, and it's a shame to see WotC let him go.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 2, 2005)

Hell, if a coach in the NFL can get fired after making the playoffs for several years in a row but not getting to or winning the Conference championship or Superbowl, CR can get laid off for not quite meeting sales expectations.

Especially if the expectations were unreasonable in the first place.


----------



## Monte At Home (Dec 2, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> but this seems like evidence that the year's sales didn't turn out as well as managers were predicting.




Probably true, John (it certainly isn't evidence that WotC is trying to maintain flexibility in an ever changing marketplace or whatever their embarrassingly ridiculous spin was). However, from what I understand, it was Magic's sales that were strikingly bad, not D&D's.

This wouldn't be the first time that people working on D&D got laid off because WotC's larger brands suffered. (It happened right after the launch of 3E, when arguably D&D sales were better than they had been in about 20 years.) It looks to me like higher-end middle managers across the board got the axe.



> Charles Ryan is a good guy and an asset to the industry, and it's a shame to see WotC let him go.




Agreed. Big time.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 2, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Thanks for repeating that quote.  Do you recall when exactly he said it?  It may have been before the really sharp cratering in sales at the retail level that seems to have started around April or May of this year.




It was late in 2004; the quote is on ENworld somewhere. (He's also said that 2005 was the new best year ever).



> Apparently Charles was just laid off (http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=19503).  I suppose they may have let him go after he delivered two years of record sales or profits for his brand, but this seems like evidence that the year's sales didn't turn out as well as managers were predicting.




I'd agree - indeed, with the number of people that were let go, and from what positions, I'd say that it really shows Wizards are in trouble.

The problem is that we've learnt from past, bitter experience that if the profits of Wizards of a whole slump, people get cut from areas that were doing well.

From everything I've heard (including Hasbro's own reports), Magic has lost sales signficantly over the last couple of years. It has generally been blamed on the rise of Poker, although there may be other factors involved.

So, D&D may *still* be doing well, but Wizards' or Hasbro's previous policy in this area is nasty (and particularly stupid). 

Once upon a time, I saw a quote that went like this: D&D has ten times the players of Magic, but Magic makes ten times the money of D&D. 

Cheers!


----------



## diaglo (Dec 2, 2005)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It was late in 2004; the quote is on ENworld somewhere. (He's also said that 2005 was the new best year ever).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the two VPs let go, however, had as far as i can remember no experience with RPGs until they were made head of their respective divisions. they were brought in by Hasbro... maybe it was a move on Hasbro's part to get rid of them and now they can.


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 2, 2005)

What's unfortunate is that people thought I was *pleased* at this state of affairs. I'm not -- and I'm not happy at this news. People I count as friends work at WotC, and at least one of them was affected by recent events.

What amazes me as that even now, in the face of this, some will continue to think that things are just gangbusters. Me, I would have preferred supportive consumers who knew the score, bought things accordingly and kept my friends working.


----------



## SBMC (Dec 2, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Yes, I've looked very closely at the press releases, SEC fiilings, and lawsuits related to many companies.  For example, I made a some nice money short selling eToys stock all the way to zero.  I have a good idea of what I'm talking about.




I don’t mean to perhaps discount your capabilities – but the fact that you made a good decision on a stock deal (or series there of) does not make anyone an expert at anything. Some top notch Portfolio Managers have made some very stupid Mistakes in their careers; does that make them an armature? 



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> If you're interested in an extended analysis I wrote on the topic of one publicly trading company and their financial statements (a company that was planning to acquire three major game distributors some years back), look up an article I wrote on Pyramid entitled "Due Diligence."  (The deal subsequently fell through, and the would-be acquirer's stock did indeed go in the toilet as I predicted it would, and has never recovered.)




It sounds like you are a Financial Analyst, Portfolio Manager? CFA perhaps? I have not read this yet however again; making a “good call” does not qualify anyone to be an expert on anything. Do it 25 times in a row…well then that’s another story – but then again it means you can pick them based upon data available; not the context of that data. The data you had may have very well made it blatant what the most likely outcome would be (as it is with many failed acquisitions or mergers); maybe not.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I stand by my original point.  Companies describe their performance by many measures, not simply gross sales or gross profits.  It is not wise to read too much into a single performance measure.




Yes they *Describe* their performance in many ways; and there are many ways to measure it. However, regardless, the bottom line is where it ends up. Every one of those measures is shown there; good or bad. If a description is made that does not match the bottom line; there is liability. Your own analysis above exemplifies that. 



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Companies have totally legitimate reasons to provide performance metrics besides simple profit/loss/gross sales, and providing such metrics to investors or to the public at large is not evidence that a company is "going down."




I never said that – I was responding to one who had said that companies do indeed make false claims; I provided a description of why that would be so.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> In some industries, profit is a very unreliable measure of the performance of a company (for example, REITs, where depreciation and amortization have a huge impact on the P&L sheet and distort reported and taxable earnings).




Ok – now you have told me something regarding yourself here with that statement and your delving directly into places that I deal with directly – at a high level mind you. Depreciation and Amortization (Note that in Accounting Terms these are NOT THE SAME) in no way shape or form distort the P&L. Amortization & Accretion is a natural progression of to a real value at a point in time not to mention required by GAAP and the SEC in most cases (especially in securities) and thus, like it or not, are valid impacts to the P&L. You also do not note exactly the function of a REIT is; how the specific investments of that REIT effect things. REITS are a complex issue; but none the less to make the claim that Amortization upsets income is nuts. If you want to state that it upsets how cash flows compare to income then so be it as that is true (unless that REIT realizes gains & losses a great deal).



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> As an example, Netflix reports their total subscribers.  In the context of describing their subscriber growth, they might quite accurately say that they are doing better than ever (i.e., they have more subscribers than ever), even if in the same quarter they might have lost money due to the cost of increased subscriber acquisition (advertising, free trial periods, lowering of monthly subscription rates, offering of cheaper but more limited subscription plans, etc.).




Ya – I already said that. See Pizza Hut above.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Depending on how you view things (and the market exists because people take different points of view),  you might care more about the subscriber growth figure (believing it is indicative of long term trends, and that ultimately more subscribers will translate into more bottom line profit growth), or you might care more about the profit today.  It cuts both ways -- you might sell a stock if subscribers are down (possibly indicating a plateau in growth or market potential), even if profits are up at the same time.




Net Flix is a new an nearly unique company. I have no way of making an accurate statement regarding trends as they relate to growth, revenue, profits or anything else and thus I won’t. Unless you deal directly with this industry then you should not either. If say we were talking about Cars – there is tons of data readily available to start making assumptions and solid predictions about trends.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> If the only thing you heard was "Netflix has more subscribers than ever before," and you leapt to the conclusion that the company had more revenues and more profit than ever before, you would be making a serious mistake.




Ya – I said that with the Pizza Hut example; the point I was making was that if someone made that stupid decision to do such a thing AND the company (say in your example Net Flix actually had FEWER subscribers) that investor would indeed have a basis for a suit. That does not mean it is valid or right; but that that is why firms are so cautions about what they release especially these days.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should.  They're easily accessible on the internet.  See if you can find anything concrete about D&D's performance in them.  Here's a direct link to the SEC filings on Hasbro's investor site: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=68329&p=irol-sec




Every company has an investor site – if I have time I will dig in there and see what they have.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> As others have noted, you can file suit against anyone for any reason.  My contention is that D&D's performance is pretty much not material to the performance of Hasbro.




In everything I have read here (especially in this post) I did not hear that message at all. My points had nothing to do with the materiality of DnD to Hasbro.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> If D&D revenues declined sharply or even vanished entirely, it would hardly register on Hasbro's P&L statements (and in any case it wouldn't be broken out in detail, so we wouldn't know).  According to their last Annual Report, Hasbro's FY2004 revenues were nearly $3 billion.  How much of that do you want to guess is D&D revenue?




No idea; No idea if WoTC is even broken out – probably rolled up into the main set of books based on what your saying here.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> If this is true, then you don't need to guess how much of Hasbro's total revenue is provided by D&D...they'll have to report it to you.  Just give 'em a call, and report back when they tell you.  If you can, see if they will e-mail you a chart of PHB sales each year going back to WotC's purchase of the game from TSR.




Now you are just trying to use semantics to be plain silly – you and everyone else knows the context that I made that statement in.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> Or, as I think is the case, they don't have to report trivial details about their financial results to you or anyone else outside the company -- whether it's how many player's handbooks sold, or how exactly many copies of Monopoly were returned as defective in the 1st quarter of 2005 (to pick a random statistic that they surely know, and certainly has some impact on their financial results, however tiny; but they have no obligation to tell the world at large).




To Note: They actually would have this information available and depending upon the corporation, the state they are in, etc. they may very well have to disclose certain material things. Regardless the data is kept in detail as there are documentation and retention requirements for accounting – and all of that is stated in numbers.


----------



## Nikchick (Dec 2, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> I don’t mean to perhaps discount your capabilities – but the fact that you made a good decision on a stock deal (or series there of) does not make anyone an expert at anything.




With all due respect, John Nephew is one of the sharpest, shrewdest, and most well-respected businessmen in gaming.  I realize you feel he's treading on your personal area of expertise, but that does not discount the fact that he is indeed an expert businessman with a firm understanding of what he's posting about here. Trying to take him to task because he didn't note exactly what the fucntion of  of a REIT is when he mentions REIT as a tangental example, or because he hasn't listed his entire personal investment history is silly and doesn't contribute to the discussion at hand whatsoever.


----------



## Turjan (Dec 2, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> Some top notch Portfolio Managers have made some very stupid Mistakes in their careers; does that make them an armature?



A weapon? An armor? The moving part of an electric device or a machine? Interesting metamorphosis !


----------



## CharlesRyan (Dec 2, 2005)

Hi, everybody.

This is largely a repeat of what I posted on the "Charles Ryan laid off?" thread, but I though it was worth reposting here since it bears on the topic of this thread.

Today was my last day with Wizards of the Coast. Although I will still be active on these boards and in the D&D community, I am no longer a spokesman for D&D or WotC.

Don't be too hasty to draw conclusions about the health of D&D from this turn of events. Wizards of the Coast is a large company with a dozen or so brands and major business operations on every continent. The company operates very much as a team, and in that environment, a single brand can be affected by the fortunes of other brands, even when it's doing well. As Monte has already pointed out, there's a precedent at WotC for D&D's success not protecting it from hardships that affect other segments of the company. (And I'm not singling WotC out here; this sort of situation is common in businesses large and small.)

I'm very proud of my accomplishments during my tenure as Brand Manager. The last two years have been very exciting and successful for the D&D brand, and I'm honored to have had the opportunity that I did to lead D&D's fortunes during two very exciting years. Nothing that happened today invalidates that.

I'm sad to see the end of my professional association with D&D, but I'm no less enthusiastic about the future for the brand and game that we love. With my wife and I expecting our second child soon, I'm looking forward to spending a lot of time with my family over the next few weeks. I don't yet know where I'll go from there, but I can tell you this: I will always be a diehard gamer and an outspoken fan of D&D!


----------



## Seravin (Dec 2, 2005)

Charles,
Thank you for posting and good luck in your future endeavors - and luck to your family too.
From the testaments of people who have worked with you, it sounds like you have the skill department covered.

I also wanted to say how impressed I am with the amount of character it takes to watch over a thread where your credibility is called into question and somehow resist the temptation to interject or defend.  Instead you provided us a with a final, relevent link.

Thank you.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 2, 2005)

Charles, a tip of the hat in you direction, sir.

Thank you for the things you've done for the D&D brand in the past two years, and my condolences on this turn of events.  This strikes me as amazingly short-sighted of WotC, but that wouldn't be a first.  I hope you find something shortly and in due course...and good luck to you and your wife on number two.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 2, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> This strikes me as amazingly short-sighted of WotC, but that wouldn't be a first.





to keep it on topic... i'll add like selling the rights to Gen Con?

which to me just made a whole lot of people nervous of what it meant to the game and brand. i'm glad they sold to the former head of WotC and i'm glad he has done well with it. but still it did seem short sighted on Hasbro/WotC's part at the time


----------



## Belen (Dec 2, 2005)

Actually, I think Hecatomb had a major negative impact at Wizards.  I have at least two stores that are literally giving it away as prizes because no one will buy it.  Wizards made a huge push with this "adult" game and I do not think it has done too well.  The game play really stinks and the cards are very difficult to shuffle.

The stores in my area are having the same problem with the Axis and Allies minis game.  I know at least one store that has given away an entire case of starters and boosters because no one wants it.  Wizards made a huge mistake in not making it to the same scale as the DDM and SWM lines.  A lot of people would have loved to use the figs for a modern game.


----------



## SBMC (Dec 2, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> With all due respect, John Nephew is one of the sharpest, shrewdest, and most well-respected businessmen in gaming.  I realize you feel he's treading on your personal area of expertise, but that does not discount the fact that he is indeed an expert businessman with a firm understanding of what he's posting about here. Trying to take him to task because he didn't note exactly what the fucntion of  of a REIT is when he mentions REIT as a tangental example, or because he hasn't listed his entire personal investment history is silly and doesn't contribute to the discussion at hand whatsoever.




1. I assume John Nephew is an adult and can take care of himself?

2. I don't concede based upon someone's resume'.

3. It turns out that he and I actually agree on many things here in this thread.

4. I have no idea who this fellow actually is - I am not privy to his resume'.

I stated the fact about a REIT as he used that as an example in fault; if he is a solid businessman he will have another example readily at hand to back up what he stated - I could think of a couple myself that would make his case and turn the discussion into a more conceptual one (motivational factors for different methods of measure). Nowhere did I insult or discount his abilities except where it was very clear he was wrong, mislead, misspoke or I totally did not get what he was saying and thought it said something it did not (I have no idea which one of these or combination thereof it is).

He utilized two specific examples to backup his own expertise and give his subsequent statements weight; which is quite normal and there is nothing wrong with that. My statements regarding investments was simple - the examples he chose, to another professional such as myself are not all that impressive. It shows he has skill but not expertise. To less experienced folks I am sure it is impressive.  Just as he stated his case for being qualified to make the statements he did I countered them for essentially the same purpose. I thought that my comments about that were light enough to make that point? if not I apologize to him (not you) if he found them insulting.

I don't expect anyone to post their resume' here; but had he said "I have been in the RPG business for X number of years and am a high level Exec" or something to that effect; that would have said far more than any statement about investments could. I would have simply ignored the investments portions, knowing that they are most likely a small fraction of his accomplishments and focused elswhere in the conversation.


----------



## SBMC (Dec 2, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> A weapon? An armor? The moving part of an electric device or a machine? Interesting metamorphosis !




??????


----------



## diaglo (Dec 2, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> 3. I have no idea who this fellow actually is - I am not privy to his resume'.



it is not to hard to do a search of his experience in the RPG industry.

off the top of my head, i'll give you a few of his credits: he has adventures published in Dungeon 1, 4, 8 , 10. and sadly contributed to WG7 Castle Greyhawk

Psion recently posted a thread on this forum about John giving away products on his 40th birthday. edit: it was Monte Cook not Psion who posted this thread. here's the link: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=156263


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 2, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I think Hecatomb had a major negative impact at Wizards.  I have at least two stores that are literally giving it away as prizes because no one will buy it.  Wizards made a huge push with this "adult" game and I do not think it has done too well.  The game play really stinks and the cards are very difficult to shuffle.
> 
> The stores in my area are having the same problem with the Axis and Allies minis game.  I know at least one store that has given away an entire case of starters and boosters because no one wants it.  Wizards made a huge mistake in not making it to the same scale as the DDM and SWM lines.  A lot of people would have loved to use the figs for a modern game.



 You may have something here.  My local FLGS carries only a single case of Hecatomb since there are only about 3-4 guys that play it, everyone else that bought starters at luanch and thereafter thought it pretty much sucked.

Axis and Allies Minis appears to be doing alright in my area, but nothing like DDM and SWM.  My interest dwindled when I saw the figures were too small of a scale to be useful to me for anything other than A&AM.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 2, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> it is not to hard to do a search of his experience in the RPG industry.
> 
> off the top of my head, i'll give you a few of his credits: he has adventures published in Dungeon 1, 4, 8 , 10. and sadly contributed to WG7 Castle Greyhawk
> 
> Psion recently posted a thread on this forum about John giving away products on his 40th birthday.




Just to add to this, John Nephew is also one of the friendliest industry figures online, sharing information and experiences and hard data about how his business is doing (eg the costs of producing rpgs broken down in detail).

His presence online, and with it the insight he provides, and the level of caring about helping us get a larger part of the picture, is one of the best things with the Internet, in my book.

Thanks, John.

/Maggan


----------



## DaveMage (Dec 2, 2005)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Just to add to this, John Nephew is also one of the friendliest industry figures online, sharing information and experiences and hard data about how his business is doing (eg the costs of producing rpgs broken down in detail).




*AND* his company's namesake holds the world on his back...

Pretty impressive if you ask me.


----------



## Nikchick (Dec 2, 2005)

SBMC said:
			
		

> I thought that my comments about that were light enough to make that point? if not I apologize to him (not you) if he found them insulting.





Well, you certainly told me.  

I thought this was a message board where many people were engaged in conversation on this topic.  I was merely sharing my own observations and opinions on the direction of the conversation, and surprise at your ignorance about who you were lecturing. Since you have so charmingly stated that you're specifically unwilling to apologize to me (not that I ever asked for an apology, but is there any reason to say you specifically won't apologize to someone other than to insult them?) I'll just leave you two boys to your pissing match.


----------



## JohnNephew (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks, everyone, for coming to my defense.  Yer makin' me blush.



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> 2. I don't concede based upon someone's resume'.




No, but it would help if you read the SEC documents of Hasbro, if you want to say anything useful about them.

If you did, then you would find for example that in the Form 10-K405 (annual report: http://ccbn.10kwizard.com/xml/download.php?repo=tenk&ipage=1370318&format=PDF) for the year 2000 -- the year that D&D 3rd Edition was launched, an event that was probably the biggest and most successful product launch in the history of the roleplaying game industry -- the term "Dungeons and Dragons" is found exactly once in the 286 page PDF document.

Given that the biggest product launch in the history of roleplaying didn't even get a mention in Hasbro's annual report for the year 2000 (the single mention of D&D is this sentence: "WIZARDS OF THE COAST trading card and roleplaying games include the popular MAGIC: THE GATHERING, DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, POKEMON and MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL SHOWDOWN."), I think that my point, which you seem to be disputing, stands: D&D RPG's financial performance is pretty much not material in the big picture of Hasbro's finances, as it does not even warrant mention in their reports to shareholders.

I'd love for you to bring your expertise to bear on Hasbro's financial reports and enlighten us all as to what they tell you about the performance of D&D over time.



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> I stated the fact about a REIT as he used that as an example in fault;




You quibbled with my phrasing, and then agreed with my point, as though it were a different point.  Specifically, you said:



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> If you want to state that it upsets how cash flows compare to income then so be it as that is true (unless that REIT realizes gains & losses a great deal).




This was my point. GAAP earnings sometimes provide a deceptive view of how a company is doing, particularly for companies such as REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts, for those who don't know all these abbreviations) that may have a lot of depreciation in their financials.  Investors in REITS prefer to look at FFO (funds from operations), which is similar to but not the same as cash flow.  In some industries people tend to look at EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization).  I'm not simply talking about cash flow, but a more general "how is the health of the business" question (which is harder question to answer for any company in any industry).

To repeat my original observation: "In some industries, profit is a very unreliable measure of the performance of a company (for example, REITs, where depreciation and amortization have a huge impact on the P&L sheet and distort reported and taxable earnings)."

I'm sorry I didn't phrase this with the technical precision required to avert confusion at your "high level" of expertise.  I should perhaps have said: "In some industries, profit as measured by earnings calculated under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is a very unreliable indicator of the performance of a company.  For example, Real Estate Investment Trusts have GAAP earnings that are strongly influenced by the certain financial characteristics of their industry, such as the depreciation of real property; such depreciation appears on the profit and loss portion of their financial statements, affecting GAAP earnings, but does not actually indicate cash expenditures.  Consequently, a REIT that shows an operating loss or very small profit in its GAAP earnings could in fact be a very healthy business."

I can come up with lots of other examples of industries and specific companies where GAAP earnings may provide a misleading impression of fiscal health (painting either too rosy or too gloomy a picture). Of course, as you say, you can too.  (So I'm not sure why you needed to make a big deal out of intentionally misreading the example I offhandedly gave...)  Having some personal business experience in the game industry, I am especially familiar with the ways that true financial statements and claims in our field may be subject to misinterpretation by people who hear a given statement but don't have the raw numbers behind it (which, in this field, tends to be everyone except the individual making the statements or claims).


----------



## SBMC (Dec 2, 2005)

Nikchick said:
			
		

> Well, you certainly told me.
> 
> I thought this was a message board where many people were engaged in conversation on this topic.  I was merely sharing my own observations and opinions on the direction of the conversation, and surprise at your ignorance about who you were lecturing. Since you have so charmingly stated that you're specifically unwilling to apologize to me (not that I ever asked for an apology, but is there any reason to say you specifically won't apologize to someone other than to insult them?) I'll just leave you two boys to your pissing match.




You were not engaged in a conversation; you were going after me for challenging someone else – as if it is your place to do so. Reading below he certainly does know how to take care of himself.





			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> No, but it would help if you read the SEC documents of Hasbro, if you want to say anything useful about them.
> 
> If you did, then you would find for example that in the Form 10-K405 (annual report: http://ccbn.10kwizard.com/xml/download.php?repo=tenk&ipage=1370318&format=PDF) for the year 2000 -- the year that D&D 3rd Edition was launched, an event that was probably the biggest and most successful product launch in the history of the roleplaying game industry -- the term "Dungeons and Dragons" is found exactly once in the 286 page PDF document.
> 
> ...





I never said it did – if you thought I had then either my postings were unclear or you misunderstood. Reading all of my posts to this thread you will see that I agree with this; before I even saw the financials.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> You quibbled with my phrasing, and then agreed with my point, as though it were a different point.  Specifically, you said:
> 
> Originally Posted by SBMC
> If you want to state that it upsets how cash flows compare to income then so be it as that is true (unless that REIT realizes gains & losses a great deal). .




If that was your point I missed it. You referred to the P&L not cash flows; they are not one in the same.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> This was my point. GAAP earnings sometimes provide a deceptive view of how a company is doing, particularly for companies such as REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts, for those who don't know all these abbreviations) that may have a lot of depreciation in their financials.  Investors in REITS prefer to look at FFO (funds from operations), which is similar to but not the same as cash flow.




What you state is correct – you never said this to begin with; your original point was unclear. *Here* you refer to the cash flows – which then makes your statements accurate.




			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> In some industries people tend to look at EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization).  I'm not simply talking about cash flow, but a more general "how is the health of the business" question (which is harder question to answer for any company in any industry).
> 
> To repeat my original observation: "In some industries, profit is a very unreliable measure of the performance of a company (for example, REITs, where depreciation and amortization have a huge impact on the P&L sheet and distort reported and taxable earnings)."
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't phrase this with the technical precision required to avert confusion at your "high level" of expertise.  I should perhaps have said: "In some industries, profit as measured by earnings calculated under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is a very unreliable indicator of the performance of a company.  For example, Real Estate Investment Trusts have GAAP earnings that are strongly influenced by the certain financial characteristics of their industry, such as the depreciation of real property; such depreciation appears on the profit and loss portion of their financial statements, affecting GAAP earnings, but does not actually indicate cash expenditures.  Consequently, a REIT that shows an operating loss or very small profit in its GAAP earnings could in fact be a very healthy business."




This is a bit wordy but does indeed clear things up as to the intent of your original statement.



			
				JohnNephew said:
			
		

> I can come up with lots of other examples of industries and specific companies where GAAP earnings may provide a misleading impression of fiscal health (painting either too rosy or too gloomy a picture). Of course, as you say, you can too.  (So I'm not sure why you needed to make a big deal out of intentionally misreading the example I offhandedly gave...)  Having some personal business experience in the game industry, I am especially familiar with the ways that true financial statements and claims in our field may be subject to misinterpretation by people who hear a given statement but don't have the raw numbers behind it (which, in this field, tends to be everyone except the individual making the statements or claims).




I did not intentionally misread anything. I am guilty of perhaps failing to comprehend the “spirit” of your statement and taking it at pure face value (see my notes above). 

I wish you had stated before what you stated here.

With all of the arguments that have occurred on this thread and some of the complete idiocy of some arguments I was in got by “dander up” and thus I came in guns blazing – to my own undoing. The folks previously that were talking about financials and such really had no idea what they were talking about – and I made assumptions going forward.

I stated “high level” because, to be quite honest, with what I read (be that good or bad, idiotic or not) I thought that you were yet another college freshman fresh out of financial accounting class who claims they made a great investment because they were so smart, etc, etc. I wanted to just shut it down and go home and get back to the conversation at hand.

Thus – I do indeed feel like a complete ass for responding in the fashion that I did, making assumptions regarding what I had read - and I am now off of my high horse. I could have challenged what you had stated without being so high and mighty about it.

My apologies. Especially since I agree with all of your statements now that I understand them.


----------



## JohnNephew (Dec 2, 2005)

To Nik you wrote: 



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> You were not engaged in a conversation; you were going after me for challenging someone else – as if it is your place to do so. Reading below he certainly does know how to take care of himself.




Nicole has known me for about 17 years now (going back to when we both worked at Lion Rampant), as a friend and colleague (and competitor!).  I think she was trying to be helpful by identifying me, something that I had failed to do for myself in this thread (I don't suppose I could excuse myself by chalking it up to my world famous excessive modesty?).



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> With all of the arguments that have occurred on this thread and some of the complete idiocy of some arguments I was in got by “dander up” and thus I came in guns blazing – to my own undoing. The folks previously that were talking about financials and such really had no idea what they were talking about – and I made assumptions going forward.




Well, that's par for the course on the internet.   The truth is, any discussion like this requires a compromise between rigor and accessibility.  If you lean to the side of precision, you wind up with very complex statements with lots of qualifications, which can totally fail to communicate your point to anyone without experience and the technical vocabulary (and you can sound really stuffy to boot); if you simplify things and use common-usage meanings of words and ideas, you run the risk of oversimplification and running afoul of those who do have financial/business/accounting backgrounds.  Sometimes you get to the end of a long argument with someone only to find that you were trying to say the same thing, but starting from different points on the language continuum between "layman" and "expert" in trying to communicate an idea.



			
				SBMC said:
			
		

> My apologies. Especially since I agree with all of your statements now that I understand them.




No problem; all's well that ends well.  I too apologize if I misunderstood or misrepresented your statements, or (what's even more common in these really long threads) confused what you said with what someone else said.


----------



## Schwebs (Dec 2, 2005)

In reply to Diaglo about the experience of the two VPs - 
Joe Hauck was involved with MtG in marketing positions for quite a while before becomming VP. He was also a long time D&D player. I do not believe he worked on D&D before getting the VP role though.
Cornelius Lee came from outside of WOTC/Hasbro less than 2 years ago with no game industry experience, but with Sr. level expereince in consumer product and entertainment marketing.

To me, these layoffs indicate a dissatisfaction with sales results and corporate strategy more than a simple effort to trim salaries. If the company still believed in the direction, the people setting the direction would still be there despite the salaries.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 2, 2005)

Schwebs said:
			
		

> In reply to Diaglo about the experience of the two VPs -
> Joe Hauck was involved with MtG in marketing positions for quite a while before becomming VP. He was also a long time D&D player. I do not believe he worked on D&D before getting the VP role though.
> Cornelius Lee came from outside of WOTC/Hasbro less than 2 years ago with no game industry experience, but with Sr. level expereince in consumer product and entertainment marketing.





Thanks. I knew there was more to the story just couldn't get the old noggin working.


----------



## SBMC (Dec 2, 2005)

Schwebs said:
			
		

> In reply to Diaglo about the experience of the two VPs -
> Joe Hauck was involved with MtG in marketing positions for quite a while before becomming VP. He was also a long time D&D player. I do not believe he worked on D&D before getting the VP role though.
> Cornelius Lee came from outside of WOTC/Hasbro less than 2 years ago with no game industry experience, but with Sr. level expereince in consumer product and entertainment marketing.
> 
> To me, these layoffs indicate a dissatisfaction with sales results and corporate strategy more than a simple effort to trim salaries. If the company still believed in the direction, the people setting the direction would still be there despite the salaries.




I agree; in many industries that deal volume sales - things get ugly for the managers at all levels if the numbers don’t turn up regardless of the experience levels of such managers. “Failure” is not handled lightly.

They could be turning to a new development strategy; such as using more contract work as opposed to full time employees (they probably do that a lot already; but perhaps now more so). Charles Ryan may find himself self employed doing almost the same job from home! (maybe not?). 

*I have no idea what the numbers are here – this is all opinion:*

However think about this: Hasbro is really stuck here; D&D gives them more clout than they already had; it is a legend in and of itself - if they nixed D&D they would go down in history as the ones who destroyed a legacy – like when Pan Am air went down the tubes, or AT&T was split up (not that the dollar figures or social impact are as big as those were of course). Think about the “hatred” toward TSR for fouling DnD? People (I know I would) might even boycott Hasbro! (and I got plenty of kids to buy stuff for!)

D&D is one of those things, like Monopoly, that they will keep onboard for eternity because to stop will hurt the Hasbro Brand as a whole; they are staples of the gaming world (not just RPG) psyche. If they sell off WoTC (or just D&D) some competitor will pick it up; for the same reason – exposure and be the one who “saved” the D&D name. 

And even if WoTC stopped altogether and D&D did go away, Mongoose, Atlas and others would pick up the slack and feed the demand…where there is demand a supplier will show up sooner or later if not already there.

So even if the worst happened there would be gaming out there for us to enjoy and partake in.


----------



## SBMC (Dec 2, 2005)

JohnNephew said:
			
		

> To Nik you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for tolerating an old fart (well I am not that old; but I am a fart at times!)


----------



## Hussar (Dec 3, 2005)

*raises hand through the dust*

Belen, just a question.  You mentioned some time back about not seeing many younger players coming out to demos.  What do you consider a "younger player"?  To me, anyone under the age of about 18 would qualify.  I've mentioned before about seeing about 30% of the gamers I deal with online that would fit into this category.  Certainly a lot more than the two or three that you mention.  I'm wondering if we're talking about the same thing.


----------

