| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jan 2014 : 18:50:53
|
I didn't want to start another 5e thread, in fear of more edition-backlash, which we should all be past by now. So let me just say this isn't about D&Dnext, or 4e, or any other edition, rules or setting - its a more generic 'big picture' kind of thread.
I read THIS interesting article, which has to do with comic franchises. It is an interview with The walking Dead creator Robert Kirkman. I find the discussion VERY relevant to everything going on in the game industry as well.
I find this one quote ESPECIALLY relevant: "It's also worth noting that #1 issues sell very, very well."
We can apply this to the first 3 books in D&D RPGs - they always sell best. That means when the company wants another cash-grab, they don't consider the customer, they just produce a new '#1' to rake-in the fast-cash, not considering how much damage that is doing in the long run.
Of course, I realize this can be applied to anything. We see this in the Dr. Seuss classic The Lorax - if you truly care about something, you will consider the negative impact your actions will have on future generations. Sucking a resource completely dry is very short-sighted.
So is the toy/game industry their own worst enemy, in the log run? Are they slowing killing-off their own cash cow? And how does this affect The Forgotten Realms? Even though we wanted 4e to come to an end, will getting another new edition of The Realms be more harmful then beneficial?
Just food for thought.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jan 2014 20:21:49
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4693 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2014 : 19:46:24
|
In some ways this clearly can be discussed. Just not sure if it is worth it.
Every company needs a return on investment. Return on investment is based on return of capital and fair value use.
Some set higher goals on how much fair use return is.
Each company clearly seeks what they consider is the best way to stay in business.
TSP had a good start, however between likely too many worlds, some internal disputes on policy and finally "Trouble with the Printers" [1]
WotC saw the problems or at least some of them and it is reported the CEO did not want D&D to fail. As a stand alone company managed to purchase TSR and starte to revise it and likely saved D&D.
Hasbro looked at all of WotC products and revenue stem so took control of WotC. The one of the reported best revenue steams that WotC had turned out to be a fad, had no long lasting life. While I think Pokeman (if that is what the unit was) still might exist it clearly not a leading gaming product any more. It is reported that Hasbro demands certain tragets of profits so would look at the best options of the units of WotC that could best be squeezed to meet goals that the fad no longer was.
Thus a new Edition requires all that want to play the new edtion to own a Player's handbook. Unless the Edition gets total failure reviews most fans of D&D will buy it. There is less money in the splat books, a person playing a Cleric has little use for the "Complete Fighter" for example. Support books though are asked for from time to time and can be profitable.
What I believe is part of the problem of the now is TSR managed to sign up most that would play a D&D game, however that turned into people that played other RPG games.
WotC and Hasbro both ran into the problem of more games by other producers without an noticeable increase of total number of people that will play any game. D&D market share is lower I would believe while the number of role players are about the same. Even if increasing still (there always are a few that become fans, there are others that put away the games, because of age or not liking changes) the choices role players have are far more diverse.
A new Edition every 10 years is almost impossible to stay in business from indications. Either there needs to be another way to support an edition to make it last, miniatures, modules, novels clubs, conventions are certainly some ways to do that. These however can be uncertain as to cost benefit results.
Every employee of any company needs to earn their pay and an added value as return of capital or fair use of money. If management makes a bad choice they rarely fire themselves so come up with a plan to make money with a new plan.
[1] It appears that TSR ordered more printing work then they could pay for, that Printers were refusing to print new things until old things were paid for. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2014 : 20:31:45
|
Well, thats why I was debating where to put this, or if I even should put this, but when I read it it resonated with me in terms of FR and I really needed to share these thoughts.
I almost wanted to blame us for all the problems, in that we clamored for something other then 4e, but now I feel it really wouldn't have mattered at all. I'm even starting to think 'our wish' being granted is just BS, and that they are using us as an excuse for yet-another edition. "Because you demanded it!" seems to be a great catch-phrase for entertainment-based companies to use.
So in a way, even though this may seem like a touchy topic, and definitely could spark some edition-hate, my argument here is that we shouldn't be pointing fingers at each other at all! We blame the 4e people for forcing 4e on us (the 'naysayers'), and then they blame us for 4e being over. They also blamed us for the 'entitlement' that supposedly lead to 4e in the first place (and good argument it was, too). Etc, etc... but it isn't anyone's fault. At least not the fans/gamers.
It was just 'business as usual'. No matter what, we were always going to get more editions, with new sourcebooks and 're-imagined' settings, because thats how they sell more product. And the way it works is, the cycle grows smaller and smaller until there is nothing left. That is a sobering thought.
So in a strange way, I am less resentful of 4e now, because it was inevitable, like death & taxes. The 4e people and the 3e people (and the 1e/2e/OD&D people) are all in the same boat right now, hoping that the next iteration will be worth playing, but also hoping they'll get at least a few years out of it before they have to buy all the books all over again. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Jan 2014 20:35:47 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1882 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2014 : 23:48:39
|
Just a knee-jerk response based on my consummate belief in capitalism...but companies are in business to make money. They employ people who in turn provide needed income to other people through the purchase of goods and services with their income. So what am I getting at? I try not to hold grudges against companies for the decisions they make (unless those decisions lead to deaths or something...I'm looking at you Firestone tires). Anyway, Wizbro screwed up big time, IMO. But they did respond to the fans (somewhat) in making that mistake and the fallout has now lead to a new edition. Now, as you stated MT, we were going to get that new edition anyway...but it would have been better if 5e hadn't ridden on the coattails of a (bad) edition (again, IMO).
As for the article, I agree with Kirkman and I would prefer Wizbro to take the 'long game' approach he mentions (I mean this more specifically for the Realms as opposed to the ruleset). My reason for this is simple, we would not have lost some of the storylines that were cut off prematurely and, I believe, some of those pesky NDAs would have been revealed over the years. As for the ruleset itself...the game simply could be allowed to morph over time (without a huge push for a new edition). As I recall, the alternative rule books (like Skills and Powers) sold pretty darn well. Even without the alternative rules, the designers could simply provide updated rules every few years WITHOUT rewriting every darn book in the game while doing it.
Just my two coppers and I hope I didn't come across as 'edition bashing' as that wasn't my intention. Cheers. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
Edited by - The Arcanamach on 18 Jan 2014 23:50:33 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2014 : 01:54:07
|
I agree that this article is relevant, to the point where he might as well have been talking about WotC instead of Marvel.
My animus (and I believe the biggest criticism I've heard) against WotC is not about the many rulesets... the only boot-to-the-head I would deliver in that area is that it would be a smart change of pace to resume support for all of the past rulesets instead of building each one up as the new best thing only to completely abandon those rules (and the fans thereof) a few years later. Particularly if you're going to make a point of trying to reclaim the gamers who've left the fold.
Kirkman is criticizing Marvel's approach to worldbuilding, which is also our problem in the Realms. WotC does seem to be following the same playbook, insofar as "development" comes in spurts centered around RSEs. I would call it devolution, but that's probably incendiary so I'll stop there.
The frustrating part of being right is that people will point to the company's success. WotC took a hit with 4e, but we don't know how big of a hit. Enough that they got reprimanded, enough that they were compelled to do what I'm sure they felt was eat crow and begin work on 5e. But not enough that Hasbro would sell off WotC to another company to get out from under the fail. So the bottom line is that WotC is still successful... which seems to take a lot of wind out of the sails of its critics.
We're still right. But we're irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Tanthalas
Senior Scribe
Portugal
508 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2014 : 03:46:26
|
Robert Kirkman is right that Marvel doesn't look at things in the long run, and for us readers and fans, it would be better if they thought about things in the long run and gave us coherent stories (Brand New Day is one of the most stupid plotlines I ever had the displeasure to know about).
On the other hand, companies aren't charities and they need to make money to pay salaries. CEOs/shareholders always want companies to grow. They never reach a point where they say "ok, we're making enough money, let's just keep things as they are", because sadly, when you try to do something like this it more often leads to stagnation, followed by your competition getting better than you and ultimately a fall in profits.
If we look at Japanese comics, while many do lose popularity over the years, a lot of the successful ones actually end while they're popular, because the author has control over his/her work and has a vision for the story he/she wants to tell and knows how they want it to end. Marvel comics (and the Forgotten Realms) are owned by the company, not their creators. Spiderman isn't written just by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, it has had a plethora of authors over the years which is what leads to the consistency problems. Of course we could always say "oh, the editor should make sure that the storyline is coherent", but when a comic has lasted as long as Spiderman, you also get different editors over the decades. Likewise, the Forgotten Realms stopped being Ed's baby when he sold off the rights to the setting and allowed different authors to play with his idea.
Now, in a perfect world, our favorite stories would always be gaining popularity and drawing more fans (customers/money). Unfortunately for us, in the real world stories often start losing popularity and the fanbase grows smaller (less customers/money).
So what should companies do when this happens?
- I guess they could just keep going on in the same way and hope for better days. But the problem with long-living franchises is that it's hard to get younger/new fans because a lot of people get scared off by the mountain of story/lore/rules that these long-lived series have on their shoulders.
- They could just kill off the story and make a new one. Which on one hand has the possibility of giving us a conclusion to our favorite stories, but on the other hand sucks for us if we want more.
- Then there's the reboot. A potential new customer is more likely to pick a #1 comic up than comic #325, even if in the case of Spiderman, his long past hasn't been erased. Because these reboots often mean that Spiderman is getting new story arcs that don't rely heavily on past events. New editions of D&D share the same principal. A new player gets the sense that everyone is starting from the same point and the player isn't crushed by too much information (even if you don't have to buy every book of an edition to be able to play happily).
So yeah, it's very easy for me to believe that what sparks a new edition of D&D isn't that some ass over at WotC hates us and wants to make us suffer so they made 4E (mind you, I personally like all editions of the Realms), but that the sales of material of the current edition started to dwindle. They obviously went in a direction that players didn't like with 4E (and for all the spite that 4E receives, I'm still convinced that the only true problem it had was the enormous time skip, take away that and the backlash would have been far smaller), but a new edition would have happened regardless. And yeah, had 4E been as successful as previous editions, 5E would still happen, just not as soon.
As for RSE's in the Realms... I think the Realms would be a far less interesting setting without RSE's. I don't need all my FR novels to be an RSE, that would be stupid, but I do need an RSE once in a while to shake things up, to prove that the Realms aren't a dead world where everything is predictable because you know nothing will ever change. The Time of Troubles, the return of the Shadovar, War of the Spider Queen, and yes, the Spellplague, were all very interesting and exciting events to me, and I hope that once The Sundering is over I can add this RSE to that list too.
Yes, not everyone is happy when things change, but we do need change once in a while. And yes, I know that there are people here that hate some of the changes implemented in the Realms (some people still whine about Cyric for crying out loud), but once sales start dwindling something needs to be done if you want to keep the setting alive. We can only hope that we'll like the changes. |
Sir Markham pointed out, drinking another brandy. "A chap who can point at you and say 'die' has the distinct advantage". |
|
|
|
Dark Wizard
Senior Scribe
USA
830 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2014 : 04:34:48
|
Not a huge comicbook geek, so I may be completely wrong on this, but his characterization of Marvel is wrong (or at least superficial to the point of useless for his argument) on several points.
The company that does hard reboots of their setting (the main setting) is DC Comics (and they've done so several times, but whatever, it's become their thing). Marvel, AFAIK, operates on the nebulous "sliding continuity" where they keep things fuzzy enough not to nail down some less vital moments in their mythology (kind of wibbly wobbly Doctor Who malleability mixed with fixed points). Sure there are in-story, in-setting (somewhat localized or compartmentalized) events that alter reality and change the status quo (Parker's deal with the devil, Scarlet Witch's breakdown), but they're not setting wide restarts (again, as far as I can tell).
As for Image handling it better with their 20-year run. Come back to us after a 70-year run, or a 50-year run if we count the '60s revival of superhero comics. I'm sure Spawn and some Image elements have gone through similar flashes of freshness in the time they've been gallivanting around their setting. The Witchblade universe had a reset after the Artifacts arc (the company is Top Cow Comics, but they started as/were an imprint of Image).
As for killing characters and bringing them back. That's the old comicbook (and soap opera and religious texts) standard. Can't criticize Marvel/DC for it as it's the origin story for Spawn.
His points about reliance on big event stories for big sales and poor compensation to creatives holds some merit, but given the context he tries to frame it in, I'll take what he says with a grain of salt as someone who has an axe to grind with his former employer and also someone trying to elevate his current work and company as a more refined product.
This is not unlike WotC's attempt to sell 4E by bringing the "sacred cows" to slaughter and "stealing their stuff". |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1882 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2014 : 09:24:34
|
| Well, for me, I don't mind the RSEs so much, although the changes just prior to and during the Spellplague WILL NEVER happen in my homebrew...unless they do some serious fixing in 5e. Otherwise, I agree with Tanthalas in that RSEs are sometimes needed to shake up the status quo and keep the setting 'alive' as he put it. However, it really doesn't take events on the level of the ToT or the SP to do that. Smaller, more localized events do just fine (like the Tuigan invasion...it impacted parts of the Realms with more superficial effects elsewhere). Conjoining major RSEs with new editions is, IMO, killing the setting. Wizbro needs to strike a balance (and I admit I do not know where that balance is) between the need for edition/rules updates and setting continuity. Personally, I think they need to divorce the two (more or less). Killing off Mystra to justify magic changes is old old old. I would have preferred they detailed one of the other continents to add some of the new areas they wanted (the aboleths and dragonspawn, for instance) rather than arbitrarily add them to the setting. But I'm digressing and starting to creep toward bashing again. Apologies. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Interesting reading related to editions
