| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
 Posted - 30 May 2014 : 15:59:35
|
From what I have seen so far of 5th/new FR, I am going to guess that this will be the last editions of both. The big problem they are facing is that the nostalgia loving players (the older ones with lots of cash) have/can stick with the editions/lore they loved/grew up with and the younger market simply has a ton of competition for table top gaming (ie most gamers are introduced through word of mouth and that can be ANY edition). Every time they add an edition, they further splinter their customer base and (outside of an initial "its new" splurge) sales decline.
WoTC missed the market with 3rd edition by assuming they could recapture the glory days of D&D sales, when in fact they would have been far better off recognizing D&D as a niche product with a fanatical customer base and simply refine/update/continue 2nd edition. Since that release they have been constantly trying to regain their old base without success while at the same time trying to figure out what younger potential gamers want in a game (again with limited success at best).
I haven't seen anything in 5th ed/5th Realms that is going to bring gamers like myself back into the market, as the game I play still works perfectly fine (as it always did). To many of us, the new editions simply are not D&D in the respect of what we knew D&D to be. Simply put, there is nothing at all that is compelling about the new edition that "forces" anyone interested in D&D to choose it over a past edition and that is a big problem.
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 17:20:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From what I have seen so far of 5th/new FR, I am going to guess that this will be the last editions of both. The big problem they are facing is that the nostalgia loving players (the older ones with lots of cash) have/can stick with the editions/lore they loved/grew up with and the younger market simply has a ton of competition for table top gaming (ie most gamers are introduced through word of mouth and that can be ANY edition). Every time they add an edition, they further splinter their customer base and (outside of an initial "its new" splurge) sales decline.
WoTC missed the market with 3rd edition by assuming they could recapture the glory days of D&D sales, when in fact they would have been far better off recognizing D&D as a niche product with a fanatical customer base and simply refine/update/continue 2nd edition. Since that release they have been constantly trying to regain their old base without success while at the same time trying to figure out what younger potential gamers want in a game (again with limited success at best).
I haven't seen anything in 5th ed/5th Realms that is going to bring gamers like myself back into the market, as the game I play still works perfectly fine (as it always did). To many of us, the new editions simply are not D&D in the respect of what we knew D&D to be. Simply put, there is nothing at all that is compelling about the new edition that "forces" anyone interested in D&D to choose it over a past edition and that is a big problem.
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm glad you enjoy D&D, regardless of edition. More power to you.
I don't think this is the end, though, for a couple reasons. 1. DnD Classics make it easy to attain old adventures, that's going to sell to a younger, more digital generation. It has at my local game store. With the diversity of editions covered by those PDFs, newer gamers aren't going to want to learn 5 different editions just to play what looks like a cool adventure. That's where Next/5e comes in.
2. 5e's modular system is easy to adapt to any edition. Just using the play test, I've been able to convert monsters from the Undermountain boxed set, and 3.5. I suck at math, but doing conversions on the fly in Next is easy for me.
3. Availability. Next will be more easily accessed by newer gamers who want a hard copy. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
 |
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1152 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 17:51:19
|
I gotta disagree with you Apex. The 3.5 system was an excellent one for the vast majority of DnD's fan base, old and new. Pathfinder proves that - it was a relatively rare few who, over 3.5's lifespan, refused to upgrade from 2nd ed.
4th and 5th, in my opinion, are too dumbed down for those who were introduced to and enjoyed 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions. I'll purchase 5th ed content, just like I did 4th ed content, but I'll be converting the crunchy bits to Pathfinder rules. I know plenty of people who disagree with me and prefer the simpler rulesets of 4th & 5th, but I know lots more who agree with me.
The big issue with 4th, and I don't want to start another 4e Realms = evil discussion here, was that WotC insulted the older players, pandered to the low brow to get new customers, ignored the pleas of the Realms designers and damaged the Realms itself.
Now it looks like WotC're trying to fix the problems they caused by giving power back to the designers & authors but I've spotted several potential mistakes already in the stuff they've released so far so I'm reserving judgement until I get my hands on a couple of books. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 18:29:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I gotta disagree with you Apex. The 3.5 system was an excellent one for the vast majority of DnD's fan base, old and new. Pathfinder proves that - it was a relatively rare few who, over 3.5's lifespan, refused to upgrade from 2nd ed.
I am glad you liked 3.5, but the rest of your argument lacks any data and as a matter of fact had 3.5 been so great for sales we wouldn't have seen 4th. I know a ton of people who never left 1st/2nd. Heck, there is an entire forum (dragonsfoot) that caters to them. The issue isn't whether you thought 3.5 was better (for argument's sake, I don't even think it should have been called D&D, but that is another argument). The issue is that WoTC have in fact splintered the customer base, thus the attempt with 5th to find a way to get them back (which likely won't work). And once you have splintered your fanbase, you are fighting an uphill battle as a company to stay relevant, especially in a declining product category. |
|
|
|
neuronphaser
Acolyte
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 19:08:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I gotta disagree with you Apex. The 3.5 system was an excellent one for the vast majority of DnD's fan base, old and new. Pathfinder proves that - it was a relatively rare few who, over 3.5's lifespan, refused to upgrade from 2nd ed.
I am glad you liked 3.5, but the rest of your argument lacks any data and as a matter of fact had 3.5 been so great for sales we wouldn't have seen 4th. I know a ton of people who never left 1st/2nd. Heck, there is an entire forum (dragonsfoot) that caters to them. The issue isn't whether you thought 3.5 was better (for argument's sake, I don't even think it should have been called D&D, but that is another argument). The issue is that WoTC have in fact splintered the customer base, thus the attempt with 5th to find a way to get them back (which likely won't work). And once you have splintered your fanbase, you are fighting an uphill battle as a company to stay relevant, especially in a declining product category.
Your operating under a lot of assumptions colored by your conclusion regarding your personal tastes (that edition XYZ is not for you). But the most flawed one is "as a matter of fact had 3.5 been so great for sales we wouldn't have seen 4th" because, comparing to any and every other RPG company, both 3.5 and 4 were both massive successes. That they weren't tenable for Wizards of the Coast specifically doesn't really say much, and that Wizards has chosen a pretty specific publishing schedule of editions doesn't really speak to the success of the game lines, in reality.
D&D makes money, period. It's not a vanity publishing house that Wizards is running, and their reactions to the market -- however poorly handled we may feel they are -- have generally been fairly sound, given the realities of said market. 3.5 was a response to the d20 glut and changing leadership; 4 was a response to the OSR and a fractured market (which fractured it further, but still released an innovative system that is loved by a significant customer base); and 5 is clearly a different response to the fractured market, as well as a considerable move towards making the game easier to dive into.
All of these versions have their flaws (and advantages), but none of them suggest actually suggest with any finality that they were done simply because the edition before it failed in some universally applicable way. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4688 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 19:46:13
|
I think both of you are missing a key factor. WotC needs to generate income, they can not have problems with the printers that TSR had.
How they do it, if they do it, determines the life of the company. Clearly designers involved believe 5th is better, however in the end it depends on the consumers.
Is it better will depend on how many people agree.
Third Edition threw me a few insults as the classes.
Forth Edition added to that insult with more offending classes and remapping the Realms as well.
The jury is out for me on Fifth Edition, however it promises to keep many things of Third and Forth.
Maybe the new market will replace me to the company profit. This is something that only time will show. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 20:53:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I gotta disagree with you Apex. The 3.5 system was an excellent one for the vast majority of DnD's fan base, old and new. Pathfinder proves that - it was a relatively rare few who, over 3.5's lifespan, refused to upgrade from 2nd ed.
As much as I see the mechanical flaws and terrible imbalance of 3.5 and Pathfinder, I must agree with you. Had 3.5/Pathfinder been as bad as Apex states, it wouldn't be the leader of the market it is factually today. WotC understands this, thus 5E.
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
4th and 5th, in my opinion, are too dumbed down for those who were introduced to and enjoyed 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.
I don't buy it. If by "dumbed down" you mean a it requires significantly less in System Mastery to make a character who isn't compromised and/or cannot contribute in any meaningful way, then yes and I feel that's a good thing. Maybe you can elaborate on what, specifically, makes 4E or 5E dumbed down for you?
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I'll purchase 5th ed content, just like I did 4th ed content, but I'll be converting the crunchy bits to Pathfinder rules. I know plenty of people who disagree with me and prefer the simpler rulesets of 4th & 5th, but I know lots more who agree with me.
Really depends on what they're agreeing with you about. Simplicity, as far as I've seen, wasn't really one of them. From my perspective the fan base split far before the actual 4E rules were even released to the public eye. WotC did itself NO favors by creating the videos and cartoons which, as some people claimed, were offensive to their play-style or edition. Then WotC pulled Dragon and Dungeon magazines from Paizo, another nail in the proverbial coffin of 4E. THEN they create a terrible GSL which practically sent MOST 3PP running away and continuing to published products based on the 3.5 SRD. All of these poor legal and marketing decisions put a bad taste in people's mouths, which then made a lot of people support Paizo over WotC even without seeing the rules.
Now I do believe that a significant amount had purchased the rules and found them to be less than what they want (for whatever reason). And they dropped the game after initially playing it. They felt the CORE rules were too restrictive or didn't promote role play (which I still have no idea what that means) or "felt" too much like a MMO (again, no idea what that even means) or was based too strongly on Grid-play. All fair, if ambiguous, criticisms which I accept. But the point is that 4E probably could have had a better chance IF they supported 3PP, left Paizo to contribute with Dragon and Dungeon. If Paizo saw a more open GSL and felt free to publish what they wanted, Pathfinder might have been a 4E product. Instead they went another route.
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
The big issue with 4th, and I don't want to start another 4e Realms = evil discussion here, was that WotC insulted the older players, pandered to the low brow to get new customers, ignored the pleas of the Realms designers and damaged the Realms itself.
I agree that the Realms could've been handled better. Even though I approve of 95% of the decisions they made, I accept that my feelings aren't that of the majorities. They could've lessened the Time Jump. They could've handled Halruaa better. They could've introduced Dragonborn and Eladrin in a more elegant way. They could've used other continents to swap out with Abeir instead of Realms-Mexico and Egypt. All of this would've probably been better than what they got. They should've listened to the Realms authors more, of that I totally agree. Again, however, I don't see the whole low-brow thing. What, exactly, do you feel was low-brow?
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Now it looks like WotC're trying to fix the problems they caused by giving power back to the designers & authors but I've spotted several potential mistakes already in the stuff they've released so far so I'm reserving judgement until I get my hands on a couple of books.
During the playtest run, I've only encountered a few questionable mechanical problems with spells overlapping and stacking with effects to become potential problems. But those are easily handled. Other than those few elements, I haven't seen anything that's grossly "broken" or so deviated from what D&D normally puts out that it appears to be fine by most regards.
What I find great about D&D:Next is that it's scope is scaled down. Thank god I'm not looking at ACs of monsters in the 30's, 40's, 50's. I'm happy I don't see players with Attack modifiers that are +33 to hit with 145 DPR. The numbers-porn that exploded with 3E and continued with 4E served practically nothing except to inflate how great Level is supposed to be. The math was seriously wonky in both of those editions that it made little sense. |
Edited by - Diffan on 30 May 2014 20:55:13 |
|
|
|
neuronphaser
Acolyte
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 23:59:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I think both of you are missing a key factor. WotC needs to generate income, they can not have problems with the printers that TSR had.
Wizards is generating income currently, and has been before 4e got (more or less) officially dropped thanks to:
*DDI - subscriptions are still ongoing, and, in fact, seem to be here to stay even after 5e launches, at least for a while. DUNGEON and DRAGON only recently went on hiatus (relatively speaking, at least).
*D&D Next Playtest - the playtest itself wasn't monetized, but there's now 3 or 4 adventures with complete playtest rules on Drive Thru/RPG Now/D&D Classics that are about $18 and are top-sellers (not ranking high at the moment, but still in the mix).
*Previous edition re-releases/reprints, which seem to be ranked fairly well on Amazon, and tend to sell out at my FLGS pretty quickly.
*And the biggest of all: D&D Classics. That site has a steady release of classic products that are clearly selling. And there are a LOT of them.
I think Wizards is doing quite well for themselves, regardless of 5e's release. 5e's release, if it's like any other edition of D&D, will sell just fine, at least for the first couple of months. Only then will there be even a question as to the life of that edition, but that by no means calls into question the other sources of profit that Wizards (specifically related to D&D) has. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 01:11:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by neuronphaser
Your operating under a lot of assumptions colored by your conclusion regarding your personal tastes (that edition XYZ is not for you). But the most flawed one is "as a matter of fact had 3.5 been so great for sales we wouldn't have seen 4th" because, comparing to any and every other RPG company, both 3.5 and 4 were both massive successes. That they weren't tenable for Wizards of the Coast specifically doesn't really say much, and that Wizards has chosen a pretty specific publishing schedule of editions doesn't really speak to the success of the game lines, in reality.
D&D makes money, period. It's not a vanity publishing house that Wizards is running, and their reactions to the market -- however poorly handled we may feel they are -- have generally been fairly sound, given the realities of said market. 3.5 was a response to the d20 glut and changing leadership; 4 was a response to the OSR and a fractured market (which fractured it further, but still released an innovative system that is loved by a significant customer base); and 5 is clearly a different response to the fractured market, as well as a considerable move towards making the game easier to dive into.
All of these versions have their flaws (and advantages), but none of them suggest actually suggest with any finality that they were done simply because the edition before it failed in some universally applicable way.
I think you are missing my point entirely. This isn't meant to be an edition wars thread. It is a fact that many people still play 1st/2nd, just as many still play 3.5 etc. The point of this was to say that 5th will likely be the last because WoTC finally recognized and admitted that it splintered its customer base and has been losing sales for year (not necessarily losing money, but losing potential sales).
Everything WoTC has done lately: the attempt to make 5th backwards compatible, the release of the old pdfs on dndclassics, the great selling reprint editions, etc has been an attempt to rectify the now recognized problem they had in alienating a large part of their base (and a part that had a lot of disposable income). They finally realized that there is nothing inherently "better" or "necessary" about a new edition of a table top role playing game and thus no compelling reason for anyone to switch editions outside personal preference.
What 5th edition is designed to do is enable them to sell their back catalog to new gamers with minimal conversion (ie as I stated, something that could have been done by never leaving 2nd ed back in the 90s). I am not trying to state the 2nd was the best (we each have our own equally valid opinions on editions), just that they made a mistake in creating several editions of the game that were so far removed from AD&D that they lost easy backwards compatibility and lost many customers and lost potential sales of the back catalog to the new customers. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 01:56:01
|
There will be no final edition of D&D until the IP holder (be it WotC or some future company) either folds or decides it is no longer worth publishing. 5E could be the best possible itineration of the rules (hypothetically), and we'd still see 6E in 5 or 10 years.
I'm not saying this is good or bad. WotC is a company, and companies exist to make money. Unless something radically shakes up the gaming model, the most money is going to be in new rulesets. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 02:31:00
|
| So essentially arithmetic is your reason why 4E is good. And you're questioning the depths of the people who replied above you? Wow! Take out your old 1E grey box, take out the map, look at it, set it next to whatever "map" was in the 4E FRCS and weep. You don't need to even be familiar with 1st edition ANYTHING to feel that loss. |
Edited by - Cards77 on 31 May 2014 02:33:50 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 05:00:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
So essentially arithmetic is your reason why 4E is good. And you're questioning the depths of the people who replied above you? Wow! Take out your old 1E grey box, take out the map, look at it, set it next to whatever "map" was in the 4E FRCS and weep. You don't need to even be familiar with 1st edition ANYTHING to feel that loss.
While one feels loss, I see less clutter. Not that the map is bad or anything, I just don't feel the need to weep when I compare that to the one in the FRCG. To each there own, I guess. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 07:53:19
|
Third Edition brought Dungeons & Dragons back to life.
And with it, the Realms.
Without 3E, D&D would not exist today. Period. Full stop.
3E not only brought new gamers into the fold, but carried a substantial number of older gamers from 2E into the (new at the time) 3rd Edition.
The influence of Hasbro (putting bean counting over substance) in the wake of the successful relaunch of the D&D brand, and the loss of thought-leaders and many of the personnel who breathed life into 3E (like Monte Cook and Sean K Reynold) did 3E in and rushed the creation of 3.5, which was not needed at the time.
All due respect to the creative staff at WotC then and now, but WotC quickly turned from a company interested in creating high quality product that could earn lots of money into a company that wanted profit above all else, and decided that breaking down D&D and rebuilding it into a money making machine was the way to go.
Yes, 3.5 was always something that was planned for, but it came to soon. And thus did 4E.
It's at this point that I start to agree with Apex: WotC messed things up and it's hard to put together what's been torn apart.
I don't think this is the end of D&D or the Realms. If or when WotC/Hasbro decide they can't make a substantial profit off of D&D, they will either sell it for a grand lump sum or license it.
FYI, the 5E Realms isn't even out yet. It's simply too early to judge something you haven't seen yet. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 31 May 2014 07:56:50 |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 12:43:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Without 3E, D&D would not exist today. Period. Full stop.
I don't think this is the end of D&D or the Realms. If or when WotC/Hasbro decide they can't make a substantial profit off of D&D, they will either sell it for a grand lump sum or license it.
FYI, the 5E Realms isn't even out yet. It's simply too early to judge something you haven't seen yet.
The first sentence is pure speculation. D&D would likely have continued to exist to this day (perhaps as a smaller company, perhaps not) without 3rd. What is true is that without 3rd edition, WoTC couldn't have justified their purchase financially.
Again, I am not arguing that D&D is going anywhere, just that this may be the last edition we see unless there is a sudden unexpected resurgence of tabletop gaming. 5th is essentially designed to allow WoTC to sell their back catalog and digital stuff to everyone, which is where the real profits likely are. Making a new edition costs money and the return is not guaranteed.
As for the Realms, I am not judging, but being the last edition isn't necessarily a bad thing. There is no reason we have to have new editions in the first place, as this isn't a computer game after all. The Realms doesn't really need RSE's every few years of Realms time.
Last time I checked, Hasbro doesn't break out D&D sales/profit numbers, so no one really knows how profitable 3rd/3.5/4th/etc were or 5th will be. What I do know is that the reduction in FLGS's and general bookstores has to have hurt sales and new player recruiting and as I stated upthread, relying on word of mouth alone means all editions are going to get promoted.
As a final note, while I won't likely buy 5th ed Realms stuff (it is simply going to be too far removed in time from my typical 1340s-1350s campaign to have any relevance), I could see myself getting a DDI subscription if they consistently publish adventures for 1st/2nd edition (ie easily compatible 5th ed things that have a nostalgic design to them). |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 15:43:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
I am glad you liked 3.5, but the rest of your argument lacks any data and as a matter of fact had 3.5 been so great for sales we wouldn't have seen 4th.
By that logic 2e was an even greater failure, since we not only saw 3.x, but saw it from a new company after TSR went bankrupt with 2e
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
The issue is that WoTC have in fact splintered the customer base,
Only really starting with 4e, before that it was neglible as the sizes of the sold print runs of 3.x show. The part of the fanbase not staying with 2e and older was very small
quote:
Originally posted by neuronphaser
DUNGEON and DRAGON only recently went on hiatus (relatively speaking, at least).
Which essentially means they are currently paid money for nothing. Genius move from WotC |
Edited by - Mirtek on 31 May 2014 15:44:29 |
|
|
|
Aytros
Acolyte
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2014 : 20:08:10
|
Personally I think the biggest draw so far to 5th, and what is going to draw more players, is WotC's Adveturer's League tehy started advertising. IT looks like they are taking a page from Pathfinder's Pathfinder Society.
It just looks to be a more interactive way to Adventure in the Realms and "officially" join one of the iconic power groups |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2014 : 21:03:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aytros
Personally I think the biggest draw so far to 5th, and what is going to draw more players, is WotC's Adveturer's League tehy started advertising. IT looks like they are taking a page from Pathfinder's Pathfinder Society.
It just looks to be a more interactive way to Adventure in the Realms and "officially" join one of the iconic power groups
I agree. One of the biggest reasons Paizo is doing so well is that their adventure paths are just so well written and because it's such an active community. D&D, during 4E's run, attempt to keep things alive with Encounters and Living Forgotten Realms but they pretty much dropped ALL support of the latter and only minimally pushed the former. If they want to keep 5E around for a long while, creating solid adventure paths with a slow roll out of mechanical material (that's actually tested and weighed against the stuff already out there) is crucial to keeping the edition going longer than a couple of years. |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2014 : 21:51:32
|
| well regardless, the only main thing I want to see in 5e realms is taht the core lore; if it's a core setting, that it's not implemented into the realms like it was in 4e, which to me was one of its mistakes..... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Mirtek
Senior Scribe
595 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jun 2014 : 22:16:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aytros
Personally I think the biggest draw so far to 5th, and what is going to draw more players, is WotC's Adveturer's League tehy started advertising. IT looks like they are taking a page from Pathfinder's Pathfinder Society.
Actually WotC did it first in Living Greyhawk (from where Pathfinder Society borrowed the concept) and then failed to properly do it in Living Forgotten Realms.
Now they're going back to the roots with the Adventurer's League |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 03:07:22
|
My simple and without any real info or data to back it up view is that D&D is less successful now than it was in 1E and 2E days. I've noted an acceleration of the cycle in terms of spawning new editions, which to me seems to indicate that interest is on the wane and has needed a series of "boosts" in the last decade to prop up sales and try and generate fan interest and excitement.
It's a model that IMO is unsustainable as you likely lose a segment of your core market with every edition change and the fact that the OGL for 3.XE still exists means that companies like Paizo can ignore the edition changes and continue to churn out products. I said it before and I'll say it again: there was nothing wrong with the 4E changes to the Realms save and except for how they were implemented. That bad execution was exacerbated by the adoption of a model whereby there were no follow up products to continue to generate fan excitement in the brand for too long a time. By the time "Neverwinter" and other stuff came along, the ship had sailed for the Nelanther. If the 4E Campaign Guide had been written by Ed Greenwood and Eric Boyd in mouse font, and then a further four sourcebooks a year - every year - provided to flesh out the new landscape, I think the fans would have enjoyed the ride and gone along with it.
Let's see what will happen with 5E (which I'm sure is already mapped out and planned). If they go with the 2 books and an adventure model again, well, they need their heads read.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
Edited by - George Krashos on 03 Jun 2014 03:09:07 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 05:12:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
That bad execution was exacerbated by the adoption of a model whereby there were no follow up products to continue to generate fan excitement in the brand for too long a time. By the time "Neverwinter" and other stuff came along, the ship had sailed for the Nelanther. If the 4E Campaign Guide had been written by Ed Greenwood and Eric Boyd in mouse font, and then a further four sourcebooks a year - every year - provided to flesh out the new landscape, I think the fans would have enjoyed the ride and gone along with it.
Bingo. There was, for the most part, so very little actually written by design on the Realms after 4E debuted that it really didn't showcase the potential there was. Instead, we got a sourcebook or two, some DDI articles, and moved on to the next Setting. A shame really because Akanûl and Tymanther could have really been a LOT of fun had they seen more development.
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Let's see what will happen with 5E (which I'm sure is already mapped out and planned). If they go with the 2 books and an adventure model again, well, they need their heads read.
-- George Krashos
When 4E was first announced I had advocated pretty vocally on the WotC forums for them (the designers) to take their time and churn out quality products. Extend it's life-cycle by not rushing every single supplement there was and fill the gaps with things like Adventure Paths and setting info. Sadly they held onto the model you describe and it appears that we're into another phase. Lets hope they actually take time and think about the game and each supplement's impact on the overall scale before it hits the printers. |
Edited by - Diffan on 03 Jun 2014 06:03:53 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11823 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 07:40:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Third Edition brought Dungeons & Dragons back to life.
And with it, the Realms.
Without 3E, D&D would not exist today. Period. Full stop.
3E not only brought new gamers into the fold, but carried a substantial number of older gamers from 2E into the (new at the time) 3rd Edition.
The influence of Hasbro (putting bean counting over substance) in the wake of the successful relaunch of the D&D brand, and the loss of thought-leaders and many of the personnel who breathed life into 3E (like Monte Cook and Sean K Reynold) did 3E in and rushed the creation of 3.5, which was not needed at the time.
All due respect to the creative staff at WotC then and now, but WotC quickly turned from a company interested in creating high quality product that could earn lots of money into a company that wanted profit above all else, and decided that breaking down D&D and rebuilding it into a money making machine was the way to go.
Yes, 3.5 was always something that was planned for, but it came to soon. And thus did 4E.
It's at this point that I start to agree with Apex: WotC messed things up and it's hard to put together what's been torn apart.
I don't think this is the end of D&D or the Realms. If or when WotC/Hasbro decide they can't make a substantial profit off of D&D, they will either sell it for a grand lump sum or license it.
FYI, the 5E Realms isn't even out yet. It's simply too early to judge something you haven't seen yet.
Just going to say that 3.5 was needed when it came out. There were some pretty huge flaws in multi-classing that were encouraging the single dip in many classes. The simple move to put the good abilities at 2nd lvl was both a valid and necessary move. This showed that the designers for 3.0 had a good base idea, but not enough time spent tinkering.
What happened next was a rush to get ideas to market for new "base classes", which was again an admirable effort, but as the fan base looked over the options they saw the issues. Over time some of these things got improved (for instance, Pathfinder's version of the sorcerer is more viable.... the newer version of the binder for PF is more viable... etc...). Some of them didn't (that I know of)... for instance, the base truenamer rules needed rework from ground up, and the shadowcaster premise also wasn't thought through well. I think part of the problem was they felt they needed to come up with multiple "classes" for each book and didn't care if only one of the three worked (for instance, with incarnum users... the base idea and mechanics behind totemists was interesting and deserved some development.... the other two classes, which oddly were the focus, felt like just ways to throw together abilities).
I see the same thing happening with PF stuff. Pretty much most of the base classes they came out with look like they are needing rework of some sort (which they may be doing, haven't bought anything lately). For instance, their witch idea is interesting, but I don't know anyone personally who would play one. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11823 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 07:44:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
My simple and without any real info or data to back it up view is that D&D is less successful now than it was in 1E and 2E days. I've noted an acceleration of the cycle in terms of spawning new editions, which to me seems to indicate that interest is on the wane and has needed a series of "boosts" in the last decade to prop up sales and try and generate fan interest and excitement.
It's a model that IMO is unsustainable as you likely lose a segment of your core market with every edition change and the fact that the OGL for 3.XE still exists means that companies like Paizo can ignore the edition changes and continue to churn out products. I said it before and I'll say it again: there was nothing wrong with the 4E changes to the Realms save and except for how they were implemented. That bad execution was exacerbated by the adoption of a model whereby there were no follow up products to continue to generate fan excitement in the brand for too long a time. By the time "Neverwinter" and other stuff came along, the ship had sailed for the Nelanther. If the 4E Campaign Guide had been written by Ed Greenwood and Eric Boyd in mouse font, and then a further four sourcebooks a year - every year - provided to flesh out the new landscape, I think the fans would have enjoyed the ride and gone along with it.
Let's see what will happen with 5E (which I'm sure is already mapped out and planned). If they go with the 2 books and an adventure model again, well, they need their heads read.
-- George Krashos
And partly, I feel like the people made changes because they simply couldn't keep up with all the changes down the years (hell, I have the same problem), so it was decided "let's swap things out that way WE know what's going on". That however didn't go over well with the fanbase who then saw them treating their favorite world as nothing more than some playground to vet new ideas. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 14:20:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
My simple and without any real info or data to back it up view is that D&D is less successful now than it was in 1E and 2E days. I've noted an acceleration of the cycle in terms of spawning new editions, which to me seems to indicate that interest is on the wane and has needed a series of "boosts" in the last decade to prop up sales and try and generate fan interest and excitement.
-- George Krashos
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 18:14:52
|
| Swords high, gloomthoughts! I think fifth-edition D&D may be very good news for the Realms. By turning back from the rules-for-rules'-sake tendencies of the last fifteen years and taking focus off the mechanics per se, it looks to be a lot closer to Ed's idea of the role of game rules in play. As a simpler, faster game, but shorn of a lot of 2E's Gygaxian heirlooms -- which I love in their own right -- and with the flattened power differentials, which echo human-scale sword and sorcery rather tan fantasy superheroics, it stands a good chance of being a great fit with the Realms. And there are signs that the product line will shift somewhat from rules supplements to content -- adventures and, perhaps, sourcebooks. |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 20:04:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36803 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 20:22:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line.
My assumption is that the release of 4E was less about preventing the demise of the IP, and more about just bumping up profits. I think 3.5 could have gone on a lot longer, but someone further up the food chain demanded more money NOW, and 4E was the result. I have nothing concrete I can point to, in support of this; it is just the impression I got from the way 4E was hyped by the designers (while bashing prior editions), the way the rules were changed, and the fact that Paizo has quite readily proven the lifespan of the ruleset. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4438 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 21:25:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Mapolq
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
From a pop culture and saturation standpoint that is definitely true with no room for debate. By the end of 2nd edition D&D had already effectively become a niche product of which the move to 3/3.5/4/5 has only exacerbated. As we have seen, with no reason to "upgrade" editions like there is in video games, the customer base splinters. There is a huge 1st/2nd edition community (much larger than some here want to admit) and there is now a huge 3.5 community (Pathfinder et al) as well.
Someone with better market knowledge than me can probably clarify this, but it doesn't seem to make any sense that WotC, and in fact all major RPG producers (White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games...) have always kept launching new rulesets if there was no reason for it. My first assumption is that their sales, in most or all these cases, were falling to the point the line would cease to be profitable, and the alternative to a new ruleset would be to discontinue the line.
My assumption is that the release of 4E was less about preventing the demise of the IP, and more about just bumping up profits. I think 3.5 could have gone on a lot longer, but someone further up the food chain demanded more money NOW, and 4E was the result. I have nothing concrete I can point to, in support of this; it is just the impression I got from the way 4E was hyped by the designers (while bashing prior editions), the way the rules were changed, and the fact that Paizo has quite readily proven the lifespan of the ruleset.
Eh, Paizo has proven that another company can created yet another revision of the OGL and get away with not being called a "cash grab". I think 3.5 was nearing the end because the amount of splats hit a huge saturation point. The designers at the time probably had a decision to make: stick with the OGL and alter the game slightly and in ways that somewhat make it similar yet just enough that people will have to switch and re-buy ALL the products over again OR make another game that has ties to previous editions but changes a lot of assumptions on how the game plays. I feel had they of created a 3.75 say that looks similar to Star Wars: Saga AND had done everything else that they did with 4E (bashing previous editions, pulling D&D Mags from Paizo, limiting the game to the original GSL 4E started with, we'd probably be in the same boat right now.
A huge complaint that people had with WotC is that they felt they were too greedy. Creating 3rd Edition in 2000 and then revising it in nearly the same way Paizo did in 2003, it put a sour taste in a LOT of people's mouths and they were pretty vocal about the revision if my memory serves me. I feel the same exact thing would've happened again regarding the system. A small overhaul wouldn't have gone over well but I think people's hindsight is "well, I would've accepted a small revision to 4E". But we'll never truly know. |
|
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 21:26:07
|
| Well... companies work in odd ways, I figure. What's profit enough for Paizo might be grounds for termination of the line for Hasbro. And that doesn't necessarily mean Hasbro was too greedy (i.e. stupid), but if they could not satisfy certain profit margins, which depend on several factors we're mostly blind to, they could not argue for sustaining the product. Of course, there's also the possibility that Hasbro was stupid and ditched a product line with acceptable profits for a ghost of a potential gold mine. But what I was saying in general is that saying there's no reason to continually release new ruleset pretty much amounts to saying everyone in the business until this decade at least has been utterly mistaken in their practices. Which is possible, I guess, but it's quite a big claim. |
Never sleep under the jackfruit tree.
Tales of Moonsea - A Neverwinter Nights 2 Persistent World. Check out our website at http://www.talesofmoonsea.com and our video trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am304WqOAAo&feature=youtu.be, as well as our thread here at Candlekeep: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12955
My campaign thread: http://www.forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16447 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6361 Posts |
|
|
Mapolq
Senior Scribe
Brazil
466 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
The "new" FR and 5th Edition
