 |
 |
 |
|
Latest Reviews| Basari |  | | Reviewed by: Marc Shayed |
| Aten |  | | Reviewed by: Butch Curry |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GamingReport Forums
You are not logged in | | |
|
|
|
ReginiG
New User   Posts: 1 Registered: 8/13/2003 Status: Offline
|
 posted on 8/13/2003 at 04:26 PM |
Dear Mr. Dancey,
first of all, I’m Italian, therefore I hope that you will understand my very poor english and that you will forgive in advance my inevitable error of grammar and sintax.
I have discovered this forum following a link from an Italian newsgroup dedicated to roleplaying games. I have read all of your posts with increasing interest. It’s an enlightening experience. You give me the opportunity to have a more mature insight to the game industry and to understand the strategic motivations that lead WotC’s policy about D&D.; Well, I must admit that I was not a great fan of the 3rd edition. But facing your reasoning I’ve had to exceed many of my prejudice.
I would have a lot of answers to ask you, but I will try to concentrate my attention on three questions, proceeding in order of importance.
1) In one of yours posts, speaking of d20’s and OGL’s stuff, you have declared that the production of adventure’s modules and world’s handbooks is a “dead end business”. Your consideration sounds strange to me, especially considering the definitive tone of your position. If I have understood, from your point of view WotC would do a good choice disengaging itself from the production of this kind of material and focusing its attention only on consolidated lines like the FR. This consideration goes against my “player’s common sense” and my subjective experience as DM. In fact, I have always found this type of products particularly useful in my DM’s career. My group has acquired a lot of adventure’s module and world’s handbook, following the feedback of the player’s network to avoid *crappy* products. Moreover, I have always thought that this kind of expansions were fundamental to support an RPG’s longevity. For example, I’m thinking about the commercial success of Monte Cook’s “Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil”. RtToEE is a very high quality module for its own purposes (i.e. hack ‘n slash). A lot of groups are playing this adventure. I’m inclined to believe that this success is a confirmation of my subjective impressions: is not in WotC’s interest if a lot of products of this level reach the market? If not, can you explain me the motivations of your position?
2) Do you know the reasons why WotC does not create a line of products targeted to attract new players between twelve and sixteen years in the world of role playing games? From my point of view, the greater obstacle for a boy who wishes to begin playing D&D; is the lack of a starter kit worthy of this name. The Player’s Handbook, in fact, is too long and complicated for an absolute newbie and the game itself requires too much time to start a satisfactory session. It would be possible to realize a starter kit plenty of maps, portraits and miniatures using the OGL?
3) What is WotC’s consideration of the Italian market and of the European market in general?
I thank you in advance for the attention that you will dedicate me. I take the opportunity to express my (very late) regret for your separation from WotC. Your active presence would have constituted a guarantee for the future of the role playing game industry.
Bye,
Giovanni Regini.
|
| |
ryand
|
posted on 8/14/2003 at 06:48 PM |
quote:
first of all, I’m Italian, therefore I hope that you will understand my very poor english
Your English is excellent!
quote:
1) In one of yours posts, speaking of d20’s and OGL’s stuff, you have declared that the production of adventure’s modules and world’s handbooks is a “dead end business”.
[...edit...]
Can you explain me the motivations of your position?
Wizards of the Coast has a unique position in the RPG market. They make more profit from the core books than they do from everything else they publish combined. Each additional PHB, DMG or Monster Manual sold makes more profit than the previous unit sold due to economies of scale.
As a business, WotC should be focused on making as much profit on each dollar it spends, over the longest period of time possible.
My argument is that WotC's business should be focused towards increasing the sales of those core books. To increase those sales, WotC can do two things:
1) It can convince all-new players to pick up D&D; as a hobby
2) It can convince people playing a previous version of D&D; to upgrade to the current version
WotC has chosen, at least in the short term, to focus on #2. There are apparently plans in the works to do more about #1 in the future, but until they make some public comments, I'm limited as to what I can say about those efforts.
Make no mistake - a lot of the other products Wizards produces are profitable. The FR line in particular does quite well, as do products like "The Book of Vile Darkness" and the monster books. On the other hand, scenarios don't make as much profit per dollar of resource invested as most of the other things WotC produces. Allocating dollars to those projects generates a return smaller than the return that WotC could achieve by doing other products.
History tells us that over time, the size of the campaign setting market will decline. The number of people who will buy each new setting will be fewer than the number of people who bought the previous setting. And the products in each line will sell progressively fewer and fewer units as the number of different items WotC products grows. This effect is what killed TSR in the first place.
Prior to the era of the OGL/d20, it was important that the D&D; game have D&D; adventures and campaign settings, and that those adventures and campaign settings were regularly published. Now however there's more than enough adventure content available. WotC doesn't have to make adventures and campaign settings to promote the game, because the whole industry is doing so on their behalf.
What I would like to see WotC do is redirect a lot of the funding they're currently putting towards campaign settings and other "non-core" books and spend those dollars on R&D; for projects designed to bring an ever increasing number of new players into the hobby. However, by doing so, WotC would have to make a strategic decision to move away from a comfortable, safe business model it understands, and take on a big challenge with lots of uncertainty (even if the payoff was quite large).
There's also a big political issue - core D&D; books and products designed to introduce people to D&D; don't sell novels. And the novel and RPG groups are now combined under one department, the "Publishing" department, which has strong ties to the novel business. A lot of the emphasis on the new campaign setting is being driven by the novel business' need for new content. Dragonlance and the Realms are being tapped out of new content and new readers, and to survive, the novel business needs new worlds to explore.
quote:
2) Do you know the reasons why WotC does not create a line of products targeted to attract new players between twelve and sixteen years in the world of role playing games?
That's the right age to target. But there is a lot of work that needs to be done before such products can be successfully marketed.
A lot of people wonder why WotC can't just make a version of the old "Red Box" D&D; game. The problem is that those rules and that product were targeted for and at a population that grew up under very different circumstances than the current crop of 12-16 year olds. The "Red Box" product would go over like a lead balloon in today's market.
To be successful, WotC has to innovate graphically, and in the presentation of the rules, and even in the "core story" of D&D.; That means lots of hard work doing conceptual design, market research, testing of rules with real players, marketing and sales development to get the product sold where those kids shop, etc.
Unfortunately, that stuff isn't as "cool" as a more mature line aimed at college age kids (which is what most of D&D; targets). The designer's peers aren't going to give them a lot of positive reinforcement for making a product for 12 year olds. It's tough to go from dealing with super complex rules systems and epic themes of culture, religion, the nature of spirit and the cosmos, etc. and instead focus on making it dirt-simple easy to understand how armor class works, and why you roll a d20 to hit.
The other big issue is that such products don't show a lot of profit. They're expensive to make and they sell for a relatively low price. The current D&D; Adventure Game sells for $10.
That makes it hard (read: impossible) for a 3rd party to do much of this work. WotC has the advantage in that they can subsidize the entry level products by making the profit back on increased sales of those high-margin core books. But making that case to the accountants requires patience and a coherent argument based on real data.
quote:
3) What is WotC’s consideration of the Italian market and of the European market in general?
I have two answers.
First: WotC currently has very little impact on, or ability to influence any international market. In 2001, Hasbro made an executive decision to turn over all non-US sales of all Hasbro divisions to a special "International" division. As a result, the US based business team at WotC gets no revenue or profit from international sales of the products it makes. And in the business world, that means that in general, those international markets don't exist to the business team.
Second: When I left WotC I left behind a 5 year strategy document that theorized that the market for D&D; products in Europe could be grown to equal or exceed the size of the market for D&D; products in the US.
Games Workshop, for example, sells only 1/3rd of its products in the US. 1/3 is sold in the UK alone, and 1/3 is sold in the Eurozone.
I believe that if the international business could be restored to the core business team, and if that team was given the resources to develop and deploy a market-based sales strategy in Europe, the results would be a doubling of the total size of the D&D; business within 5 years.
Currently, that does not appear to be an objective that is acheivable given Hasbro's current internal structure and politics.
Thanks for writing!
Ryan
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/15/2003 at 07:41 AM |
Mythusmage Chiming In Here
There is one thing a person could do, design a D20 fantasy game for young adolescents using the revised SRD. For it to be a full game you wouldn't be able to use the d20 logo, but you can let folks know it uses the SRD.
Or you could go out on a limb and ask for permission from Wizards. Do up a proposal and send it in. You take the risks and they get the licensing fees. Get in touch with the folks at [link=http://www.kenzerco.com]KenzerCo[/link] and ask them how they did it for Kingdoms of Kalamar
Alan "I'm Not Going to Register for These Forums Cuz the Last Time I Tried Things Went Horribly Wrong" Kellogg
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/15/2003 at 08:19 AM |
Mythusmage Back Again:
To Address One of Ryan's Points
quote:
There's also a big political issue - core D&D; books and products designed to introduce people to D&D; don't sell novels. And the novel and RPG groups are now combined under one department, the "Publishing" department, which has strong ties to the novel business. A lot of the emphasis on the new campaign setting is being driven by the novel business' need for new content. Dragonlance and the Realms are being tapped out of new content and new readers, and to survive, the novel business needs new worlds to explore.
Ryan
It would help if D&D; had a setting. The ipso facto setting is Forgotten Realms, but that has been largely played out. The de facto setting is Greyhawk but nothing is being done with that world outside of the RPGA. On the other hand, Eberron by Keith Baker is an attempt to do something strange and new, and so is not a good candidate for the official D&D; setting.
What Wizards needs to do is come up with a new fantasy setting, and incorporate that setting into the Core Books. Not 'default setting' material, but official setting material, and support the setting with addenda and similar works. The setting would also be used for introductory material to bring new players into the game.
Hell, with 11,000+ proposals sent in for the setting search, surely there's something there they could use.
A fresh start without all the baggage Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms have accumulated over the years, integrated into the core books as many other RPGs do to serve as a 'jumpstart' to play.
Of course the world would have to be painted in broadstrokes, the better to allow 'customization' by the players. With generic classes and races for much the same purpose. For those who like world specific stuff Wizards and other publishers (under a special license) could produce optional works providing tools for 'accessorising' the world.
This, of course, would require a substantial change in corporate and game design philosophy at Wizards to carry off.
But that last is a subject for another time.
Alan
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/16/2003 at 04:05 PM |
quote:
...Get in touch with the folks at KenzerCo and ask them how they did it for Kingdoms of Kalamar
Yeah, are there any other properties WotC "stole" when they published the Dragon CD-ROM? We could talk to them... Did Larry Elmore really authorize SnarfQuest? 
Kevin Denehy
|
| |
Tashiro
New User  Posts: 3 Registered: 6/25/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 8/19/2003 at 04:53 AM |
quote:
Mythusmage Back Again:
To Address One of Ryan's Points
What Wizards needs to do is come up with a new fantasy setting, and incorporate that setting into the Core Books. Not 'default setting' material, but official setting material, and support the setting with addenda and similar works. The setting would also be used for introductory material to bring new players into the game.
Of course the world would have to be painted in broadstrokes, the better to allow 'customization' by the players. With generic classes and races for much the same purpose. For those who like world specific stuff Wizards and other publishers (under a special license) could produce optional works providing tools for 'accessorising' the world.
Alan
You know, they did this with the old D&D; boxed sets, and I loved those. I see nothing wrong with the concept, using the base classes, basic ideas, and such, and it would do well than using an 'official' setting beyond the generic setting for the core books.
Then, if they want more, they could do the Gazeteer stuff like they did before.
|
| |
ryand
|
posted on 8/19/2003 at 11:34 PM |
quote:
Mythusmage Back Again:
It would help if D&D; had a setting.
D&D; has a setting. It's "D&D;". It's a fantasy world with gods, monsters, and magic that comes from a common shared base.
In the "world of D&D;", heroes are constantly being approached by mysterious strangers, following lost maps to ancient ruins, exploring them, overcoming challenges and emerging triumphantly with gobs of treasure and cool stuff.
You can't sell someone a "D&D; fantasy world" like Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance until after you've sold them on the "D&D; concept" in the first place.
Adding more story and world content to the core books would make them less useful without any payoff in terms of increased sales or number of players.
Ryan
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/20/2003 at 10:25 AM |
Trouble is, it's an assumed setting. Nothing overt. Nothing, really, you can get your mind around. By de-emphasizing setting Wizards makes it easier to treat D&D; as a game, as people think of games.
I must also disagree where potential sales are concerned. The problem lies not in any included setting, but in how that setting is presented. The World of Darkness series has a strongly presented setting, and still has good sales. You get right down to it, White Wolf presents a world. A dark, corrupt, corrupting world, but a world. Wizards presents game boards.
D&D; could be so much more than what WotC has given us so far. A guide to adventure, intrigue, mystery, and the occasional bout of outrageous silliness. But not as long as it's treated like the country cousin to a video game.
Alan
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/20/2003 at 05:43 PM |
"D&D; could be so much more than what WotC has given us so far. "
That depends on what you consider to be "more". Some would consider being handcuffed to a generic setting would lessen D&D;'s usefulness to them. Many people complain about the setting-specific assumptions and information that *is* in the books -- magic level, cosmology, fire-and-forget spellcasting, etc.
"But not as long as it's treated like the country cousin to a video game."
I think that this comment is very far off the mark. There is more overt setting information in 3e/3.5 than there is in my 1e core rulebooks. The 3e DMG provides tons of demographic, economic and other setting-specific informaton. The 3.5 DMG even throws in cosmology and the planes (which was in 1e, granted, although in less detail). In fact, there is more information on the various races (personality, lifestyle, sociology, etc.) and classes (role in society and adventuring parties, background, etc.) than can be found in the 1e PHB.
The 1e books are more deficient (but certainly were more than sufficient for the time) in this respect than the 3e core books. I don't think that it is accurate or useful to make the video game comparison.
Cheers
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/20/2003 at 05:46 PM |
Sorry, that was me.
Michael Thibault
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/21/2003 at 04:13 AM |
Provided, but how are they actually used?
Compare Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed sometime with the PHB. It has more 'sense of place'. The races and classes are more 'grounded' than those in D&D.;
A good, solid, well presented setting can add so much to an RPG. A weak one detracts from it. D&D; needs the former, but suffers from the latter. That assesment I make from years of experience. The old Empire of the Petal Throne and Runequest both had strong settings, and so strong followings. D&D; 3e is essentially coasting on the strength of reputation, and the strength is fading. Why else do a revised edition?
In short, in my considered opinion, modern day D&D; seeks to replace a good setting with tricks and toys. A short term solution that requires an ever expanding list of tricks and toys that can only work until the players grow bored of them. Whereas a good, comprehensive, detailed (but not too detailed) setting can and will provide years of enjoyment.
Now, by providing a setting I mean not just a write up of the world, but guidelines on how the PCs fit into that world. What it is that clerics, wizards, and rogues (among others) do in that setting besides adventure. Along with guidelines for the GM and the players on how the world works and on how they can effectively fit in during play.
How many RPGs have you seen that do that?
RPGs are and can be so much more than just a 'game'. The tools are there, all that's needed is the will to use them to their full potential. I'm also convinced such RPGs can be sold to a wide audience, by those ready to put some serious effort into it. But first we need to stop focusing on a section of that audience and expand our horizons to include other elements.
Yes, I'm saying the market for D&D; is too narrowly focused. By widening the market sales can and will improve. But widening the market means extensive revisions to D&D; to include more fully story, theater, and real life in-so-far as they play a role.
This means a long term effort, extensive re-writing of system and setting (what setting there is), and so a commitment some may not feel up to. So if a thorough overturning of the WotC RPG department is necessary, then so be it.
What I am proposing here is a revolution in the truest sense of the term. In revolutions things get upset. So be it. D&D; can be so much more than what it is, and appeal to so many more than what it does, my goal is to see that it becomes what it could be. And with it other RPGs
Alan Kellogg
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 8/21/2003 at 01:23 PM |
You do make some interesting points, I'll give you that. But I'm not sold on the thesis.
Empire of the Petal Throne and Runequest never achieved the same level of success as D&D.; My contention is that this is because they were tied to closely to the setting, not despite the fact. More recent games such as Legend of the 5 Rings, Paranoia or Deadlands use setting to differentiate their brand from D&D.;
"D&D; 3e is essentially coasting on the strength of reputation, and the strength is fading. Why else do a revised edition?"
Because corporate beancounters insist on higher quarterly earnings than independent game companys? We are both just guessing on the exact (and numerous, I'm sure) reasons for a revision. But I don't see any anecdotal evidence, outside of the relatively small communities devoted to OOP D&D;, that the strength of the D&D; reputation is dwindling. I see more young folks browsing the D&D; shelves at my FLGS than I have in 15 years, and the message boards seem to be filled with new and returning players.
"In short, in my considered opinion, modern day D&D; seeks to replace a good setting with tricks and toys."
But, modern day D&D; has *more* setting information in its core books than any previous edition -- and its stand alone setting supplements are more detailed and functional than anything found in OD&D; or 1e. The original Greyhawk boxed set was amazing for its time, but would be very poorly reviewed if it were released today.
I think that you are going to have to be more specific as to why you are assuming that in previous incarnations of the game that there was any setting of substance to replace.
"Whereas a good, comprehensive, detailed (but not too detailed) setting can and will provide years of enjoyment."
Assuming that you find that magical formula for a setting that eeryone enjoys. Sure. I haven't seen it though. Keeping the overt, as opposed to implicit, setting information separate from the core rules gives the best of both worlds. The Forgotten Realms fans buy the same PHB as the Dragonlance fans, and now (finally) they both have their setting supplements.
"RPGs are and can be so much more than just a 'game'. "
Sure. It is a hobby. One that I am very fond of. But I don't think that making it more setting-specific and more "imersive" in that setting will make it more popular. Quite the opposite, IMO. Making it more gamist and less of a lifestyle choice (and making sure people know that) will provide more opportunity for expansion.
Cheers
|
| |
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
posted on 9/1/2003 at 06:13 AM |
WotC is using d20 so they can get more money. Most people I game with has gotten into gaming recently. They own PHB and know the rules. They will play d20 a lot since most of new gaming books are d20. Some are getting bored but don't know what to play since it's hard to find non-d20 games here. Overall, d20 is good but it's open source nature is killing variety and that is what kept so many people into it. Now, it's next to impossible to run a game since people are bored of 20 but don't want to learn a new system since d20 is every where.
|
| |
|
|
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters.
All content unless otherwise noted are © 1999-2003 GamingReport.com. All rights reserved.
|
|
