|
Gerund posted:How are mechanics not content? While it might be a little opaque, the method to get a group of friends together and play an elfgame without deciding to then stab each-other IS the content.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:19 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 21:55 |
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:keeping the 5e thread about 5e is the goal here. There seem to have been a lot of components to these threads so far:
2) 5e wish list: discussion of features that people want or "should" be in Next 3) System analysis/comparison: somewhat of a tie-in with wish lists, where people cite specific examples of "mechanics done right" that Brand X RPG used (or even earlier editions of D&D), which they feel is something Next could use/borrow from 4) Amateur Game Design Hour: in a thread about an RPG that is in development, people end up talking about how to develop RPGs. Go figure. This spans everything from mechanics, to backstory/flavour, to art-style etc. etc. If we want to have parallel threads broken down by the categories I mentioned, I guess we could. It just seemed we were all having a "D&D Next-themed" general game design discussion megathread, for lack of a better term.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:21 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Honestly he does have a point in that a lot of DDI articles bloated the game up to extreme levels because of the editorial adherence that they would have certain feats and mechanics to go along with them. The nature of that statement has nothing to do with denying that the mechanics of RPGs are content, however.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:24 |
|
|
Gerund posted:How are mechanics not content? While it might be a little opaque, the method to get a group of friends together and play an elfgame without deciding to then stab each-other IS the content. You're saying that the game is about getting together and not stabbing each other? If that's your idea of content then I can't really argue that point. Here's my idea of content. Players, as individuals, cannot accomplish great tasks (crits and on the fly brilliant plans being the exception). D&D is about taking players and together, achieving the impossible. Much like Beowulf or Odysseus, the players are embarking on a journey to accomplish something monumental, be it taking down a dragon that's been terrorizing the landscape, stopping an Orc invasion of devastating a village, or saving the world from a heinous Lich plotting on Godhood. Together, your ragtag group of adventurers will stop this from happening. Maybe you're doing it for fame, fortune, glory, or to instead become gods yourselves. When I was young, I was happy to weave these stories myself because, well frankly I had time. Now, with a wife/family and a more than full-time job I find it hard to craft these stories anymore. There's a market for adventures, as Paizo has proved, and WotC isn't taking advantage of it as they could be. Again, all I'm saying is that for the product to be successful and last longer than each previous edition did, they need to have a strategy for content development. EDIT: I see, we're not actually having the discussion I thought we were having. We're just arguing over language at this point. I will concede that mechanics are content. Instead, I will say correct my language and say that D&D is lacking in story based content and suffers from too much mechanics based content, which is what causes their bloat. 2nd EDIT: vvvv Thank you, that's the point I was trying to get across.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:26 |
|
|
Gerund posted:The nature of that statement has nothing to do with denying that the mechanics of RPGs are content, however. Conversely, you're making it sound like mechanics are the only content that matters. He's saying, "Adventures are a type of content" and thus not publishing adventures is "not publishing a type of content." Or, "only publishing mechanics is not publishing ALL types of content." Some people want published adventures instead of having to come up with their own (i.e. only having the publisher print mechanics.) Quit being obtuse.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:29 |
|
|
Korlac posted:Here's my idea of content. Players, as individuals, cannot accomplish great tasks (crits and on the fly brilliant plans being the exception). D&D is about taking players and together, achieving the impossible. Much like Beowulf or Odysseus, the players are embarking on a journey to accomplish something monumental, be it taking down a dragon that's been terrorizing the landscape, stopping an Orc invasion of devastating a village, or saving the world from a heinous Lich plotting on Godhood. Together, your ragtag group of adventurers will stop this from happening. Maybe you're doing it for fame, fortune, glory, or to instead become gods yourselves.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:33 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:There seem to have been a lot of components to these threads so far: I am seriously not trying to ride herd on this, but the last one shot off the rails in a really embarrassing way so I am maybe giving this one a little more TLC, is all. The current discussion? Excellent as far as I am concerned. My other goal, and this is a doozy in some ways, is to create an environment where people who are optimistic about 5E or even like it (should they exist) can post without being reported as a troll for liking the game. That's all. Gerund posted:How are mechanics not content? While it might be a little opaque, the method to get a group of friends together and play an elfgame without deciding to then stab each-other IS the content. I am inclined to agree with you, with the proviso that more than a few publishers have done the pre-built story thing. The oWoD universe comes to mind with their (admittedly gratuitous) metaplot. That said, plenty of publishers have produced rules only books (including WOTC) and those work well. With the MODULAR talk, I am sort of wondering if they are going to try to combine the both of you and serialize rules content. Well, serialize it even more than 3.5 and 4e have.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:38 |
|
|
I feel like a GM, especially a first-time GM, shouldn't be required to come up with an interesting, engaging story on their own. It's not something you (or at least most people) can just do naturally, and I feel like, depending on your background and the GM you effectively "learn" GMing from, you can easily fall into a variety of pitfalls and bad habits. Having a campaign you could run, with extensive sidebars about why the encounters are structured the way they are, which elements of the world and story are important and need fleshing out ahead of time (and which you can safely ignore), suggestions on how to tailor the campaign for your players, that sort of thing, would be really helpful for GMs that otherwise are at a loss for how to run a game that's actually interesting. Like if you took the advice they put in the DMGII, and then distributed it into the appropriate spots in that campaign guide. You could then print further campaign guides, maybe tailored to specific styles of play (here's one that focuses on political intrigue, here's one that has the PCs as soldiers in some war, here's one where the eventual goal is to kill an entire pantheon, etc). The problem with adventure paths is there isn't really advice on how to make one yourself, and you sort of have to prod the PCs into the given adventure. The idea of the campaign guide would be that it was mostly advice on how to make stuff, maybe a bunch of example setpieces/encounters, example hooks and ways the story can pan out, and then more advice on how to string it together. Obviously, you should learn how to do all this yourself, but not everyone really has that opportunity. e: By the way sorry about being an idiot in the last thread.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:45 |
|
|
Korlac posted:
Well, I've got nearly all the 3.5 Dungeon, and to me the whole "Age of Worms" run is pretty iconic... probably mostly just me, I guess? It's definitely true I've bought a heck of a lot more sourcebooks than adventures, though.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:51 |
|
|
Korlac posted:You're saying that the game is about getting together and not stabbing each other? If that's your idea of content then I can't really argue that point. Your "idea" is wrong. Much like Beowulf or Odysseus, your characters aren't real. They are fictional constructs created by a small band of people that decided to spend a handful of hours together in an agreed social group game. And the set-dressing- the final battle with Orcus that started with a simple mission to accompany an elder back to his village- isn't actually important when compared to figuring out how a Monk does Monk things and how Bobby has fun trying to defeat Orc C. Without the game being built, and built well, there is no reason to bring you and your friends together at all. The core content is the game that brings people around the table. This is what HASBRO sells. This is what WotC sells. This is what D&D is supposed to do. Its not about delivering stories; its about having fun together. I was going to go on a diatribe about how mechanics should make adventures feel natural because of how they are built and blah blah high level design talk, but I think I more agree with zachol that the point is to package "the adventure" into the system, and give the DM tools to make her own when she is ready. Campaign Guide: Raid on Castle Ravenloft
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:53 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Notice how I actually cited some iconic D&D adventures that are completely opposite to what you want. That is why WoTC has a hard time with adventures as content. Oh, and your examples... Undermountain: Team works together to survive and conquer the dungeon built by the evil wizard Halaster and unlock its secrets. Red Hand of Doom: Team works together to unite the Elsir Vale and defeat the Tiamat cultists. The Dancing Hut of Baba Yaga (which was AD&D): Team works together to defeat Baba Yaga (or survive her hut, I can't remember which). Alien Abduction: I'm going to admit, I have no idea what this one is about. I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, an adventure is something iconic that the adventurers must overcome through teamwork. As such, your example modules are great for that point. Of them only 1 is a 3.0/3.5 original (I still don't know what Alien Abuduction is) as both Undermountain and Baba Yaga's hut are AD&D classics and further prove that the more recent editions don't publish memorable material.
|
| # ? Jul 10, 2012 23:54 |
|
|
Gerund posted:Without the game being built, and built well, there is no reason to bring you and your friends together at all. The core content is the game that brings people around the table. This is what HASBRO sells. This is what WotC sells. This is what D&D is supposed to do. You're getting histrionic while at the same time completely missing Korlac's argument. You're saying that the "content" is what brings people to the table, but you're saying that the content is the mechanics under the hood, the meat and potatoes. Korlac is saying that the "content" is the fluff. Your "idea" is wrong; what brings people to the table is the idea of pretending to be elves and killing orcs and taking their stuff. No one reads the manuals and says, "man these mechanics are great and will for sure make my friends want to play pretend elfgames!" You need the core rulebook/s to play the game, sure. But once you start adding PHB or MM vol 2/3/4, Power Books, and stuff like that, you bloat the mechanics and the game becomes less accessible to new people, who haven't even been introduced to the core. What Korlac is saying is that it may be more profitable to produce pre-packaged adventures than to bloat on the mechanical side after the core mechanics are in place.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:07 |
|
|
^^^^ Thank you, I was starting to worry that I was not presenting my argument clearly or something. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make here.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:15 |
|
|
At what point did I say that the way the themes of the game is present in the content isn't important? And if your players didn't go gently caress YEAH when you told them that they could play a Dwarf that becomes a better fighter when he drinks, I'm disappointed in your group. Talking about the adventure has always, always been secondary to what the game is and how you play the game when it comes to campaign formation. "Wanna play Dungeons & Dragons?" "What's it about?" "Well see we're gonna kill Vecna because he is trying to become a God-Lich and-" edit for clarity
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:19 |
|
|
Korlac posted:I think you missed the point of my post. My point was, an adventure is something iconic that the adventurers must overcome through teamwork. As such, your example modules are great for that point. Of them only 1 is a 3.0/3.5 original (I still don't know what Alien Abuduction is) as both Undermountain and Baba Yaga's hut are AD&D classics and further prove that the more recent editions don't publish memorable material. quote:Undermountain: Team works together to survive and conquer the dungeon built by the evil wizard Halaster and unlock its secrets.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:26 |
|
|
Gerund posted:Your "idea" is wrong. Prepackaged adventures are content. This is not a debatable point. There is a huge market for adventures. This is obvious by how much people are paying Big P for theirs. Whether you want to buy them is a matter of your tastes and your amount of free time. Your "Its not about delivering stories; its about having fun together." line is absurd because delivering stories enables people to have fun together with the system. Without the story elements and set dressing and all that poo poo, you may as well just crack open an excel sheet. When I (and many others) buy a RPG book, we want to be supplied with more than just a hundred pages of "you can do an extra 1d6 damage ~this way~ now!", I want some set pieces and plot points and other things that you discount because don't personally like/want/need them, but a lot of people do. Gerund posted:Talking about the adventure has always, always been secondary to what the game is and how you play the game when it comes to campaign formation. "Wanna play Dungeons & Dragons?" "What's it about?" "Well see we're gonna kill Vecna because he is trying to become a God-Lich and-"
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:27 |
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:This is how I'd expect you to answer that question because you seem to have trouble grasping what a person is actually asking from what you want to answer. The game has always, always been about being adventurers killing poo poo for some reason. Some people like more reason than others. For the people who don't care, there's the magic of not buying/using. For the people who want that stuff, they should be offered it because they are willing to buy.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:31 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Not actually the plot line to 4th edition Undermountain. Amazon disagrees with you. quote:Created ages ago by the wizard Halaster, the sprawling dungeon is a lair for terrible monsters and ruthless villains. In the dark chambers, they hunger for victims and plot the downfall of those who dwell on the streets above. Who will unravel the twisting labyrinth to reveal its secrets, claim its treasures, and stop the foul machinations of the dungeon’s denizens?
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:32 |
|
|
This is something one of my former 4E players posted to our G+ circle:quote:I started reading through the D&D Next material. So far, there are a lot of interesting ideas, and I'm liking what I've seen. They are really pushing for a simplified core system that puts a lot of onus on DM and player abstraction rather than pages of situational rules, which I like. And, if you want situational rules, you can add them piece meal through rules modules. To be honest, I haven't read anything that's filled me with hope or optimism about 5E at all. He really liked 4E as far as I could tell (although it was honestly his first D&D experience), and it seems like 5E is quite the departure. Does anyone else feel like 5E is going to be good? What do you like about it? As a GM I can't always dictate what game we're going to play, so if everyone wants to play 5E, I would like to know if there's something to get excited about.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:34 |
|
|
Korlac posted:Amazon disagrees with you. quote:Prepackaged adventures are content. This is not a debatable point. There is a huge market for adventures. This is obvious by how much people are paying Big P for theirs. Whether you want to buy them is a matter of your tastes and your amount of free time. Your "Its not about delivering stories; its about having fun together." line is absurd because delivering stories enables people to have fun together with the system. Without the story elements and set dressing and all that poo poo, you may as well just crack open an excel sheet. When I (and many others) buy a RPG book, we want to be supplied with more than just a hundred pages of "you can do an extra 1d6 damage ~this way~ now!", I want some set pieces and plot points and other things that you discount because don't personally like/want/need them, but a lot of people do. quote:You're being purposefully argumentative in this. My example was just that, an example. I can't contain all the things that make a D&D adventure great in one post. I'm just trying to explain that D&D is beyond a group sitting around the table not stabbing each other.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 00:40 |
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:Why are you trying to correct someone who has actually read the module? MadScientistWorking posted:Honestly though if you look at Paizo they are repacking their story elements just as much as WoTC does. Gloraion's entire solar system is a ripoff of multiple campaign settings. MadScientistWorking posted:No. I'm saying that different styles is going to fragment the fanbase. As I said before my most favorite aspect of D&D is one in which even its developers have grogged out on and aparently something that you aren't even familiar with despite it being one of the more famous modules. Seriously, you go on about ripoffs and apparently you can't figure out what it is with just the word alien?
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:01 |
|
|
FordCQC posted:To be honest, I haven't read anything that's filled me with hope or optimism about 5E at all. He really liked 4E as far as I could tell (although it was honestly his first D&D experience), and it seems like 5E is quite the departure. I'm not going to call myself optimistic about it, but I'd say it could easily be a good game. A solid step forward from 3e, although probably not as good as 4e. There's a lot they've talked about on the blog that I really liked (and plenty that was problematic, but...). Ultimately, it's all going to come down to execution, where what breaks the game is them just not giving a poo poo about certain parts of the math or just happening to add character options that utterly outshine all other options. The playtest's execution was pretty loving bad, though, to the point of being a decent step backwards in quality from 3e. It's just a playtest, so it's not death sentence, but it sure wasn't a good sign.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:15 |
|
|
quote:Prepackaged adventures are content. This is not a debatable point. There is a huge market for adventures. This is obvious by how much people are paying Big P for theirs. The ONLY people who buy adventure modules are GMs and only a small subset of those are interested. This contrasts with books of rules/PrCs/etc that players and GMs are willing to buy. WOTC doesn't make very many adventures because people just don't buy the drat things in significant numbers. Edit: I do not see WOTC deciding to waste money paying people to write 5E modules that the market has repeatedly demonstrated it does not want.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:15 |
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I am inclined to agree with you, with the proviso that more than a few publishers have done the pre-built story thing. The oWoD universe comes to mind with their (admittedly gratuitous) metaplot. That said, plenty of publishers have produced rules only books (including WOTC) and those work well. With the MODULAR talk, I am sort of wondering if they are going to try to combine the both of you and serialize rules content. Well, serialize it even more than 3.5 and 4e have. I tend to think that having the setting baked into the product is the superior method. I'm sort of a JRPG fan though, but I think letting the setting inform the mechanics gives a more focused game. There is certainly a place for setting-neutral rules, but I think those games end up a bit weaker on the whole. That said, I think the MODULAR thing is a shift in marketing. I mentioned in the last thread that I thought the design of later 3e and 4e were looking for a way to add a MtG collectable aspect to the game, and that by and large it failed. I think the strategy for 5e will be the more recently successful munchkin/deck building game design. Start with a core product and sell expansions. You can think of fantasy Munchkin as having modules. Fairy Dust, Munchkinomicon, and Demented Dungeons all add new, distinct mechanics to the game, not just more content for the core game. Munchkin Zombies introduced the "undead swarm" rule that got added to all other versions. I think this is the model they're going to try for 5e. The core rules will be the core game, and new modules will be like expansion packs. It could work, and it's more suited to D&D than random minis or fortune cards.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:31 |
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Edit: I do not see WOTC deciding to waste money paying people to write 5E modules that the market has repeatedly demonstrated it does not want. This. WotC has said adventures don't sell, Paizo capitalized on edition war rather than continuing to just make adventures. There is nothing inherently wrong with adventures, but they have been proven time and time again to be a poor business strat.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:33 |
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:This is wrong. There is NOT a huge market for adventures. In terms of sales, core >> rule books > fluff books >> adventure modules. This is not unique to D&D and holds for at least both White Wolf and Shadowrun. The only reason they are still made is that you can pay module writers even less than normal writers (ie even less than 5 cents a word); I know in the case of Shadowrun payment for writing a module is on the order of "a hundred dollars". It's really a shame, too, because I think a market does exist for more GM support in products. I've cannibalized adventure modules here and there to yank out encounters, set pieces, and even the odd maguffin in the past, it's just that I generally don't want to tell their story. Would beat the hell out of endless PrC books, because those really get tiresome after awhile -- and my group tends to run long campaigns without much opportunity to switch classes mid-trip, so most of them are pretty much dead useless. I'd have bought the hell out of a 4E: Interesting Encounters book, anyway.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:34 |
|
|
Nick at Nite posted:It's really a shame, too, because I think a market does exist for more GM support in products. You mean like open grave, manual of the planes, draconomicon, elder evils and the whole host of other late 3.5 - pre essentials 4e products they were making before they changed their book model with essentials? They've tried that tack, and while as a DM I like it, I can see why they would stop trying that tack. lovely loving splat books with something for everyone are a proven strategy. It is in your best interests to ensure everyone buys every book you put out, and I can bet if they really do try and make a "modular" D&DN, most of those modules are going to be expected in both organized play and at your drat table. unfortunately that means most modules having something for everyone will steer the game into the same idiot trap that 3.5 and pathfinder have, where the strong classes get stronger with more modules and the weak classes cannot keep pace. And guess what defines which classes are strong and weak? The core, which right now is a hot mess of bounded numbers and poo poo math.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:40 |
|
|
If adventure modules aren't profitable, then someone better tell them sooner rather than later. http://paizo.com/products/btpy8tg1?...ition-Hardcover quote:I hate you... now take my money.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:47 |
|
|
I suppose I feel like they need to find a new content delivery model than "just print another book," at this point, because the post Essentials model really did nothing for me, and the idea of a bunch of "something for everyone" books really just makes me cringe, because with or without the existence of the compendium it just presents too wide a range of quality and power. I think one of the things that makes them put these editions to bed is drowning themselves in player options, anyway, it makes the entire line less accessible.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 01:48 |
|
|
The reason I brought up a campaign guide (as in, not a setting guide, but "here's a campaign for you to run, there's a story and everything") is that I think a big stumbling block for getting more people into RPGs is that it's really hard to DM stuff. Like, I know I suck at it, and I've been trying off and on (mostly off) for kind of a while now. Especially when I was ten and starting out, the process was basically "run the little adventure in the box => we're done => uh now what => I guess we can use this big dungeon mat and fill it with other stuff from the MM? => this is really boring." Boxed adventures are pretty neat for getting people started, but it's that step just after where I've never had any idea what to do. I feel like if you replaced the DMG with a campaign book, as the first book a new DM (someone who just wants to run a game with some friends, doesn't have experience playing) encountered, it could be really helpful. Maybe have it start out with "your first adventure," and then from there have a lot of ideas for where to take a game, and then be mostly fractured encounters and mini-adventures and ideas for how to fit everything together. Then you release further books that are collections of encounters, ways to handle plotlines, things like that--almost like modules, but not really. What I hear is that a lot of DMs just cannibalize modules, so these could be "prechewed" ones, where it's just the bits you'd have stolen, and advice on how to fit it together. Maybe start out with the pieces, and then at the end have two or three examples ways to put it together, if you want to just run a module. Also, don't a lot of groups just buy one copy of a book anyway? If so, it's not really a big deal that it's only the DM that's going to be buying these things. And you could still have this going concurrently with the usual splatbook stuff.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:12 |
|
|
Korlac posted:If adventure modules aren't profitable, then someone better tell them sooner rather than later. There is a reason that is a Pathfinder (their inhouse RPG) Adventure path and not a 3.5 (which their writers know better) or 4e (which they could've switched to no trouble) Adventure path. It is cool that Paizo still makes them, but they played a crafty game to get money and a fanbase that will throw money at them for literally anything, and that crafty game was not based on "we will make good adventures".
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:15 |
|
|
Korlac posted:If adventure modules aren't profitable, then someone better tell them sooner rather than later. With Paizo there is a very important question I feel needs to be asked: how much is bought due to quality, and how much is bought due to brand loyalty? Paizo has very successfully marketed themselves as "By the fans, for the fans." They are able to simultaniously brag about being the "winner" in the industry and yet not be a part of the industry at the same time. They have some terrifying brand loyalty connected to them. FordCQC posted:To be honest, I haven't read anything that's filled me with hope or optimism about 5E at all. He really liked 4E as far as I could tell (although it was honestly his first D&D experience), and it seems like 5E is quite the departure. Honestly, I wouldn't call myself optimistic or cynical. Most of the time I wonder what the hell 5e is even doing or is going to be. And many articles - like the last Ro3 - only make me more confused. There's a strong part of me that thinks the 5e team is truly stumbling blindly in the dark, hoping they'll find whatever it is they're looking for, without really knowing what they're looking for in the first place.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:17 |
|
|
Honestly at this point I don't see why Hasbro lets WotC keep doing tabletop RPG stuff. I mean that from a business standpoint, because with the failed VTT, this new edition going god knows where, and all these man hours and resources being put to god knows what with who knows what ROI for 5e, I just can't grasp it unless the CEO and CFO play old school dungeon delves on the weekends.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:35 |
|
|
Fenarisk posted:Honestly at this point I don't see why Hasbro lets WotC keep doing tabletop RPG stuff. I mean that from a business standpoint, because with the failed VTT, this new edition going god knows where, and all these man hours and resources being put to god knows what with who knows what ROI for 5e, I just can't grasp it unless the CEO and CFO play old school dungeon delves on the weekends. The CEO and CFO don't know what Dungeons and Dragons is. As long as WotC is turning a profit on it (which D&DI all but ensures it is), WotC is going to do whatever.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:With Paizo there is a very important question I feel needs to be asked: how much is bought due to quality, and how much is bought due to brand loyalty? I think that's the wrong question, really. I think the reason that Paizo is successful primarily selling adventures is that they have much smaller margins that need to be met for a product to be successful. Same with Goodman Games. It is worth mentioning that if you add up all the print runs of Keep on the Borderlands, you get roughly a million copies sold. I don't think any splat book for any edition outsold B2. Of course, that was a huge anomaly and surely helped by the fact that it counts copies packed in with the starter boxes. But Tomb of Horrors sold about a quarter of a million units as well, and White Plume Mountain did almost 200k. If you know the name of the module, it probably sold a few hundred thousand copies, but the modules you don't know off-hand probably sold a few thousand, maybe a few hundred. Most of the later adventures, however, sold a few thousand copies, maybe as many as 20,000. In years where a million copies of the D&D boxed set got sold. Paizo is a small company. They basically wanted to keep selling Dngeon and Dragon after their contract was up, so they put them together in a hardback book and did just that. They don't need the same numbers Wizards does to justify a product's existance. By the way, I got all these numbers from http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html Interesting read
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:37 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:The CEO and CFO don't know what Dungeons and Dragons is. As long as WotC is turning a profit on it (which D&DI all but ensures it is), WotC is going to do whatever. I guess I just figured there isn't enough profit by today's standards to be worth a drat to Hasbro. And I wish we could see actual numbers of things broken down, such as D&DI (especially after CBLoader was released and other VTT's were released) with the advent of D&DNext materials. When D&DI was the only way to use the character builder and the VTT was still whispered as a promise along with campaign materials a lot of people hopped on board, or at least just signed up once every few months for material updates. Once that got shot to poo poo, I don't know what the numbers actually ended up being on a regular basis.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:38 |
|
|
Necrofamicom posted:I think that's the wrong question, really. I think the reason that Paizo is successful primarily selling adventures is that they have much smaller margins that need to be met for a product to be successful. Same with Goodman Games. Well when you only have to justify the salaries for a mere 26 full time employees... quote:The reason I brought up a campaign guide (as in, not a setting guide, but "here's a campaign for you to run, there's a story and everything") is that I think a big stumbling block for getting more people into RPGs is that it's really hard to DM stuff. Like, I know I suck at it, and I've been trying off and on (mostly off) for kind of a while now. Especially when I was ten and starting out, the process was basically "run the little adventure in the box => we're done => uh now what => I guess we can use this big dungeon mat and fill it with other stuff from the MM? => this is really boring." spaces, drat And I really like the concept you're talking about, if only because it actually reaches and solves an important part of D&D that isn't currently being run.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:42 |
|
|
Fenarisk posted:I guess I just figured there isn't enough profit by today's standards to be worth a drat to Hasbro. And I wish we could see actual numbers of things broken down, such as D&DI (especially after CBLoader was released and other VTT's were released) with the advent of D&DNext materials. I've heard that select investors only get a breakdown by product line. So we still wouldn't have numbers for DDI, just the D&D line as a whole. Which is bolstered by the novels and board games. And the numbers from those RA Salvatore novels are nothing to sneeze at. Of course, the general public doesn't even get that.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:43 |
|
|
Korlac posted:If adventure modules aren't profitable, then someone better tell them sooner rather than later. Hahaha, yes, a preorder for a curio with literally dozens of nerds saying they'll buy it. Clearly that's enough to float a company, fill out a product line, or be anything more than a one off collectible. I don't doubt that -- with its leather-like binding and included red bookmark -- there is a very high margin on those, but if that's your argument for published adventures being legit business models then I'm not sure what to say. Will it make its money back? Sure, at that price point it better be guaranteed. Was it worth the time and money to produce; money that they could have otherwise invested in other products? Well that's the question and the Rise of the Runelords Deluxe Collector's Edition preorder page isn't an argument for or against it.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 21:55 |
|
|
Okay I know this is a rant but gently caress it, this has been on my mind since I've been looking over the D&D stuff. The biggest thing that D&DNext is loving up is that nothing about it is "Next". Nothing is going to the new generation like 4e at least attempted, nothing is utilizing new delivery methods, nothing is using technology and advantages of today's market. Let's give a great example of something that has, Dungeon World. Now Dungeon World is really only about 2 years into the final beta, and the kickstarter just succeeded very well meaning a good word of mouth for sales, but at its core it's an indy game run by 2 guys in their spare time. Yet somehow they've done more in the 2 years than WotC has done...ever. What has Dungeon World done? Well besides actually design a transparent game with a retro feel, they went for three popular and more mainstream things. 1) Kickstarter 2) PDF based books as the baseline 3) THE loving IPAD When I say the ipad, I mean they have an ipad app, and it's not just the rulebook. It's well laid out rules with examples in audio portions imbeded by the developers, but also has audio examples of actual play.. They used the play sessions of the Walking Eye Podcast to illustrate play, which not only helps a lot of newer people understand it, but say "Wow this poo poo sounds fun!". They're two guys working on a game in their spare time and yet they churn out something more advanced than WotC can do with full time staff in years. They're using a popular device in a way that takes advantages of its strengths and unique perks. The other complaint is that WotC, this big company (in small business terms) does something no other company does and it's mind boggling. "Gee there's quite a number of well respected industry professional with a good fan following, a grasp of game design and production, and can stay on schedule. They have a proven track record and put out great stuff, so let's not try and pay them/poach them for our advantage/hire them on in some way to bolster our image and sales." Any other industry would murder each other to get great employees that are an asset to the company, but for WotC it never occurs to them that A) A majority of the people buying D&D don't give a gently caress who wrote the books or what history the designers have in the industry, and B) For the people into RPG's who do give a gently caress about the industry, seeing a good game designer on board is a green light for purchase. If someone in column A will buy the book anyway or because the book has well designed rules, you've increased your market. If someone in column B sees "Holy gently caress Greg Stolze designed this, he actually knows how math and mechanics work!", you've also increased your market. The next time the NBA draft is up, and a team wanting a championship passes Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, and Derrick Rose so that they can do their own thing wearing super short shorts and fundamentals and no dunking, see how that franchise goes. It's the same god drat thing.
|
| # ? Jul 11, 2012 02:59 |
|
