From the Periodical Model thread it strikes me that a lot of people object to the current methodology WotC use and the way D&D has been rebooted as a way of gaining more income.

So I was interested in seeing what alternative approaches people would take.

Perhaps we could compare RPGs to 'similar' markets say

i) Techncial manuals

ii) Computer games

iii) Board Games

Or are they so unique that they should be considered apart and on their own merits.

Something that was missed in the Periodic thread that I think is worth mentioning is that 3e was meant to be Wots attempt to 'own' D&D and to unify the various product strands and clean up any confusion. Now I see that that might have gotten out of hand but I think merging AD&D 2e and the increasingly complex "Basic" D&D was a sound idea was a sensible marketing and branding exercise.

We have to consider the fiancial implications here as WotC is a company whose primary aim is to make money for its shareholders.

Sell off the D&D intellectual property to the highest bidder, and watch it destroyed even further by its new owners.   :banghead:

:rolleyes:

By me of course!  Don't worry it'll all be fine.  First thing out the door will be a complete 1st Edition AD&D reprint.  From there we'll reconstruct a more functional version of the Holmes basic rules that go to twelfth level.  It will feature full stat bonus set, stat + pts thieves skills, modernised AC and to hit system, varriable weapon damage and fixed Hp per hit die for monsters.  Magic-users will get bonus spells for high Intelligence scores and be able to inscribe scrolls for 100gp/level.

The new version will be the core of a new edition really but we'll never actually get around to saying so.  It'll be in the boxed set with miniatures that we put into Walmart and Toys R Us.

Didn't hate 3e ->3.5 ->Pathfinder. Wouldn't mind revisions of that kind every few years (even as frequently as every three years) with editions being much less frequent. Would rather they wait until 5e to do it.

Old editions' easy box set / in depth books split wasn't a bad idea. Especially if they're compatible and the box set isn't just crippleware (for 4e it should cover 5-10 levels for 3-5 classes).

Put out a 5e that's easy like the old stuff, modular like the 3x stuff, and entirely encounter balanced like 4e. Toss a few 4eisms (martial encounter/dailies), build a better game around the non-combat stuff, maybe do this and that unique to 5e (no way to predict). I'm not suggesting this because I dislike 4e (though I do), but because there's going to be a 5e and I want it to look good, work well, and work a little better with the last two paragraphs than I think 4e might.

The setting a year was a great idea. Keep it. But don't reboot the setting to include, say, dragonborn and warforged. Because those of us that wanted dragonborn and warforged in our settings dropped them in there whatever the books said (I dropped ghostwalk stuff and warforged in my settings whenever I could) and all those folks that didn't got their setting nuked.

Books for classes on themes are money, or were for 3x. I've heard the x power books didn't do as great as expected. Did they have core classes? IIRC core classes (not feats or PrCs) were the main draw for the completes, at least for me.

New monster manuals are generally consistently useful too. Another great yearly product.

I'd scrap the idea of yearly PHBs and DMGs. I would release higher level basic boxed sets. Forgot to mention, boxed sets should come with unique materials. If nothing else town and wilderness areas and/or adventures (so it can be played fresh out of the box) could be changed while the core rules are recycled more or less unchanged.

Everything else would be stand-alone supplements or adventures, maybe a few campaigns or what have you.

Every 3-5 years a core revision. That's about as far as the "yearly" supplements would go though. I think the core class books could be cycled indefinitely as long as the material could be fresh and new each time.

I'd like them to release a version of the game that doesn't grow mechanically beyond a supplement or two. Whether I like the 4E system isn't even the point for me at this stage. It is simply too much of an investment with way too many books that are needed for a complete experience of the game.

Take D&D digital.  

The core play experience should be the online RPGA with a monthly fee that provides the equivalent of a new book per month (200 pages max, keep it light) and a state-of-the-art virtual tabletop.   There should be no charge for virtual minis, but player incentives can be gained by logging in more hours of play.   DMs will be given special perks and privileges based on the number of player/hours of DMing modified by their ranking (a system similar to eBay's feedback).

The digital D&D can easily be 4e taken to the next phase.  All math will be hidden by the comp and the interface will be smooth allowing players to focus on roleplay and/or tactical skirmish combat.

The offline game should be sold in a twofold strategy.  First is a "Classic D&D" product which is a stripped down version that looks like a modernized OD&D that is built to be evergreen.   This goes in toy stores and players are encouraged via an OGL to make stuff for their game.  

The second product is D&D Xe which replicates the mechanics of the online game and can use all the new book products which are sold in stores and via a magazine subscription model.   This game will play like the computer game, just slower.

Quote from: Spinachcat;396128Take D&D digital.  The core play experience should be the online RPGA with a monthly fee that provides the equivalent of a new book per month (200 pages max, keep it light) and a state-of-the-art virtual tabletop.   There should be no charge for virtual minis, but player incentives can be gained by logging in more hours of play.   DMs will be given special perks and privileges based on the number of player/hours of DMing modified by their ranking (a system similar to eBay's feedback).

The digital D&D can easily be 4e taken to the next phase.  All math will be hidden by the comp and the interface will be smooth allowing players to focus on roleplay and/or tactical skirmish combat.

The offline game should be sold in a twofold strategy.  First is a "Classic D&D" product which is a stripped down version that looks like a modernized OD&D that is built to be evergreen.   This goes in toy stores and players are encouraged via an OGL to make stuff for their game.  

The second product is D&D Xe which replicates the mechanics of the online game and can use all the new book products which are sold in stores and via a magazine subscription model.   This game will play like the computer game, just slower.

Outside of your classic, this sounds like an awful videogame and an awful tabletop game. Or at least an awful videogame, depending on which parts of the video game rules are stripped out of the tabletop version.

A turn-based CRPG with lots more work and a higher minimum number of players won't get you new players or keep you old ones. I feel like farming the license for something like Baldur's Gate or NWN would be more efficient. (It'll cost you less than producing something in house, might actually attract a new market, if similar to your tabletop game, might even get you some new players)

So so far everyone woudl bin 4e and start again .... and you wonder why WotC released 3e which was a departure from previous versions?

A few comments

i) Reprinting 1e AD&D is unlikely to make much money although if you can print it cheaply I can see a niche market. Same goes for reprints of other older material. Maybe make the whole back cataglogue avaialble on lulu for print on demand?
ii) If you went to a basic vs advanced split woudl you support the basic/essentials version as a stand alone product or just make it a stripped down version of the full game?
iii) If splat books make money why would you reduce their production? To add longevity to the product line and trim your creative team?

Quote from: jibbajibba;396137So so far everyone woudl bin 4e and start again .... and you wonder why WotC released 3e which was a departure from previous versions?

"Everyone" is probably worth examining. But let's put that aside for a second.

WOTC released 3e because AD&D2e at the same time was in a very odd position. It was still big, but it was struggling. And compared to other rpgs which had things like skill systems and more sophisticated mechanics, it was not comparing very well. Why would anyone play AD&D when you could play Werewolf or Rifts? That was becoming a tough question to answer. I remember sort of re-discovering AD&D in 1998 or so. Even then, it seemed like looking at an artifact of an earlier time... and then you dusted it off and it flew. I remember trying to get all of the old Planescape boxes after they were already out of print and realizing that fantasy was the only real genre I wanted to play. I got copies of the "2nd Edition revised" (black spine) rulebooks-- they were perplexing and annoying. They had this example of a character that developed through play from Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good, and the DMG recommended penalizing her around 2000 Xp (or something..) for not playing her alignment correctly.

WOTC was the best thing that ever happened to AD&D.  

I also had a series of wierd epiphanies where I was inviting people to try out all kinds of obscure system (I was a playtester for Tprg 2nd Edition, the Kansas Jim version) and having real trouble getting people to show up. I announced a game of AD&D2e almost as a joke and had 4 players within 15 minutes- neighbors.

Never left D&D after that.

Release a corebook meant to be evergreen.

Release box sets every year, that have "seting specific" alterations to the core rules. Want warforged? in the new box set. Want Rangers to have d8 instead of d10's for hit points & 6 skill points per level instead of 4? New box set.

Release supplements for the Settings, not the core rules.

Quote from: jibbajibba;396137i) Reprinting 1e AD&D is unlikely to make much money although if you can print it cheaply I can see a niche market.

Reprinting AD&D won't sell in useful numbers - its too outdated in every way.  However, an evergreen box set with the most basic concepts of D&D would sell.  Sit it next to Monopoly.    

Quote from: jibbajibba;396137ii) If you went to a basic vs advanced split woudl you support the basic/essentials version as a stand alone product or just make it a stripped down version of the full game?

I would make the Classic a stand alone and leave ALL support to the online freebie community.  It would exist for those who want a simple play experience without all the fiddly or feel they need to keep buying product.

As for the full game, my prime focus would be digital.  Online play is the future of tabletop and the only place to make real money.  

The WoW audience loves their Guilds because they get to combine human interaction with graphical play.   I'd capitalize on that and build a 1 million gamer RPGA.

Quote from: jibbajibba;396137iii) If splat books make money why would you reduce their production? To add longevity to the product line and trim your creative team?

Splats are fine, but I would change the model into something more like DDI.  By paying your monthly fee, you'd have full access to the online library and each month you could download one PDF for free.  

Deadtree would come out as well with ID codes that offer some bonus when registering for the monthly fee.

Also, as iPads/Kindles/Whatever become more popular, everyone will have their online game library sitting next to them when playing their occassional tabletop event.

I think reprinting the AD&D 1e stuff is totally worth doing.  But I don't think it's worth keeping in print.  Still, big game companies are always looking for something to sell next month.  I think that's important to keep in mind.  I'm sure there's enough people who like myself would like replacement books or who, having never played 1e are curious, to have it on catalog.  Making it the first thing sets the tone, brings back in the OSR folks, and draws attention.

Yes, an evergreen core is very important.  Let's nail down this thing called D&D on core principles and make everything else optional.

My basic set will have fighters, magic-users, clerics, and thieves, elves, dwarves, halflings, and humans, Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Neutral, Chaotic Evil, and Lawful Evil.  Skills beyond thieves skills will be in a supplement and not core to the game.

There will be rules for dungeons, wilderness adventures, building castles, naval and aerial combat, and a sample wilderness, town, castle, and dungeon.

I think stat bonuses would probably follow the current model.  There's models I like better but anything else would just cause too many arguements.

Quote from: Spinachcat;396164The WoW audience loves their Guilds because they get to combine human interaction with graphical play.   I'd capitalize on that and build a 1 million gamer RPGA.

But wouldn't that mean that Toolkits like NWN & NWN2 should have allowed a gaming renaissance?

The problem is that it requires a level of work that isn't fun for many GM's, at the current level of technology. It's much easier for me to say "You're walking through a forest...", than to build a Virtual Forest.

There's a reason CRPG's are a business still, rather than a hobby. The investment of time, even when given toolsets to reduce the burden of actual programming required, is burdensome.

Quote from: Novastar;396174But wouldn't that mean that Toolkits like NWN & NWN2 should have allowed a gaming renaissance?

I really liked NWN and the Aurora toolset.

Bioware however inhibited the Rennaissance by claiming IP on everything created with the Aurora toolset.

If I created my own game, or even a level, or even a character, or item, for example... I couldn't sell that independantly as an add-on for Neverwinter Nights. Everyone was automatically entitled to that for free!

Compare this to Warcraft or Gaia, or Eve Online, or a dozen other CRPGs or MMORPGs that allow trading and sales of in-game items or characters.

So I never created anything, nor did I add-on any enhancements to Aurora.

Nothing created or released by Bioware was OGL.

There was no point in doing any game development using the most excellent toolset, Since there was absolutely no way to profit from it, with the exception of possibly becoming one of Bioware's chosen pets.

Not enough compensation for the energy required. For a game designer, a losing proposition.

So no Rennaissance occurred.

I think there are a lot of classic elements that people don't actually like. No one likes Alignments. 4e's alignment system was a step forward because there were less alignments and they had less of an effect on the game. But even that system (the WHFRP system to be fair) is more alignments than people want. People would in aggregate be happy if that particular cow got stabbed.

Which gets to perhaps the very corest of the core points: D&D moving forward will be (and should be) a product of its time. It won't just be a game from the early 70s, it will be a game from the twentieth century. From the teens. D&D needs to look back an see what worked in the past, but also to see what did not work. We aren't going back to the days when "Pygmies" were monsters in the monster manual. The modern orc is no longer a stand-in for Africans.


There is an absolute limit of how much throwback text can be included in  new material. There are things you can say today that you could never have said in 1978 (like "Fuck"), but the reverse is also true (like "Negro").

That being said, the purpose of WotC is to make money for their lords and masters at Hasbro. All other concerns are secondary. So the real question is how to convince people that they want to spend upwards of $100 a year for a game that to be honest they can play by getting a 2nd or 3rd edition PHB at a used bookstore for $8 and never looking back. And that's primarily a marketing question. Nevertheless, I do have some insight into that.

The Subscription model is a good one. $10 a month is $120 a year, but the sticker shock is still only 10 bucks. You're being compared to sandwiches and movie tickets at that point - and coming off rather favorably. If my choice was seriously between watching the new movie in the Twilight saga and playing D&D this month, the choice is easy. D&D it is. The problem is that WotC needs to come up with something of real value to give people in exchange for their subscriptions. And constantly fiddling with the rules obviously in't it, because that eventually just has negative value and subscriptions will cancel.

There are a number of services WotC can provide. From getting fantasy authors you actually want to read to produce material for continued reading to providing gamer connections to facilitate making local games. But they have to provide something of continued value that is worth ten dollars a month to people if they want to get people to keep paying in.

-Frank