Quote from: The Defenestrator;524707As far as I can tell, Hasbro's strategy is to squeeze as much money out of D&D as possible until the returns just aren't worth it anymore.  It's almost as if they don't think the brand has a good long-term prognosis no matter what they do.

One niche where this has happened and has severely devalued an IP, would be Motorhead compilation records/cds.

Other niches where this seems to have happened too to some extent, are the non-canon Star Trek novels, and the Star Wars Expanded Universe novels.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524660Easier than it will be for the last version

It'll be interesting to see if that's true. There are lots of people who have reported that it's easier to find a 3E/PF game locally than it is to find a 4E game in the past 4 years.

That's the big change that happened in 2008. And I'm not sure there's any way for WotC to close Pandora's Box at this point.

Quote from: Marleycat;524594Probably slightly less overall than myself but there are plenty that are not completely satisfied just in differing ways than myself or levels to the best of my knowledge.

The differing qualities of the dissatisfaction is exactly the problem WotC faces. Again: Clear, deep, and widespread. That's the only way to get your mandate.

I suspect the only clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction with 3E/PF is the breakdown of balance between fighters and wizards once you hit 12th level. You could probably produce a new edition of 3E/PF that:

a) Streamlined attacks of opportunity and combat maneuvers;
b) Gave non-spellcasters a package of "high level toys" that would make them competitive with spellcasters; and
c) Vastly simplified monster and NPC creation

And have a pretty solid success with 3E/PF players. (Anything more than that and you'd start seeing massive defections from people who didn't like whatever change you were making.)

But the problem is that a game that looks like that won't be generally appealing to 4E fans and probably wouldn't thrill large portions of the OSR.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524612IYou have to remember that a lot of 4e players adopted it because it was the new iteration of D&D a substantial proportion will do the same again.

Well, yes. But those people didn't make 4E a success. Thinking that the number of people with a brand loyalty to D&D has somehow drastically increased since 2008 (while, for some reason, having no impact on 4E sales) seems like a losing bet to me.

Quote from: Benoist;524673I wish they would get off the treadmill.

While there may be a couple of things they can do with the core rules to reduce the treadmill, the reality is that the supplement treadmill is primarily driven by a particular philosophy of how the rest of your product line is produced, organized, and sold.

It's possible that we'll see a complete revolution in WotC's product line management with 5E. But at this point, unfortunately, it would be purely wishful thinking.

(Nor is it entirely clear that a company like WotC can actually survive without the supplement treadmill.)

They could do all the above but it requires a paradigm shift like Pathfinder already proves can be done. Hell balance between fighters and wizards can done 3e style.  Fantasy Craft shows one way already.  I bet my bottom dollar that Paizo is ready to do a reboot if 5e is successful they already have several good examples to use as a framework.

@Exploderwizard,

Well I won on the over under to get to ten pages of this drivel. Here's to page 15 in another two weeks! (or less!)

Quote from: Serious Paul;524744Well I won on the over under to get to ten pages of this drivel. Here's to page 15 in another two weeks! (or less!)

Number 17.

Quote from: Serious Paul;524744Well I won on the over under to get to ten pages of this drivel. Here's to page 15 in another two weeks! (or less!)

Whatcha win? Besides we have nothing but drivel to talk about at this point in the process anyway.  You should see TBP.

Almost 20 pages, Woot!

Quote from: jibbajibba;524612I know its daft but D&D still has a lot of loyalty as a brand. I think there are plenty of 4e fans and pathfinder players who will buy into 5e because it's D&D.

You have to remember that a lot of 4e players adopted it because it was the new iteration of D&D a substantial proportion will do the same again.
Pratically all the Pathfinder players are there becuase 4e didn't scratch their particular itch but they wanted to play a game that was as close to D&D as they could get.

I see no reason why a substanital proportion of both groups wouldn't adopt 5e out of simple brand loyalty.

Yes. And for that matter I think a lot of the OSR-people are vastly overestimating their distance from the D&D brand.  There's a good reason why the OSR became much, much bigger after 4e; and that's because you could still do something vaguely resembling old-school play with 3e, whereas with 4e it was much harder.

If 5e comes back to a core that is old-school (especially if it is, as the designers seem to want it to be, MORE old-school at its core than 3e was), you're going to see a lot of old-school gamers coming back to D&D as well.

RPGPundit

I'm all for 5e being successful but what you're intimating requires a BIG IF, not ever done by Wotc. I seriously can't be convinced until I have solid information or the playtest happens.

I'm just baffled why is Hasbro bothering with new game design for this. What's the point of all this overhead with professional designers who in turn will just try to find a reason to justify their salary? It's like when Monopoly is "updated" to include electronic whizbangs (like swiping your Charge Card instead of using funny money). Do you really need an entire department to manage these properties?

What ever happened to an evergreen edition idea? Throw in PoD, PDF, and keep charging for a DDI (cuz that's apparently easy money), then sack the rest. Sometimes the easiest way to get profit is to cut your expenses. Reinventing the wheel with a new supplement treadmill every few years sounds profitable, but it's mostly to keep a department around that wants a salary.

I'll wait to see if D&DNext is good, and I wish them well. However I still think leaving everything available and sacking the rest of the department beyond DDI server maintenance and a lonely editor/supervisor with a lone receptionist would be the cleanest profitable solution for a big company. Big company wants the most reliable cash with least outlay; hobbyist enterprise often makes labor of love, sometimes for free. Sounds almost diametrically opposed to me, so why fight it?

Quote from: Opaopajr;524824I'm just baffled why is Hasbro bothering with new game design for this. What's the point of all this overhead with professional designers who in turn will just try to find a reason to justify their salary? It's like when Monopoly is "updated" to include electronic whizbangs (like swiping your Charge Card instead of using funny money). Do you really need an entire department to manage these properties?

What ever happened to an evergreen edition idea? Throw in PoD, PDF, and keep charging for a DDI (cuz that's apparently easy money), then sack the rest. Sometimes the easiest way to get profit is to cut your expenses. Reinventing the wheel with a new supplement treadmill every few years sounds profitable, but it's mostly to keep a department around that wants a salary.

I'll wait to see if D&DNext is good, and I wish them well. However I still think leaving everything available and sacking the rest of the department beyond DDI server maintenance and a lonely editor/supervisor with a lone receptionist would be the cleanest profitable solution for a big company. Big company wants the most reliable cash with least outlay; hobbyist enterprise often makes labor of love, sometimes for free. Sounds almost diametrically opposed to me, so why fight it?

I definitely think evergreen is the way to maintain the fanbase while growing it. Even magic the gathering uses essentially the same core engine for years. Fundamentally i think the problem with WOTC D&D is its business model. When i think WOTC what comes to mind is "sloppy splats" and "edition treadmill". So aiming for a more permanent edition (with minior tune ups over time) would go a long way to winning me back.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;524826I definitely think evergreen is the way to maintain the fanbase while growing it. Even magic the gathering uses essentially the same core engine for years. Fundamentally i think the problem with WOTC D&D is its business model. When i think WOTC what comes to mind is "sloppy splats" and "edition treadmill". So aiming for a more permanent edition (with minior tune ups over time) would go a long way to winning me back.

But as Opaopajr points out the cleanest method is keep all the stuff so far in print. Ask Freelancers for new adventures then have an admin and an editor to pull it all together and sack everyone else.

A small team of generic desingers can mage your boardgame portfolio,. New monopoly tweak, new edition of Trivial pursuit, new party game involving plasticine etc ... one team can do it all.
Your RPG arm is tied to RPGs if you only have Gamma world and D&D then it has to be a splay book edition treadmill or everyone is out of a job and then if you do need to do somethgin you have no team.

its one of the reasons why I would use the MtG Settigns for D&D settings. They are well worked out, popular with players, details , great artwork.... etc you can easily take the work the MtG guys already did and port it out in a setting with its own mechanics.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524845But as Opaopajr points out the cleanest method is keep all the stuff so far in print. Ask Freelancers for new adventures then have an admin and an editor to pull it all together and sack everyone else.
.

I think having a dedicated team of designes is the best way for wotc to put out consistent material in the form of modules and supplements. They can certainly bring in freelancers as well, but the big advantage a large company like wotc has that it should use the the capability of retaining solid in-house talent to care for the various D&D lines.

I think having 4-5 editions in print probably isn't a good way to achieve their goal. This all began with 4E. Prior to that they really didn't have this issue. As pundit pointed out, there was always an old school crowd but the osr didn't explode until 4e. So I think the best solution is to produce something fresh that is still the same game as the first three editions but has ad on options to bring in people psyched about 4e. We want something current. Personally I don't want to be playing the game as it was written 30 years ago. I do want updates, tweaks and adjustments. But I want it to be recognizeable as D&D, to share the core engine of earlier editions. Up through 3E i never had much of a problem calling any edition D&D (though I did think 3e needed some fixes). Bt 4e was like a whole new game when I tried it. Which is fine, but I didn't want a whole new game. i wanted new and improved D&D. There is a difference. The reason they are in the trouble they are in now is because they didn't understand that.

So I like the idea of having one new set of rules that has enough flexibility and breadth to satisfy all sides (thou certainly some wont be satisfied). I do not like the idea of them just reprinting old editions. Once in a while I go back and play 2e or 1e (havent played 3e for a little bit), but I am not really interested in starting over with the old books. If that is the way they want to go forward, there are other games I would rather play. On the other hand, I would be fine with them simply taking 1e, 2e or 3e and creating a new version of the game as an evolution from that point. So if they took 1e, revised it a bit, rewrote the text, and added some interesting elements, I would be on board (same if they did this with 2e or 3e). I do want a product with fresh life in it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;524791If 5e comes back to a core that is old-school (especially if it is, as the designers seem to want it to be, MORE old-school at its core than 3e was), you're going to see a lot of old-school gamers coming back to D&D as well.

I think it will take a number of things this to see this really happen:

1) Little to no 4e in the core. The more they put 4e-like stuff in the core to satisfy the 4e fans, the less likely I suspect pre-4e players/GMs are to switch. This includes "abstract" things  like too much stress on "by the numbers balance", the weird 4e "we need our own IP" monsters, or seeming to have designed the game around the needs of organized play  (with the needs of "home play" seemingly an afterthought).

2) The 5e core can be used with all 0e-2e era settings and adventures with little to no GM advance conversion. With TSR D&D the GM could use any adventure/setting with any TSR edition of D&D performing whatever conversions were needed in your head. As a lot of OSR folks still use these settings and adventures, this is pretty much a must to get wide adoption from OSR folks. Note that OSR players tend to have little objection to doing basic math in their heads (like converting between ascending and descending AC) which might make this easier to achieve.

To get 3.x folks, you will need to be able to do this with 3.x materials although as 3.x requires more GM prep to begin with you can probably get by with some minor in-advance-of-play conversion work needed. If 3e folks can't use Paizo adventure paths and the like easily, few are likely to convert to 5e.

3) There most be an easy upgrade path to 5e. OSR fans will often want to convert their campaigns and characters. As their current rules work, they are unlikely to be willing to end their current campaigns and start over just to use a new edition. Personally, I suspect 4e lost a number of players by simply being too different from what had gone before for a nearly seamless conversion of 3.x campaigns to be possible.

4) The GM must "own the game rules". The game should be complete in published rulebooks (purchasable -- without a subscription -- PDFs count as game books). The game must not be constantly changing via online errata/updates which are constantly added to an online character generator or other tool.  Most OSR people do not want their characters or setting or adventures in constant flux because of reams of errata (or worse, rules changes needed to support future splatbooks or the like).

5) The system must be very friendly to both house rules and third party material -- including any WOTC character generators and the like. This includes a third party license that, if not the OGL, is at least much closer to the OGL than to the 4e GSL.  This license must be available to third party publishers no later than the day the first 5e book goes on sale.

To be blunt, for a lot of OSR (and probably Pathfinder) folks, 5e will have to offer a much better game for their campaign, group, and style of play before they will actually switch. I have real doubts that WOTC can pull this off. However, if the manage at least the first two items above, most of the adventures and setting they might publish would be usable by players of other editions which would mean WOTC would at least get sales from some of the people playing older editions even if they don't play 5e -- something they did not get much of with 4e.

Quote from: Aos;524502Fair enough, I've no interest in tapping into the large player base- especially not if it largely consists of the fellows i see down at the LGS.

Or even if your group is the type that likes to keep with the current edition. This happened to me. Group went with 3e stuff. I opted out. Had it allowed a gridless option, I would have still hung around and DM'ed with that option.

I don't think the hobby's shrinking.  The hobby has shrunk.  That is to say, its effectively done its dramatic implosion; and now anyone who's still in the hobby is pretty much in the hobby for the long haul; any "shrinkage" now is going to be happening over the course of decades, not years.
On the other hand, there is also the potential for renewed growth.  We basically can't get much smaller at this point, so the only way to go is up.

RPGpundit