Nice ideas, Mistwell. As you say, we shall see.

Quote from: Omega;703013WOTC has at times tried that approach, be it with the micro books, PDF re-releases, etc.

The reason not to is a simple one. You want to focus on one production line. And you want the new players focused on that new line. Also focusing curbs a little the backlog of answering questions. Or worse, trying to figure out what edition anyone is talking about.

As for Next. It is far from complete. But the last playtest packet has several new twists like the new magic system in particular. Backgrounds, etc. So far nothing that really screams out as bad. Just a little different. Rather than broad sweeping changes.

This has been an issue with some small publishers who have picked an IP off the graveyard shelf.  Stick with one line get it out there once people see you actually mean business, then you can start resurrecting other IPs.  Yet for some reason they get one IP start 'updating that line' and next thing you know that small publisher has got 4 more IPs and nothing is going anywhere.

I have always envisioned 5E as being similar to Fantasy Craft (basic rules with sidebars and modular drop ins encompassing Campaign level right down to individual player level, sort of a supercharged 2e).

All this but with better layout/organization/support.

For Next, modularity was always a bad idea.  I mean, in principle, having a way to easily modify the rules is good.  But because the player base is so fractured and generally happy with what they're currently playing, why would you buy Next and module-ize/customize it to approximate the game you're already playing when you could instead keep playing the game you're playing?  

Next needs to build a solid core that is a good game.  If it is a good game that addresses problems identified with people's 'preferred version', then they'll have a success.  

For example, I'm on record as saying 3.x is my preferred version of an RPG.  The problems I have with it include NPC creation taking WAY TOO LONG.  In fact, monster design, in general, is a pain - especially skill points, because they're often not even going to come into play.  I'd also like more ease of play without a grid.  Finally, the ability for some classes to stay relevant and/or avoid the breakdowns that happen with high-level play would be good.  

If they were able to address those problems with 3.x in a new edition, they might have some chance of winning over players like myself and others that prefer 3.x - but are instead making do with a customized hybrid of their own design.  As long as they aren't recruiting new players, they're fine.  

So D&D Next is mostly going to have to appeal to brand-new gamers to be successful.  But if the core is good, and lots of people are playing it, and it appeals to long-time gamers that find it easier to run than their current preferred edition, then it will be REALLY successful.  But it's not going to achieve that by being modular - because at that point everyone is playing a different game, and that's already where we are.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;703403For Next, modularity was always a bad idea.  I mean, in principle, having a way to easily modify the rules is good.  But because the player base is so fractured and generally happy with what they're currently playing, why would you buy Next and module-ize/customize it to approximate the game you're already playing when you could instead keep playing the game you're playing?  

Exactly.  Their mktg people haven't answered that question.   (potentially fatal)

WHY would I buy 5th?  So far, I have seen no compelling reason to do so.  This doesn't bode well...

If you're the kind of person who goes on message boards and argues about which version of D&D is the best game, it has nothing to offer you. If you're the kind of person who is sick of people talking about which version of D&D is the best game and you just want to grab the book labeled D&D and play some Dragon-Botherers, it's right up your alley.

Everyone on message boards has this group delusion that all fifty people with INCREDIBLY strong opinions are the whole of the hobby. WoTC's market research, according to them, shows that most people just want to sit down and play some D&D.

Quote from: JonWake;703461WoTC's market research, according to them, shows that most people just want to sit down and play some D&D.

Hahaha, TRUTH! But, source. Not to question anyone but I'm curious about their market research.

Quote from: The Traveller;703469Hahaha, TRUTH! But, source. Not to question anyone but I'm curious about their market research.

WOTCs so called marketing research is notoriously fucked up on multiple levels. Moreso because they will then ignore the research, skew the answers, or use the research to do the exact opposite of what would have worked.

At this point marketing is nearly useless when the execs just override and call for whatever they think is trendy (a decade ago) or the current fad in business practice. (5 year plan).

Think during the 4.0 phase they showed their official marketing graph of what "fans" wanted. I know they had one up some years ago but cant pin it down now.

Quote from: Omega;703484At this point marketing is nearly useless when the execs just override and call for whatever they think is trendy (a decade ago) or the current fad in business practice. (5 year plan).

It kind of reminds me of Dr Evil doing the "I'm hip, I'm cool" dance. Tokka tokka tokka tok...

Quote from: Omega;703484WOTCs so called marketing research is notoriously fucked up on multiple levels. Moreso because they will then ignore the research, skew the answers, or use the research to do the exact opposite of what would have worked.

At this point marketing is nearly useless when the execs just override and call for whatever they think is trendy (a decade ago) or the current fad in business practice. (5 year plan).

Think during the 4.0 phase they showed their official marketing graph of what "fans" wanted. I know they had one up some years ago but cant pin it down now.

I'm not a fan of anything up to this point WoTC has done with the legacy entrusted them, but I still think that claim needs citations to swallow.

Quote from: The Traveller;703486It kind of reminds me of Dr Evil doing the "I'm hip, I'm cool" dance. Tokka tokka tokka tok...

Sadly true too.

Of course sometimes its a persuasive designer with some harebrained idea that would otherwise get shot down. But more often its the suits screwing with things now-a-days.

Quote from: TristramEvans;703490I'm not a fan of anything up to this point WoTC has done with the legacy entrusted them, but I still think that claim needs citations to swallow.

d20 GW. Designers have stated more than once that WOTC had a veto on several elements and demanded the omission of mutant plants for example because "Players thought they were silly" and nanotech was the in thing.

Thats the one that pops up most.

And one not WOTCs fault was for D&D GW WOTC was on such a tight leash that they couldnt afford card art and couldnt even budget to differentiate the card backs text for the CCG section. That one is up on the WOTC forum still somewhere.

There have been other statements over the years. At least one marketing research graph they showed off for D&D. I thought I'd actually saved it for future reference because it was so skewed. But Im not seeing it in archives.

Here is one from their site. Nothing really off kilter though. It is I believe for 3e.

QuoteOur surveys also revealed that:

    46% of D&D players (approximately 759,000) have acted as DM at least twice.
    Dungeon Masters spend five times more money on TRPGs than do players.

This information told us our key customers were Dungeon Masters, and that to keep our business strong we should provide products that appeal to them. When we followed up with smaller studies, we learned that DMs specifically wanted tools to help them develop their own campaigns, and material they could easily adapt for their existing games, rather than detailed worlds and intricate storylines.

In addition, we discovered that TRPG players prefer games that offer the following attributes:

    Strong characters and exciting story.
    Opportunity for roleplaying.
    Complexity that increases over time.
    Involvement of strategy.
    Use of imagination.
    Competition.
    Add-on sets or new versions available.
    Mental challenge.

Next, we had to figure out how to ensure that all of our products offered each of these elements to some degree. Our product lines already contained most of these elements. We just had to try to emphasize them more. This meant highlighting the increasing complexity (level advancement and options), strategic elements (returning to grid and miniatures in combat), and competition (through RPGA). We also realized that D&D itself did not offer enough in the way of strong characters or stories, relying instead on campaign settings for these elements. In response, we created the iconic characters and adventure path for the core D&D game.

From this first market research report, we crafted the first draft of our current RPG business plan, which outlined how many products our customers wanted to buy each year, how much they wanted to spend, what they wanted those products to be about, and how we could make the overall RPG experience more engaging and satisfying for them. Since then, we have done two more in-depth studies, more than 25 customer response card surveys, and countless convention and web surveys. Now, each time we receive more data, we reevaluate our strategies and make any changes necessary to ensure the satisfaction of the largest number of consumers possible.

Quote from: JonWake;703461Everyone on message boards has this group delusion that all fifty people with INCREDIBLY strong opinions are the whole of the hobby. WoTC's market research, according to them, shows that most people just want to sit down and play some D&D.

And people who post like this are TOTALLY clueless and inexperienced when it comes to marketing a product internationally.  :rolleyes:

Heres another interesting. But not IMHO overly damning either. Just... interesting the conclusions they come to. This was posted to a few sites. But the first example I landed on.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

It's all quite interesting, and I remember the '99 survey WoTC did and I remember at the time being incredibly critical of how it was carried out (I honestly just don't think the majority of roleplayers attend cons).And I don't doubt there's intereference from the suits, especially once Hasbro got into the mix.

However, Im not seeing from any of this anything to lead to the conclusion that "they ignore the research, skew the answers, or use the research to do the exact opposite of what would have worked." Seems a bit conspiracy theory when most of what WoTC has done seems to me more likely just the natural result of incompetence .