Has anyone made an alternative to BattleTech? I don't imagine that it's sustainable to not buy from the publisher anymore.

The 1st quarter numbers are out for Hasbro, and there seems to be various interpretations going on about the numbers. Why do some people think the numbers are 'good', and others 'bad'? Here's my take!
#dnd #ttrpg #osr

Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 15, 2024, 11:53:43 AMAnd it's crazy to think that one D&D video game makes more money for Hasbro than tabletop D&D does in three to four years combined. And every cent of the Baldur's Gate money is profit whereas most of the revenue from tabletop D&D is countered by the cost to write and print the books.

But Baldur's Gate would not exist without the TTRPG.
My concern, and I think many people share this concern, is that they can miss TTRPGs as a small business in itself that can generate huge sales in spin offs. But the TTRPG has to exist and thrive to be generating those spin offs.
Corporate doinks can and do kill off golden geese trying to maximize profits, not understanding why things are profitable. And D&D could easily be a casualty of that kind of narrow thinking.

Quote from: Mistwell on Today at 06:15:17 PMAs for a phone game you can play casually, I highly recommend Marvel Snap. Seriously, really very good game and highly addicting. And free - no idea why anyone pays them for additional in-game stuff as almost all of it is meaningless and no advantage.

That's a whole nother topic, but basically there's a tiny number of people who, for various reasons, spend a huge amount on microtransactions. They essentially pay for the game while everyone else plays for free.

This has been described as predatory on people with behavioral issues. Somewhat like targeting people with gambling addiction with ads for online casinos.

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 02:28:20 PMTake a look at what is going on with Battletech with their community rep and the player base.  In short, the player base has had it with Catalyst Game Labs and have started to boycott buying new BT stuff.

Catalyst (the heirs to FASA) gets what it deserves in my opinion. Their sanctimonious attitude and their empowering those fuckers are Piranha to backdoor steal the Macross designs again has been detrimental to Robotech's brand for almost 40 years now, so fuck them.

Quote from: BadApple on Today at 02:41:12 PMMistwell,

It's "earnings" came at the expense of massive cuts that ensure that they will not be able to keep this up for very long.  Anyone really looking at the company over all, their public releases, total holdings, active projects, and open partnerships will see a company that dying. 

BG3 is the only reason why Q1 saw earnings.  Everything else was mitigating the flooding coming in through the holes in the hull.  Now the partnership with Larian (the actual makers of BG3) is over.  They aren't profitable with toys, they aren't profitable with board games, their Renegade Studios RPGs are tapering off.  WOTC is on fire, and none of their digital projects are on time or on budget. 

MtG sales have increased from last quarter but not nearly at the same rate of the rest of the CCG market.  Looking at the reception the latest releases, it's bleak in the long term.

Over all, they've drained their creative talent pool and the business management side is saying stupid things and making even dumber decisions.

I don't say this with glee.  Many of my happiest moments were brought to me by Hasbro.  It's like watching my favorite uncle die of cancer.

It's revenue was up. They're quoting SALES. So this isn't from layoffs saving them money. They specified for example that MtG sales were up - that's not BG3. There is zero indication their offerings are over budget or not on time in this?

Of course you say it with glee. You just said a huge amount of unsupported bullshit. Only reason someone says that is for their personal gratification. Oh yes, poor you, you gleefully lying outright about facts is like you watching your uncle die of cancer - showing you're not just a liar but a drama queen to boot. You're such a victim of [checks notes] not liking a gaming company.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on Today at 02:45:05 PMBooks ARE expensive, WotC wants to switch to digital only, and as Professor Dungeon Master says, I would be greatly surprized if they don't make a phone game you can play casually on the subway.

WOTC does not want to switch to digital only and anyone claiming they heard that from WOTC is lying. People keep guessing they want that, but the actual people in charge there keep saying that's not the intention at all and follow that up with more hardcopy books.

As for a phone game you can play casually, I highly recommend Marvel Snap. Seriously, really very good game and highly addicting. And free - no idea why anyone pays them for additional in-game stuff as almost all of it is meaningless and no advantage.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on Today at 02:41:19 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on Today at 09:58:15 AMLatest earnings call:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hasbro-q1-2024-earnings-call-164518554.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW53b3JsZC5vcmcv&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHAQVO30snNQCJm4GSToRptm2zCiWDl5PtdcExukSViXZsez77nAC9_qFOxXXXoNlJ-C1g3LkpG1OqKaQ_-_O9kHHV6teOWfjsKyb9SuqT2xg5-VsuviwkSCQGvecU1n_XYQwT27-p0TqlLcxRrXQRS6z8KHRbZFnPvZM7lNi5xU

The Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming segment's revenues totaled $316.3 million, up 8.2% from $339 million in the year-ago quarter. Adjusted operating margin was 38.8% compared with 26% in the year-ago quarter.

Hasbro's overall revenues: -24%
Digital and licensed game sales: +14%
Overall tabletop gaming: +5%
Magic the Gathering: +4%

Wait a minute...

$316.3 million < $339 million

So how can they be "up 8.2% from the year-ago quarter"?

LOL good point. No idea. Looks like Orwellian double speak but I am just pasting someone else's summary so maybe there is a logical explanation like a typo.

Oooops, Wrong thread!

DELETED

Quote from: Eric Diaz on Today at 12:53:00 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 24, 2024, 09:47:06 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 24, 2024, 08:20:38 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2024, 09:03:17 AM... To my mind, the holy grail of good RPG design is to have it that a player can make decisions entirely based on understanding the game world and in-game situation, without even needing to understand the rules, and the rules will bear out the effectiveness of that decision as it would be in the fiction. The point of all of this weapon and armor realism is not simulation for it's own sake, but to produce the same incentives in equipment and combat choices as would exist if the game world was real.

Agreed... that would be ideal.

OK, if we accept that as the ideal for a moment, let me ask you both a question.  Would you settle for rules/mechanics that caused the players to emulate the weapon and armor realism, but without really understanding how this pertains to simulating the fiction? That is, what if players end up choosing weapons and armor that would make sense due to real-world concerns, but not necessarily for those reasons?

Yep, I'm taking that thought a little sideways, because I think the ideal is unobtainable, and then the question becomes what becomes an acceptable, pragmatic result short of it.

Not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to give my 2c... I think that it would be good if weapons were more "realistic", with or without players understanding WHY a pick is good against plate.

I think there are two aspects to consider.

First the "realism" thing. I want the game to function similarly (not identically) to the real world. I've learned a lot from RPGs - not only vocabulary, but until a game last month I had no idea if a bonfire was hot enough to melt gold (it is).

Second, I think this is FUN. Describing a weapon piercing armor or bashing someone's head even under a helmet makes the game more action-packed. I wouldn't be as excited to calculate precisely how many calories a person needs, or the chances of mild ear disease as suggested in AD&D.

So, in the end, I like attempting realism when it can potentially increase the fun, but that is very subjective, of course.

To use the pick example, what if a player often did use a pick when fighting someone wearing plate, but it wasn't because of a specific mechanic/rule that a pick was more likely to bypass armor? 

I know that is very loose, subjective, and theoretical, but I'm trying not to prejudice answers with particular implementations.  Another way to say it is, suppose that roughly half the players in the group have some understanding of why a pick could be a good choice when used against plate.  The other half don't.  However, because of other factors (cost of weapons, social status, setting local laws, trade-offs 1-handed/2-handed, weapon encumbrance, etc.), some of these other players could end up happily using a pick.

It's hard to imagine that working with a single weapon versus a single kind of armor, pick versus plate.  However, my contention is that if you are willing to accept some edge cases, you can get a bias towards using the simulated thing even without direct mechanics to support it in each case.