Escapist article "The State of D&D: Present"

[Prime32]

Spotted a GitP discussion on this. Here's the article itself: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/features/9293

[veekie]

Well, most of it is stuff we already know, though the boardroom details of making the new edition was new. The biggest mistake is obvious as well, as they put it, they were reaching market saturation for 3.5, which makes it all the stranger to gamble on reaching new players over retaining old. Then the GSL undermined support from other publishers...basically it was reversing everything that 3E used to unify the fanbase and push forward.

The other big one was trying to compete with new media head on. Either there was this giant untapped market the MMO companies hadn't found, or they were trying to pry customers off a juggernaut.

[Bozwevial]

The other big one was trying to compete with new media head on. Either there was this giant untapped market the MMO companies hadn't found, or they were trying to pry customers off a juggernaut.

It didn't help that the digital services they promised never actually happened. Pre-order sales were fantastic because 3.5 was reaching the end of its apparent shelf life and WotC waved the promise of fixing some long-running problems under the nose of customers. They could have put out FATAL with a beagle puss glued to the front and still outsold 3rd edition at launch.

Eventually it became more obvious that a lot of the design choices were dubious (Meteor Swarm is definitely not a crowd control spell) and the online play tools like the digital board weren't going to happen. And Essentials managed, somehow, to alienate some of the new crowd. I'm still not sure how that particular decision made sense.

[Ziegander]

There's also The Future to consider. I found Mearls' surprisingly candid comments about D&D and RPGs in general to be particularly interesting.

[phaedrusxy]

They could have put out FATAL with a beagle puss glued to the front and still outsold 3rd edition at launch.

Dude... I'd have totally bought that, just for the novelty factor. 

[SorO_Lost]

Well, most of it is stuff we already know, though the boardroom details of making the new edition was new.

Yeah, but it was still known in varying degrees. Like for one thing, this is BG. We moved away from WotC too, only our pink slip that WotC gave us cost thirty bucks and had a hard cover.

Cudos for taking the time to list so many reasons in it though.

There's also The Future to consider. I found Mearls' surprisingly candid comments about D&D and RPGs in general to be particularly interesting.

He also said 4E is perfectly balanced and at the time of publishing it sure the hell wasn't.

Mearls's new found insight isn't impressive. It's like saying you know the economy is bad. Great, glad you finally caught up to things. So what's next? Well new board games have already been released an apparently someone came out of the closet and admitted to wanting to publish video games so they wanted the possibility to be known to gather public opinion. You can expect more generic standardization in rules as likely things are going to boil down to four races as well. I really think 5th will have a new chapter called "how I think you should RP" the way things are going. Assuming they even print the damn thing. WotC is whoring it's self out like a Nascar driver and hasn't learned a damn thing is pretty much all you need to know.

The good news is the article was nice enough to note the success of third party developers. Like I may not have gotten into PF, but I'm glad they made enough of a profit that people point it out.

[Bozwevial]

Well, most of it is stuff we already know, though the boardroom details of making the new edition was new.

Yeah, but it was still known in varying degrees. Like for one thing, this is BG. We moved away from WotC too, only our pink slip that WotC gave us cost thirty bucks and had a hard cover.

The whole G0 thing prompted the move too, although the forums predated that.

[Unbeliever]

Slight rant ahead: 

I'm sick of these game designers, namely Monte Cook and now Mike Mearls, gesturing towards this hey-day of 2E.  These sort of comments against player empowerment, or how dare they write consistent rules for things, just piss me off.  Hell, I played the shit out of AD&D, but it was an extremely frustrating system.  I remember moving onto Rifts, of all things, b/c it had better rules. 

And, I feel like given that the 4th Edition team managed to essentially derail the juggernaut that was D&D and massively fracture the market, they are constantly either (a) letting nostalgia run away with them or (b) trying to argue that you don't really need a decent game, this magic DM figure is supposed to paper over everything they fuck up at the design stage. 

[Sinfire Titan]

And, I feel like given that the 4th Edition team managed to essentially derail the juggernaut that was D&D and massively fracture the market, they are constantly either (a) letting nostalgia run away with them or (b) trying to argue that you don't really need a decent game, this magic DM figure is supposed to paper over everything they fuck up at the design stage.

Here's the thing about D&D's traget audience: It's inherently divided. Even back in the days of 1E there were different camps regarding playstyles. They weren't as vocal as they are today due to the Eternal September, but they did exist.

To visualize it, let's take 3.0's release. There were a couple of groups:

• The oldschoolers, who stuck with AD&D (or older) and refused to budge.
• The revisers, who stuck with AD&D but wanted to rewrite the system with their own house rules as canon (mixing in portions of other editions or systems in the process).
• The transitional players, who tried to port their old characters into a new system to continue the campaign.
• The newbies, who just picked up D&D with the new system.
• The rebounds, who stopped playing D&D a while ago and picked up 3.0 to start over.
• That small group that actually just switched to AD&D from older editions.
• The fractional group that took one look at 3.0 and switched to AD&D or older editions.

Then WotC released the first splatbook, causing a subdivision amongst the 3.0 players. This repeats itself for every single splatbook out there, up to and beyond the release of 3.5. This trend continues itself in 4E, until the fanbase has become so heavily divided on the topic that there's hundreds of groups with different mentalities, you just have to look for them. Saying that 4E split the market is inaccurate: What split the market was Paizo's fame and their intent to continue supporting 3.5 while WotC printed 4E. The fanbase splitting was bound to happen. WotC just didn't expect Paizo to step up and continue where they left off.

[Unbeliever]

^ I had a longer response to this, but here's the short version.  This kind of comment come sup a lot, but the observations don't seem to be doing the work that they are supposed to be doing.  The divisions you talk about  (a) exist in like everything, and (b) have persisted in D&D since time immemorial, as you yourself note. 

But, 3.0 D&D dominated the market.  WotC was a juggernaut.  Even if these camps existed, people were still playing D&D, whereas now, many of us aren't and aren't giving WotC a red cent.  So, clearly 4E really did some serious, hardcore fracturing, since now it seems that the D&D people are struggling to turn a profit and also walking around trying to justify their decisions or recant them. 

[snakeman830]

But, 3.0 D&D dominated the market.  WotC was a juggernaut.  Even if these camps existed, people were still playing D&D, whereas now, many of us aren't and aren't giving WotC a red cent.  So, clearly 4E really did some serious, hardcore fracturing, since now it seems that the D&D people are struggling to turn a profit and also walking around trying to justify their decisions or recant them.

I'm still giving WotC money.  Magic is getting better and better with the new design perspective (flavor first, everything else is built around that).

Oh wait, not what you meant

Honestly, I don't have much respect for the D&D division of WotC anymore.  They really didn't do enough research before release.

[SorO_Lost]

I'm still giving WotC money.  Magic is getting better and better with the new design perspective (flavor first, everything else is built around that).

Oh wait, not what you meant

Honestly, I don't have much respect for the D&D division of WotC anymore.  They really didn't do enough research before release.

Seconded. The MtG is amazing.

They just need to fix their author problem they got going on over there >.>

[Sinfire Titan]

They just need to fix their author problem they got going on over there >.>

Step 1: Get rid of Wintermute. Permanently. Teeth of Akoum and Quest for Karn have got to be the worst books I've read in the past 10 years (Twilight doesn't count since I've only read MST3K-style reviews).

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Reading Twilight reviews to get in touch with your feminine side + SorO's sig =  dodged a bullet
(points finger at myself)



These kinds of articles, are usually part of a marketing campaign, for the next thing.

[BrianTheBrain]

I'm still giving WotC money.  Magic is getting better and better with the new design perspective (flavor first, everything else is built around that).

Oh wait, not what you meant

Honestly, I don't have much respect for the D&D division of WotC anymore.  They really didn't do enough research before release.

Seconded. The MtG is amazing.

They just need to fix their author problem they got going on over there >.>

Exactly, MtG is amazing because they're taking advantage of every thing that makes card games unique. It fills the TCG niche. 3.5 filled a niche and the decision to try and wriggle into a niche that's already filled rather well is always a bad one. Just ask the producer of "Percy Jackson and the Olympians".