Crazy proposal: The playground takes over D&D.

[Darth Stabber]

So in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202413) we eventually came up with the crazy idea of buying D&D from WotC and Hasbro. The really crazy part is that it is, in theory, feasible. To quote Person_Man:


There is some precedent. Pre-Hasbro, WotC allowed fans to continue Darksun, Planescape, and Spelljammer (unprofitable 2d edition settings with cult followings). But post-Hasbro, I don't see it happening unless someone walks up to them with a big bag of money.

Of course we could just buy the rights to D&D and all of it's intellectual properties in their entirety. WotC paid $25 million for it back in 1997. Hasbro bought WotC for $325 million in 1999, but that's largely because they wanted the patent on collectible card games. 4E has had declining sales, their online efforts have been a money pit, their talks with the Cartoon Network for a new cartoon fell through, and Daggerdale is bombing. In this economy you could probably get D&D for a mere $10 million.

Step 1: File the paperwork for an LLC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability_company) startup. Promise to put all D&D intellectual property up in and SRD on the web, and allow anyone to publish anything related to or including that information in exchange for a 5% gross licensing fee.

Step 2: Sell stock to get the capital to buy D&D. Follow through on your promises.

Step 3: Profit!

If you fail, the company files for bankruptcy and you lose nothing but the licensing fees to start the company. It'll be just like the 90's all over again!

Is there anyone who would be seriously interested in doing this? I'll admit it's a long shot, but there would be very little money risked.

[dextercorvia]

I'd like to see a bit more of a plan, before saying yes or know, but I think this has a better chance of flying than just purchasing competitive IP.

[*.*.*.*]

How much do you think the playground would need to raise for the LLC fees?

[sonofzeal]

What's your business model though? I mean, Step 1 involves giving the whole package away for free. Do you plan to ever recoup that $10 million? If so, how?

[dextercorvia]

What's your business model though? I mean, Step 1 involves giving the whole package away for free. Do you plan to ever recoup that $10 million? If so, how?

Licensing fees and future publications. Extant text only will be free.

[WinWin]

The only way this could work would be to buy the brand.

Anyone can design and publish a system...look at FATAL if you don't believe me.

D&D is an iconic brand though. It has a history and the name has filtered into mainstream culture far more than any other TTRPG.

So, nothing stopping you from making your own version of D&D, as that is effectively what the Pathfinder folks have done.

However, buying the IP, the brand itself, is probably unfeasable as long as Hasbro think they can make money out of it (which is fair enough, they do own it after all).

Of course even if you do buy the brand, you're gonna be alienating half the gaming community. I mean, you just can't please everyone and the designers idea of Classic Iconic D&D is not going to meet everyones expectations of what D&D should be.

[sonofzeal]

Licensing fees and future publications. Extant text only will be free.
Could work.

"Feat Compendium" and "Prestige Compendium" would practically write themselves, and would sell without too much trouble.

[danzibr]

If I ever won the lottery, I'd do it! Alas, I am poor.

[Seerow]

You could even get a couple competent programmers to make the tools WotC originally promised for DDI, just don't make the mistake of charging for them before they're ready.



That said, I'm also curious how much the licensing fees that the playground would need to raise without investors would cost.

[Lateral]

I suppose it could be done, but I'll bet it would be far easier and cheaper to try to buy the 3.5 system and materials from Hasbro than trying to buy the entire D&D franchise- they're no longer making any money from the older system anyway.

[Seerow]

I suppose it could be done, but I'll bet it would be far easier and cheaper to try to buy the 3.5 system and materials from Hasbro than trying to buy the entire D&D franchise- they're no longer making any money from the older system anyway.

If you buy the 3.5 system though, now you're asking to buy material that will be in direct competition with the product they're pushing. It actually makes far less sense for Hasbro to sell 3.5 alone than D&D as a total package.

[Reluctance]

I'm seeing two problems. First, getting "the playground" to act as one cohesive whole. You have at least as much talent in the playground as WotC does, but they're all off doing their own things. And while the "this is official D&D now" banner may draw more people, you'll still be hard pressed to find consensus.

Second, you'd either need to reinvent the wheel, or engage in I don't know what sort of wrangling for splat rights. We all know that late-stage 3.5 was a different game - a more balanced and much better game - than core was. Wrangling for rights to all that material, as opposed to just the brand name, sounds like it'd be trickier.

[erikun]

I hate to be the pessimist in the room, but this is a terrible idea. I mean, epicly disastrous, shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-already terrible. Here's a quick look at the reasons why.

First, we are assuming that Hasbro is willing to sell D&D for a small $10 million. When they paid $325 million. That is a 97% loss. Realize that, while D&D may not be making as much money as it used to, it is still making money. Furthermore, unlike a house, it doesn't cost Hasbro a cent to retain the licensing rights. If you are willing to spend $10 million, then they can easily wait for someone to offer $20 million. The only reason they would take your offer is if D&D looked to be worth less than $10 million, which means that absolutely nobody wants it.

People do not buy stock in a company unless they expect a return. You are asking people to give up $10 million for nothing in return. Nothing! I give to charities, but it is generally more deserving than the "Allow Me To Buy The D&D License" charity.

Please note that when you talk about "gaining the money back", you are talking about $200 million in sales to match your initial investment. If the D&D license can still provide $200 million in sales, then you can guarantee that Hasbro will be pumping it for that $200 million - or will be asking for a $200 million price for the license!

If you can't buy the license, you are asking the company to go bankrupt. As in, bye-bye that $10 million that people gave you. This is going to piss off a lot of people, and some of them will likely find some obscure law to get you arrested under.

You have no plan or organization ready to contact and sign up companies interested in printing D&D material. This is, of course, assuming that other companies want to print material for a license that has lost over 99% of its initial sales.

You have no way to enforce the license or pursue those who violate it. Unless, of course, you want to spend your own money to do so. Just remember that lawyers are expensive.


So you have an idea that costs a lot of money, doesn't earn money, requires people to invest in it with no return, requires a number of man-hours spent for free, and requires purchasing the most noteworthy roleplaying IP at around 1% of its current worth and likely less than 10% of its yearly earnings. :smallannoyed: I do not find this, by any stretch of the imagination, "feasible".

[Gametime]

If you buy the 3.5 system though, now you're asking to buy material that will be in direct competition with the product they're pushing. It actually makes far less sense for Hasbro to sell 3.5 alone than D&D as a total package.

But they'd also still be making money off a product. I don't really see 3.5 competing all that much with 4e anyway; people who prefer 3.5 seem more inclined to play 3.5 (or Pathfinder or a similar variant). I imagine the market of people who prefer 3.5 enough to buy 3.5 books instead of 4e, but not enough to forego 4e entirely for existing 3.5 material, is fairly small.

[stainboy]

I suppose it could be done, but I'll bet it would be far easier and cheaper to try to buy the 3.5 system and materials from Hasbro than trying to buy the entire D&D franchise- they're no longer making any money from the older system anyway.

You mean this (http://www.d20srd.org/) 3.5 system? Because you're allowed to use that for free and there is nothing WotC can do to stop you. (http://paizo.com/)



I'm seeing two problems. First, getting "the playground" to act as one cohesive whole. You have at least as much talent in the playground as WotC does, but they're all off doing their own things. And while the "this is official D&D now" banner may draw more people, you'll still be hard pressed to find consensus.

Just the premise that "the Playground" writes something is problematic. Even if you could somehow make that happen it would be a huge mess with no guiding vision. Too many cooks, and so forth.

[Taelas]

I hate to be the pessimist in the room, but this is a terrible idea. I mean, epicly disastrous, shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-already terrible. Here's a quick look at the reasons why.

First, we are assuming that Hasbro is willing to sell D&D for a small $10 million. When they paid $325 million. That is a 97% loss.
Think you misread the post, there. They bought the company, Wizards of the Coast, for $325 million... which was primarily for the TCGs like MtG, which they would keep.

WotC bought D&D for $25 million.

[Darth Stabber]

Of course even if you do buy the brand, you're gonna be alienating half the gaming community. I mean, you just can't please everyone and the designers idea of Classic Iconic D&D is not going to meet everyones expectations of what D&D should be.

Here's how I see it shaking out after the aquisition: 4E will become it's own seperate line with it's own development team. 3.5 will also be an independant line. If there is enough support we could even have a team dedicated to the ressurection of AD&D. Each line will remain seperate to mitigate reigniting the now cooling edition wars. And if we are really lucky we might be able to get paizo to pay us a fee to call their product "D&D: Pathfinder". SRD content will be released over time (say a year) , starting with putting the fluff back in the current SRD content and updating the srd content that was never converted to 3.5. While 3.5 is being laid bare, 4E will be getting the open source treatment, as Core opens up the 4.0 SRD, with additional content staggered to follow.

Now, is there any content we want to hold back? I am very tempted to say that stting specific material should remain Product Identity, but certainly reprintable in whole or part.

[Sir Homeslice]

Honestly, in every single situation that doesn't involve a blatant miracle or freak chance, this idea can only end in tears and cash you might as well have set on fire.

At least when 4e gets dropped this way it won't be because of Mearls being incompetent.

[Rei_Jin]

One of the big things that is biting into the bottom line of games producers like Wizards of the Coast, is the easy availability of books via download. Almost every single person I know who plays D&D has PDFs of the books they use, and whilst I myself do, I also own hardcover copies of them all. Yes, it cost me thousands of dollars.

Any business model needs to take this into account, and find alternate forms of revenue whilst retaining profitability and high quality.

I love the idea of buying back D&D so that it can have the treatment it deserves, but you'll be looking at a lot more than $10 million. Remember that there will be product in warehouse and on order that has already been paid for by Hasbro, and will need to be purchased as part of the deal. In addition to that, Wizards still sell PDFs of some of their 3.5 products through third party websites, making them a small amount of profit.

If you were just talking Intellectual Property purchase, then I still think you'd be up for more than $10 million. If they were willing to sell the name of D&D and everything attached to it, they would be selling a world wide recognised game that is known as being the benchmark for roleplaying games for the past thirty years.

It would be something similar to Coca Cola changing the recipe to something that very few people liked, and a small business offering to buy them out for $100 million. It just wouldn't happen, because of brand name recognition.

[Starbuck_II]

You mean this (http://www.d20srd.org/) 3.5 system? Because you're allowed to use that for free and there is nothing WotC can do to stop you. (http://paizo.com/)

But only the SRD materials not offroots like Complete Arcane/Warrior/Adventure which is what buying 3.5 D&D rights would do. One can't give more official material for Hexblade unless you hae the rights.

What Paizo had to do was make non-hexblades with abilities called Hexes.

[Worira]

I do have a fireplace, you know. If I wanted to set my money on fire, there's nothing stopping me.

Buying the IP rights to an unpublished setting in order to make a small-scale private publishing run? Might be doable.

Buying D&D? About as likely as herding cats while your clothing is on fire and tiny men are stabbing you with acid-coated pitchforks.

[Zaq]

Well, it's a neat fantasy. Clearly no more than that, but a nice dream.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, it's a neat fantasy. Clearly no more than that, but a nice dream.

We could just do what Paizo did and make use of the OGL.

[Sucrose]

One of the big things that is biting into the bottom line of games producers like Wizards of the Coast, is the easy availability of books via download. Almost every single person I know who plays D&D has PDFs of the books they use, and whilst I myself do, I also own hardcover copies of them all. Yes, it cost me thousands of dollars.

Any business model needs to take this into account, and find alternate forms of revenue whilst retaining profitability and high quality.

I love the idea of buying back D&D so that it can have the treatment it deserves, but you'll be looking at a lot more than $10 million. Remember that there will be product in warehouse and on order that has already been paid for by Hasbro, and will need to be purchased as part of the deal. In addition to that, Wizards still sell PDFs of some of their 3.5 products through third party websites, making them a small amount of profit.

If you were just talking Intellectual Property purchase, then I still think you'd be up for more than $10 million. If they were willing to sell the name of D&D and everything attached to it, they would be selling a world wide recognised game that is known as being the benchmark for roleplaying games for the past thirty years.

It would be something similar to Coca Cola changing the recipe to something that very few people liked, and a small business offering to buy them out for $100 million. It just wouldn't happen, because of brand name recognition.

Where could one find these websites? There are a few books that I'm having trouble acquiring second-hand, and I'd like to legally procure PDFs of them...

On-topic, I agree that this seems rather infeasible, particularly lacking anything resembling a hierarchy to keep things organized, profits doled out appropriately, and so on.

[CTrees]

The thing you're forgetting is that, while your character may be able to cast Miracle, you aren't.

[Yuki Akuma]

This idea is in fact crazy.

Count me in if anything ever actually happens though. :smalltongue:

[CTrees]

Count me in if anything ever actually happens though. :smalltongue:

My previous statement was too honest/blunt. I'll say-if you actually have a proper business plan? And this actually happens? Sure, I'll participate, probably.

[Chess435]

If I ever win the lottery, I am so buying D&D. Unfortunately, the odds of it are astronomical at best. Oh well, a guy can dream, can't he?

As said by previous people, count me in if the gears do start turning by some miracle. Or wish. :smallwink:

[Yuki Akuma]

A business plan that involves allowing other companies to use the content for a licensing fee is a good one. If there's enough interest anyway.

It worked for 3.5.

[Chess435]

The amount of capital we'd have to raise would be absurd. I guesstimate that in today's economy, we'd have to somehow come up with $40-60 million bucks. :smallsigh:

[Taelas]

I'd say it's possible. Probably not feasible, and I have my doubts as to whether or not Hasbro would sell, but still possible.

If it is created as a kickstarter venture, though, it would have to gather an insane amount of interest to work. Possible, but unlikely.

[EagleWiz]

This plan: Putting the crazy in crazy awesome.

[Rei_Jin]

Where could one find these websites? There are a few books that I'm having trouble acquiring second-hand, and I'd like to legally procure PDFs of them...

Well, I just had a quick look. At one stage you could buy them direct from Wizards... but they've taken down the 3.0 and 3.5 product catalogues so that you can't. The other option was to buy them from DriveThru RPG, but it seems that Wizards has revoked their option to sell those products.

It's all part of the push to make 3.5 disappear, so that we'll be forced to buy 4th edition.

[stainboy]

But only the SRD materials not offroots like Complete Arcane/Warrior/Adventure which is what buying 3.5 D&D rights would do. One can't give more official material for Hexblade unless you hae the rights.

What Paizo had to do was make non-hexblades with abilities called Hexes.

What about the hexblade can't you do with SRD material? WotC doesn't own "spooky warrior," and the hexblade is just a pile of SRD material anyway. Paladin chassis + familiar + wizard spells + a gimped Bestow Curse. You'd probably get sued if you actually used the word Hexblade, but who cares? Just make up some new fantasy wharrgarrrbl. (At this point we've accepted "warblade" as a non-stupid name for a class, you don't even have to try that hard.)

I don't care about reprinting 3.5's Elric McSephiroth class. I'd rather see someone write a new Elric McSephiroth class that won't spend levels 7-20 cowering behind the cleric.

[Otherworld Odd]

One website: kickstarter.com.

[Doc Roc]

The amount of capital we'd have to raise would be absurd. I guesstimate that in today's economy, we'd have to somehow come up with $40-60 million bucks. :smallsigh:

Potentially not that difficult in a lot of situations, but there's just no market for TTRPGs, as 4e has found out. I mean, I guess we might be able to do it if we had some sort of business plan?

VCs aren't stupid. Trust me, I should know. If you could sit down with them, and make a truly cohesive pitch about why this might eventually be worth something? Yeah, this might happen. But right now, you've got no product, no plan, no conversation, no price-point, and no founders. I don't think this is surmountable. Wizards Of The Coast is shockingly flexible for a large corporation, and is particularly aggressive about pursuing new and interesting ideas. They have a lot of experience selling D&D, and don't seem to be able to get it off the ground. To my sorrow, this suggests to me that there may not be a way to sell D&D.

[Tael]

Anyone who thinks that we can

Organize a public forum to not only co-operate but collectively give away 10 million dollars
Convince Hasbro to sell us D&D even with 10 million dollars
Actually do anything with D&D once it has been bought
Raise 10 million+ dollars


{{scrubbed}} . I mean really. This is a forum, not a company.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I still think it would be best if we just took advantage of the OGL like Paizo did, but totally change classes. Natural spell would be nerfed, certain spells would be nerfed or left out, fighters would get actual class features (I vote the martial aptitude class feature from Jiriku's fighter fix, for one of them), the monk would be much better (I vote standard action FoB and full base attack bonus, plus some way to hit epic skill uses for jump and balance), and paladin and ranger get some more stuff (as well as charisma based casting for the paladin).

[druid91]

I still think it would be best if we just took advantage of the OGL like Paizo did, but totally change classes. Natural spell would be nerfed, certain spells would be nerfed or left out, fighters would get actual class features (I vote the martial aptitude class feature from Jiriku's fighter fix, for one of them), the monk would be much better (I vote standard action FoB and full base attack bonus, plus some way to hit epic skill uses for jump and balance), and paladin and ranger get some more stuff (as well as charisma based casting for the paladin).

See, right there. You are already doing wrong.

Really, even if this worked out. How would this work?

Personally I'm seeing two futures if this plan goes through.

Future one, it fails and the resulting fallout causes strife within the forum.

future two it succeeds and is awesome. Until it's not because managing a company is difficult.

[stainboy]

Wizards Of The Coast is shockingly flexible for a large corporation, and is particularly aggressive about pursuing new and interesting ideas. They have a lot of experience selling D&D, and don't seem to be able to get it off the ground. To my sorrow, this suggests to me that there may not be a way to sell D&D.

WotC goes through staffers pretty fast. The people in charge of 4e's direction now aren't the people who developed 3.0 or 3.5 (or even 4e, for that matter). Nobody holds an important position at WotC long enough to develop a lot of experience doing anything.

Everybody knows the TTRPG market is shrinking but that doesn't mean that right now there's no way to sell D&D. It could also mean that WotC just made bad marketing decisions.

[Dragonfire]

Well for what it's worth i'm interested in the idea but I have no experiance with any business stuff at all. I think it could work though with some luck in the future if things stay the way they are headed right now.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

cant wait the for the book called how to min-max your charcater for the powergamer.

[Elana]

While I don't think buying the Dungeons and Dragons name is feasible.

How about just buying the D20 logo?

I'm sure a D20 Player Handbook would sell.
Also you could then reactivate something along the original D20 license to get other publishers to support your new line.


Or use your 10 millions to bribe the giant so you can make an Order of the Stick Roleplaying game.
(At least that is something I would buy :P )

[Darth Stabber]

Or use your 10 millions to bribe the giant so you can make an Order of the Stick Roleplaying game.
(At least that is something I would buy :P )

Honestly given how awesome the comic is, I would rather not shove a huge project like that on to Mr. Burlew's plate. Do you really want OotS updating every other month?

[Hirax]

Are we buying all of D&D, or just the rights to all 3.x publications? Merely buying all 3.x publications introduces a host of complications if we want to do anything new, due to certain things be a part of D&D as a whole (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0032.html). If we did just buy 3.5 and wanted to put out new or modified things with stuff considered to be part of D&D's identity we'd need license from WotC. On the other hand, if we buy all of D&D, then we're in publish or perish-type territory, and there will be a horde of angry people if we fail.

I think. I know little about copyrights, etc.

If this ever moves beyond thought experience stages I'm interested, and could even be of use since I'm in the finance industry, but I'll perch here on the fence for now.

[Feytalist]

The point is slightly moot now anyway, since Giant's reply on the other thread.

However, and at the risk of stoking this discussion again, I actually work for a company's corporate finance division. We handle trades like these regularly. It is really not all that easy to just buy property like this, intellectual or otherwise. Also, factors such as like projected revenue streams and profit before tax all influence the cost of the final transaction, not to mention all the ridiculous legal shenanigans.

Also, as has been mentioned, what do we do with it once we have it? Who's going to run with it?

Also, I simply proposed acquiring a single setting. I simply wanted to see what Giant's setting looked like. If I could have imagined it would mutate into buying the whole of D&D...

[WitchSlayer]

You know, you may think WotC does a terrible job and you have the right to criticize but really?

I would not trust the development to any of us. I definitely wouldn't trust the development to me.

[Rejakor]

I'd trust the development to Frank Trollman, but pretty much no-one else.

Even then i'd want someone less abrasive soothing creatives egos. Yeah. Frank Trollman as design lead, Feather De-Ruffler Prime (Obama?) as project lead/coordinator, massive press splash so third parties can jump on board (the kind pathfinder had and then used to publish that confused mess of houserules they call a fixed system), focused and accurate initial print runs with 4, 5 products ready to launch right off the bat (made, edited, and ready to print before any money is laid on the table for Hasbro), complete lack of money hemorrhaging anywhere, writers, editors, printsetters, artists, and staffers willing to put in the work even if it all falls through and they don't get paid for what they've done... and then it might have a chance of working.

PF is making money, but that's only because they have really, really good marketing. And what they did won't work twice, even if this new product is quality it will make less money at least initially. 4e and PF have drawn off the easy marks, all that's left is hardened buyers and 'grr 2e is best edishun' players.

[Gullintanni]

Is completely bat-**** insane. I mean really. This is a forum, not a company.

I agree with your post in its entirety...but if we were to organize ourselves into a company, what do you think we could accomplish? If we could organize the forum, we'd have a heck of a lot of manpower.

Hypothetically speaking of course...what kind of change could the 24,000 or so of us bring to the world? Corporate or otherwise?

[Eldan]

Well, mainly we would bring 24'000 people with no regular income, most likely.

[Gullintanni]

Speak for yourself there number 23,999 :smallwink:

[Eldan]

Phh. I'm a student. I have basically no income. Irregular would be preferable :smalltongue:

[Gwendol]

D&D is one of the most recognized brands in the world. It is worth a lot more than 10 M$.

My proposal would be a manager buy-out of some sort, so start soliciting the services of (ex) WoTC employees.

[Psyren]

Do we have any actual figures to back up 4e's failure in the marketplace? Or is its perceived poor performance simply conjecture?

DDI subscription figures, Splat book sales, DDO microtransaction sales, Neverwinter pre-orders, Daggerdale Marketplace sales... something besides "nobody I know plays 4e?"

[Person_Man]

Wow, I really just meant this as a joke. But since we're on this crazy train, we might was well ride it...

First, I think that D&D must bottom out like it did before. As I stated in my original post, this seems to be the way it's heading. But as long as the franchise is still profitable to them, they won't give it up for a reasonable price, and they won't give up some portion of D&D (just stuff prior to 4E for example) because it would be in direct competition with their products after you buy it.

Second, the key to my proposed business model is that the company formed to purchase Dungeons and Dragons must have no expenses (other then buying D&D), no overhead related to this endeavor, and no creative control over the franchise. It does not write books. It does not run a website. It does not sell anything. There are no paid D&D staff. The board of directors are elected by the stockholders. The Company simply publishes a Creative Commons license stating that anyone can use Dungeons and Dragons however they wish, as long as they're willing to pay a licensing fee if (and only if) they sell anything incorporating anything from the D&D intellectual property. Anyone in the world can can write books, scan their old books post them online, create their own websites with any or all the information that they want, create their own cartoons or video games, and write whatever new material in whatever campaign setting they want.

Unfortunately, in order to raise capital on a stock exchange in order to buy D&D from Hasbro you would first need to meet the stock exchange's listing requirements. This entails having a minimum amount of market capitalization (public consensus on the value of a company's net worth) and annual revenue. So you would need to find a profitable shell company willing to take on this venture in order to accomplish it (Google? Bioware? Etsy?), or infiltrate such a such company and work your way to the top in order to implement this plan, or start such a company yourself.

I don't think there is any realistic chance of any of the above happening any time soon. But it would make for hilarious interviews:

"So Mr Smith, why did you start Oil & Booze & Catgirls Inc.?"

"Well, it's really just a shell so that I can live out my childhood fantasy and purchase Dungeons and Dragons. So I picked the three most popular things I could think of and started selling them."

"Are you hiring?"

[Eldan]

The hilarious thing, of course, would be if Oil, Booze&Catgirls became incredibly profitable and famous.

A problem occuring to me:
For this plan to work, you would not only have to buy the rights to D&D, but also to all it's published books. Which would probably be very expensive.

Otherwise, we end up with a better SRD.

[Person_Man]

The hilarious thing, of course, would be if Oil, Booze &Catgirls became incredibly profitable and famous.

That movie has already been made (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395251/).



Do we have any actual figures to back up 4e's failure in the marketplace? Or is its perceived poor performance simply conjecture?

DDI subscription figures, Splat book sales, DDO microtransaction sales, Neverwinter pre-orders, Daggerdale Marketplace sales... something besides "nobody I know plays 4e?"

Well in April 2009 Ryan Dancey (guy who created the OGL and was later laid off) posted these comments online (http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-industry-forum/254049-ryan-dancey-d-d-death-spiral.html):

This is a classic example of Death Spiral. As things go bad, the regressive forces inside the organization (lawyers, commissioned sales people, creative folk who feel stifled by history, precariously tenured executives) are increasingly able to exert their agenda. It always makes a bad situation worse, but there's no magic bullet that would likely make the bad situation better so you get a rapid unbalance in the Corporate Force towards the Dark Side.

> OGL? Risky (someone might make us look bad, steal our ideas before we print them, or create a competitive brand that siphons off sales), and lack of faith in network marketing devalues ROI assumptions. Kill it.

> PDF? Causes endless problems with hardcopy partners creating pressure on sales team they could really do without, and revenues are so small as to be non-strategic. Cut it.

> Online? Every time you talk about it someone produces a $10 million minimum cost estimate to "do it right". After spending 3-5x this amount in a series of failed initiatives (lead by utterly unqualified people), executives assume Online is plutonium. No qualified lead or team will touch it.

> Evergreen? Sales of each unit are going down and few products have any staying power. The only (seemingly viable) solution is to put more books in production - make up for the revenue hole caused by lack of evergreen sales by getting more money out of each customer. The Treadmill.

The next things that will take hits are the RPGA (costs a lot to operate - slash it's budget), then quality (put fewer words and less art on fewer pages and raise the price), then consistency (rules varients generated by inexperienced designers and/or overworked developers start to spawn and cohesion in rulings breaks down leading to ad hoc interpretations as the de facto way to play).

Meanwhile sales just keep going down, the gap in the budget keeps getting bigger, and no matter how many heads roll, there isn't any light at the end of the tunnel.

Wizards is about to be forced into the D&D end-game which is something that many publishers have gone through but none ever with a game the scale and impact of D&D (TSR walked right up to this cliff but WotC saved them from going over the edge). There are 3 outcomes:

1: A total collapse, and the game ceases meaningful publication and distribution at least for one gamer generation and maybe forever.

2: Downsizing until overhead matches income; could involve some kind of out-license or spin off of the business - think BattleTech in its current incarnation.

3: Traumatic rebirth, meaning that someone, somewhere finds some way to cut out the cancers that are eating the tabletop game and restarts the mass market business for D&D.

Note that 2 and 3 can be mileposts on the road to 1.

Since that time we've gotten D&D Essentials (which they've begun to cancel (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2011January)), they canceled the D&D miniatures game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Miniatures_Game), Daggerdale has gotten bad reviews (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dungeons-dragons-daggerdale), and their list of recent products (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/products.aspx) seems pretty thin. It's possible that they're making money on D&D. I have no clue. But they certainly don't seem like they are.

[Darth Stabber]

Wow, I really just meant this as a joke. But since we're on this crazy train, we might was well ride it...

First, I think that D&D must bottom out like it did before. As I stated in my original post, this seems to be the way it's heading. But as long as the franchise is still profitable to them, they won't give it up for a reasonable price, and they won't give up some portion of D&D (just stuff prior to 4E for example) because it would be in direct competition with their products after you buy it.

Second, the key to my proposed business model is that the company formed to purchase Dungeons and Dragons must have no expenses (other then buying D&D), no overhead related to this endeavor, and no creative control over the franchise. It does not write books. It does not run a website. It does not sell anything. There are no paid D&D staff. The board of directors are elected by the stockholders. The Company simply publishes a Creative Commons license stating that anyone can use Dungeons and Dragons however they wish, as long as they're willing to pay a licensing fee if (and only if) they sell anything incorporating anything from the D&D intellectual property. Anyone in the world can can write books, scan their old books post them online, create their own websites with any or all the information that they want, create their own cartoons or video games, and write whatever new material in whatever campaign setting they want.

Unfortunately, in order to raise capital on a stock exchange in order to buy D&D from Hasbro you would first need to meet the stock exchange's listing requirements. This entails having a minimum amount of market capitalization (public consensus on the value of a company's net worth) and annual revenue. So you would need to find a profitable shell company willing to take on this venture in order to accomplish it (Google? Bioware? Etsy?), or infiltrate such a such company and work your way to the top in order to implement this plan, or start such a company yourself.

I don't think there is any realistic chance of any of the above happening any time soon. But it would make for hilarious interviews:

"So Mr Smith, why did you start Oil & Booze & Catgirls Inc.?"

"Well, it's really just a shell so that I can live out my childhood fantasy and purchase Dungeons and Dragons. So I picked the three most popular things I could think of and started selling them."

"Are you hiring?"

Assuming that I am stupid enough to want to try this, what is the benchmark of 4e failure (without a 5e on the horizon) that would give me any kind of chance? I misunderstood the suggestion in the other thread, but I think I get it now, and it would cause less strife on the forums than trying to get the playgrounders to agree on new content. I am going to freely admit, I ripped impossible (and sanity) out of my dictionary a while back. If I can find the circumstances underwhich this is possible, I am perfectly willing to take point. However I do not have the money for a licencing fee, however I can pay about half of the licencing fee if we set up in california ($75). As a note I live in missouri, so I can't handle it directly, I would need a partner in CA. If I could raise $200 I could set it up here. Note: that covers only the licence fee, MO has less corporate tax but again higher start up. Once licenced. For gaining investors we can either go public, or try to pick investors individually, but either way, we need people to stop buying 4e. Now is there a foundation out there to support people making things into creative commons or other copyleft properties? If our involvement will be solely licencing, we need to get some OGL developers on board. First call Paizo (they might want to resume publishing dragon and dungeon magazines), and they are a major non-WotC publisher, with a strong fanbase. Next calls, I'm thinking AEG and/or Green Ronin (they have published some of my favorite OGL games so they leap immediately to mind). Heck, with someone really smooth on the phone we might be able to get them in earlier as investors.

[stainboy]

Do we have any actual figures to back up 4e's failure in the marketplace? Or is its perceived poor performance simply conjecture?

DDI subscription figures, Splat book sales, DDO microtransaction sales, Neverwinter pre-orders, Daggerdale Marketplace sales... something besides "nobody I know plays 4e?"

Success of Pathfinder, radical changes in 4e's design direction, general dearth of new 4e products.

When we talk about 4e doing poorly we're comparing it to what we expect from a D&D line. 4e does sell books. If some scrappy indie publisher put out a game that sells as well as 4e does it would be a phenomenal success. But 4e isn't the market-dominating juggernaut that past editions were and it doesn't seem to have performed as well as WotC expected.

@Person Man: I would have linked that if you hadn't.

[Hirax]

RE: methodology of forming the group

I think forming a private equity firm as a limited partnership would be the best approach. Though it would come with higher liability levels if anyone ever decided to sue, it strikes me as more manageable. If anyone is going to take this on.

I do disagree with the statement that everyone on here has no regular income, I'm sure there are a few other working professionals out there. The bigger question is whether there's someone crazy and savvy enough to get this going. If you are out there, hypothetical crazy person, shoot me a PM after you've actually got some capital raised, and I'll get to work getting you some investment income. If the idea didn't go anywhere the investments would be liquidated, and partners (the people that contributed) would get a proportionate share of the company's assets based on their contribution.

[Hiro Protagonest]

See, right there. You are already doing wrong.

Really, even if this worked out. How would this work?

Personally I'm seeing two futures if this plan goes through.

Future one, it fails and the resulting fallout causes strife within the forum.

future two it succeeds and is awesome. Until it's not because managing a company is difficult.

Still easier and more likely to work than buying D&D. Though we should probably wait until Paizo stops making Pathfinder.

[The-Mage-King]

May I make a suggestion to this group?


Wait 3-5 years before trying this. That'll give Hasbro enough time to decide that D&D as a brand is unprofitable, and they should take what they can for it and cut their losses.

Then the group swoops in, buys the brand, and does as suggested, along with maybe publishing two to four books worth of new material (for the surviving editions) to get it back on track, and reprinting some books (core, a few of the more popular books like ToB, etc.) With changes to fluff and balance.

It also gives us some time to get the capital together to start the business that we'd use for this.

Just my 2 cp.

[SPoD]

I am shamelessly cross-posting a thread I just started that is a related discussion that some of you might find interesting: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11183747

[Timeless Error]

This is an incredible idea that is, by the standard principles of logic, almost certainly doomed to failure. However...

:elan: "The good guys always win!"

...according to the laws of drama, it is guaranteed to succeed.

Good luck!

[Gametime]

Success of Pathfinder, radical changes in 4e's design direction, general dearth of new 4e products.

When we talk about 4e doing poorly we're comparing it to what we expect from a D&D line. 4e does sell books. If some scrappy indie publisher put out a game that sells as well as 4e does it would be a phenomenal success. But 4e isn't the market-dominating juggernaut that past editions were and it doesn't seem to have performed as well as WotC expected.



I'm not saying you're wrong (frankly, I have no idea how well 4e sells), but qualifying what you mean when you say it sells poorly doesn't really fulfill the request for proof that it sells poorly. It seems mostly like (admittedly justified) speculation, at this point.

[Hiro Protagonest]

May I make a suggestion to this group?


Wait 3-5 years before trying this. That'll give Hasbro enough time to decide that D&D as a brand is unprofitable, and they should take what they can for it and cut their losses.

Then the group swoops in, buys the brand, and does as suggested, along with maybe publishing two to four books worth of new material (for the surviving editions) to get it back on track, and reprinting some books (core, a few of the more popular books like ToB, etc.) With changes to fluff and balance.

It also gives us some time to get the capital together to start the business that we'd use for this.

Just my 2 cp.

We should only try to resurrect 3.X if we wait for Paizo to stop making Pathfinder or start making a new edition of Pathfinder. Then we can use the OGL to resurrect it with changes (standard action FoB and more skill ranks on the monk, actual class features for the fighter, new fighter feats, etc.). If we wait to buy D&D once 4e is winding down, we should buy it and start 5e, rather than reviving older editions.

[druid91]

Still easier and more likely to work than buying D&D. Though we should probably wait until Paizo stops making Pathfinder.

Not my point.

Your first thought was to pull out the nerf bat and stalk through the halls wielding it like a crazed madman.

You have to think better than that. You can't just think about how you play it.

[The-Mage-King]

We should only try to resurrect 3.X if we wait for Paizo to stop making Pathfinder or start making a new edition of Pathfinder. Then we can use the OGL to resurrect it with changes (standard action FoB and more skill ranks on the monk, actual class features for the fighter, new fighter feats, etc.). If we wait to buy D&D once 4e is winding down, we should buy it and start 5e, rather than reviving older editions.

Yes, that would work, but I'm suggesting supporting 2-3 editions worth of materials if we do this- in effect, we get started, then say "Hey, a few of us like the older editions too, so we'll reprint core and the really popular stuff for them. Also, here's a new edition using ideas from some older stuff. Maybe you'll like that too. If not, hey, you can always buy the Compendium books for your edition."

That net's us goodwill from the older players, some funds to work with from the sales of those (less production), and some people who'll say "You know, this next edition made by these guys might not be that bad. They know what they're doing." and then buy 5E stuff because that act.

Maybe work out the 5E rules first and sell the reprinted core books with a "getting started with 5E" packet so that people who bought the older stuff can look it over?

But that's more of the "after" part of the idea.

[Seerow]

Yes, that would work, but I'm suggesting supporting 2-3 editions worth of materials if we do this- in effect, we get started, then say "Hey, a few of us like the older editions too, so we'll reprint core and the really popular stuff for them. Also, here's a new edition using ideas from some older stuff. Maybe you'll like that too. If not, hey, you can always buy the Compendium books for your edition."

That net's us goodwill from the older players, some funds to work with from the sales of those (less production), and some people who'll say "You know, this next edition made by these guys might not be that bad. They know what they're doing." and then buy 5E stuff because that act.

Maybe work out the 5E rules first and sell the reprinted core books with a "getting started with 5E" packet so that people who bought the older stuff can look it over?

But that's more of the "after" part of the idea.

Being in competition with yourself is never a good business plan. As much as 3e lovers hate it, WotC made the right decision discontinuing 3e when they decided to launch and focus on 4e.

At most I'd say have e-book/pdf sales from old editions, that have almost no overhead and high profit margins once the material is already written. Doing reprints of 3.5 or AD&D is not likely to be a very profitable venture.

From there, pick an edition to focus on, or make a new one. Trying to support between 2 and 5 editions simultaneously is a mission doomed to fail before it starts.

[Amechra]

Alright, I just checked the current stock price for Hasbro. It's $42.67, or abouts.

Does anyone know how many shares it would take to have a controlling share in Hasbro? Because that would probably be easier than outright buying DnD...

And I would suggest getting people off EVERY one of the majorish forums in on this (GITP, BG, and The Den, to name a few.) It would defray costs more easily.

Remember people, gaming the stock markets might be the fastest way to take over.

(Now, to find a way to distribute the control afterwards, so that a couple rich kids don't get total control...)

Edit: $208058.92 would get us just over 50% of the shares, so... (I checked, there are 9751 shares on the market at the moment. What % is needed for a controlling share?)

[The-Mage-King]

Being in competition with yourself is never a good business plan. As much as 3e lovers hate it, WotC made the right decision discontinuing 3e when they decided to launch and focus on 4e.

At most I'd say have e-book/pdf sales from old editions, that have almost no overhead and high profit margins once the material is already written. Doing reprints of 3.5 or AD&D is not likely to be a very profitable venture.

From there, pick an edition to focus on, or make a new one. Trying to support between 2 and 5 editions simultaneously is a mission doomed to fail before it starts.

Prehaps a better way to do it would be...

Reprint core for each of the editions we want to get the fans of to look at the new one in hardcover. Maybe two runs of core for each, to let people buy it with the suggested "If you like this, have a look at 5E" packet?

Print hardcover Compendiums for each of those editions containing the better materials, to garner goodwill and funds. Only a couple of runs, with the packet included.

Put all of the editions in pdf format online for a fair price.

Print the new edition, say that that's what we're supporting for the most part, and that we hope that the customers who liked being able to get reprints of core will support the new edition.

From there, I don't know. Maybe focus on producing mostly the new edition stuff, with a small group making more stuff for older editions? Definitely bring back older settings that fans liked for the new edition, keeping them close to their original themes.

I agree that it's foolish to compete with ourselves, but it'll get people to notice us, and get us some supporters.

EDIT@^: 50%, plus 1, usually. So in that case, 4876 shares. Doable, but... Well, a pain.

[Amechra]

Hey, its a 50th of the amount of money you were willing to spend on DnD, if I'm reading the stock information.

[Amechra]

Hey, its a 50th of the amount of money you were willing to spend on DnD, if I'm reading the stock information.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Prehaps a better way to do it would be...

Reprint core for each of the editions we want to get the fans of to look at the new one in hardcover. Maybe two runs of core for each, to let people buy it with the suggested "If you like this, have a look at 5E" packet?

Print hardcover Compendiums for each of those editions containing the better materials, to garner goodwill and funds. Only a couple of runs, with the packet included.

Put all of the editions in pdf format online for a fair price.

Print the new edition, say that that's what we're supporting for the most part, and that we hope that the customers who liked being able to get reprints of core will support the new edition.

From there, I don't know. Maybe focus on producing mostly the new edition stuff, with a small group making more stuff for older editions? Definitely bring back older settings that fans liked for the new edition, keeping them close to their original themes.

I agree that it's foolish to compete with ourselves, but it'll get people to notice us, and get us some supporters.

Don't do this. What you do is make the previous editions more expensive. That way the hardcore fans can still play AD&D and 3.X with the company still making a profit (unlike when people buy them from Amazon or eBay) while the new players are going for the cheaper books.

[DragonOfUndeath]

It can't be that hard to get 200k +expenses(X)
If 1,000 people pitch in that's $200 each +X/1,000 and we will likely get more than 1,000 if this becomes a valid idea across multiple forums.

If we do this then we need to start production right away, to start turning profits, maybe create a Class Compendium, PrC Compendium, Monster Compendium and Spell Compendium for editions with lots of supplements (with a 'Try 5E' ad and a Getting Started section on the back)

While it is selling (as either pdf or hardcopy or both) and we start recouping our original expenditure we can get to work on 5E, a complete overhaul of D&D from 4th back to the more traditional versions.

Publish Core in 4-5 books:
Monster Manual, DM Guide, Players Handbook, Hard Mode (Core or supplement?), Beginners Guide
Monster Manual would be standard Monsters, Demons, Devils, Angels, Hydras etc.
Dungeon Master's Guide would have standard DM stuff
Players Handbook would have 6 classes, the core spells/feats/rules
Hard Mode would have optional rules and tips on playing a grim and dark game
Beginners Guide would have Quick-Start rules and simplified classes/feats/spells and only go up to lvl5

Follow that up with 4 supplements (Manual of the Planes, Expanded Psionic, Writings of the Arcane, Tome of Battle) and MM2+3

Then decide what next according to market conditions and stock prices.

[The-Mage-King]

Don't do this. What you do is make the previous editions more expensive. That way the hardcore fans can still play AD&D and 3.X with the company still making a profit (unlike when people buy them from Amazon or eBay) while the new players are going for the cheaper books.

Hm... Good idea.


As for the thought of buying a controlling share in Hasbro, remember this- controlling the majority doesn't nessicarily mean that we can decide how the company is going to go. That's the purview of the Board of Directors. Now, we could nominate and vote for the directors that we want, but it might not work even with that.

Basically, buying the D&D brand would be more reliable than the stock in Hasbro idea.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Hm... Good idea.


As for the thought of buying a controlling share in Hasbro, remember this- controlling the majority doesn't nessicarily mean that we can decide how the company is going to go. That's the purview of the Board of Directors. Now, we could nominate and vote for the directors that we want, but it might not work even with that.

Basically, buying the D&D brand would be more reliable than the stock in Hasbro idea.

But Hasbro is already set up with staff and contracts ready to go. Buying D&D comes with the added risk of not having people to produce the books or contracts to sell the books to stores
Plus Hasbro also has other things they produce and sell, creating a slight buffer in case it takes a while for D&D to pick up again.

And if we come to them with a direct, clearly thought-out business plan that will deal with the grievances of the D&D community, I find it hard to believe they will be opposed. And even if they are we would still have hire/fire rights of the people in the D&D section so we hire Playgrounders to do it anyway.

[dextercorvia]

Alright, I just checked the current stock price for Hasbro. It's $42.67, or abouts.

Does anyone know how many shares it would take to have a controlling share in Hasbro? Because that would probably be easier than outright buying DnD...

And I would suggest getting people off EVERY one of the majorish forums in on this (GITP, BG, and The Den, to name a few.) It would defray costs more easily.

Remember people, gaming the stock markets might be the fastest way to take over.

(Now, to find a way to distribute the control afterwards, so that a couple rich kids don't get total control...)

Edit: $208058.92 would get us just over 50% of the shares, so... (I checked, there are 9751 shares on the market at the moment. What % is needed for a controlling share?)

You aren't reading that correctly. 9K may be the number of shares available to purchase at the moment. The Market Capitalization is the share price * number of outstanding shares, and for Hasbro is currently 5.8 billion US$.

[Seerow]

Yeah if anyone seriously believed they were going to be able to buy a controlling interest in Hasbro for $200k...:confused:

[Mystic Muse]

Yeah if anyone seriously believed they were going to be able to buy a controlling interest in Hasbro for $200k...:confused:

Yeah, that seemed really really really really low.:smallconfused:

[dextercorvia]

Although, I doubt anyone owns more than 20-30% of the shares currently, so really all you have to do is get into that ballpark, and you can seriously influence the course of the company. That clocks in at a mere 1.16-1.74 billion.

[Amechra]

Yeah, I thought I had the number wrong.

Ah, well...

Any other suggestions (besides capturing and "talking" to the Hasbro execs, but that wouldn't be very nice.)?

[The-Mage-King]

But Hasbro is already set up with staff and contracts ready to go. Buying D&D comes with the added risk of not having people to produce the books or contracts to sell the books to stores
Plus Hasbro also has other things they produce and sell, creating a slight buffer in case it takes a while for D&D to pick up again.

And if we come to them with a direct, clearly thought-out business plan that will deal with the grievances of the D&D community, I find it hard to believe they will be opposed. And even if they are we would still have hire/fire rights of the people in the D&D section so we hire Playgrounders to do it anyway.

You underestimate the bullheadedness of excecutives, though you have good points. We'd need to get stock that gives us voting rights, though, and to keep the people who handle the other stuff handling it. While most of us can make a nice base class, I'm pretty sure we can't make a good Beyblade or Transformer, though I suspect several of us would try to insert their ideas into MLP stuff...

Prehaps contacting the other boards that will feel this way, and forming a coalition for in the next few years...?

Prehaps I should return to my AS in Business, and head for a BS and Master's in Business, too...

Ninja'd with the stuff about prices.

I say that we bide our time and build the funds for this, then buy up the brand when Hasbro decides to dump it. Then we do a combination of my suggestion with mongoose's addition and DragonofUndeath's, releasing ~5 compendiums for each older edition in hardcover for a short time with a 5E "Start here" booklet packaged in each. Maybe a short adventure, too?

Then release the 5E core, plus "Hard Mode" and "Beginner's Guide", and the older stuff on PDF for quite a bit if anyone really wants it.

From there... I don't know.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Instead of buying all of Hasbro, why not just the D&D division?
Since it is obviously going downhill, 15m (10m for the copyright and brand, 5 for all the contracts and staff) would be a great cut-your-losses move.
Of course we would need some serious manpower to pull that off, 75,000 people to get the price to an average of $200 is a lot of people.
Unless we hold off by 3 years, each putting in $200 a year, then we only need 25k (a much smaller number)

Basically:
$200 1Y 75,000P
$200 2Y 37,500P
$200 3Y 25,000P
$200 5Y 15,000P

$400 3Y 12,500P
$400 5Y 7,500P

$600 3Y 8,334P
$600 5Y 5,000P

[Seffbasilisk]

Buying Hasbro stock also will pour more money into the machine that we're relying on the faltering of to be able to purchase D&D from.


I, for one, as remarkably unplanned as this is, am in favor of it. Obviously we'll run into the Too-Many-Cooks situation, but if we've enough people in favor of it, the monetary issue is less immense.

Perhaps once we've sorted out a solid plan for how to move beyond that, we'll get more investors.

A board of sorts seems best, but as long as we keep OGL, no matter how much any individual investor may feel cut off from the creative 'official' process in making 5e, he (or she) will be able to play their games, and build their own worlds.

Besides. Bragging rights at the gaming table: "I own a piece of the D&D franchise."

[The-Mage-King]

Holding off would also allow the group some time to get a new system developed and tested by a number of us for 5E, with every optimiser checking it over for things that would allow Pun-Pun and it's ilk to exist, too.

Speaking of which, we'd also want to buy the rights to the campaign settings- a new edition with those directed by the original developers or old time fans who remember the feel of the original would likely get the fluff writers on our side, and help with more fans.

EDIT @Seffbasilisk: That's what I'm thinking. The bragging rights part, of course.

[WitchSlayer]

I think you guys are overestimating the "4e going downhill" thing. Pathfinder got kind of close to it's sales. Once. In a quarter. Where 4e released nothing and Pathfinder released new material.

[DragonOfUndeath]

How about we set up Groups?
Groups of 50(?) people are formed and one of them is designated Group leader (through vote probably) and everyone in that group can make a suggestion, as long as it is fully fleshed out (coming up with Grapple Rules not suggesting adding Grappling for example) and the Group votes.
If it is accepted the Group Leader takes it to a higher Group, made of 50 Group leaders where the suggestion is debated, amended and voted on.
If it is accepted then the Leader of that big Group (of 50 groups) takes it too the 3 other Big Group Leaders (assuming 10,000 people) where they debate it and vote on it.

After a while when 5E is more defined, Play-Testers are given the suggestions and try to find borked things or traps and report back to the Big Group Leaders who then amend it further until it is perfect.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Holding off would also allow the group some time to get a new system developed and tested by a number of us for 5E, with every optimiser checking it over for things that would allow Pun-Pun and it's ilk to exist, too.

First, we form a company. Then, we do this. If we can't buy the rights to D&D, we can still release it under a different name. And we have to make sure it's different enough from 3.X to be seen as different. As in, no BAB, some new combat mechanics (for realism, something that actually fatigues you for fighting too long), and a different spell system.

[DragonOfUndeath]

I'm pretty sure BAB is OGL, same as Vancian Casting
Though a rewrite could be done for balance purposes.

[Seerow]

First, we form a company. Then, we do this. If we can't buy the rights to D&D, we can still release it under a different name. And we have to make sure it's different enough from 3.X to be seen as different. As in, no BAB, some new combat mechanics (for realism, something that actually fatigues you for fighting too long), and a different spell system.

Technically you could release with BAB and the vancian spell system with no problems thanks to the SRD. See: Pathfinder.

Now if you just mean as a means of differentiation... being different to be different isn't always a good solution. I can agree with moving away from certain mechanics, but if you would have released with them as D&D you should release with them as some other system.

[Archwizard]

The way to make this idea happen is to have someone spearhead it. Right now, Darth Stabber seems to be in line for that type of role.

Once that person is established, you then have a threshold for investment minimums to be on a board of directors.

Once the board of directors is established, you then form a review committee to take submissions from interested parties that wish to be the heads of product lines. I would have a product line for each edition of D&D. Once the heads of product lines are chosen, you then need dedicated folks to convert old modules to electronic formats and to create new material. I agree the publishing every pre-4e item electronically only is key to keep overhead down.

You could even do a submission thread for people to apply to be product line heads and have the Playgrounders vote yay or nay.

I disagree with:
1) The idea that doing this is unhealthy competition with yourself. I think that there is enough of a market for older D&D that it can turn a profit, especially if overhead is low.
2) Letting anyone publish something with the D&D name on it. Control of the brand identity is important to keeping the brand identity worth something.

I think I had more, but I left this post hanging mid-thought a couple hours ago.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Actually I think competing with yourself is a good thing, it pushes your workers in each division (AD&D, 3.5, 5E) to make better and more products to beat the other guys.

something like this:
"Hey guys, I heard D&D Inc. thinks 3.5 is better cause they have been outperforming us." "Oh no! Let's come out with a new AD&D book that will sell really well and show them who's boss!"

And if we have 3 products competing with 3 other companies, we have a better chance than if we had 1.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Technically you could release with BAB and the vancian spell system with no problems thanks to the SRD. See: Pathfinder.

Now if you just mean as a means of differentiation... being different to be different isn't always a good solution. I can agree with moving away from certain mechanics, but if you would have released with them as D&D you should release with them as some other system.

I don't want to compete with Paizo though.

[DragonOfUndeath]

I don't want to compete with Paizo though.

You kind of have to if we are buying D&D
And we can take Paizo

[Hiro Protagonest]

You kind of have to if we are buying D&D
And we can take Paizo

No, if we don't buy D&D and release the product under a different name, then I don't want to compete with Paizo.

[DragonOfUndeath]

No, if we don't buy D&D and release the product under a different name, then I don't want to compete with Paizo.

Oh, yeah I can see that.
But we are buying D&D if this ever goes through

[Seerow]

No, if we don't buy D&D and release the product under a different name, then I don't want to compete with Paizo.

Meh, if you're planning on making a d20 system, you're competing with Pathfinder. If you want to move away from that, you move far outside the comfort zone of a large majority of the active community here.

[Psyren]

Well in April 2009 Ryan Dancey (guy who created the OGL and was later laid off) posted these comments online (http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-industry-forum/254049-ryan-dancey-d-d-death-spiral.html):


Not that I don't trust that guy - his comments are very edifying, in fact - but he's not quite the insider he was when those were posted. It's entirely possible



Since that time we've gotten D&D Essentials (which they've begun to cancel (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2011January)), they canceled the D&D miniatures game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Miniatures_Game), Daggerdale has gotten bad reviews (http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dungeons-dragons-daggerdale), and their list of recent products (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/products.aspx) seems pretty thin. It's possible that they're making money on D&D. I have no clue. But they certainly don't seem like they are.

1) I didn't see anything in the article that said they are cancelling DDE. It mentions they are backing out of the prepainted miniatures market (except for collectors' sets) and that they are cancelling three books, whose content will be shifted to board-games and other outlets. It also mentions a new D&D movie in the works (nooooooo) and a change to the DDI articles. In other words, they seem set to do more with the D&D brand, which doesn't equate with willingness to sell. Unless you meant to link another article?

2) DDM indeed got cancelled, because the miniatures business model has always been terrible. Hope the gaming/hobby shops buy randomized boosters in bulk so they can charge exorbitant prices to the end-gamer, meanwhile more agile business make cheaper figurines that work just as well. Especially since the more expensive a mini is, the less willing you are to actually let people touch/play with it, reducing it to a collector's item only... and collectors are funny in that they only care about your line after it's been cancelled so they know exactly how much shelf-space to dedicate to your failed creation.

3) Metacritic score is not a sales figure, nor is it quite as meaningful for XBLA games. The actual XBLA rating is what consumers actually see, and there it has 3.5 stars. (http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Dungeons-Dragon-Daggerdale/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258410aa2) Furthermore, it's still a 4-player co-op game, still sells for 1200 points and is still on the front page of XBLA. I doubt it's doing as poorly as you imply, if only due to brand strength.

4) I don't know what their recent products page usually looks like, so I can't comment on that. But scaling back on products isn't necessarily a bad thing either, if they cut costs to match the reduced line-up.

I'm not saying you're wrong about WotC and 4e, it might very well be dying - but this is the kind of thing you need to be sure about before outlaying the levels of resources/commitment required. And even if it is dying, it won't matter one bit unless WotC thinks so too, otherwise you will pay far more than you should.

[shadow_archmagi]

if gitp buys d&d then roland will mod your games

[Darth Stabber]

The way to make this idea happen is to have someone spearhead it. Right now, Darth Stabber seems to be in line for that type of role.


Wow, I said I was willing to take point on the set up, I would run it, but I don't know if I have the chops to actually run this thing. I come with few advantages, and numerous downsides.

Advantages: Disabled veteran (slightly easier access to loans, maybe, and I think we get a small tax break if I continue to own it), looks good in a suit.

Disadvantages: Shakey mental health (and I don't just mean "crazy enough to want to try"), bad at money management, socially awkward or abrasive, hovering on the line between adhd and autism, crappy credit rating, no degree of any kind, lost my job yesterday.

I'll take point and see about getting somethings rolling, but once we have a company and a plan, someone else needs to take lead and I will happily fall into a support role.

[Amnestic]

Being in competition with yourself is never a good business plan. As much as 3e lovers hate it, WotC made the right decision discontinuing 3e when they decided to launch and focus on 4e.


Admittedly a different genre, but Blizzard are actively competing with themselves (development on Titan, their new MMO against World of Warcraft - hell, they continue to update Warcraft 3 to this day) as are CCP (EVE and Dust 514) and Bioware (Dragon Age, Mass Effect), not to mention the whole slew of products that simply come under the banner of the larger giants that are Activision/Electronic Arts* which compete with themselves every single day.

"Never a good business plan"? Debatable. One edition is limited in focus. Where will your customers go if you only provide 4e and they prefer the D20 stuff? Well, to a place which provides D20 stuff of course. Sure, you'll lose some sales over the fact that you're competing with yourself and people only have a set amount of disposable income, but limiting yourself to a single edition - especially in light of how many TTRG systems exist - is arguably the worse path. You're not expanding your consumer base that way.

*I am aware that Blizzard and Bioware are both part of these two 'giants', thank you.

[Archwizard]

Well, if it comes down to it, once the thing is set up I would certainly be willing to run/help run it.

I have plenty of leadership experience in both professional and non-professional settings (supervisory/management experience in large companies, local baseball association president).

A couple key things to do would be:

To create contracts for everyone who invests, guaranteeing them stock (every who puts in some not token but not huge amount, say the "every play grounder puts in $50" idea) in the company. While those contributers would not necessarily be given a controlling vote individually, it would certainly grant them input and voting privileges at meetings (and give them the "I own a part of D&D!" bragging rights :smallcool:).

To create introductory self-contained modules for each brand. I certainly agree with the article that was linked saying how D&D going from the Red Box self-contained game that gave instant access to the game to the behemoth of needing 3+ books of 600+ pages total just to get started was a very bad change. These should be put out in print, and probably be the only things put out in print.

To get a hold of "classics", e.g. The Keep on the Borderlands for Basic, and get them purchasable via download.

To study business models such as Kindle, Nook, iTunes, Steam, Impulse for how to do a download-based business.

[Archwizard]

Admittedly a different genre, but Blizzard are actively competing with themselves (development on Titan, their new MMO against World of Warcraft - hell, they continue to update Warcraft 3 to this day) as are CCP (EVE and Dust 514) and Bioware (Dragon Age, Mass Effect), not to mention the whole slew of products that simply come under the banner of the larger giants that are Activision/Electronic Arts* which compete with themselves every single day.

"Never a good business plan"? Debatable. One edition is limited in focus. Where will your customers go if you only provide 4e and they prefer the D20 stuff? Well, to a place which provides D20 stuff of course. Sure, you'll lose some sales over the fact that you're competing with yourself and people only have a set amount of disposable income, but limiting yourself to a single edition - especially in light of how many TTRG systems exist - is arguably the worse path. You're not expanding your consumer base that way.

*I am aware that Blizzard and Bioware are both part of these two 'giants', thank you.

I completely agree here. People that like d20 and people that like Basic and people that like 2E are not necessarily the same people. Who cares if one person who likes all 3 only buys 1 thing if we get other people who only like 1 thing to also buy?

[stainboy]

I'm not saying you're wrong (frankly, I have no idea how well 4e sells), but qualifying what you mean when you say it sells poorly doesn't really fulfill the request for proof that it sells poorly. It seems mostly like (admittedly justified) speculation, at this point.

Yeah, no argument there. WotC doesn't release sales figures. I don't have any proof of anything, and anyone who does is probably under NDA.

[dextercorvia]

Yeah, no argument there. WotC doesn't release sales figures. I don't have any proof of anything, and anyone who does is probably under NDA.

The financial reports of any publicly traded company should be open to the public. I'm sure we could find this info out.

[Darth Stabber]

The financial reports of any publicly traded company should be open to the public. I'm sure we could find this info out.

We could get financial reports for hasbro, but we can't neccessarily get them for WotC, as they are wholely subsidiary to hasbro, and their finances are only a portion of Hasbro's.

[Archwizard]

The financial reports of any publicly traded company should be open to the public. I'm sure we could find this info out.

Is WotC even publicly traded at this point, or would you have to get information for all of Hasbro?

And the financial reports are not the same thing as sales data of individual product lines. I'm sure that data is regarded as proprietary information.

[Psyren]

I checked Hasbro's 10-K when I first saw this thread - D&D barely gets a footnote, and there are no figures specific to it.

[Doc Roc]

Meh, if you're planning on making a d20 system, you're competing with Pathfinder. If you want to move away from that, you move far outside the comfort zone of a large majority of the active community here.

Seerow's right here, legend is hitting a ton of resistance due to this.

[Seffbasilisk]

I think there's still a market for v3.5.

That said, I believe that fourth edition was a terrible idea, but in 5E, if we can collaborate enough, through one of the very-few positive instances of Groupthink we can actually improve the game.

The organization is going to be a nightmare <self-scrubbed> <self-scrubbed> <self-scrubbed>.

That said, I've <self-scrubbed> though I don't know what I'll do after the first five or so, as I've misplaced my whetstone.

All of that aside, I think we should stick with d20. It's solid, it's recognizable, and d6 systems are sad.

...I like the idea of doing something awesome and having a gamer-friend shout out "NATURAL TWENTY!"

[DragonOfUndeath]

Well D&D is a D20 game at heart.
Changing that would a) alienate former players and b) alienate potential designers.

5E should incorporate all the good things from all the editions and be play-tested extremely to maintain balance and avoid PunPun-esque tricks.

[Seffbasilisk]

I think we should leave in a few tricks for the hardcore fanboys. Like easter eggs.


Also? If you like Darth, you can still work point. I'm a pretty damn good translator of madmen (being one myself) into normal-talk (thespian) and covering terms (writer.)

In other words, just because you're party leader, doesn't mean you have to be the Face character.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Leaving in Power Combos is different than having a 3.5 Monk and Cleric next to each other.
And banning Pun-Pun only helps the game.

[cfalcon]

Interesting, but it won't work.

The thing we need to be available open source, is the damned splatbooks. WotC might eventually cough those up, but very unlikely until they make a 5ed or some nonsense.


At this point, it's just better to help promote Pathfinder, which keeps making more and more excellent open content. But long term, something like this MIGHT happen.

[Maho-Tsukai]

This is an interesting, yet totally crazy idea. I must say that it seems very difficult to pull off, espcially since I think it would take far more then $10 million to buy. However, as far as obtaining the money to buy the license gose I may have a way to get enough cash to buy the license, though it would be a slow process. I will not go into the full details here, but some friends and I am currently working on a project of my own that may in fact go over well with wizards. It's not at all related to D&D(Or PnP RPGs peirod.) but if it ends up going anywhere chances are that I will have some leverage within the company and plenty of money to contribute to the pool. I also MAY have access to a wealthy individual, though I am not 100% sure if I will be able to get an audience with them. If I can, however, chances are I could convince them to contribute some of their money into this as well, though they would most likely demand a sizable cut. I also have some political connections to several congressman and state politicians and as a result they could point me to other willing investors.

To do this however, we would need some hard statistics on how much 4e is failing, how much 3.5e and pathfinder made/are making and most likely how much money said individual(s) could make from this venture.

Thus, to Darth Stabber all of those who actually have interest in this idea I have a proposal. I will create a personal chat for discussing this issue and hammering out a proper business plan. If we can get everything we need to do done then chances are that between the playground's contributions and the money I can produce through my creative use of my personal "diplomacy skill" we could actually feesably do this.

If anybody is interested in this, PM me and we can get to work.

[137beth]

This is a rather outrageous idea. Yes, if someone in the playground won the lottery, it might work, but other than that is doesn't really seem feasible.

[Maho-Tsukai]

It is not feasible using the money from the playground alone, yes. However, with proper investors willing to put their money into the pot it could be viable, which is why I posted what I did above. If people are willing to work with me on doing the hard number crunching to find out if this is actually viable and hammering out a solid business plan I can use some real life "diplomancy" and most likely get us those ever-important investors.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

If the Playground was going to buy D&D from WotC, I would be more than willing to chip in. That would be SO COOL.

[KoboldCleric]

It seems to me the biggest problem here is that not everyone is on the same page ... what is it that you want? Is your goal to make money, or is your goal to create and compile an ever-expanding collection of new, intuitive, balanced content for the (3.5) d20 system? I contend that if your goal is the latter, then the OGL providess more than enough of a foundation to do just that.

There are plenty of people around who would be willing/interested in contributing to your compilation as well I imagine, even for free, just to further the enjoyment we all get out of the system. And then if you wanted to publish the compilation at some point, you'd just have to find enough people who wanted a copy and get a small time publisher to do it. Even for only 200 copies you could probably get a hardcover 8x10 for less than 10 USD each if you were willing to do black and white. I'd pay that for a collection of the Playgrounds best homebrew.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to make money, the best advice I can think to give you is to invest in something else.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Well I'm here to save D&D and bring it back to it's former awesomeness.
And if that involves getting lots of money from profits then so be it :smalltongue:

[The-Mage-King]

Well I'm here to save D&D and bring it back to it's former awesomeness.
And if that involves getting lots of money from profits then so be it :smalltongue:

The same as Dragon.

I like this hobby, and I want to see the forerunner back in business at the head of the pack.

Or at least not as bad as it is now.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

The same as Dragon.

I like this hobby, and I want to see the forerunner back in business at the head of the pack.

Or at least not as bad as it is now.

Agreed. If we can manage to get this off the ground I will be willing to contribute money.