PDA

View Full Version : The D&D Business Model



Johnny Sunshine
2012-05-10, 08:31 PM
Let’s talk business.

Dungeons & Dragons has basically followed the same business model through all editions, especially 2nd onwards: Put out the core books, then accessorize the hell out of it with increasingly inferior products. Then they rinse, repeat…and are surprised when it goes down the tubes yet again?

Assuming this is a problem the business people want solved (overlooking the likelihood of planned obsolescence), they should change their strategy.

Problem: Playing Dungeons & Dragons is seen by the public as a big time-intensive and energy-intensive endeavor. As a result, only dedicated RPGers really buy D&D products. This is especially a problem when the vast majority of players only ever need to buy a single book, and most other books are usually bought by an even smaller population: Dungeon Masters.

Producing numerous big pretty books with high production costs for a relatively small willing audience? Problem.

Potential solution: First, streamline the product lineup.

Notice I didn't say anything about changing the rules (although cleanly reorganizing them couldn’t hurt). Rather, I mean present to the public a more cohesive image. Produce fewer books, with larger page counts. Don't go ape **** producing dozens of accessories and spin-off games. Quality over quantity. Players want more classes, feats, and equipment? Then put out a thick book on character options a year or two after the edition launch. They want more spells, alternate magic systems, and even more magic-user prestige classes? Wait a bit to space products out and build up your content, then satisfyingly put out a true “tome” of magic. These are just examples off the top of my head; the point is to replace overwhelming masses of products - each of which is only bought by a relatively small fraction of the audience - with a shorter product list of massively useful and quality volumes, each of which a large chunk of players will want to buy.

Next step, market towards the public at large.

Although it’s ambitious, aim to be another Uno or Monopoly; nearly everyone has a copy in their closet. They've tried to do this with the "Red Box," and similar experiments. While successful in D&D’s early days their current incarnations have largely failed, as evidenced by stacks of them laying around unpurchased when I browse the book and game shops, and store owners telling me they are shipping 80-90% back to the publisher. I feel the poor sales are because they bloat the boxes. In an effort to entice a buyer to feel like they're getting a cool deal, full of tokens, dungeon tiles/maps, multiple booklets and character sheets, and maybe even plastic figures...well, frankly, they overwhelm potential newcomers. To complete noobs, it looks like a big bother to get into.

I've tried to get scores of people into D&D. Perhaps, literally over a hundred. People who I've gotten to know over the course of months or years and thought would enjoy RPGs. I've only convinced perhaps a dozen total.

What is the reason people refuse? Their answer to me is always the same. They are intimidated by the big books, the stigma of excessive rules and overly complex mathematics, etc. Pick your cliche. The Red Box only makes them wary...too many different booklets and sheets of paper they subconsciously assume they need to fully comprehend in order to do anything. They won't try a D&D themed board game for fear they need to know the RPG D&D rules to play. They will rarely even read a D&D-connected novel (for Mystra's sake!), thinking it basically a transcript of a D&D game (well…Dragonlance notwithstanding).

These people astound me with their misconceptions. Even when I show them the books and have them agree it looks manageable and even fun, explain things in the simplest terms and have them respond positively to the idea ("Each player controls one of the heroes and decides everything they say and do. There are dice used to create random fairness in determining some things, such as combat.")...they still just think it’s too much of a bother.

Am I a poor communicator, or a weirdo no one wants to play with? My success in my occupation – and the simple fact I’ve attained my job in the first place – argues against that. Is it really that so few people genuinely find RPGs fun? That’s very hard to believe, given how people like to watch movies, play video games and fantasize up and down about how they’d like to live an adventurous life.

Face the facts, Hasbro: The public is scared of the behemoth and overly convoluted product lineup that is D&D. Even if they wanted to start, where do they begin? There are 4-5 products in print right now that propose to be the “start here” point for D&D…yet they all appear to be different games that don’t necessarily work with each other!

Unless they have a trusted friend pull them into it – and often even if then! – the average consumer actively avoids Dungeons & Dragons. They intentionally quit listening when they hear about it, even if they are potentially interested, and not out of any lame “fear of being geeky” or “satanic” bias. You need to fix that poor image, or your business model will continue to cyclically fail. None of your current attempts have looked at the issue from the RPG-ignorant consumer's view.

Recap: Streamline the product lineup, then broaden your target audience.

Make 1 core book. PHB, DMG, MM all in one. To make it reasonable, maybe there will only be 5 or 6 races, 8 core classes, 75% the magic items of a usual DMG, and only the most iconic monsters (yet still 150+). Perhaps you would make an introductory, paperback version as well (covering only the first 3 character levels).

Promote the hell out of it. Make it a Big Deal; make us believe you mean it this time. Produce radio, TV, and maybe even theater ads. If you can make a TV ad for random plastic **** at Xmas, you can certainly put forth the cash for such a flagship IP as Dungeons & Dragons. Pay to put a simple ad on the front page of Amazon for a day or two. Make the public know it’s coming, and instill within them the subconscious message that D&D is now mainstream and approved for general consumption.

You know how when you enter a bookstore, or Target/Wal-mart, and there's a cardboard standout in the middle of the isle, with cubbies holding the latest hardcover novel? Yeah, do that. Have people walk into Barnes & Noble and see a big red dragon cutout brandishing its teeth in their faces, looming over the cubbies full of the core book (and don't, for goodness sake, plug loads of products into the standup; leave it with just the one book - both the "light" and main versions, if you must).

Having so few product releases wouldn't make enough money, you say? It would if 1000% more people than your current consumer base buy it.

But they won't buy it until they're convinced they can handle it; until they’re convinced that D&D is something for them. That will never happen when you have a mountain of intimidating stuff looming over them, in your vain attempts to squeeze every penny of value out of the IP. No one will ever buy that stuff other than those who are already players. The solution is to increase the number of players.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-10, 08:37 PM
Sorry, your analysis goes wrong from the very start. You assume that A) books get bought by an increasingly smaller percentage of the targeted audience, and B) books are increasingly inferior. None of which is an absolute truth (or even a relative truth, in most cases).

Case in point, look at 3.5e. The standard you see in PbP is a large amount of allowed books. "Core (or SRD) only" is a minority. This is similarly reflected in actual tabletop, summarily disproving A). It seems to indicate that nope, books get bought increasingly frequently (and again, look at the sheer amount of books that 3.5e poured out. They are a company, which means profit-oriented: They will not keep pumping out book after book if their sales figures are not satisfactory. The fact that 3.5e is a bloated bookpile is a testament to the "D&D system" working, not failing), so there goes A). As for B), I'll just say "Tome of Battle" and leave it at that.

Personally, I think this is all very much something that bugs you, personally, and not a serious, objective analysis. What you propose doesn't strike me as a sensible recommendation, but as what you would personally (read: subjectively) wish to see.

Johnny Sunshine
2012-05-10, 09:18 PM
Sorry, your analysis goes wrong from the very start. You assume that A) books get bought by an increasingly smaller percentage of the targeted audience, and B) books are increasingly inferior. None of which is an absolute truth (or even a relative truth, in most cases).

Subsequent books are not bought by fewer people? Then why would they quit making them and do a reboot?

Subsequent books are not inferior? Content aside, what do you call receiving a book with only 1/3 the page count, plus larger text and more empty space, for the sampe price as a book that came out only a year or two prior?

Regardless, my basic point is based on neither of those. Even if sales stay strong and quality stays high, by limiting your target audience eventually their interest will dwindle (why else would they need a new edition release?). Broaden the audience for a more stable market.


Case in point, look at 3.5e. The standard you see in PbP is a large amount of allowed books. "Core (or SRD) only" is a minority. This is similarly reflected in actual tabletop, summarily disproving A).

No, the fact that many books are allowed only means that many have been produced, and says nothing about the sales numbers of individual books. While my players each bring 2-3 special books to the table, all together it's still a fraction of the total books that have been released for whatever game we're playing at the time. But the fact that it is common to use books outside of core/SRD does support my point that their target audience is dedicated gamers; they sell many more accessory books than core books. Yes, they did keep pumping out book after book, so their sales must have been satsifactory. For a few years. Then they gave us 3.5 and made money again. For a few years, but then they needed 4e.

The fact that 3.5e is a "bloated stockpile" suggests to me that they had to desparately crank out books for fanboys to snap up just to keep their heads above the water. This is not evidence of a system "working." If it were, why go to 4e? And now 5e even more rapidly?


As for B), I'll just say "Tome of Battle" and leave it at that.

An N of 1 does not a trend make.


Personally, I think this is all very much something that bugs you, personally, and not a serious, objective analysis. What you propose doesn't strike me as a sensible recommendation, but as what you would personally (read: subjectively) wish to see.

Well, how is that different from what you've said here? At least I'm basing my thoughts on my experience and business knowledge. Of course, should my wishes come about, I acknlowledge it could be I'm wrong it it would flop.

And I suppose I do want something different out of D&D than a large group of players may want. I personally like players to create their own adventures and stories, within a loose framework of rules and setting. Although highly detailed settings and meticulous rules are cool, and I've certainly enjoyed endless hours pouring over my dozens of rulebooks, I wish D&D was more about stimulating and prodding the imagination rather than blatantly telling you what to imagine. I suppose I may be in the minority.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-10, 09:35 PM
Subsequent books are not bought by fewer people? Then why would they quit making them and do a reboot?

Planned obsolescence. Ask Microsoft why they brought Vista when XP was doing great.


Subsequent books are not inferior? Content aside, what do you call receiving a book with only 1/3 the page count, plus larger text and more empty space, for the sampe price as a book that came out only a year or two prior?

Business strategy.


Regardless, my basic point is based on neither of those. Even if sales stay strong and quality stays high, by limiting your target audience eventually their interest will dwindle (why else would they need a new edition release?). Broaden the audience for a more stable market.

They tried to do that for 4e. Look how well that turned out, they literally allowed a bunch of hacks who had no true comprehension of the game a shot at forming their own company and be WotC's direct competition (I'm talking about Paizo) because they tried to have their cake and eat it too by reducing complexity and broadening their audience but simultaneously spiting their longtime fans by discontinuing all support of 3e and pushing the idea that 3e was broken and badwrong while 4e was the holy grail.

They failed.


No, this only proves my point that their target audience is dedicated gamers. Yes, they did keep pumping out book after book, so their sales must have been satsifactory. For a few years. Then they gave us 3.5. Then they made money again, so pumped out a few more years of books, but then we got 4e.

Again, planned obsolescence. You need to make sure they keep buying, so new editions means a truckload of sales.


The fact that 3.5e is a "bloated stockpile" suggests to me that they had to desparately crank out books for fanboys to snap up just to keep their heads above the water. This is not evidence of a system "working." If it were, why go to 4e? And now 5e even more rapidly?

Again, planned obsolescence. They got greedy (probably because of the economic crisis or because they wanted to increase profit) and realised that a new edition would be the only way to bring in a large amount of revenue, and not the small trickle that book-cranking kept up. If they had been really pressed for profit from the start, they wouldn't have launched so many books. It's clear that each edition is planned well in advance for when they intend to reap a large sum.


An N of 1 does not a trend make.

Then make a poll. See how many books were considered good and which weren't. Off the top of my head, I can tell you the Complete series, Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, most of Eberron's books, most of Faerun's, Libris Mortis, Frostburn, Monster Manuals, PHBII, Races of books, Savage Species, Heroes of Horror, Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic are all books I consider superior to core, rather than inferior. But again, don't take my word for it, run a poll.


Well, how is that different from what you're saying here? At least I'm basing my thoughts on my experience and business knowledge.

No, that's literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying you are trying to cloud a personal taste under objectivity, experience and knowledge. I, as a professional (of a different field, granted), do not abide by that sort of behaviour. To me, passing off a personal issue as savoir faire or objective knowledge is unethical and unprofessional.


But I suppose I do want something different out of D&D than a large group of players may want. I personally like players to create on their own adventures and stories, within a loose framework of rules and setting. Although highly detailed settings and meticulous rules are cool, and I've certainly enjoyed endless hours pouring over my dozens of rulebooks, I wish D&D was more about stimulating and prodding the imagination rather than blatantly telling you what to imagine. I suppose I may be in the minority.

That would have been a much better (and much more honest) way to start the topic and get a productive discussion going, rather than trying to couch that with misdirection. Now that's a subject worth discussing.

Jay R
2012-05-10, 11:41 PM
Subsequent books are not bought by fewer people? Then why would they quit making them and do a reboot?

Is this a serious question? To get all the players to buy another PHB, DMG, etc. New editions of anything - Windows, phones, cars, and yes, RPGs - show that the company is flourishing, not that it's failing.

Companies routinely point to their new products with pride, and financial analysts use them as prove of a successful company.


Regardless, my basic point is based on neither of those. Even if sales stay strong and quality stays high, by limiting your target audience eventually their interest will dwindle (why else would they need a new edition release?). Broaden the audience for a more stable market.

I'll bite - when does "eventually" happen? The game has been in constant production since 1974, and sales have generally grown through that time.

And for the record, if anybody plays the game who wasn't playing in the mid-1970s, then they are constantly broadening their base.

Discussions I have with 4e fans make it clear that they have expanded their base well beyond the mathematically- and historically-focused grognards of the past.


Yes, they did keep pumping out book after book, so their sales must have been satsifactory. For a few years. Then they gave us 3.5 and made money again. For a few years, but then they needed 4e.

"Needed" is an interesting word here. I'd have said that they wanted to sell us all a bunch of PHBs again. Counting the first whitebox, I've bought five.

In any event, don't guess. If you have actual evidence (meaning numbers) showing declining sales, show us the evidence.


The fact that 3.5e is a "bloated stockpile" suggests to me that they had to desparately crank out books for fanboys to snap up just to keep their heads above the water.

TSR, which produced the original D&D, did it on $1,000 apiece from three investors. If D&D is now worth $3,000, then they have kept their heads above water. If it is worth more than that, then they have grown and prospered.

You cannot convince anyone that they are desperate or having trouble keeping their heads above water without quoting financial figures.

If game shops still stock D&D, then D&D is still selling well.


This is not evidence of a system "working." If it were, why go to 4e? And now 5e even more rapidly?

For the same reason that cars and smartphone companies do - because sales figures are high enough to justify new models.

New models are not, and never have been, evidence of a system failing. No financial analyst believes that.


Stop guessing. You have a theory. It's time to gather data to find out.

Step one is to go to your local hobby shop, and ask which three game systems makes them the most money. Then ask how much D&D makes them. Ask them how many times in the last ten years they have seriously considered dropping their D&D products.

Until you gather data - actual statements about what sells and how much -- you can't express an opinion about the business model.

I will ask at my local shop next time I'm there, which won't be for another week.

Here's the data I have now:

TSR (original owners of D&D) was founded on 3 original owners who put up $1,000 each.

In every shop I have visited since the seventies, if the shop runs games at all, they run D&D games.

D&D products have been on display at every game shop I've seen since 1975.

Every single edition, from the whitebox to 4e, has fanatical adherents.

None of that is definitive, but it is data. Until I ask for specific numbers from the game shop, all the evidence I have indicates that the business model is a success.

erikun
2012-05-10, 11:48 PM
Dungeons & Dragons has basically followed the same business model through all editions, especially 2nd onwards: Put out the core books, then accessorize the hell out of it with increasingly inferior products. Then they rinse, repeat…and are surprised when it goes down the tubes yet again?
Well the first problem is that, while the core three books typically sell the best in any edition, I would not go so far as to say that all products afterwards are increasingly inferior. After all, in comparing the 3.5 Monk and Wizard to 3.5 Psionics or Tome of Battle, it is kind of hard to make a case for the former. Most games make use of a number of sourcebooks, with the Complete lineup and PHB2 being frequently used.

There is also a bit of market bias in those statistics - people playing the game need to buy the Player's Handbook, but do not need to buy Player's Handbook 2. As such, the manditory rulebooks will always end up selling more, due entirely to being manditory.


Next step, market towards the public at large.
Say hello to The Legend of Drizzt board game (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/91872/dungeons-dragons-the-legend-of-drizzt-board-game), an intentional push to the more general public market. It's doing quite well, from what I've heard.


Potential solution: First, streamline the product lineup.

Recap: Streamline the product lineup, then broaden your target audience.
This is absolutely terrible advise, and would pretty much guarantee to kill D&D sales. Here are the first few problems.

First, cutting the core books to 1 and producing less sourcebooks will be a decrease in revenue for the producers. Unless that single book costs $100 and/or manages to sell 3x/4x as much as previous editions, you are looking at a loss compared to the current business model. And in that case, even 4x sales is just breaking even. There isn't much reason to pursue a completely different and quite risky business model - assuming your purchasing base will quadruple is quite risky - for ultimately no reward for the publisher.

Second, you mention how intimidating the Red Box is with its massive books, yet recommend combining around 75% of the core books together into one. If you think a single 300 page book is intimidating, imagine what a 700+ hardbound doorstopper would be! Take a look at how massive rulebooks like GURPS sell, for an example. There are people in the roleplaying community that don't play GURPS because they assume it has too many options to read through. John Q. Public will not be more forgiving.

You know what kind of RPG would sell as you recommend? Something like Faery's Tale Deluxe (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/14/14215.phtml). This is a short, simple, sub-100 page system. It is something that would be very easy to read through, easy to understand, and easy to get into and play. It also has 4 races, 3 ability scores, no classes, 19 skills, and no equipment. Is this what you have in mind when you talk about reducing D&D so that it is no longer intimidating to the general public? Because that is generally what I think, and while I do like Faery's Tale Deluxe, I don't think that it would work well for D&D.


Even ignoring the fact that most D&D players would revolt if something like this happened, there is the question of if this would even bring in enough sales to validate the change. It might work in producing a "D&D Lite", or a simple version of easy-to-play D&D intended for a wide target audience. It just wouldn't work though, especially at the reduced publishing schedule, to increase profits for the current D&D line.

lt_murgen
2012-05-11, 07:35 AM
Another point to make, and it is one that is often lost:

All companies are in a business to make profit on a regular basis. Hasbro has to measure the risk/reward of a big product/infrequent purchase strategy against the risk/reward of a smaller product/frequent purchase strategy.

D&D is the first one. A large amount of production cost goes into each book, and they are release only a few times a year. Purchasers have to spend a good deal of money on each release, and it can be panned as a failure quite easily. Magic the Gathering is the second one. Less production cost. With the random nature, it takes far longer for a set to be analyzed and praised/panned. Customers can spend far less money to see it, but will spend far more if it is a hit. Revenue is, and can be, spread out over many months.

In essence, Hasbro has to answer one question- is is more likely that our target audience will spend a large sum all at once for new product X, or many smaller sums for a new product Y? People tend to spend more when they can spread payments out. People may hesitiate to spend $40 all at once for a new sourcebook, but will buy a pack a week at $3.00 over 6 months without thinking about it- and wind up spending $78.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-05-11, 10:01 AM
Dungeons & Dragons has basically followed the same business model through all editions, especially 2nd onwards: Put out the core books, then accessorize the hell out of it with increasingly inferior products. Then they rinse, repeat…and are surprised when it goes down the tubes yet again?
Incorrect. In 4e, WotC altered its business model in two significant ways:

(1) DDI which (initially) granted everyone a taste of their product for free and later incorporated (for a monthly fee) every new book, magazine, and update. Rather than selling "inferior accessories" you needed to buy a la carte, WotC switched over to a subscription model in which Players could purchase continuing support for the product rather than purchase the books individually.

(2) Updates. Unlike in previous editions, WotC attempted to tweak the game on the fly through updating their earlier rules. Pre-4e rules fixes were either done (rarely) through Errata or, more commonly, by releasing new rules in a splat that either explicitly or implicitly rendered the previous rules irrelevant. By baking updates into their continuing product line (via DDI) WotC made an effort to keep 4e a coherent system without the bloat seen earlier.

To a large degree, WotC took your ideas into account when releasing 4e. How well it worked is left to the student.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-11, 10:09 AM
Let’s talk business.

Dungeons & Dragons has basically followed the same business model through all editions, especially 2nd onwards: Put out the core books, then accessorize the hell out of it with increasingly inferior products. Then they rinse, repeat…and are surprised when it goes down the tubes yet again?

On a per-book basis, core 3.5 has a crapton more broken shiz than any 3.5 splatbook I can think of.

Sure, you get a few weak splatbooks, but you get some great ones too.

And people buy the hell out of splatbooks.


Problem: Playing Dungeons & Dragons is seen by the public as a big time-intensive and energy-intensive endeavor. As a result, only dedicated RPGers really buy D&D products. This is especially a problem when the vast majority of players only ever need to buy a single book, and most other books are usually bought by an even smaller population: Dungeon Masters.

Producing numerous big pretty books with high production costs for a relatively small willing audience? Problem.

No, that's a campaign setting issue. Not an "all splatbooks" issue. This is why WoTC favors producing splatbooks over campaign settings. Known issue. The people who run the company actually do know a bit about who buys their stuff.


Potential solution: First, streamline the product lineup.

Notice I didn't say anything about changing the rules (although cleanly reorganizing them couldn’t hurt). Rather, I mean present to the public a more cohesive image. Produce fewer books, with larger page counts.

Larger page counts does not mean more cohesive or streamlined. I might hate psionics, but love other things, and thus, buy complete mage, but not complete psionics. This is a completely reasonable preference.

Now, if you bundle them together into one book(and likely charge somewhat more for it), I'm probably less thrilled about it.


Don't go ape **** producing dozens of accessories and spin-off games.

I don't give a crap about accessories and spin-off games. If you don't want a D&D branded map...don't buy it. Whatever. It doesn't negatively impact anything.


Quality over quantity. Players want more classes, feats, and equipment? Then put out a thick book on character options a year or two after the edition launch. They want more spells, alternate magic systems, and even more magic-user prestige classes? Wait a bit to space products out and build up your content, then satisfyingly put out a true “tome” of magic. These are just examples off the top of my head; the point is to replace overwhelming masses of products - each of which is only bought by a relatively small fraction of the audience - with a shorter product list of massively useful and quality volumes, each of which a large chunk of players will want to buy.

Honestly, Spell Compendium already has...lots of spells. Making it significantly larger is probably unnecessary. I'd rather have variety than quantity.


Although it’s ambitious, aim to be another Uno or Monopoly; nearly everyone has a copy in their closet. They've tried to do this with the "Red Box," and similar experiments. While successful in D&D’s early days their current incarnations have largely failed, as evidenced by stacks of them laying around unpurchased when I browse the book and game shops, and store owners telling me they are shipping 80-90% back to the publisher. I feel the poor sales are because they bloat the boxes. In an effort to entice a buyer to feel like they're getting a cool deal, full of tokens, dungeon tiles/maps, multiple booklets and character sheets, and maybe even plastic figures...well, frankly, they overwhelm potential newcomers. To complete noobs, it looks like a big bother to get into.

D&D will not ever be monopoly, and trying to make it into that would be the worst thing ever for it. Roleplaying does not fit the standard board game model.


I've tried to get scores of people into D&D. Perhaps, literally over a hundred. People who I've gotten to know over the course of months or years and thought would enjoy RPGs. I've only convinced perhaps a dozen total.

What is the reason people refuse? Their answer to me is always the same. They are intimidated by the big books, the stigma of excessive rules and overly complex mathematics, etc. Pick your cliche.

Don't start with D&D then. Start with a simple RPG.


There are dice used to create random fairness in determining some things, such as combat.")...they still just think it’s too much of a bother.

If they think it's to much of a bother, they probably just are not that interested in this type of game. Not everyone is. That's ok.


Is it really that so few people genuinely find RPGs fun? That’s very hard to believe, given how people like to watch movies, play video games and fantasize up and down about how they’d like to live an adventurous life.

Some hobbies are popular. Some are niche. One hobby I dabble in involves RC scale WW2 warships with mounted bb guns that sink each other in battles. It makes roleplaying look ludicrously mainstream in comparison. Not everyone wants to get involved in all hobbies, and the more investment a hobby requires to get into, the less you can expect to get. Learning an RPG like D&D is inherently an investment.


Make 1 core book. PHB, DMG, MM all in one. To make it reasonable, maybe there will only be 5 or 6 races, 8 core classes, 75% the magic items of a usual DMG, and only the most iconic monsters (yet still 150+). Perhaps you would make an introductory, paperback version as well (covering only the first 3 character levels).

God no. Not every player wants to own the Monster Manual, nor should they need to.

Edit: Also, while I'm not a fan of 4e, they were smart with DDI. Good move on their part. Subscription models are money. If only they had the promised online gaming thingie too...even more money.

Gamer Girl
2012-05-11, 10:21 AM
Recap: Streamline the product lineup, then broaden your target audience.


This is mostly a bad idea.

Reality Check: D&D is one of those things with a core fan base that does not appeal to Ma and Pa Kettle. While I'm sure 95% of households have Uno and Monopoly games, you will never reach that level with D&D. D&D is simply not the game next door that Tony Stark, Al Bundy, Dr. House, Ugly Betty, Progressive girl Flo, Danica Patrick and Larry the cable guy would all sit down and play.

So while it's fine to have a Dungeon Board Game, it has nothing to do with your D&D line. And no one will play Dungeon and 'spontaneously jump' to D&D, unless they already like that sort of game. (The same way that playing a game of Clue won't make you run out and read mystery fiction)

So the main focus of the company can't be to bring in new gamers. They want new gamers, or more to the point they want 'more' people to buy their products. And this is where the trouble starts. You get a guy with a chart and he sees that 'only 15% of people are gamers' and he goes nuts. That is 85% of the world that does not buy gaming stuff, and they just very sad at all that lost business. They too share your dream that someone like Archie Bunker or Carmela Soprano would actually have a D&D game on the shelf next to Scrabble and Uno. So they ignore the 15% of people that actually buy their products and try to get all them 'new customers', and have the dream of rolling in money once people like Hermione Granger and Bella Swan spend $100 to buy the core rules.

The main focus of the company must then be: to put out a good, fun and entertaining game. They must sit back and let things like 'word of mouth' spread the game. Even more so, they must let the current players of the game be the ones that get them new customers.

Reality Check:At least 75% of all gamers were brought into the game by another current player of the game.

So this tells you that you should put out plenty of 'introductory' stuff. And the key here is to put out small stuff. Someone who has played the game twice won't want to spend their whole paycheck on a $100 box of miniatures, but they would love to have a $8 one that looked like their character. The same way they would love to have an 'apprentice codex' full of magic stuff for $12, but don't want to spend $40 for Complete Magic. Even better is putting out a nice line of books that progress, like apprentice, to mage, to arch mage, that they could buy over time.

Then you just need to make good quality stuff for your core gamers.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-11, 10:29 AM
Literally everyone I know was brought into the game by existing players. I know of nobody who still plays who just walked into a shop and bought the game. I'm sure those people exist, but yeah, they're rare as hell.

Kerrin
2012-05-11, 12:45 PM
This is mostly a bad idea.
So this tells you that you should put out plenty of 'introductory' stuff. And the key here is to put out small stuff. Someone who has played the game twice won't want to spend their whole paycheck on a $100 box of miniatures, but they would love to have a $8 one that looked like their character. The same way they would love to have an 'apprentice codex' full of magic stuff for $12, but don't want to spend $40 for Complete Magic. Even better is putting out a nice line of books that progress, like apprentice, to mage, to arch mage, that they could buy over time.

This is an interesting idea. I wonder what the production costs would be for three smaller books (e.g. size of a composition notebook) as compared to one larger book (e.g. spell compendium).


Then you just need to make good quality stuff for your core gamers.

I totally agree with this. I think too many companies get disconnected from their actual customers and get caught up in corporate visions and grandiose boondoggles that never actually deliver good, solid products to their customers. But I'm sure someone in the company gets a big promotion / raise / bonus for said "vision".

eepop
2012-05-11, 12:48 PM
I think one big thing people miss any time they try to think of how to make roleplaying "go mainstream" is the amount of preparation time required to play.


That’s very hard to believe, given how people like to watch movies, play video games and fantasize up and down about how they’d like to live an adventurous life.

The big difference in my mind between those and roleplaying is the prep-time. You can grab a movie or video game and be getting into the actual "play" of it immediately.

For tabletop roleplaying, you need to get the book(s), read them all, COMPREHEND THEM, gather with other people, schedule to gather with those other people on a regular basis, make a character if you are a player, or make multiple enemies and a story if you are a DM. That is a lot of time!

For the niche that enjoys the hobby, we enjoy that time too. But I do not believe that is a universal trait of people waiting to be tapped, but instead the thing that defines us as a niche.

You want to spread roleplaying? Give it an instant start up.* And that's pretty much the polar opposite of making one monolithic book.


*
No I am not at all convinced that such a thing would even be possible. Merely that this issue is the biggest hurdle to mainstream acceptance, not the schedule that products are delivered in.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-11, 01:44 PM
This is an interesting idea. I wonder what the production costs would be for three smaller books (e.g. size of a composition notebook) as compared to one larger book (e.g. spell compendium).

Development cost is tied to content. It can be assumed that it's pretty invariant. Three books containing the same number of pages would probably cost a bit more than a mammoth superbook.

So, if combining three $30 books together, you're looking at a big book that runs maybe $70.

For reference, Pathfinder essentially combined the DMG and PHB into one, and you pay $50 instead of the $60 if you bought the books separately 3.5 style.

Not a massive savings.

Gamer Girl
2012-05-11, 01:50 PM
This is an interesting idea. I wonder what the production costs would be for three smaller books (e.g. size of a composition notebook) as compared to one larger book (e.g. spell compendium).

I'd think it would be cheaper to make smaller, soft cover books then a super huge mega hard cover. And if it's such a big deal for WotC to put out a small book(like say it would cost them 'a billion per book'), how about just license it out to another publishing company. There were/are lots of d20 publishers so why not license then to do the actual printing. I'm sure plenty would jump at the chance to print 'official D&D product' on their cover(and just maybe get folks to buy their other books too.)




I totally agree with this. I think too many companies get disconnected from their actual customers and get caught up in corporate visions and grandiose boondoggles that never actually deliver good, solid products to their customers. But I'm sure someone in the company gets a big promotion / raise / bonus for said "vision".

I sure think WotC got caught up in the idea of ''we will sell D&D to Everybody and make it a household game just like Uno and we will make Trillions of dollars and rule the world!''

And I doubt it's someone 'in' the company.....this has all the markings of a 'outside consultant' type person, who gets paid no matter what.

Beleriphon
2012-05-11, 01:58 PM
I sure think WotC got caught up in the idea of ''we will sell D&D to Everybody and make it a household game just like Uno and we will make Trillions of dollars and rule the world!''

And I doubt it's someone 'in' the company.....this has all the markings of a 'outside consultant' type person, who gets paid no matter what.

I actually think it has to do with a Hasbro corporate restructuring wherein they decided Brands that make $50 million or more a year get a blank cheque to do as they plase. WotC isn't a brand, but Magic is and so is D&D. Magic easily pulls in $50 million a year, D&D at best gets between $20 million to $30 million.

The option for non-$50 million brands? Get shelved.

There's a pretty good post on this from Ryan Dancy regarding 4E and some of the processes there.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5765766-post205.html

KnightDisciple
2012-05-11, 02:11 PM
I actually think it has to do with a Hasbro corporate restructuring wherein they decided Brands that make $50 million or more a year get a blank cheque to do as they plase. WotC isn't a brand, but Magic is and so is D&D. Magic easily pulls in $50 million a year, D&D at best gets between $20 million to $30 million.

The option for non-$50 million brands? Get shelved.

There's a pretty good post on this from Ryan Dancy regarding 4E and some of the processes there.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5765766-post205.html

Huh. So basically they were faced with either making D&D "multimedia" right now, or seeing it shelved for a decade or more, then likely taken out and "remade" by people who had likely no exposure to RPGs, likely mutilating the game forever? That's...huh.
If nothing else, it makes sense why the Virtual Table Top never happened. :smallfrown:

Honestly though, all the people making noise about how D&D shouldn't have any splatbooks ever?

Look at basically every RPG out there. I would wager they all use "splatbooks" for at least 50% or more of their volume of printed books. Because those books sell for more.
Now, the timing cycle, that's something we could talk about.

But it's absurd to insist they never expand on their mechanics. Both for their sake, and the sake of their fans.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-11, 02:11 PM
I sure think WotC got caught up in the idea of ''we will sell D&D to Everybody and make it a household game just like Uno and we will make Trillions of dollars and rule the world!''

And I doubt it's someone 'in' the company.....this has all the markings of a 'outside consultant' type person, who gets paid no matter what.

As someone who does consulting...not really. This is a mattel corporate thing, not a consultant thing. A consultant would be tailoring his recommendations, good or bad, to your business. A "one size fits all" strategy is almost invariably a corporate call, and yeah, there was the $50mil mark thing.

Now, growing the game isn't a bad thing at all....it's more about how you do that. Can't alienate the existing lot.

Edit: Also, RPGs without splatbooks are usually known as "unsuccessful". Commercial success correlates heavy with number of books published.

Beleriphon
2012-05-11, 02:26 PM
Huh. So basically they were faced with either making D&D "multimedia" right now, or seeing it shelved for a decade or more, then likely taken out and "remade" by people who had likely no exposure to RPGs, likely mutilating the game forever? That's...huh.
If nothing else, it makes sense why the Virtual Table Top never happened. :smallfrown:

It does make sense The problem is that D&D is multimedia, but as pointed out licensing for say NWN2, the MMO and everything else doesn't get credited to WotC. I'm willing to bet that they didn't even get credit for that movie (which might be a good thing).

Kerrin
2012-05-11, 02:34 PM
Now, the timing cycle, that's something we could talk about.

I'd think a solidly built RPG system would have an active selling life of around 7-10 years with 8 probably being the sweet spot.

During the last 25% of the current version's selling life the company should be working on the next version of the RPG so the next version is ready to go when the current version reaches the end of its selling life.

Companies aren't good at managing their products' lifecycles. They're also terrible at long term planning.

Where I work this means that nobody wants to start investing in and working on the next big thing (where we want our products to be a few years from now) so that it'll be ready when they need it - instead they'd rather stagnate on the current products then wonder what happened when they hit the end of the trail.

What exactly do they teach in business schools these days? If you don't cannibalize your own products (i.e. plan for their replacements / upgrades) your competitors certainly will eat your markets.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-11, 02:39 PM
What exactly do they teach in business schools these days? If you don't cannibalize your own products (i.e. plan for their replacements / upgrades) your competitors certainly will eat your markets.

How to party your way through college on your student loans, from what I've seen. It's cool, though, you'll still manage to graduate.*

*Apologies for bitterness. Seriously though, business degrees are kind of off the chart on the employability/easyness scale.

Gamer Girl
2012-05-11, 09:55 PM
As someone who does consulting...not really. This is a mattel corporate thing, not a consultant thing. A consultant would be tailoring his recommendations, good or bad, to your business. A "one size fits all" strategy is almost invariably a corporate call, and yeah, there was the $50mil mark thing.

Well, naturally a consultant thinks they are the greatest thing sense sliced bread and that is just part of the problem. They can 'tailor'(or hoodwink) their ideas all they want, but they have a basic flaw: They are not knowledgeable about the business. They might know about business in general, but they don't know about a single business.

But the worst part about a consultant is that they 'have' to say something as it's their job. So they will toss out an idea or recommendation. And just as bad, the company will feel they 'have' to follow it as if it's carved in stone and they are paying for it.

But it's sad to see D&D suffer from the Big Corporate Thing. As D&D 'is just one brand', it gets no love or support :(

Tyndmyr
2012-05-12, 02:11 PM
Well, naturally a consultant thinks they are the greatest thing sense sliced bread and that is just part of the problem. They can 'tailor'(or hoodwink) their ideas all they want, but they have a basic flaw: They are not knowledgeable about the business. They might know about business in general, but they don't know about a single business.

Generally a consultant specializes in the type of business they consult on. So...yes, they do tend to have a lot of depth of knowledge about the type of business they are dealing with. Usually, you hire a consultant because you lack experience in a given field, and need someone who has it to give you some tips.

Why would anyone hire someone who isn't experienced in what they're consulting on?

A typical example of consultants would be bringing in software engineers to WoTC if WoTC decided they were going to build D&D games themselves. They'd probably need some help with that, since they don't really do that themselves. Currently, D&D computer/console games are all outsourced, which is another way to handle that, but it's got it's own problems.


But the worst part about a consultant is that they 'have' to say something as it's their job. So they will toss out an idea or recommendation. And just as bad, the company will feel they 'have' to follow it as if it's carved in stone and they are paying for it.

But it's sad to see D&D suffer from the Big Corporate Thing. As D&D 'is just one brand', it gets no love or support :(

Well, a consultant who offers no ideas or recommendations is...not really doing his job. And the company need not follow those ideas verbatim.

I wouldn't say that D&D gets no love or support...just that those high on the corporate chain have a lot of things to pay attention to, and D&D isn't real high on the food chain. That's not always a bad thing. For instance, when you're having a tough financial time of it, you probably don't want a lot of visibility and pressure right away.

Ethdred
2012-05-13, 02:02 PM
As with so much in life, there are two types of consultant - the good and the bad. The good will actually get to know your business (and, as mentioned, have some experience in the sector) so they can make recommendations which can actually be put into action without wasting huge amounts of time and money. The bad will give you 'standard business plan number 3' and take your money. In my experience, the larger the consultancy, the more likely you are to get the latter. Of course, there are also good and bad clients - and the bad ones will take 'standard business plan number 3' as gospel and force it through their company regardless of how badly it goes. I always thought of myself as a good client - unfortunately, I have had a lot of managers who were very bad.

dps
2012-05-13, 08:32 PM
Also, RPGs without splatbooks are usually known as "unsuccessful". Commercial success correlates heavy with number of books published.

Don't confuse cause and effect here, though. An RPG isn't successful because there are a lot of splatbooks published for a system. Rather, a lot of splatbooks get published for a system because the RPS was successful.

Essentially, if the core game is successful, there will be a lot of splatbooks published to support it because there will be a market demand for those books. There probably comes a point with a highly successful RPG at which those splatbooks are, as the opening post put it "increasingly inferior products" because there's a demand on the part of the paying customer for more product than there is available talent and time to think up good, new product. Most business (not just those that produce RPGs) never even come close to that situation and would kill to have a product so successful that it becomes an issue.

DrBurr
2012-05-13, 09:24 PM
You know I don't understand half the stuff you guys are talking about short of supply and demand but hey they got me, some joe schmo whos never played a tabletop rpg before, to walk into a bookstore in 2008 and decide to buy D&D so clearly they're doing something right.

Oh and thank you for calling me rare :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2012-05-14, 06:09 AM
Don't confuse cause and effect here, though. An RPG isn't successful because there are a lot of splatbooks published for a system. Rather, a lot of splatbooks get published for a system because the RPS was successful.

Essentially, if the core game is successful, there will be a lot of splatbooks published to support it because there will be a market demand for those books. There probably comes a point with a highly successful RPG at which those splatbooks are, as the opening post put it "increasingly inferior products" because there's a demand on the part of the paying customer for more product than there is available talent and time to think up good, new product. Most business (not just those that produce RPGs) never even come close to that situation and would kill to have a product so successful that it becomes an issue.

Right. The only way to guarantee a lack of splatbooks is to have an RPG that nobody wants more stuff for.

I suspect that lack of talent in RPG design is less a problem than lack of market. One good rules designer can produce rather a lot of material...but it takes a lot of buyers to support that guy. I'd *love* to do rules design full time, but it's a remarkably difficult field to get into.

D&D's problems, such as they are, do not seem to usually seem to stem from it's business model. Sure, I could criticize specific decisions, like the lambasting of 3.5 while producing 4e...but the model itself seems to be adapting nicely. Selling the books online, via subscription? Smart move. Also selling books in stores for people like me? Also good. Starter packs, accessories...all these are good ways to build a brand.

bokodasu
2012-05-16, 11:26 AM
Literally everyone I know was brought into the game by existing players. I know of nobody who still plays who just walked into a shop and bought the game. I'm sure those people exist, but yeah, they're rare as hell.

I found it unopened on my parents' bookshelf, does that count*? Anyway, I read the books, thought they were cool, and ran a game for my cousins. I have at least two other friends with similar stories who still play today. I think maybe as you look at older gamers it's easier to find people who introduced themselves to the hobby, but yes, as the base grew of course more people were introduced by current players.


You want to spread roleplaying? Give it an instant start up... No I am not at all convinced that such a thing would even be possible. Merely that this issue is the biggest hurdle to mainstream acceptance, not the schedule that products are delivered in.

For awhile I was playing in a series of one-shots using streamlined FUDGE rules where explaining how to play took literally 3 minutes. And people played! Like, lots of them, and lots of people who probably wouldn't have normally played a RPG. Not everyone came back, but there were quite a few weeks where we had to run two separate games with 8 or so players each, and nobody would be left to play the board games, or weeks where people who were playing the board games would keep watching the rest of us save the space station or stop the train robbery or whatever, and join us the next week.

And on the flip side, I recently got the Exalted book and I've been trying to get into it but it's just So. Much. Reading. I even tried the "start from character creation and work out in all directions" trick, but then I got to charms and gave up. And this is me, who generally likes that sort of thing.

I think this is a big advantage to the old "only the DM should know the rules" system - yes, one person had to put in a ton of work, but everyone else could just come along for the ride. And it's not like modern DMs have to put in less work, but now players do too, which is a great option for the people who want to do that but a barrier to those who don't.

Now, can you have both "instant startup" and "D&D"? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Isn't that sort of one of their goals for 5e?

*Apparently someone - not my mom - had given it to my dad for an anniversary present. Does that make any sense to anyone? Is third anniversary "RPGs" and I just didn't know? And who buys anniversary presents for people they're not married to? I mean, win for me 'cause I didn't have to pay for it, but it's all very odd.

Tyndmyr
2012-05-16, 12:23 PM
I found it unopened on my parents' bookshelf, does that count*? Anyway, I read the books, thought they were cool, and ran a game for my cousins. I have at least two other friends with similar stories who still play today. I think maybe as you look at older gamers it's easier to find people who introduced themselves to the hobby, but yes, as the base grew of course more people were introduced by current players.

If your parents play the game, then I'd say that "brought into game by existing players" is a reasonable interpretation of that. If it just ended up there by accident...then it's pure luck. But I suspect that such people are definitely the minority, and yeah, most hobbies, friends tend to introduce friends to it...it's just how hobbies work.


For awhile I was playing in a series of one-shots using streamlined FUDGE rules where explaining how to play took literally 3 minutes. And people played! Like, lots of them, and lots of people who probably wouldn't have normally played a RPG. Not everyone came back, but there were quite a few weeks where we had to run two separate games with 8 or so players each, and nobody would be left to play the board games, or weeks where people who were playing the board games would keep watching the rest of us save the space station or stop the train robbery or whatever, and join us the next week.

I wish I had much more time to DM...the amount of demand here for a 3.5 DM appears to be basically limitless.

That said, introductory one shots using streamlined rules is a good method for getting people into RPGs. The splatbooks...and even D&D, usually, is good for later, but initially, you don't want to overwhelm them. I really think WoTC would be well served by selling a much smaller RPG designed specifically to hook people in the overall RPG system, then selling those people D&D.


And on the flip side, I recently got the Exalted book and I've been trying to get into it but it's just So. Much. Reading. I even tried the "start from character creation and work out in all directions" trick, but then I got to charms and gave up. And this is me, who generally likes that sort of thing.

I did exactly the same thing. It lives on my shelf in case anyone else ever wants to play it, at which time, I'll revisit it. I don't have this problem with many games, and I suspect it might be an organizational issue.

Stubbazubba
2012-05-16, 05:28 PM
Now, can you have both "instant startup" and "D&D"? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Isn't that sort of one of their goals for 5e?

I don't think this would be that hard to do, actually. With the advent of DDI (which they will certainly continue to iterate on), there should be a market for fully fleshed-out adventures that can be downloaded, read once (if that), and played. A streamlined, functioning Virtual Table Top (kinda like this (http://www.roll20.net)) would make that even easier by allowing maps, tokens, and what not to come with it. Adventures should be like StarCraft maps.

Expanding on that, if you want to spend more time preparing a truly epic tale, you should be able to mix & match scores of generic adventure pieces which connect to other pieces which are tagged properly, in addition to being able to make your own from scratch. Make it so you can insert your own characters/place names/tokens/etc. into an Adventure Wizard and have the whole thing customized for you.

Things like this would significantly decrease DM prep time, and let them focus on telling the story they want and running an exciting game. The demand for DMs should be a good indicator of where WotC should invest. Lower the barrier to entry for DMing, and more groups will form, more people will play. That's a revitalized base, which is also the best thing for getting new players in, apparently. And if each of those is a subscription you're selling, then you've significantly increased profits for what is still rather low tech R&D costs.