Dungeons and Dragons Relaunched [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

pendell

2014-05-21, 07:39 AM

As reported by io9 (http://io9.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-dungeons-dragon-1578575603)

After a two-year development process, Wizards of the Coast has finally announced release dates for the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

...

They aren't calling it D&DNext or Fifth Edition. The new book covers simply bear the Dungeons & Dragons title. They've created a new logo, as well — a simple font that lets your attention focus on the famous firebreathing ampersand. It's worth noting that, in the event listing for this year's Gen Con, events running this new edition did refer to it as 5E, which is really necessary to avoid confusion.

...

A number of products will be released on a staggered schedule throughout the summer and fall. Head of D&D R&D Mike Mearls reported on Twitter that this is intended to maintain quality control. When they released everything at once with fourth edition, it was too much to handle, and a lot of errors crept in (resulting in post-facto erratta and a lot of derision). Here are the release dates:

July 15 — Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set, $19.99.

August 19 — Player's Handbook, $49.95.

August 19 — Hoard of the Dragon Queen, $29.95.

September 30 — Monster Manual, $49.95.

October 21 — The Rise of Tiamat, $29.95.

November 19 — Dungeon Master's Guide, $49.95.

...

The Starter Set, at $20, looks like a great intro product. You get the basic rules, some premade characters, an adventure, character creation rules up to 5th level, and even a set of dice. But the three core books are $50 each, making even one of those a serious stack of clams for a middle schooler who wants to play D&D (and pity the poor kid who wants to be the DM).

Looks like the PHB will debut at Gen Con, and WOTC outsourced a lot of stuff to make this happen.

I've no idea whether the new system will be any good or not. Man, I'm glad I didn't invest heavily in 4E.

ETA: Does this mean that, from a business and marketing standpoint, it was a failure? I know that , on the merits as a game system, there are quite a few people here who love it. But it's looking to me like the gaming world's New Coke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke) -- a perfectly passable product nonetheless rejected by consumers at large. Why?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Legato Endless

2014-05-21, 08:28 PM

Dear Wizards of the Coast,

I note that instead of choosing a sensible logical title, you have decided to follow the befuddled example of the New iPad, Star Trek (2009), and the Xbox One. Thank you for contributing to the market trend to avoid product clarity for condescending simplicity. It's not like DnD's variant history wasn't convoluted enough.

Sardonically your's,
Legato

JustPlayItLoud

2014-05-21, 10:17 PM

I like the new logo. Simple, elegant. I like the covers designs along with the logo. I absolutely hated the huge cream colored block on all the 4e covers, not that I actually liked anything else about that edition either. Before the article even mentioned it I picked up on the similarity to the cover of the old, red starter rules.

All the cover art is pretty cool. A lot of the the 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder art is too bright and cartoony for my tastes. I always preferred the 2e art and I hope 5e has a similar art style overall.

And is there anyone that's not happy they decided to not call the final product D&D Next?

Eldan

2014-05-22, 02:38 AM

Really? I thought the Logo and especially the titles were terribly boring. It reads "business report" to me, not "Fantasy roleplaying".

Yora

2014-05-22, 02:45 AM

I've no idea whether the new system will be any good or not. Man, I'm glad I didn't invest heavily in 4E.

ETA: Does this mean that, from a business and marketing standpoint, it was a failure?

I think it can at least safely be said, that the people in charge of making that descision were not satisfied wth how 4th Edition performed and thought it worth the risk to try it again with a new game just 4 years after it had been released.
How well or poorly it actually sold can't be said, but the people who were making that descision clearly seem to have considered it very insufficient.

And is there anyone that's not happy they decided to not call the final product D&D Next?
They insist on calling it "just Dungeon & Dragons". But I can't see anyone talking about Dungeons & Dragons without clearifying which edition they mean. I expect it to be called 5th Edition everywhere.

Feytalist

2014-05-22, 04:09 AM

Well... okay.

I don't hate the new logo. It's legible, it's there, it says D&D. That's fair enough.

And a new version doesn't really bother me, really. 4E was never something I really cared enough about, anyway.

However, I really dislike the rebranding idea. Look like it's becoming a new trend. Dungeons and Dragons was an odd little game created 40 years ago. It is not the fifth (at least) game in the same series. I can't imagine anyone getting confused about it (who even still plays original D&D?), but it just sounds like they're going "let's throw out all the history and experience of the last 40 years, just so we can Start Fresh!". Really now.

Yora

2014-05-22, 08:19 AM

However, I really dislike the rebranding idea. Look like it's becoming a new trend. Dungeons and Dragons was an odd little game created 40 years ago. It is not the fifth (at least) game in the same series. I can't imagine anyone getting confused about it (who even still plays original D&D?)
You'd be suprised. There are still a good number of big fans who do play pretty much any version there is. And on top of that you get dozens of retroclones, that are far less different from the official versions than Pathfinder is to 3rd edition. And then there's of course the people still playing third edition.
If you're telling someone you're playing D&D, who knows that there are more than one version, he won't have any ideas which version you mean.
The answer "we're playing Dungeons & Dragons" won't help at all. At the very least, you'd have to say "the current one":

Flickerdart

2014-05-22, 03:17 PM

But it's looking to me like the gaming world's New Coke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke) -- a perfectly passable product nonetheless rejected by consumers at large. Why?
Because all of the game designers that know anything about design get shuffled to Magic: The Gathering.

SiuiS

2014-05-22, 04:37 PM

ETA: Does this mean that, from a business and marketing standpoint, it was a failure? I know that , on the merits as a game system, there are quite a few people here who love it. But it's looking to me like the gaming world's New Coke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke) -- a perfectly passable product nonetheless rejected by consumers at large. Why?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Flickerdart is right on designer end. Consumer end, the reason it won't sail like a majestic eagle is because there are still a large quantity of better or equivalent products which don't have a chance of being a flop maybe. It's not new enough to be worth it, and too new to bank on nostalgia.

I think it can at least safely be said, that the people in charge of making that descision were not satisfied wth how 4th Edition performed and thought it worth the risk to try it again with a new game just 4 years after it had been released.
How well or poorly it actually sold can't be said, but the people who were making that descision clearly seem to have considered it very insufficient.

They insist on calling it "just Dungeon & Dragons". But I can't see anyone talking about Dungeons & Dragons without clearifying which edition they mean. I expect it to be called 5th Edition everywhere.

Not really a problem. The game has just been "dungeons and dragons" for the last, like, thirty years. I've never had confusion about which game folks were playing when I asked because I could always ask about mechanics, cover art, etc., the closest issue I have ever seen was a nonplayer who bought the wrong edition for someone else.

2e is just D&D (or sometimes AD&D). 3e is just D&D. 4e is just D&D. 5e is no different.

Devils_Advocate

2014-06-09, 06:48 AM

"It’s like what they did with Star Trek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_%28film%29), Friday the 13th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friday_the_13th_%282009_film%29), and Final Destination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Destination). What, did some kind of apocalypse happen while I wasn’t looking and now everything has to reset? You know what future historians will say about us, right? 'There were two very different games within the same 20-year period, both called Wolfenstein, and the second one was not strictly speaking a remake of the first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D). From this we can conclude that the people of the early 21st century were TAKING THE PISS.'"
--- Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/916-Wolfenstein)

I can't see anyone talking about Dungeons & Dragons without clearifying which edition they mean.
("Clarifying".)

D&D players do that all the time when edition isn't relevant to the discussion, i.e. often. Or when the people they're talking to already know what edition they're talking about, e.g. if they're both players in the same game. Clarification is given when warranted. I expect all of these trends to continue, probably via calling this new version "5th Edition". (That is what people have been doing already, right?)

Aotrs Commander

2014-06-13, 04:26 AM

I greet this announcement with a resounding... *shrug*

WotC lost me at 4E. For me to even LOOK at 5E, it would have to be as big an improvement over 3.5 as 3E was over AD&D, and somehow, from what little I've heard, I doubt it.

It's ALSO got to be that much better than Pathfinder1; since I play a Hideous Mutant Hybrid of 3.5 and PF and have getting on for fifteen years of house-rules and compilations, which I didn't have for AD&D. And let's be fair AD&D was, mechanically, pretty rubbish as a set of rules.

(Let me clarify: D&D was not the first roleplaying game I played - it wasn't even the second. I have no nostalgia about it, no fond memories of playing it at college or something (I started at about ten/eleven in Rolemaster and I'm playing with essentially the same group after 25 years), and so have no loyalty to the older editions that was not earned by virtue of the cold, hard functionality of their mechanics. My system of choice prior to 3.x was Rolemaster.

Furthermore - I've come recently to a realisation. I'm a WARGAMER, not a GAMER (and a bits of a niche wargamer at that). I'm not interested in playing games for the sake of games themselves (hence my complete lack of interest in board games, card games and the like - and most typical wargames come to that) I'm only ever interested in the application of a set of rules as a mechanical construct to imperfectly simulate whatever bit of reality I'm working at. So a shuffled around set of rules that is different... means nothing to me if it doesn't imperfectly simulate what I'm looking for better than the last imperfect simulation.)

So 5E will have to be something beyond stupendous, or have some truly new and innovative mechanics for me to swipe.

(And... honestly... I've seen the sort of people with the sort of brains you need to get that level of innovation. People who do mathmatical modelling for a living and write wargames rules in their spare time. Or people like, in the days of ore, Tempest Stormwind and his mates. WotC very probably can't afford that kind of brainpower. (Hasbro probably could, but I doubt D&D rates high enough to warrent that level of expendature.) So I very much doubt they've actually got that, especially sinc elast time I checked, it was very much like they'd just moved things around a bit. (Weren't on adding D6s or something to skill checks or something?)

All of which adds up to making me very dubious about 5E (regardless of what rebranding they want to try and pull on us).

(Do feel free to enlighten me if 5E is a lot better than it sounded when I last gave a half-glance in its direction months ago, by the by: at the moment, I know next-to-nothing about it except it is apparently trying to be less like 4E and more like the older editions. Though if my cursory glance at this forum is correct, part of th core rules will be available free to play: and if so I can at least make an adjudicated judgement in good time.)

1And let's be fair: Paizo's Golarion is by simply miles the best campaign world I ever been fortunate enough to encounter - hell, I read it for FUN. Their adventures are top-notch - up to the lofty heights that I previously only saw from Warhammer FRPG (1st edition), a game we only PLAYED because of said modules. By comparison, one of my gaming group is periodically running a 4E game through the official modules (to give me a break) and they were astoudingly disappointing. Worse than the older version's modules. It was all just a series of combats. Some of them interesting set-pieces, yes, but just combats. And even the rare roleplaying encounters were completely de-railed with the extremely poorly implemented skill challenges. (There was one instance whre we needed to make about eighteen checks across the party or something to get the required number of successes. You... just can't roleplay that number of exchances without running out things to say.) So WotC's ability to write good modules took rather a hit in my estimation.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-13, 07:13 AM

Aotrs Commander

2014-06-13, 08:07 AM

I find it funny that people still think 4e didn't sell, it actually did quite great as a TTRPG (beating pathfinder until they went all essentials on us), however Hasbro's goal was so ridiculous that it was impossible to meet.

So technically it failed, but that is like saying a major league athlete who gets a 100 million dollar contract failed because he thought he was going to get a 150 million dollar contract.

But that's the problem with all big business today, isn't it? It's no longer enough to be making money, you have to be making BIG money or not at all (and insanely, ever-increasingly larger amount of Big Money every time). I never quite understand where these people get their ideas that that there is an infinite market (and for all products, too - sorry guys, RPGs are always going to be a niche) that will spend infinitte amounts of money on some theorhetically perfect project. It seems as though they are, like gamblers, always chasing the next Big Win, and sacrificing anything that's modestly successgul now for the possibility of big money later. (I'm no longer speaking about WotC specifically, by the by.) And maybe that's partly the problem - it kinda is like gambling, and maybe all the marketing/finacial people have subtle managed to get themselves all into a similar mindset without actually realising they have a problem. (Actually, that would kinda explain the banks, wouldn't it?) Who knows?

Kurald Galain

2014-06-13, 08:16 AM

But that's the problem with all big business today, isn't it? It's no longer enough to be making money, you have to be making BIG money or not at all (and insanely, ever-increasingly larger amount of Big Money every time).

I think it's more the case that WOTC used to be the market leader, and would very much like to reclaim that position.

rlc

2014-06-14, 11:42 PM

Has anybody thought about the fact that business cycles are just shorter than they were 30 or 40 years ago? 4e was released in 2008? And now we're getting 5e about 6 years later? That's about the same amount of time between each generation of video game consoles nowadays.

obryn

2014-06-15, 10:01 AM

rlc

2014-06-15, 04:17 PM

And, for those upset about the name...
"A major revision of the AD&D rules was released in 2000...named just Dungeons & Dragons, but still officially referred to as 3rd edition (or 3E for short)" (source (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons), under version history).

SiuiS

2014-06-16, 02:18 AM

Bleakbane, that's the single most enticing description of anything pathfinder I've ever seen. Thanks.

Person_Man

2014-06-16, 08:36 AM

Meh, it makes sense that they'd refer to the new edition as "Dungeons and Dragons" and not "D&D Next" or "5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons" or some variant. When some newbie interested in playing the game for the first time or some parent interested in buying it for their kid Google's "Dungeon's and Dragons" or searches for it on Amazon, Hasbro wants them to go to their newest core product. If the new version was branded as D&D Next or 5E, then they might be directed to some other edition because they didn't get the phasing correct.

ETA: Does this mean that, from a business and marketing standpoint, it was a failure? I know that on the merits as a game system, there are quite a few people here who love it. But it's looking to me like the gaming world's New Coke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke) -- a perfectly passable product nonetheless rejected by consumers at large. Why?

That's a very apt comparison. But I would argue that 4E was New Coke, and 5E is an attempt to return to "Classic" D&D and recapture the disaffected fan base.

In the 1980's Coke was making millions of dollars, but slowly losing market share to a wide variety of diet drinks and to Pepsi, which was sweeter. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a new version of Coke that was even sweeter then Pepsi was preferred by a majority of customers, but that in focus groups a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. Coca-Cola Co. pushed ahead and released New Coke. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Pepsi took advantage of. Some customers even tried to obtain the old formula of Coke from overseas, or started protest groups. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Coca-Cola Classic."

WotC was making millions of dollars with 3.5, but slowly losing market share to 3rd party publishers and other games. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a more balanced and standardized version of the game was preferred by a majority of customers, but forums revealed that a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. WotC pushed ahead and released 4E. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Paizo took advantage of. Some customers even started playing old school D&D clones or started their own fantasy heartbreaker games. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Dungeons and Dragons" classic, which heavily resembles older versions of the game.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-16, 09:14 AM

In the 1980's Coke was making millions of dollars, but slowly losing market share to a wide variety of diet drinks and to Pepsi, which was sweeter. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a new version of Coke that was even sweeter then Pepsi was preferred by a majority of customers, but that in focus groups a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. Coca-Cola Co. pushed ahead and released New Coke. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Pepsi took advantage of. Some customers even tried to obtain the old formula of Coke from overseas, or started protest groups. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Coca-Cola Classic."

WotC was making millions of dollars with 3.5, but slowly losing market share to 3rd party publishers and other games. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a more balanced and standardized version of the game was preferred by a majority of customers, but forums revealed that a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. WotC pushed ahead and released 4E. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Paizo took advantage of. Some customers even started playing old school D&D clones or started their own fantasy heartbreaker games. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Dungeons and Dragons" classic, which heavily resembles older versions of the game.

That's an apt comparison, yes.

Eten

2014-06-16, 05:03 PM

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 07:22 AM

Meh, it makes sense that they'd refer to the new edition as "Dungeons and Dragons" and not "D&D Next" or "5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons" or some variant. When some newbie interested in playing the game for the first time or some parent interested in buying it for their kid Google's "Dungeon's and Dragons" or searches for it on Amazon, Hasbro wants them to go to their newest core product. If the new version was branded as D&D Next or 5E, then they might be directed to some other edition because they didn't get the phasing correct.

That's a very apt comparison. But I would argue that 4E was New Coke, and 5E is an attempt to return to "Classic" D&D and recapture the disaffected fan base.

In the 1980's Coke was making millions of dollars, but slowly losing market share to a wide variety of diet drinks and to Pepsi, which was sweeter. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a new version of Coke that was even sweeter then Pepsi was preferred by a majority of customers, but that in focus groups a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. Coca-Cola Co. pushed ahead and released New Coke. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Pepsi took advantage of. Some customers even tried to obtain the old formula of Coke from overseas, or started protest groups. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Coca-Cola Classic."

WotC was making millions of dollars with 3.5, but slowly losing market share to 3rd party publishers and other games. They did a bunch of market research, and found out that a more balanced and standardized version of the game was preferred by a majority of customers, but forums revealed that a minority of customers were very angry at the idea of changing their iconic and beloved product. WotC pushed ahead and released 4E. Sales initially surged, but then there was a backlash from dissatisfied and alienated customers, which their competitor Paizo took advantage of. Some customers even started playing old school D&D clones or started their own fantasy heartbreaker games. There was a lot of internal disagreement about the direction of the product within the company, and some people got fired. And eventually they re-released "Dungeons and Dragons" classic, which heavily resembles older versions of the game.

That's an apt comparison, yes.

Unfortunately this analogy falls apart since 4E made as much as 3.5E. It didn't make as much as Hasbro required though. Which is why both 3.5E and 4E were retired for 5E. Sales of 4E didn't start to fall off (they were #1 over Pathfinder) until the release of Essentials which then started losing 4E market share. 5E is a last ditch effort to make an 'evergreen' D&D that they can keep on shelves forever before shelving it for 10 years or so.

To this day New Coke is still produced in very small quantities, and consistently wins blind taste tests over Pepsi and Old Coca-Cola(aka Coca-Cola Classic that we drink now).

Which is where the New Coke = 4E falls apart, I have come to believe. In my personal experienced, everybody who started on 4e and played 5e under me have professed great love for 5e. Older players of 2e said they were surprised at how much they liked it, and 3.5e and pathfinder players have admitted they can see how they could move to 5e permanently.

I've had the opposite reaction. Everyone that I know of that has played any edition of D&D didn't like it. My 4E players don't like the imbalance and lack of strategy. The 2E people I've talked to say 2E does it better and they've house ruled the annoying parts away already anyway. The older edition players say its too much like video games. So my anecdotal experience cancels your anecdotal experience.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-17, 07:33 AM

Unfortunately this analogy falls apart since 4E made as much as 3.5E.
You're making that up. There is absolutely no source anywhere stating or confirming that.

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 07:48 AM

You're making that up. There is absolutely no source anywhere stating or confirming that.

One of the ex-4E developers said it in an article about a year ago. You can track it down if you want. I'm done spoon feeding this kind of info to people that don't believe it even when its put right in front of their eyes.

Person_Man

2014-06-17, 08:35 AM

To this day New Coke is still produced in very small quantities, and consistently wins blind taste tests over Pepsi and Old Coca-Cola(aka Coca-Cola Classic that we drink now).

Which is where the New Coke = 4E falls apart, I have come to believe. In my personal experienced, everybody who started on 4e and played 5e under me have professed great love for 5e. Older players of 2e said they were surprised at how much they liked it, and 3.5e and pathfinder players have admitted they can see how they could move to 5e permanently.

To each their own. For what t's worth, when I've played 4E at conventions or organized play with pre-made characters, I've really enjoyed it a lot more then I've enjoyed short sessions of D&D games with any previous edition. (I have yet to play 5E outside of playtests with my friends). For me, 4E is the best version of D&D for a short afternoon of balanced tactical combat game. It's kinda like a slightly more complex version of Heroclix, which I also love.

However, for me, a big part of D&D is character creation/optimization, world building, collective story telling, and long campaigns where characters and worlds develop and grow over time. On this front, 4E has been the absolute worst version of D&D I've ever played, and it's the reason my friends never adopted it. The Feats, Powers, and the At-Will/Encounter/Daily setup for all classes are just way too fiddly, boring, and duplicative to hold our interest for long running games, and the supporting fluff has been comparatively terrible.

However, I'm honestly not sure what other example I could have used. A staff of 400 disciplined playtesters may not sound like a lot when compared to the entire D&D fanbase, but from a business perspective it is unbelievably massive. This is not just a matter of budget: even if you used volunteers, you would still need to handle the logistics of managing them all, and that is a daunting task.

It's daunting for a small firm with no operating capital. But for a game like D&D that's going that they want to sell $50 million+ per year, it's chump change.

I've been a project manager who has run large conferences and worked for a public opinion research firm, and (once you've handed me something to review) I could run the entire process for under $200,000, easy, including staff time, travel, meeting space, etc. (Or a lot less if we're utilizing existing WotC staff - the logistical/meeting space piece is surprisingly cheap).

Pick a large existing gaming convention, like PAX or GenCon. Hold 25 playtest/review sessions per day for four days, 12ish in the morning/afternoon and 12ish in the afternoon/evening. (To cut down on the size of the room needed). At the end of each session have everyone fill out detailed comment forms and surveys, and then hold focus groups with a randomly selected cross section of participants. Because it's D&D, I'm fairly certain you can get volunteers to do it for free. If you want to avoid fanboy volunteer response bias (people with the strongest opinions are the most likely to volunteer to participate) you could assign playtest tickets to people who register for the conference at random and pay people $50 a piece plus some cheap promotional tchotchkes to register for the event and participate (which will get you a 90%ish participation rate). After the conference you compile and code your results, identify your "low hanging fruit" (obvious problems to fix and changes everyone would like, fixes to math, remove broken stuff) and customer archetypes (characteristics of people who are likely to buy the game, and who could be persuaded to buy the game), use the feedback to create a new iteration of your game, and then repeat the process 3-4 times until all the low hanging fruit has been picked and a sufficient threshold of your prospective customer archetypes are all handing in positive responses. THEN you do a larger mass playtest and survey (where the only cost is the time it takes to compile and analyze the results). Then you write and present the final report to management, and include "We have identified a pool of X customers, who report that they would be willing to pay Y dollars for Z products, generating a net revenue of $N within the first year of sales" on the first line of your executive summary.

If management isn't happy with that number, you've only wasted a couple hundred thousand dollars in testing, instead of millions of dollars in launching and supporting a product that's not going to meet your revenue goals. A similar process is used by most large firms to develop most other mass market products. D&D is owned by Hasbro, a billion dollar firm, and not some basement small business with no operating budget. If they're going to exert their corporate meddling to screw with the game, they might as well invest corporate money in quality control.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-17, 08:38 AM

My 4E players don't like the imbalance and lack of strategy.

You know, you keep saying this, but your thread on your run through of the play test demonstrated a lack of strategy from your players. The engaged a concealed enemy with the high ground from a crowd without doing anything to negate the advantages of the enemy. That's basic strategy 101.

Now, what I think you (and your players) specifically don't like is the lack of round by round balance changing class features. It's not that the game doesn't provide you with options for strategy, it's that they don't give you "strategy buttons" to push. Not disparaging you or your players for preferring that sort of game, just pointing out that "5e doesn't have strategy" is not really a valid complaint. It has strategy, just a different type. You might sum it up by saying 4e allows you to distribute your strategy across the combat rounds, and 5e expects you to execute your strategy before (or immediately after) combat begins.

da_chicken

2014-06-17, 10:30 AM

One of the ex-4E developers said it in an article about a year ago. You can track it down if you want. I'm done spoon feeding this kind of info to people that don't believe it even when its put right in front of their eyes.

How about you track down and post your own sources instead of expecting others to do your research for you? The onus is upon you, who made the claim, to show evidence supporting it. If, as you say, the evidence is "right in front of their eyes," then it should not be difficult at all to produce it.

On the other hand, if the evidence for your claim doesn't exist, then you're asking people to prove a negative -- to prove that your evidence doesn't exist. That cannot be done. Logic and debate do not work that way.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 10:45 AM

How about you track down and post your own sources instead of expecting others to do your research for you? The onus is upon you, who made the claim, to show evidence supporting it. If, as you say, the evidence is "right in front of their eyes," then it should not be difficult at all to produce it.

On the other hand, if the evidence for your claim doesn't exist, then you're asking people to prove a negative -- to prove that your evidence doesn't exist. That cannot be done. Logic and debate do not work that way.

I'm not saying one person is right or wrong but... Sadly in today's world Logic and Debate works that way for the most part, it just shouldn't.

Also...

Tell that to politicians :P

Kurald Galain

2014-06-17, 10:56 AM

I'm not saying one person is right or wrong but... Sadly in today's world Logic and Debate works that way for the most part, it just shouldn't.

Well, in that case...

...I totally overheard my neighbor's cousin's fiancee's roommate, who may or may not have been dating a WOTC employee at the time, say that 4E only made a $100 profit over its entire lifespan.

There we go, it's a proven fact now :smallbiggrin:

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 11:16 AM

Well, in that case...

...I totally overheard my neighbor's cousin's fiancee's roommate, who may or may not have been dating a WOTC employee at the time, say that 4E only made a $100 profit over its entire lifespan.

There we go, it's a proven fact now :smallbiggrin:

Yup!

See, this one gets it!

:smallcool:

Fwiffo86

2014-06-17, 12:40 PM

I think some here are finding fault with supplied evidence. Namely, claiming reference to something without providing access to the same.

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 12:50 PM

You know, you keep saying this, but your thread on your run through of the play test demonstrated a lack of strategy from your players. The engaged a concealed enemy with the high ground from a crowd without doing anything to negate the advantages of the enemy. That's basic strategy 101.

Now, what I think you (and your players) specifically don't like is the lack of round by round balance changing class features. It's not that the game doesn't provide you with options for strategy, it's that they don't give you "strategy buttons" to push. Not disparaging you or your players for preferring that sort of game, just pointing out that "5e doesn't have strategy" is not really a valid complaint. It has strategy, just a different type. You might sum it up by saying 4e allows you to distribute your strategy across the combat rounds, and 5e expects you to execute your strategy before (or immediately after) combat begins.

Yeah, we don't like trap options parading around as tactical options, and 5E is filled with them from bad spell choices to feats that actually make you worse (and Arcane Archer isn't the only one). In the above thread, it was mentioned the only spell they could get that would be useful was bless and there was only one other player, not even worth the slot to prepare it. The other player ran up the stairs and engaged them taking the requisite 2 rounds to get in place, but had the same problem. They had to hit and then the target had to fail a save for their ki effect to take place (it was a monk). So no 5E really doesn't have tactics. They have alpha strike rounds (which 4E and every other edition of D&D has anyway).

How about you track down and post your own sources instead of expecting others to do your research for you? The onus is upon you, who made the claim, to show evidence supporting it. If, as you say, the evidence is "right in front of their eyes," then it should not be difficult at all to produce it.

On the other hand, if the evidence for your claim doesn't exist, then you're asking people to prove a negative -- to prove that your evidence doesn't exist. That cannot be done. Logic and debate do not work that way.

How about I expect people to enter conversations informed about the subject matter. Especially since I've dug up the quote numerous times already and don't want to have to find it again.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-17, 01:01 PM

Yeah, we don't like trap options parading around as tactical options, and 5E is filled with them from bad spell choices to feats that actually make you worse (and Arcane Archer isn't the only one). In the above thread, it was mentioned the only spell they could get that would be useful was bless and there was only one other player, not even worth the slot to prepare it. The other player ran up the stairs and engaged them taking the requisite 2 rounds to get in place, but had the same problem. They had to hit and then the target had to fail a save for their ki effect to take place (it was a monk). So no 5E really doesn't have tactics. They have alpha strike rounds (which 4E and every other edition of D&D has anyway).

I wasn't event talking about the feat. I was talking about strategy and your players demonstrated lack thereof. Your players were ambushed by an enemy with cover and the high ground, caught in a place where movement was extremely difficult. Your players, rather than seeking to negate these advantages, chose to engage the enemy with ranged attacks. That's bad tactics and strategy.

Lokiare

2014-06-17, 01:04 PM

I wasn't event talking about the feat. I was talking about strategy and your players demonstrated lack thereof. Your players were ambushed by an enemy with cover and the high ground, caught in a place where movement was extremely difficult. Your players, rather than seeking to negate these advantages, chose to engage the enemy with ranged attacks. That's bad tactics and strategy.

And how exactly were they supposed to negate those advantages, other than running up the stairs? What, were they supposed to use the crowd as a shield and crawl their way closer?

I guess the archer could have ran to the opposite side of the area and climbed into another building to shoot from, but that wouldn't have done much.

Really there was no other options. Especially since the adventure was written in such a way that the party couldn't know of the ambush ahead of time.

da_chicken

2014-06-17, 01:15 PM

I'm not saying one person is right or wrong but... Sadly in today's world Logic and Debate works that way for the most part, it just shouldn't.

I'm not saying that people don't argue that way. I'm saying it doesn't work.

Ignoring the fact that a claimant can make spurious claims just to waste the challenger's time, the challenger won't be able to prove that a search was exhaustive and comprehensive. The only way a search could be proven to have been completed is if the evidence was found, since a lack of evidence proves that the evidence does not exist as much as that the search was not comprehensive. Thus, asking the challenger to complete the search is a conflict of interests. The claimant is the only party that can be trusted to find the evidence.

Also...

Tell that to politicians :P

Politicians don't argue, debate, or reason with logic. That's too time consuming and gives your opponent the ability to argue against you by proving your facts in error. Instead they persuade with appeals to authority, ignorance, nature, incredulity, emotion, and every other common fallacy. It doesn't mean their conclusions wrong since fallacious arguments can have true conclusions, it just means it's a waste of time to argue with them.

da_chicken

2014-06-17, 02:01 PM

How about I expect people to enter conversations informed about the subject matter. Especially since I've dug up the quote numerous times already and don't want to have to find it again.

So, what, you're just too lazy to prove your claim? That's certainly convincing. You can't even find where you last referenced it? Or are you saying you've argued for so long that you should be considered an authority on the topic now, and we just have to trust what an authority such as yourself says. Authority isn't to be questioned, after all.

Look, I'll be the first one to tell you that I'm not a game designer, not in the games industry, and I've never done market research on anything let alone the success or failure of tabletop RPGs. I'm a layman. As such, I'm going to question those who know better than I out of sheer ignorance. This isn't anti-intellectualism. It's natural skepticism. However, if you're actually an expert and can't even be bothered to direct a layman to where he or she needs to go to educate themselves, then I don't understand why you continue to discuss these things with laymen. It seems absolutely self-defeating.

Fwiffo86

2014-06-17, 02:56 PM

So, what, you're just too lazy to prove your claim? That's certainly convincing. You can't even find where you last referenced it? Or are you saying you've argued for so long that you should be considered an authority on the topic now, and we just have to trust what an authority such as yourself says. Authority isn't to be questioned, after all.

Look, I'll be the first one to tell you that I'm not a game designer, not in the games industry, and I've never done market research on anything let alone the success or failure of tabletop RPGs. I'm a layman. As such, I'm going to question those who know better than I out of sheer ignorance. This isn't anti-intellectualism. It's natural skepticism. However, if you're actually an expert and can't even be bothered to direct a layman to where he or she needs to go to educate themselves, then I don't understand why you continue to discuss these things with laymen. It seems absolutely self-defeating.

I am in this same boat. I am a layman. Which is why I ask for proof of claims. This is not unreasonable. I will say that I work where proving what you say is the single most important thing. Which is why I am frustrated by the inability or lack of desire to provide credible proof. If you do not want to submit proof, that is fine. Just realize that what you say when claiming X or Y, will probably be treated with casual disregard.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 04:06 PM

I am in this same boat. I am a layman. Which is why I ask for proof of claims. This is not unreasonable. I will say that I work where proving what you say is the single most important thing. Which is why I am frustrated by the inability or lack of desire to provide credible proof. If you do not want to submit proof, that is fine. Just realize that what you say when claiming X or Y, will probably be treated with casual disregard.

As a layman, why do you trust his proof?

Also, at some point I or anyone else stops posting proof. We must assume it is known. Or else everything you say must be cited... Which gets annoying.

Could you imagine if I said "I don't think you know what layman means, define it to prove to me you know what it means" and then that happens over and over... Every so often someone tells YOU to prove you know what that word means. You may be using that word correctly but I still want proof.

Get how annoying that would be?

When demanding proof toy shouldn't expect it from the person making the statement, taking information and proof from the same source can turn ugly. I'm not saying Lok will lie but it is a bad habit that can lead to you being duped.

1337 b4k4

2014-06-17, 04:24 PM

Also, at some point I or anyone else stops posting proof. We must assume it is known. Or else everything you say must be cited... Which gets annoying.

True, but when things can not be assumed to be known (like WotC sales figures) and the person making an argument is known for exaggerations and outright falsehoods, the demand for proof is not only prudent, but necessary.

When demanding proof toy shouldn't expect it from the person making the statement, taking information and proof from the same source can turn ugly. I'm not saying Lok will lie but it is a bad habit that can lead to you being duped.

Generally speaking, proof is considered verifiable references to third parties, references to yourself that are subsequently referenced back to verifiable third parties or directly repeatable and testable results. Even if you get these from the original person making the claim, the nature of them being third party and verifiable tends to reduce the chance for duplicity.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-17, 04:28 PM

Also, at some point I or anyone else stops posting proof.

To stop posting proof, one must first have started posting proof...

Fwiffo86

2014-06-17, 04:50 PM

True, but when things can not be assumed to be known (like WotC sales figures) and the person making an argument is known for exaggerations and outright falsehoods, the demand for proof is not only prudent, but necessary.

Agreed. I won't comment on exaggerations and falsehoods, because a claim, no matter how unlikely, is just a claim. Until proven, it is neither here nor there.

Also, at some point I or anyone else stops posting proof. We must assume it is known. Or else everything you say must be cited... Which gets annoying.

Citation should be a skill anyone who walks into a debate is prepared to use. Regardless of its redundancy. Especially for people who join the conversation at random times since its beginning. Annoying... sure. But that's the burden of making claims of any sort.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 04:50 PM

True, but when things can not be assumed to be known (like WotC sales figures) and the person making an argument is known for exaggerations and outright falsehoods, the demand for proof is not only prudent, but necessary.

Generally speaking, proof is considered verifiable references to third parties, references to yourself that are subsequently referenced back to verifiable third parties or directly repeatable and testable results. Even if you get these from the original person making the claim, the nature of them being third party and verifiable tends to reduce the chance for duplicity.

To stop posting proof, one must first have started posting proof...

My point isn't really if someone can give proof or should give proof. Yes, if you make a claim then every time you better post proof or you get called a liar or misinformed.

My point is more about finding the truth or information away from whoever or whatever is saying something as proof. Don't rely on someone that is saying something you find weird or wrong to give you proof because you never know what one will give you.

There are many people out there that have been misquoted by picking and choosing the words taken carefully. They get taken out of context.

Keep nagging Lok about his proof is like asking a tabloid to show them proof of a celebrity breakup, you will get your so called proof that may not be true.

Facts can be distorted quite easily. I'm not saying Lok specifically would do this but as a general rule you may want to watch out for this sort of behavior performed by yourself.

Put up or shut up has controlled more people than I want to even start thinking about... Even if the person "putting up" is wrong or lying.

Edit:

This is not a debate team, the rules of debate do not govern a D&D forum nor do they govern real life. People on here and other sites like to cite debate club rules or some other art of debate sort of rules... They just don't apply on the internet.:smallwink:

Fwiffo86

2014-06-17, 05:17 PM

My point isn't really if someone can give proof or should give proof. Yes, if you make a claim then every time you better post proof or you get called a liar or misinformed.

My point is more about finding the truth or information away from whoever or whatever is saying something as proof. Don't rely on someone that is saying something you find weird or wrong to give you proof because you never know what one will give you.

There are many people out there that have been misquoted by picking and choosing the words taken carefully. They get taken out of context.

Keep nagging Lok about his proof is like asking a tabloid to show them proof of a celebrity breakup, you will get your so called proof that may not be true.

Facts can be distorted quite easily. I'm not saying Lok specifically would do this but as a general rule you may want to watch out for this sort of behavior performed by yourself.

Put up or shut up has controlled more people than I want to even start thinking about... Even if the person "putting up" is wrong or lying.

Edit:

This is not a debate team, the rules of debate do not govern a D&D forum nor do they govern real life. People on here and other sites like to cite debate club rules or some other art of debate sort of rules... They just don't apply on the internet.:smallwink:

Agreed on all accounts. I don't intend to single Lok out, he is just the most frequent poster atm. Which is fine. I have no problems with admitting I was incorrect. "It's ok to change your mind based on new evidence" is a great example of what I mean.

My contention is "this site" is proof, is just deflection of the question. I'm sure the information referenced is located on the site. Just as book A is in the library. That doesn't help me find it so I can evaluate it for myself.

If it would be easier, simply stop making claims, or say quite clearly -- "this is my opinion".

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 05:47 PM

Agreed on all accounts. I don't intend to single Lok out, he is just the most frequent poster atm. Which is fine. I have no problems with admitting I was incorrect. "It's ok to change your mind based on new evidence" is a great example of what I mean.

My contention is "this site" is proof, is just deflection of the question. I'm sure the information referenced is located on the site. Just as book A is in the library. That doesn't help me find it so I can evaluate it for myself.

If it would be easier, simply stop making claims, or say quite clearly -- "this is my opinion".

I recently went through something like this, a poster kept insisting that the game broke if you put low level characters in games where they save the world at level one or had a high level monster (Lich) leveled down to fight the party at level 1.

I kept asking for proof but he kept skirting the issue and then flip flopping and back peddling.

Eventually I realized that if I think someone is full of crap then its better to ignore them than give them fuel for their fire...

I still get wrapped up into the same thing from time to time but I try not to, and I try to help others not do what I've done. (Which I have no authority over others, just trying to be nice)

Kurald Galain

2014-06-17, 06:18 PM

captpike

2014-06-17, 07:20 PM

I recently went through something like this, a poster kept insisting that the game broke if you put low level characters in games where they save the world at level one or had a high level monster (Lich) leveled down to fight the party at level 1.

I kept asking for proof but he kept skirting the issue and then flip flopping and back peddling.

Eventually I realized that if I think someone is full of crap then its better to ignore them than give them fuel for their fire...

I still get wrapped up into the same thing from time to time but I try not to, and I try to help others not do what I've done. (Which I have no authority over others, just trying to be nice)

sorry but please don't spread lies about other people its not polite.

I said "the game should assume that the scope of what the PCs can do increases as you level. so a level 1 party can save a village, a level 5 can save a town, a level 10 can save the nation. And of course you needs some idea of what powers the characters will have, should wish be a level 10 ability or a level 20? how do you make any powers for any class if your only reference is that a level X ablity should be more powerful then a levelX-1 abilty but not as good as a levelX+1 ability?

this is easily changed but it needs to be in the game as a default assumption.."

you said "no it does not, its fine if the game is made for a level 1 to save the world defeating the most powerful person on the planet in single combat"

I said "... and they do what then?, for that matter what does level even mean if they can defeat the most powerful person on the planet at level 1."

if you are unable to understand the very simple logic the person your talking to uses, say so and we can use smaller words and talk slower. don't just lie about what they said.

Which brings us back to the point, i.e. that after half a dozen years of trying something different, WOTC is deliberately and purposefully returning to the traditional standards of D&D dating from 1974, because that's what the majority of players want. Basically, BECMI-1E-2E-3E-3.5-PF-5E are all iterations of the same game, and 4E is the odd one out.

you are making one hell of an assumption here, mainly that Wotc knows what its doing, and is doing the right thing.

given their apparent lack of understanding of even the basic of game design (math is not important, we will take care of that later) I don't see why you would assume this.

also the whole "4e failed/4e made alot less money then 3e" lie has been told so many times, and disproven so many times its hard to take anyone seriously when they say it. in the same way that if I said "the moon landing is not real" I would not be taken seriously.

in the least look at how long it was on the best seller list at amazon.

rlc

2014-06-17, 07:58 PM

As a layman, why do you trust his proof?

Also, at some point I or anyone else stops posting proof. We must assume it is known. Or else everything you say must be cited... Which gets annoying.

Could you imagine if I said "I don't think you know what layman means, define it to prove to me you know what it means" and then that happens over and over... Every so often someone tells YOU to prove you know what that word means. You may be using that word correctly but I still want proof.

Get how annoying that would be?

When demanding proof toy shouldn't expect it from the person making the statement, taking information and proof from the same source can turn ugly. I'm not saying Lok will lie but it is a bad habit that can lead to you being duped.

Did I just read a Chewbacca Defense? I'm not sure if anybody else has mentioned this because I kind of stopped reading the thread after I saw this post, but the burden of proof is generally on the claimant in a debate, just like in legal and scientific matters. Nobody's making anybody define anything. Guy 1 referenced something that guy 2 sees as dubious, so guy 2 asked guy 1 to post a source for it. Guy 1 has refused to do so. While guy 1 is probably correct in his statement, guy 2 has every right to not believe guy 1.
Another example, from my own posts in this same thread. When I said that D&D 4e had been on the market for the same amount of time as there is between video game generations, nobody cared about asking for a source, because that's basically common knowledge. But, when I said that D&D 3e was named just Dungeons & Dragons, but referred to as 3e, I posted a source, because it was a specific quote that I was referencing.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-17, 09:28 PM

Did I just read a Chewbacca Defense? I'm not sure if anybody else has mentioned this because I kind of stopped reading the thread after I saw this post, but the burden of proof is generally on the claimant in a debate, just like in legal and scientific matters. Nobody's making anybody define anything. Guy 1 referenced something that guy 2 sees as dubious, so guy 2 asked guy 1 to post a source for it. Guy 1 has refused to do so. While guy 1 is probably correct in his statement, guy 2 has every right to not believe guy 1.
Another example, from my own posts in this same thread. When I said that D&D 4e had been on the market for the same amount of time as there is between video game generations, nobody cared about asking for a source, because that's basically common knowledge. But, when I said that D&D 3e was named just Dungeons & Dragons, but referred to as 3e, I posted a source, because it was a specific quote that I was referencing.

That's all nice and such but I don't think you totally get what I was saying.

I wasn't claiming Lok was right to do as he was doing, just that there is no authority making him give his proof no matter what anyone else says or asks for. If you want the proof then you go find something that proves or disproves what someone says... Highschool debate club is for high school debate club, this is the internet. There are no rules of debate on the internet, though there are rules on what you can post on certain sites.

Let us pretend Lok is this evil guy that is saying things, and you ask for proof. If you doubt him, then why do you trust his proof to be legit? There are tons of ways for someone to manipulate information to make themselves seem right.

Why do people think the internet works off some rules of debate or logic? I can say whatever I want, and be right, all without giving proof. Why? Because it is the internet.

The opposite is true too, I could say something and be completely wrong or even lie, there are no rules for discussion or debate on the internet. This isn't highschool debate club.

da_chicken

2014-06-17, 09:46 PM

That's all nice and such but I don't think you totally get what I was saying.

I wasn't claiming Lok was right to do as he was doing, just that there is no authority making him give his proof no matter what anyone else says or asks for. If you want the proof then you go find something that proves or disproves what someone says... Highschool debate club is for high school debate club, this is the internet. There are no rules of debate on the internet, though there are rules on what you can post on certain sites.

Let us pretend Lok is this evil guy that is saying things, and you ask for proof. If you doubt him, then why do you trust his proof to be legit? There are tons of ways for someone to manipulate information to make themselves seem right.

Why do people think the internet works off some rules of debate or logic? I can say whatever I want, and be right, all without giving proof. Why? Because it is the internet.

The opposite is true too, I could say something and be completely wrong or even lie, there are no rules for discussion or debate on the internet. This isn't highschool debate club.

Yes, but you'll just be dismissed out-of-hand as a troll if you continue to make spurious claims without any backup. Eventually, you just get added to ignore lists making you effectively muted. If you expect to be taken seriously and actually be considered a part of the conversation, you do have to at least attempt to be reasonable.

Asking for a citation of some direct claim is just "are you serious or are you just trolling?" If the answer is continually the latter, then nobody is going to take you seriously, and you're effectively not discussing on a discussion board. That seems like a tremendous waste of time.

rlc

2014-06-17, 10:42 PM

That's all nice and such but I don't think you totally get what I was saying.

I wasn't claiming Lok was right to do as he was doing, just that there is no authority making him give his proof no matter what anyone else says or asks for. If you want the proof then you go find something that proves or disproves what someone says... Highschool debate club is for high school debate club, this is the internet. There are no rules of debate on the internet, though there are rules on what you can post on certain sites.

Let us pretend Lok is this evil guy that is saying things, and you ask for proof. If you doubt him, then why do you trust his proof to be legit? There are tons of ways for someone to manipulate information to make themselves seem right.

Why do people think the internet works off some rules of debate or logic? I can say whatever I want, and be right, all without giving proof. Why? Because it is the internet.

The opposite is true too, I could say something and be completely wrong or even lie, there are no rules for discussion or debate on the internet. This isn't highschool debate club.

Well, no. Just saying that you're right doesn't make you right. Not even on the internet. I mean, I've started tons of stupid arguments on the internet over the years, all for the sake of amusing myself. Doesn't mean i was right, just means that i got a good, cheap laugh out of it.
But, if you're going to have a serious debate, then being on the internet gives you even more burden of proof because most of the time, things are at your fingertips.
All of that being said, i looked through pages 1-8 of lokiare's forum posts and didn't find this link. I mostly stopped looking because i don't really care which edition made the most money.

Felhammer

2014-06-18, 01:01 AM

I did not like the new logo until I saw it in a big, high-res photo. It will look good on the book shelves. I will, however, mourn the loss of the standardized spine design from 4E. It looks so pretty on my shelf (compared to the mishmash of 3.x).

Dear Wizards of the Coast,

I note that instead of choosing a sensible logical title, you have decided to follow the befuddled example of the New iPad, Star Trek (2009), and the Xbox One. Thank you for contributing to the market trend to avoid product clarity for condescending simplicity. It's not like DnD's variant history wasn't convoluted enough.

Sardonically your's,
Legato

The problem with labeling editions is that it confuses people just as much as not labeling editions. I have seen people ask if they need to buy 1st edition to understand how to play 4th edition. There are pros and cons both ways but one of the key attributes of Next is that it is supposed to bridge the gap between all of the different playstyles. Putting an edition label on the books serves as a barrier to that end. Everyone just plays D&D.

Lokiare

2014-06-19, 04:37 AM

I can't find the link to the quote where a former developer claimed 4E was doing as well as 3.5E, but I did find this little post by dancey: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315800-4-Hours-w-RSD-Escapist-Bonus-Column&p=5765391&viewfull=1#post5765391

In it he claims that the sales of 4E + Pathfinder don't even come close to the sales of 3.0E and 3.5E. So until I can find the other article. I'm going to have to change my position. 4E didn't do as well as 3.5E, but apparently neither did Pathfinder and Paizo.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-19, 04:52 AM

This is a very relevant quote by Ryan Dancey, emphasis mine:

"Profitability for D&D means that it has to recoup all the costs not only of its development and its on-going support network but also the investment into DDI. I suspect, but do not know, that it has not recouped those costs. And I suspect that none of the current product line (the stuff being solicited and sold as new this year and last year) is even marginally profitable when you factor in the overhead of the sales & marketing teams, plus the RPGA.

Wizard's cost basis is several orders of magnitude higher than Paizos. They have more, higher paid staff. They pay more for art. They pay more for production. They have more overhead costs (rent, legal, etc.) And worse, due to the way Hasbro structures itself, they don't get to claim any credit for the royalties earned by D&D licensing. So the money Wizards gets to use to offset its costs is just from product sales and DDI.

4e is also exclusively sold through middlemen. You can't buy D&D from Wizards of the Coast. Whereas Paizo earns 100% of many of its sales, Wizards only earns 40% on all of the stuff it sells. So Wizards has to sell 2.5 times as many units just to generate the same revenue as 1 unit of a Paizo product sold direct to a consumer.

If it were working financially, you wouldn't have seen Essentials. Essentials, to me, was the visible indicator that the strategy of selling the highest margin product - the core books, had failed for 4e, and that Wizards was seeking to make revenues (and profits) elsewhere. As I didn't see a huge groundswell of reaction to Essentials, I conclude that the strategy didn't work either."

Lokiare

2014-06-19, 04:57 AM

Fwiffo86

2014-06-19, 08:18 AM

Also he says in a later post that 3E was a $15 to $25 million business. Then a poster posts the number of DDi subscriptions at the time and it turns out to be about $16 million worth of profit. So 4E seems to be from that in the same league as 3E. So there are some contradictions here.

I see. So we are supposed to agree that an unidentified poster has the same credibility as someone who is actually part of the company? Ok. I'm with you. Continue.

EvanWaters

2014-06-19, 09:55 AM

Dancey has a vested interest in calling the product he had no part in a failure. He is not an unbiased source for anything.

Lokiare

2014-06-19, 10:23 AM

I see. So we are supposed to agree that an unidentified poster has the same credibility as someone who is actually part of the company? Ok. I'm with you. Continue.

Do you exist? Prove it. I won't take any of this circumstantial proof like the fact you talk on a forum, or pictures you post or recorded voice conversations. That's all circumstantial. It could easily be faked. Go on prove it.

Dancey has a vested interest in calling the product he had no part in a failure. He is not an unbiased source for anything.

Except for the fact that he was lead on its development and only got fired shortly before release.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-19, 10:25 AM

Dancey has a vested interest in calling the product he had no part in a failure. He is not an unbiased source for anything.

Riiiight. And a 4E fan on the 4E fan forum on the 4E boards has no vested interest in any particular product... :smallbiggrin:

da_chicken

2014-06-19, 11:02 AM

Do you exist? Prove it. I won't take any of this circumstantial proof like the fact you talk on a forum, or pictures you post or recorded voice conversations. That's all circumstantial. It could easily be faked. Go on prove it.

You say that like proof of existence isn't one of the major philosophical conundrums of all of human history. You're now arguing with Descartes and Nietzsche.

I don't understand why a named source known to work within the industry who is likely to have direct (albiet out of date) knowledge of internal business practices should be considered as equally credible as an unnamed source with no known experience with the industry or the business. The former is informed speculation. Badly informed? Biased? Maybe, but informed nonetheless. The latter is indistinguishable from hearsay.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-19, 11:23 AM

You say that like proof of existence isn't one of the major philosophical conundrums of all of human history. You're now arguing with Descartes and Nietzsche.

I don't understand why a named source known to work within the industry who is likely to have direct (albiet out of date) knowledge of internal business practices should be considered as equally credible as an unnamed source with no known experience with the industry or the business. The former is informed speculation. Badly informed? Biased? Maybe, but informed nonetheless. The latter is indistinguishable from hearsay.

Ah, one of my two favorite psychological debates! The other is if humans actually have any control over what they do or think (seriously all of our choices may be predetermined), how can you punish someone for a crime in which they didn't actively choose to do?

Lokiare

2014-06-19, 04:15 PM

You say that like proof of existence isn't one of the major philosophical conundrums of all of human history. You're now arguing with Descartes and Nietzsche.

I don't understand why a named source known to work within the industry who is likely to have direct (albiet out of date) knowledge of internal business practices should be considered as equally credible as an unnamed source with no known experience with the industry or the business. The former is informed speculation. Badly informed? Biased? Maybe, but informed nonetheless. The latter is indistinguishable from hearsay.

That was me being sarcastic. That poster seems to question everything, like if people exist even when facts and links to facts are shown.

Ah, one of my two favorite psychological debates! The other is if humans actually have any control over what they do or think (seriously all of our choices may be predetermined), how can you punish someone for a crime in which they didn't actively choose to do?

The answer is that everything is not predetermined, but some all powerful being knows what you'll choose before you choose, but gives you the choice anyway...

Legato Endless

2014-06-19, 05:01 PM

The problem with labeling editions is that it confuses people just as much as not labeling editions. I have seen people ask if they need to buy 1st edition to understand how to play 4th edition. There are pros and cons both ways but one of the key attributes of Next is that it is supposed to bridge the gap between all of the different playstyles. Putting an edition label on the books serves as a barrier to that end. Everyone just plays D&D.

This is an excellent point, and I will cede this is a good choice for Wizard of the Coast to counter buyer idiocy. I maintain this as idiocy however, as I know of no reasonable example for why someone should conclude that they need to buy a preceding edition of a game. That's not the way it works for textbooks, novels, copies of plays or anything else that uses the term. That's why it's an edition and not a sequel or update.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-19, 07:45 PM

The answer is that everything is not predetermined, but some all powerful being knows what you'll choose before you choose, but gives you the choice anyway...

No, as in they did studies on brains (granted a long time ago) that showed that a choice was made before a person consciously knew the question or problem. Meaning that your DNA and stuff already determines how you will act in each given situation... Like computer AI. It is predetermined that we will act a certain way when confronted by certain things.

I'm not that great at explaining it since it has literally been a decade since I've discussed this intelligently with anyone but it has nothing to do with any all knowing powerful being.

Millennium

2014-06-19, 09:10 PM

No, as in they did studies on brains (granted a long time ago) that showed that a choice was made before a person consciously knew the question or problem. Meaning that your DNA and stuff already determines how you will act in each given situation... Like computer AI. It is predetermined that we will act a certain way when confronted by certain things.
That's not the conclusion I drew from these studies at all. It's true that our thoughts are often processed a split second before we hear them in our heads, just like light hits our eyes and sound hits our ears a split second before they register in sensory memory. But that's not some mystical predestination: it's basic physics. Signals take time to travel: not always a very long time, but some time nonetheless. It doesn't imply any form of determinism; it just means that you're thinking just a little bit quicker than you thought you were.

Legato Endless

2014-06-19, 09:18 PM

captpike

2014-06-19, 09:34 PM

If it were working financially, you wouldn't have seen Essentials. Essentials, to me, was the visible indicator that the strategy of selling the highest margin product - the core books, had failed for 4e, and that Wizards was seeking to make revenues (and profits) elsewhere. As I didn't see a huge groundswell of reaction to Essentials, I conclude that the strategy didn't work either."

why do people keep assuming that Wotc only makes the best decisions? that everything they do or say is the right thing?

4e was doing quite well (one does not top charts by doing poorly), then hasbrio decided that being the best was not good enough, they wanted to be the only RPG. so they pushed Wotc into doing something mindbogglingly stupid and they made essentials

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-19, 09:54 PM

This is probably brushing pretty close to forum rules.

Yeah I got a bit off topic, I usually hate when someone says something but then doesn't finish it or explain better. I do it enough as is so I try to be clearer when I remember, which actually doesn't always work out (I confuse people more than explain it clearly...:smallbiggrin:).

I wonder if the re-branding of the game (getting rid of the editions) came from as you put it counter "buyer idiocy" or if perhaps they have something in the works for their setting that has to do with re-branding the game without editions AND their original goal of bringing everyone together under the same game.

Might we see some sort of cataclysm that makes the over deity (umm forget his/her/its name...) destroy the multiverse and start over?

obryn

2014-06-19, 10:16 PM

why do people keep assuming that Wotc only makes the best decisions? that everything they do or say is the right thing
Nobody is. If that's how you read it, it's a sign of how extreme your position is.

This is not a Next-friendly board. You just make it look like one with the concern trolling.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-19, 10:31 PM

Nobody is. If that's how you read it, it's a sign of how extreme your position is.

This is not a Next-friendly board. You just make it look like one with the concern trolling.

I would call this a "Next - want to be Optimist but the playtests showed us nothing to be optimistic about" kind of board.

Felhammer

2014-06-20, 01:16 AM

why do people keep assuming that Wotc only makes the best decisions? that everything they do or say is the right thing?

4e was doing quite well (one does not top charts by doing poorly), then hasbrio decided that being the best was not good enough, they wanted to be the only RPG. so they pushed Wotc into doing something mindbogglingly stupid and they made essentials

The first three 4E books were a huge success (as they always are). Then sales began to slag (as they always do). As this predictable cycle played out, new games popped up which presented meaningful challenges to D&D's dominance of the hobby (specifically Pathfinder but also Dark Heresy (as well as old standbys)). It was realized around 2010 that the digital initiative for the video games was going bust (especially the virtual table top) and that there was a huge sector of the potential player-base that was not buying D&D products like they had in the past. Essentials was designed to be a bridge between those gamers and the 4E crowd. It worked, for a time, but it was short lived. Pathfinder surged, which lead those working on D&D little recourse but to end the edition and focus on making something that would, ostensibly, be more appealing to the roleplaying community than 4E was.

Will 5E be big enough? Maybe? Who knows. If it doesn't sell enough, then Hasbro could easily sell D&D off as it is not an inherently unpopular product (i.e. not worthy of being shelved) but it does not fit into their financial dynamic as easily as Magic has (who has changed quite a bit in the last decade (most likely under pressure from Hasbro). Honestly, I do not understand why Hasbro is not mining all the amazing D&D stories and characters they have, specifically for film. They made a movie based on Battleship... BATTLESHIP and yet they refuse to make one based off of the Crystal Shard or any of the Elminster stories, or any of the great Dragonlance tales? These stories are practically begging to be made into films! Sure the first D&D movie made little money but, honestly, it was a terrible film to begin with. The other two D&D films were incredibly low budget flicks (12 million dollar budgets each) that suffered greatly due to it. Battleship made a hundred million dollars at the box office and far more from licensing and DVD/BluRay releases. A (good) D&D film could do no worse (and probably far better). Given that Warcraft is coming out in 2016, I would not put it past Hasbro to judge the potential success for a D&D movie based on how that film does.

Lokiare

2014-06-20, 06:40 AM

The first three 4E books were a huge success (as they always are). Then sales began to slag (as they always do). As this predictable cycle played out, new games popped up which presented meaningful challenges to D&D's dominance of the hobby (specifically Pathfinder but also Dark Heresy (as well as old standbys)). It was realized around 2010 that the digital initiative for the video games was going bust (especially the virtual table top) and that there was a huge sector of the potential player-base that was not buying D&D products like they had in the past. Essentials was designed to be a bridge between those gamers and the 4E crowd. It worked, for a time, but it was short lived. Pathfinder surged, which lead those working on D&D little recourse but to end the edition and focus on making something that would, ostensibly, be more appealing to the roleplaying community than 4E was.

Will 5E be big enough? Maybe? Who knows. If it doesn't sell enough, then Hasbro could easily sell D&D off as it is not an inherently unpopular product (i.e. not worthy of being shelved) but it does not fit into their financial dynamic as easily as Magic has (who has changed quite a bit in the last decade (most likely under pressure from Hasbro). Honestly, I do not understand why Hasbro is not mining all the amazing D&D stories and characters they have, specifically for film. They made a movie based on Battleship... BATTLESHIP and yet they refuse to make one based off of the Crystal Shard or any of the Elminster stories, or any of the great Dragonlance tales? These stories are practically begging to be made into films! Sure the first D&D movie made little money but, honestly, it was a terrible film to begin with. The other two D&D films were incredibly low budget flicks (12 million dollar budgets each) that suffered greatly due to it. Battleship made a hundred million dollars at the box office and far more from licensing and DVD/BluRay releases. A (good) D&D film could do no worse (and probably far better). Given that Warcraft is coming out in 2016, I would not put it past Hasbro to judge the potential success for a D&D movie based on how that film does.

That's a lot of speculation on how well 4E did, but the available evidence says otherwise. The IcV2 numbers show that WotC was ahead until after they printed Essentials at which point Pathfinder moved ahead. We know they made at least 16 million off of DDi for one year. All available evidence disputes your claim. (I know, the evidence is not rock solid, but its all we have to go on, and there is no counter evidence).

Kurald Galain

2014-06-20, 07:58 AM

That's a lot of speculation on how well 4E did, but the available evidence says otherwise.
Yes. The available evidence (from a link you posted, I might add) shows that given WOTC's overhead costs and the fact that it was sold only via third parties, 4E never made a profit at all.

We know they made at least 16 million off of DDi for one year.
We actually don't know that, because this is rampant speculation from a 4E fan on the 4E boards, based on zero credible sources.

And then there's the obvious fact that if 4E was doing so great, WOTC would have never tried to reboot it so quickly with the HOFL line, and reboot it a second time with 5E.

obryn

2014-06-20, 08:55 AM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-20, 09:35 AM

Really, guys, two people arguing over the financial success or failure of the games they enjoy is basically a step below paladin alignment arguments. Especially when it's utterly irrelevant right now.

Well tell WotC to release more "leaks" and we won't have to argue about 4e financial success. :smallbiggrin:

However I think if that argument is to continue it should be moved to the 4e forum, this is for D&D Next and yeah, it really isn't relavent.

Edit

By leaks I mean the free PDF online version, they can't still be working on it...right?

Felhammer

2014-06-20, 12:19 PM

Back on topic...

By leaks I mean the free PDF online version, they can't still be working on it...right?

I can't wait to get my mitts on Basic D&D. I am curious to see how the backgrounds play in game. They really helped the devs come up with interesting characters in the various playtest videos they have released.

That's a lot of speculation on how well 4E did, but the available evidence says otherwise. The IcV2 numbers show that WotC was ahead until after they printed Essentials at which point Pathfinder moved ahead. We know they made at least 16 million off of DDi for one year. All available evidence disputes your claim. (I know, the evidence is not rock solid, but its all we have to go on, and there is no counter evidence).

You can still be the market leader and worry about other games becoming popular. Paizo's total revenue stream in 2012 (http://www.inc.com/welcome.html?destination=http://www.inc.com/profile/paizo-publishing) was half of what WotC raked in via the DDI subscriptions in a year (which I have seen lower figures for (12 million (but that assumes everyone is on a yearly subscription when we know not everyone does that))). Regardless, when your biggest competition goes from being anther game you produce (Star Wars) and White Wolf games, to suddenly being both of those and Pathfinder and Warhammer RPGs (which have done an amazing job of bringing people into the RPG fold), you act quickly and decisively to curtail the growth of other systems by doing everything in your power to get new customers and/or bring old ones back. The deliberate nostalgia of Essentials was completely targeted at getting lapsed 3.x players back.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-20, 12:49 PM

Back on topic...

I can't wait to get my mitts on Basic D&D. I am curious to see how the backgrounds play in game. They really helped the devs come up with interesting characters in the various playtest videos they have released.

I still haven't gotten around to watching any videos, are there any specific ones you recommend?

I might end up running a D&D Next game on July 4th or 5th if the free PDF is actually available the beginning of July. I'm working on an independence era one shot... Yeah America's founding fathers will be in it :P. I thought I heard or read somewhere the PDF will be out July 1st? If I'm wrong please correct me.

Lokiare

2014-06-20, 05:48 PM

Yes. The available evidence (from a link you posted, I might add) shows that given WOTC's overhead costs and the fact that it was sold only via third parties, 4E never made a profit at all.

We actually don't know that, because this is rampant speculation from a 4E fan on the 4E boards, based on zero credible sources.

And then there's the obvious fact that if 4E was doing so great, WOTC would have never tried to reboot it so quickly with the HOFL line, and reboot it a second time with 5E.

Nope. Please try again.

The link I posted only showed that 4E + Pathfinder + all other D20 games combined made less than 3.5E. It also shows that someone did a head count in the DDi group (which you get added to automatically within a few days of getting a DDi subscription and removed from in a similar way when canceling your DDi subscription) and came up with 16 Million. Now we know that 4E was considered a failure because it didn't meet the sales goals set out by Hasbro. That alone would be enough to spur a 4.5E Essentials reboot and eventually a 5E reboot. I'm sure we will see a 6E in 2-3 years for the same exact reasons.

The only credible evidence we have is the IcV2 reports that show Pathfinder behind until AFTER the first Essentials book was released and the head counts of the DDi group on the WotC forums. Both of which show that 4E was a smashing success when compared to the rest of the market right up until Essentials got released, but considered an abysmal failure by the toy and entertainment giant Hasbro who only bought WotC for the Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Mt:G franchises. That's literally all we can know unless someone comes out with financial records.

You are making many assumptions in your post:
1. WotC's overhead and 3rd party sales means they didn't make any money (this is pure speculation).
2. 4E wasn't doing great so they tried a reboot (this is also speculation, 'do great' by whose standards? WotC's, the TTRPG market? Hasbro? any of them could force a reboot or none at all.)

Please at least try to stick to the known facts, as sparse as they are and label all speculation as just that 'speculation'

1337 b4k4

2014-06-20, 06:42 PM

Now we know that 4E was considered a failure because it didn't meet the sales goals set out by Hasbro.

Incidentally, one of the more interesting things from the link you posted was that this common bit of knowledge isn't true. 4e didn't fail to meet Hasbro's sales goals, it failed to meet the sales goals of the people that pitched 4e to Hasbro. Yes, it's Hasbro policies that divide their products into core and non-core brands, but it was the 4e team that pitched 4e being a core brand to Hasbro. Frankly, given that, it's a wonder that WotC is even being allowed to produce a new version of D&D as opposed to being shelved. That suggests to me that Hasbro sees value in D&D, but they clearly don't think 4e was cashing in on that value.

Felhammer

2014-06-20, 06:54 PM

Nope. Please try again.

The link I posted only showed that 4E + Pathfinder + all other D20 games combined made less than 3.5E. It also shows that someone did a head count in the DDi group (which you get added to automatically within a few days of getting a DDi subscription and removed from in a similar way when canceling your DDi subscription) and came up with 16 Million. Now we know that 4E was considered a failure because it didn't meet the sales goals set out by Hasbro. That alone would be enough to spur a 4.5E Essentials reboot and eventually a 5E reboot. I'm sure we will see a 6E in 2-3 years for the same exact reasons.

Do not be so sure about 6E. Remember, any game that fails to meet the lofty revenue targets is eventually shelved. Even if 5E is a smashing success, it still will not meet Hasbro's money goal. This is why they are bringing back D&D minis, printing fortune cards for organized play, created a PDF store and are maintaining their subscription service. They have to have their fingers in every pie to stave off death.

As for the 16 million dollar number... We have to assume that all of the people on the forums subscribe yearly, since we do not know how many people exist in each category (monthly, 4 times a year or annually). We thus have to assume each person is paying $5.95 a shot. That means there should be 224,090 subscribers.

Best I can tell, there are 73,394 (http://community.wizards.com/group/dd-insider) D&D Insiders. Based on the above assumption that everyone is a yearly subscriber, then WotC would be bringing in $5,240,332 a year. Even if all of these people were monthly subscribers (i.e. paying $9.95 a month), then the total revenue stream from DDI would only be $8,763,244 a year.

I am sure this total was higher in 4E's heyday. We know that D&D was a 30 million dollar brand back when 3.x was at its peak. Assuming 4E was equally popular, then add on the Insider revenue (16 million by your claim), then they would have been just under their projected 50 million, which is what they thought they needed to get to so that, when combined with video game money, they would hit that 100 million dollar total. If that were true, then there would have been no need for a new edition (Essentials, sure, but not a new edition). So that leads one to conclude that even though 4E was popular, it was not reaching the arbitrary line in the sand.

Can 5E really hope to be equal to an edition that was heavily focused on monetization? Especially when 5E will focus on adventures and campaign books, two kinds of products that do not have the same mass market appeal as a player oriented book (like Arcane Power or the Complete Divine)... I am not sure how WotC plans on getting up to the line in the sand, unless there has been an uptick in video game, novel or other peripheral sales which I am currently un aware of. Maybe they are pinning everything on Next being the edition that unites the entire audience to a degree unseen since the waning days of AD&D... I hope not, since that is not a sound business decision...

The only credible evidence we have is the IcV2 reports that show Pathfinder behind until AFTER the first Essentials book was released and the head counts of the DDi group on the WotC forums. Both of which show that 4E was a smashing success when compared to the rest of the market right up until Essentials got released, but considered an abysmal failure by the toy and entertainment giant Hasbro who only bought WotC for the Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh! and Mt:G franchises. That's literally all we can know unless someone comes out with financial records.

Correction: WotC never had control over YuGiOh. In fact they wish they had control over it. YuGiOh was created and distributed by Konami in Asia, while they licensed UDE to translate and distribute the game internationally. UDE and Konami had a contentious relationship, which eventually saw the latter take back control of their game and distribute it directly to the whole world.

captpike

2014-06-21, 02:42 AM

And then there's the obvious fact that if 4E was doing so great, WOTC would have never tried to reboot it so quickly with the HOFL line, and reboot it a second time with 5E.

hardly. your again assuming they made this decision for all the right reason with all the information they needed.

why do you assume that?

Kurald Galain

2014-06-21, 03:43 AM

Best I can tell, there are 73,394 (http://community.wizards.com/group/dd-insider) D&D Insiders. Based on the above assumption that everyone is a yearly subscriber, then WotC would be bringing in $5,240,332 a year. Even if all of these people were monthly subscribers (i.e. paying $9.95 a month), then the total revenue stream from DDI would only be $8,763,244 a year.
To add to this: people like to assume this figure is profit, but of course it's actually revenue and WOTC incurs significant costs here (that's basically what Ryan Dancey is saying - that 4E is making substantial revenue but not substantial profit). Aside from that, I question whether we can equate the member count of some forum group with "long-term paying DDI members".

Can 5E really hope to be equal to an edition that was heavily focused on monetization? Especially when 5E will focus on adventures and campaign books, two kinds of products that do not have the same mass market appeal as a player oriented book (like Arcane Power or the Complete Divine)... I am not sure how WotC plans on getting up to the line in the sand, unless there has been an uptick in video game, novel or other peripheral sales which I am currently un aware of. Maybe they are pinning everything on Next being the edition that unites the entire audience to a degree unseen since the waning days of AD&D... I hope not, since that is not a sound business decision...
That is the interesting question here. It appears that even though the most profitable product of any edition is the PHB1, printing adventures and campaign books serves to draw people in and keep them customers; but printing splats with extra rules and spells and powers is not so effective at that. After all, this is what Paizo is doing, although I must say that Paizo's storywriting is overall better than WOTC's.

I'm pretty sure that if there had been a video game in the works, we would have heard of it by now (besides, video games have huge development costs and aren't necessarily profitable to WOTC). Perhaps WOTC has a different "revenue target" for 5E now, something substantially lower? Because that would be great for us hobbyists.

Lokiare

2014-06-21, 05:03 AM

Do not be so sure about 6E. Remember, any game that fails to meet the lofty revenue targets is eventually shelved. Even if 5E is a smashing success, it still will not meet Hasbro's money goal. This is why they are bringing back D&D minis, printing fortune cards for organized play, created a PDF store and are maintaining their subscription service. They have to have their fingers in every pie to stave off death.

As for the 16 million dollar number... We have to assume that all of the people on the forums subscribe yearly, since we do not know how many people exist in each category (monthly, 4 times a year or annually). We thus have to assume each person is paying $5.95 a shot. That means there should be 224,090 subscribers.

Best I can tell, there are 73,394 (http://community.wizards.com/group/dd-insider) D&D Insiders. Based on the above assumption that everyone is a yearly subscriber, then WotC would be bringing in $5,240,332 a year. Even if all of these people were monthly subscribers (i.e. paying $9.95 a month), then the total revenue stream from DDI would only be $8,763,244 a year.

I am sure this total was higher in 4E's heyday. We know that D&D was a 30 million dollar brand back when 3.x was at its peak. Assuming 4E was equally popular, then add on the Insider revenue (16 million by your claim), then they would have been just under their projected 50 million, which is what they thought they needed to get to so that, when combined with video game money, they would hit that 100 million dollar total. If that were true, then there would have been no need for a new edition (Essentials, sure, but not a new edition). So that leads one to conclude that even though 4E was popular, it was not reaching the arbitrary line in the sand.

Can 5E really hope to be equal to an edition that was heavily focused on monetization? Especially when 5E will focus on adventures and campaign books, two kinds of products that do not have the same mass market appeal as a player oriented book (like Arcane Power or the Complete Divine)... I am not sure how WotC plans on getting up to the line in the sand, unless there has been an uptick in video game, novel or other peripheral sales which I am currently un aware of. Maybe they are pinning everything on Next being the edition that unites the entire audience to a degree unseen since the waning days of AD&D... I hope not, since that is not a sound business decision...

Correction: WotC never had control over YuGiOh. In fact they wish they had control over it. YuGiOh was created and distributed by Konami in Asia, while they licensed UDE to translate and distribute the game internationally. UDE and Konami had a contentious relationship, which eventually saw the latter take back control of their game and distribute it directly to the whole world.

A few things first, I was going on what was in the thread which listed the DDi group members head count. Assuming the poster didn't just flat out lie, then DDi hit almost 16 million per year at one point. I think there is a thread on the WotC forum where people actually kept a running tally and did the math to figure out earnings for DDi based on the group, but I'm not sure its still there from the forum change over.

It might not have been YuGiOh!. It was some kind of monster card game though aimed at children after Pokemon.

To add to this: people like to assume this figure is profit, but of course it's actually revenue and WOTC incurs significant costs here (that's basically what Ryan Dancey is saying - that 4E is making substantial revenue but not substantial profit). Aside from that, I question whether we can equate the member count of some forum group with "long-term paying DDI members".

That is the interesting question here. It appears that even though the most profitable product of any edition is the PHB1, printing adventures and campaign books serves to draw people in and keep them customers; but printing splats with extra rules and spells and powers is not so effective at that. After all, this is what Paizo is doing, although I must say that Paizo's storywriting is overall better than WOTC's.

I'm pretty sure that if there had been a video game in the works, we would have heard of it by now (besides, video games have huge development costs and aren't necessarily profitable to WOTC). Perhaps WOTC has a different "revenue target" for 5E now, something substantially lower? Because that would be great for us hobbyists.

There are two options. Hasbro shelves D&D or Hasbro lets D&D live or die on its own revenue stream. Either one looks bleak, unless you like 3 low paid people making everything for D&D for several years until a new edition comes out.

ImperiousLeader

2014-06-21, 05:24 PM

I have to chime in on Essentials. I refuse to get into the marketing or profitability, but as a game that I quite enjoy, Essentials was a good thing for 4e. I introduced two newcomers to roleplaying games, one pre-Essentials, one post. Both ended up playing a fighter. But the level of difficulty, the amount the newcomer had to learn was much lower for the player that got the Essentials Slayer, versus the one that got the PH1 Fighter. I also threw that Essentials fighter together in a fraction of the time it took to get any other class together. The simpler classes in Essentials managed to stand up next to their more complicated brethren, and the game still felt balanced. That, to me, is really good.

This, to me, is where 5e has the advantage. 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e all have the same problem ... a fairly steep learning curve. 3.5 and Pathfinder confound that with a lot of hidden system mastery that 4e ... suffers less from. But it looks to me, at least, right now, that 5e is a lot easier to get into. If 5e delivers on the 2nd promise, an easier game to prep and DM for ... then I'm going to be a happy customer.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 05:48 PM

A few things first, I was going on what was in the thread which listed the DDi group members head count. Assuming the poster didn't just flat out lie, then DDi hit almost 16 million per year at one point. I think there is a thread on the WotC forum where people actually kept a running tally and did the math to figure out earnings for DDi based on the group, but I'm not sure its still there from the forum change over.

I am sure it did hit 16 million in its heyday. I knew a ton of people who subscribed, just to get access to the character builder. :)

It might not have been YuGiOh!. It was some kind of monster card game though aimed at children after Pokemon.

They had Duel Monsters for a whole. It was basically a simpler version of Magic combined with a marketing scheme like YuGiOh. It was moderately successful but eventually caved due to not being popular enough. Interestingly, its anime was incredibly meta, especially for a kid's show, which made it very enjoyable in a weird way.

There are two options. Hasbro shelves D&D or Hasbro lets D&D live or die on its own revenue stream. Either one looks bleak, unless you like 3 low paid people making everything for D&D for several years until a new edition comes out.

I recently re-discovered the news that the WB obtained the rights to make D&D films. After this December, both the WB's hugely successful fantasy franchises will have ended for the foreseeable future (Harry Potter and the Tolkien films). D&D makes for a solid substitute, one I am sure the WB will push heavily and make into a blockbuster franchise. So there is yet light at the end of the tunnel.

SoC175

2014-06-21, 05:56 PM

I am sure it did hit 16 million in its heyday. I knew a ton of people who subscribed, just to get access to the character builder. :) Actually I followed the group over the first few years and it never toped 80k members. So assuming everyone was subscribing for 10 bucks a month that's still only less than 12 million

I recently re-discovered the news that the WB obtained the rights to make D&D films. After this December, both the WB's hugely successful fantasy franchises will have ended for the foreseeable future (Harry Potter and the Tolkien films). D&D makes for a solid substitute, one I am sure the WB will push heavily and make into a blockbuster franchise. So there is yet light at the end of the tunnel.
Unfortunately the company doing the last 3 D&D movies (and who is from heresay working on a fourth) is saying that no WB have not (because they hold the rights and Hasbro/WotC have no right to sell them) and now it's up for the courts to settle

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 06:03 PM

Actually I followed the group over the first few years and it never toped 80k members. So assuming everyone was subscribing for 10 bucks a month that's still only less than 12 million

Which makes far more sense to me.

Unfortunately the company doing the last 3 D&D movies (and who is from heresay working on a fourth) is saying that no WB have not (because they hold the rights and Hasbro/WotC have no right to sell them) and now it's up for the courts to settle

Both Hasbro and the WB are big enough to buy the rights if necessary (just not from each other). Still, I would feel happier about the rights being in the WB's hands than Universal's, given that the WB has made some quality fantasy movies.

SoC175

2014-06-21, 06:10 PM

Both Hasbro and the WB are big enough to buy the rights if necessary (just not from each other). Still, I would feel happier about the rights being in the WB's hands than Universal's, given that the WB has made some quality fantasy movies.Let's hope that will be how it ends up. At the moment the other company is insisting on their contracts (dating back to TSR time IIRC) and that Hasbro/WotC has no right to sell the movie rights to any other company.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-21, 06:28 PM

This, to me, is where 5e has the advantage. 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e all have the same problem ... a fairly steep learning curve. 3.5 and Pathfinder confound that with a lot of hidden system mastery that 4e ... suffers less from. But it looks to me, at least, right now, that 5e is a lot easier to get into. If 5e delivers on the 2nd promise, an easier game to prep and DM for ... then I'm going to be a happy customer.

Pretty good point on the learning curve, I can see many people getting into it because of this.

Also pathfinder has became stale, sure they are releasing new classes soon but... It is still the same stuff when you get down to it. So I could see more people wanting to get into something new and fresh, and then learning it quite quickly as being a huge boon for 5e.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 06:38 PM

Also pathfinder has became stale, sure they are releasing new classes soon but... It is still the same stuff when you get down to it. So I could see more people wanting to get into something new and fresh, and then learning it quite quickly as being a huge boon for 5e.

Pathfinder desperately needs a new edition. The problem though is can they release a new edition? The system was designed to be a safe haven for those who liked 3.x and disliked 4E. Will they jump on board Pathfinder 2.0? Hard to say. If they go too far, a significant portion of the players will decry it as the worst thing since 4E but if Paizo does not go far enough, a significant portion of the players will decry it as a pointless money grab. Paizo is really stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-21, 06:49 PM

Pathfinder desperately needs a new edition.
I don't think they do; backwards compatibility is one of their main selling points, and they are very successful on their current course.

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 07:05 PM

I don't think they do; backwards compatibility is one of their main selling points, and they are very successful on their current course.

The game is bloated and is mired in far too many byzantine rules that are both hold overs from 3.x and creations of their own design. Paizo could easily make a far superior game if they put they minds to it.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-21, 07:07 PM

The game is bloated and is mired in far too many byzantine rules that are both hold overs from 3.x and creations of their own design. Paizo could easily make a far superior game if they put they minds to it.

That's what WOTC thought, six years ago. Didn't work out too well for them...

Felhammer

2014-06-21, 07:11 PM

That's what WOTC thought, six years ago. Didn't work out too well for them...

I am not saying create 4E, I am talking about tightening Pathfinder up and making a superior product. There are lots of little things you could do that would still make the game compatible but would, as a whole, improve everyone's experience.

captpike

2014-06-21, 07:24 PM

Pathfinder desperately needs a new edition. The problem though is can they release a new edition? The system was designed to be a safe haven for those who liked 3.x and disliked 4E. Will they jump on board Pathfinder 2.0? Hard to say. If they go too far, a significant portion of the players will decry it as the worst thing since 4E but if Paizo does not go far enough, a significant portion of the players will decry it as a pointless money grab. Paizo is really stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.

I doubt they ever could.

they would lose their core customers, granted they will lose them anyway given enough time (of course what "enough" is is up for debate)

that and to be honest they are not good game designers, almost all of pathfinder is just copied 3e, what is not is rarely good. the best example of this is the prestige classes. no one uses them because they are all bad. Paizo was so afraid of making them overpowered that they have been made so weak as to be a waste of paper.

Paizo knows this of course, that is why they have not structured themselves around putting out crunch, but adventures. they put out just enough classes and feats and whatnot to string people along.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-06-21, 07:48 PM

Pathfinder desperately needs a new edition. The problem though is can they release a new edition? The system was designed to be a safe haven for those who liked 3.x and disliked 4E. Will they jump on board Pathfinder 2.0? Hard to say. If they go too far, a significant portion of the players will decry it as the worst thing since 4E but if Paizo does not go far enough, a significant portion of the players will decry it as a pointless money grab. Paizo is really stuck between a rock and a hard place right now.

Well mythic pathfinder is sort of a 2nd edition... But it seems to much like epic levels, or a high power template tacked onto the core rules.

I wish they would just balance all their core stuff as tier 2 and 3, fix the math, and call that 2.0. You could go really far with that alone. Get rid of fiddly little bonuses... All this would make it feel like a new edition but keep the 3.5 core alive.

But yeah, soon Pathfinder will fall if they don't do something. I think they know that and may jump on with 5e depending on the license ...

captpike

2014-06-21, 08:41 PM

I am not saying create 4E, I am talking about tightening Pathfinder up and making a superior product. There are lots of little things you could do that would still make the game compatible but would, as a whole, improve everyone's experience.

the big problems with pathfinder are the same ones that 3e had. they can't be fixed without changing the core of the system and killing more then a few cow's.

doing that would mean losing a very large chunk of their player base, who are only playing because they kept that stuff while 4e did not.

Job

2014-06-22, 01:39 AM

the big problems with pathfinder are the same ones that 3e had. they can't be fixed without changing the core of the system and killing more then a few cow's.

doing that would mean losing a very large chunk of their player base, who are only playing because they kept that stuff while 4e did not.

Perhaps you need to kill the right cows, and at least some part of the 3.5 to 4e player base flight had to do with mismanagement of PR and early issues with the product. Not simply that it had changed.

Lokiare

2014-06-23, 08:58 PM

Actually I followed the group over the first few years and it never toped 80k members. So assuming everyone was subscribing for 10 bucks a month that's still only less than 12 million

Unfortunately the company doing the last 3 D&D movies (and who is from heresay working on a fourth) is saying that no WB have not (because they hold the rights and Hasbro/WotC have no right to sell them) and now it's up for the courts to settle

You mean the first year when they only had the digital magazines, and then the second year when they had the buggy offline character builder? Yeah, the numbers went way up after that. When they fixed the bugs and released the monster builder, people started subscribing in droves. Then it stayed pretty steady up until they switched to the online builder, then they lost some people and gained some more (Mac users could now use it I think). I'm not sure if they lost more than they gained, but it got much higher thank 80k members.

captpike

2014-06-23, 09:25 PM

Perhaps you need to kill the right cows, and at least some part of the 3.5 to 4e player base flight had to do with mismanagement of PR and early issues with the product. Not simply that it had changed.

no doubt, but even with that loss the worst thing they could have done with 4e is keeping it the same. the game needs to change and grow, learn from its mistakes, incorporate things other games found that worked ect.

Felhammer

2014-06-23, 09:27 PM

You mean the first year when they only had the digital magazines, and then the second year when they had the buggy offline character builder? Yeah, the numbers went way up after that. When they fixed the bugs and released the monster builder, people started subscribing in droves. Then it stayed pretty steady up until they switched to the online builder, then they lost some people and gained some more (Mac users could now use it I think). I'm not sure if they lost more than they gained, but it got much higher thank 80k members.

Please provide us with the proof to back up your assertion.

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 08:51 AM

Please provide us with the proof to back up your assertion.

I just looked through 3 years of DDi threads on the WotC forum. I found this: http://community.wizards.com/comment/36489331#comment-36489331

It links this: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkIQHt2_LD5zdEJjNk1qUGNvdTZsaUhqWTdhSlM1Q 1E&hl=en&authkey=CKeMoIgG

It shows a steady growth from about 40k members to around 80k members from 2010 to 2012. It shows a steady 40% increase yearly. Too bad we don't have one that shows the peak.

http://community.wizards.com/group/dd-insider

it has 73,394 members at $10 per month that is $733,940 dollars per month, with zero updates or new content, basically just server cost. That's $8,807,280.00 per year, almost all profit.

I'd say close to $9 million per year for no work is pretty good. We can only speculate what it was like during its peak. We do know it hit $16 million from the post I linked earlier.

In other words we know for a fact that 73k 4E players exist. That's a hefty chunk of the player base if the maximum number of people who ever heard of D&D is (like that one article said) around 200k.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-24, 09:06 AM

I just looked through 3 years of DDi threads on the WotC forum. I found this: http://community.wizards.com/comment/36489331#comment-36489331
This data is not the DDI membership, but the member count of a certain group on the WOTC forums. As several people in that thread point out, new DDI members get added to this group, but people who cancel their subscription aren't consistently removed from it; and aside from that WOTC has every incentive to just start the counter at 30,000 instead of zero. In other words, your data is wrong, and this was well known three years ago already.

That's $8,807,280.00 per year, almost all profit.
That's obviously false. Running a server incurs substantial overhead costs, both in terms of hardware and in terms of people running it. That's precisely what Ryan Dancey said in that link you posted earlier: 4E is making substantial revenue but hardly any profit.

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 09:29 AM

This data is not the DDI membership, but the member count of a certain group on the WOTC forums. As several people in that thread point out, new DDI members get added to this group, but people who cancel their subscription aren't consistently removed from it; and aside from that WOTC has every incentive to just start the counter at 30,000 instead of zero. In other words, your data is wrong, and this was well known three years ago already.

Actually you need to read the whole thread. The poster making that claim was proved wrong when some people looked for the posters name on the group and then couldn't find it. It turns out that poster thought they were still in the group because they were receiving emails from the forums, which was a completely separate issue. Then later on people actually subscribed and unsubscribed and others verified that their name was taken out of the list. So yes, the numbers are actually very accurate.

That's obviously false. Running a server incurs substantial overhead costs, both in terms of hardware and in terms of people running it. That's precisely what Ryan Dancey said in that link you posted earlier: 4E is making substantial revenue but hardly any profit.

You obviously don't know much about server costs. Servers are dirt cheap. Even high end game servers are relatively uncostly. Here is a few links to back that up:

http://www.singlehop.com/cloud-hosting/public-cloud.php

http://www.everleap.com/home.aspx?gclid=CPf0-aLckr8CFbRj7AodfiMA5A

The price is around $40 a month for 5GB of bandwidth, and this isn't a high traffic game or anything. Its a few random packets sent every few seconds as people click around on the Silverlight apps. I struggle to use 5GB of data on my personal internet watching netflix, hulu, and various streaming sites like youtube or twitch.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-24, 09:37 AM

Actually you need to read the whole thread.

Dude, the whole thread is a discussion about how those data points are clearly incorrect :smallbiggrin:

They're as silly as the notion that WOTC wouldn't have any noticeable expenses. You haven't proven anything and I find your arguments without merit. Come back when you have an actual balance statement or expenses report from WOTC.

obryn

2014-06-24, 09:37 AM

This data is not the DDI membership, but the member count of a certain group on the WOTC forums. As several people in that thread point out, new DDI members get added to this group, but people who cancel their subscription aren't consistently removed from it; and aside from that WOTC has every incentive to just start the counter at 30,000 instead of zero. In other words, your data is wrong, and this was well known three years ago already.
Holy cow, all these conspiracy theories. If it's not chemtrails, it's Insider group counts because people can't believe some people like things they themselves don't like.

This is not unknowable. It's not a black box like sales figures are. You can, in fact, test it yourself.

How? Well, you can click a link to check DDI group membership. Not just counts; actual users. It's not secret, you'll even find me on there. And if you're not subscribed, you won't find yourself. Go to http://community.wizards.com/group/dd-insider and then click on the Members tab. Boom, you have a list of all users in the group, something like 10 per page. Sadly, WotC's site doesn't let me force Desktop mode on my tablet, but at least recently you could count the number of people on the page, see the number of pages, and poof! You have an accurate count. Someone on ENWorld even went through page by page to confirm there wasn't some bug where it skipped from page 30 to 40 or whatever.

Amazingly enough, it was accurate within a handful of people less than a year ago. The new forum software is awful, though, so...

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 09:40 AM

Holy cow, all these conspiracy theories. If it's not chemtrails, it's Insider group counts because people can't believe some people like things they themselves don't like.

This is not unknowable. It's not a black box like sales figures are. You can, in fact, test it yourself.

How? Well, you can click a link to check DDI group membership. Not just counts; actual users. It's not secret, you'll even find me on there. And if you're not subscribed, you won't find yourself. Go to http://community.wizards.com/group/dd-insider and then click on the Members tab. Boom, you have a list of all users in the group, something like 10 per page. Sadly, WotC's site doesn't let me force Desktop mode on my tablet, but at least recently you could count the number of people on the page, see the number of pages, and poof! You have an accurate count. Someone on ENWorld even went through page by page to confirm there wasn't some bug where it skipped from page 30 to 40 or whatever.

Amazingly enough, it was accurate within a handful of people less than a year ago. The new forum software is awful, though, so...

Yeah, they did just that. In the thread I linked. The other poster just didn't bother to read 5 pages down where they prove its accurate.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-24, 09:50 AM

This is not unknowable. It's not a black box like sales figures are. You can, in fact, test it yourself.

Indeed. So I spent five minutes doing the following test.

(1) Check the member count on the page. It reads 73393.
(2) Click the "join" button. The system requests that I log in, so I do.
(3) The member count now reads 87437, which suggests there's something wrong with the software.
(4) Refreshing my browser tab, the member count now correctly reads 73394.
(5) And here's the catch: I am not, nor have I ever been, a DDI subscriber. So we can clearly conclude that this group membership count doesn't correlate to DDI subscription count.

Myth: Busted.

Lokiare

2014-06-24, 09:56 AM

Indeed. So I spent five minutes doing the following test.

(1) Check the member count on the page. It reads 73393.
(2) Click the "join" button. The system requests that I log in, so I do.
(3) The member count now reads 87437, which suggests there's something wrong with the software.
(4) Refreshing my browser tab, the member count now correctly reads 73394.
(5) And here's the catch: I am not, nor have I ever been, a DDI subscriber. So we can clearly conclude that this group membership count doesn't correlate to DDI subscription count.

Myth: Busted.

And how many people would bother to join the DDi group without getting put there automatically? I mean other than a single forum poster trying to prove something?

obryn

2014-06-24, 10:10 AM

Indeed. So I spent five minutes doing the following test.

(1) Check the member count on the page. It reads 73393.
(2) Click the "join" button. The system requests that I log in, so I do.
(3) The member count now reads 87437, which suggests there's something wrong with the software.
(4) Refreshing my browser tab, the member count now correctly reads 73394.
(5) And here's the catch: I am not, nor have I ever been, a DDI subscriber. So we can clearly conclude that this group membership count doesn't correlate to DDI subscription count.

Myth: Busted.
OK, so ... did you count the number of members on that Members tab?

If so - did you find yourself there?

That's relevant information.

Kurald Galain

2014-06-24, 10:25 AM

OK, so ... did you count the number of members on that Members tab?

If so - did you find yourself there?
Yes, I am in fact listed under the members tab now. Feel free to check.

The data points in that graph Loki linked to are based on the member count printed at the top of the page, not on clicking "next page" seven thousand times and adding them up manually (doing so would take five to ten hours of tedious labor depending on the refresh speed, so I'm not going to do that either). Regardless, I've just proven directly that the number printed does not represent the DDI subscription count. QED.

obryn

2014-06-24, 10:29 AM

Yes, I am in fact listed under the members tab now. Feel free to check.

The data points in that graph Loki linked to are based on the member count printed at the top of the page, not on clicking "next page" seven thousand times and adding them up manually (doing so would take five to ten hours of tedious labor depending on the refresh speed, so I'm not going to do that either). Regardless, I've just proven directly that the number printed does not represent the DDI subscription count. QED.
If you are now in the Group listing but was never a DDI member, nope, it's clearly not completely accurate. How strange! I'm wondering if that's a "feature" of the new forum software.

The next test is seeing if you're there in a few days. :smallsmile: We know for a fact that people have been removed from that group when their subscription was cancelled, but no clue if that was a feature of the older forum software or what.

Felhammer

2014-06-24, 01:02 PM

I went through that list the other day and there were loads of accounts that, when you clicked on their account name, did not have the DDI logo; which to me implies that those people are not supposed to be members of the group but are still in the group.

Devils_Advocate

2014-07-31, 11:23 PM

This is not a debate team, the rules of debate do not govern a D&D forum nor do they govern real life. People on here and other sites like to cite debate club rules or some other art of debate sort of rules... They just don't apply on the internet.:smallwink:
I don't think you quite understand why people cite such things. Explaining how someone's argument constitutes a logical fallacy doesn't mean that they're not allowed to say it, any more than saying "Here's why that 'proof' that 1 = 0 is mathematically incorrect" means that anyone isn't allowed to say that 1 has been proven equal to 0. ;) The point is that an argument is invalid, not that it's forbidden. It's a way of explaining why you disagree with something.

It is generally helpful to assume that posts disagreeing with you are attempts to explain why the other poster disagrees with you, and to consider them in this light. :)

hardly. your again assuming they made this decision for all the right reason with all the information they needed.

why do you assume that?
Why do you assume that Kurald Galain assumes that? That's a ridiculous exaggeration of the position that WotC probably made their decision for some at least remotely sensible-seeming reason, know more about their profits than we do, and just maybe have some clue what they're doing.

You are making many assumptions in your post:
1. WotC's overhead and 3rd party sales means they didn't make any money (this is pure speculation).
2. 4E wasn't doing great so they tried a reboot (this is also speculation, 'do great' by whose standards? WotC's, the TTRPG market? Hasbro? any of them could force a reboot or none at all.)

Please at least try to stick to the known facts, as sparse as they are and label all speculation as just that 'speculation'
The irony is strong with this one.

How is your assumption that overhead was low enough to turn a profit at all, never mind a profit of any particular size, any more justified? It does not seem to be a known fact, but rather speculation of yours, and not labeled as such.

This is an excellent point, and I will cede this is a good choice for Wizard of the Coast to counter buyer idiocy. I maintain this as idiocy however, as I know of no reasonable example for why someone should conclude that they need to buy a preceding edition of a game. That's not the way it works for textbooks, novels, copies of plays or anything else that uses the term. That's why it's an edition and not a sequel or update.
Um. If some people act as if they don't know what the word "edition" means, and you interpret their behavior under the assumption that they do know what "edition" means, then I don't think that idiocy is responsible for your confusion in quite the way you think.

It is a general principle that things do not happen "for no reason". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason) Events have causes. If you are unaware of the cause of some phenomenon, that is a property of your state of mind, not of the phenomenon in question. And if your observations run counter to your intuitions, well, that just goes to show that your intuitions are faulty.

So if other people behave in a way that does not make sense to you, that simply indicates that there is some factor at work of which you are unaware. Stupidity -- or, as in this case, ignorance -- on their part may be involved, but need not be. Sometimes people make different choices than you would expect because they're smarter than you.