|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:38PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
The OGL was almost a brilliant idea, but then it went and allowed for directly competing materials to be made (such as variant handbooks and the games they formed the basis of) that could, and were, bought and played without a single D&D book ever being purchased.
...and everybody seemed so keen on converting their beautiful, unique, robust game with its very own engine built specifically for its theme and setting over to d20 via the OGL - which resulted in a dozen complete generic feeling spin-offs of games that I loved (like Deadlands and Call of Cthulhu) that didn't even have the same feel anymore thanks to grabbing on to the D&D style level progression which just didn't fit with the style the games originally evoked... but some folks liked the "one system to rule them all" and as a result my play of those games reached a point where I either had to suck it up and play the d20 version I didn't like, or cut loose any player that would rather play the d20 version than the original, and I hated the OGL for that.
This is exactly why they were great. I would rather have a million different competing products being produced than protecting the precious IP. Besides, without either of those, I wouldn't have PF.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:45PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2008
|
Personally, mostly as a player I out buy everyone that I know (I rarely DM). I know a few players that buy almost every release (they don't DM either). Of the DMs that I know tis true that they buy most of the releases. However, a certain few that I have in mind only buy minimally.
I think it mostly comes down to each individual- not whether they DM or not.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:46PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
This though has been percolating in the back of my mind for a while.
The theory starts with the idea that DMs buy more books than players.
This theory is probably true on an individual level. The DM will buy DM books, monster books, and, probably player books (either because he also plays or because he wants to understand the players' options, or because he's the only one buying books for the whole group). Players usually just by player-oriented books (though some may buy DM books for a more complete view of the rules or monster books to glean metagame knowledge from them).
However, there are a /lot/ more players than DMs...
The returning prominence of DM fiat isn't really (mostly) what I am talking about.
Oh? Because I think that's a big part of it. When the game has given DMs great latitude in running, 'knowing the rules' (system mastery) wasn't a big benefit to the players, so they might not be tempted to have every book, might, indeed, not bother getting any books since no DM really ran strictly 'by the book,' anyway. In 1e AD&D, there really weren't that many 'player books' at all. There was the PH, and, much later, the 'survival guides.' Everything else was wholly or mostly a DM resource. OA and UA added classes, but also had a lot of DM matieral. The DM, OTOH, had the DMG, MM1, MM2, Fiend Folio, Deities & Demigods, modules and campaign settings. 2e had more of both DM and player resources than ever before, but it still had the kind of loose, weak rule system that required a lot of DM intervention and thus made player success more about gaming the DM than gaming the system.
3e changed all that, it had stronger rules, and while it gave the DM liscence to change them ("Rule 0"), the zietgiest that emerged didn't tollerate a lot of that. 3e had a tremendous amount of player resources published, and 'system mastery' was intentionally rewarded. 4e was more balanced, so system mastery was a lesser issue, but there were still tons of player options. Modern, WotC-era, D&D, sold to players. There are more players, and they love getting new toys for their characters - especially if the new stuff gives them an edge.
So, while a DM might buy more books than a player, players, collectively, if given the encentives, can end up buying a lot more books than DMs. 5e's shift in focus back to the DM-centrism of classic D&D might not be quite as good a move as it may seem... Probably, it's trying to do both: Be DM-centric enough to really hook DMs into buying lots of material, /and/ having enough intentional 'rewards for system mastery' to get players buying every little thing looking for the best combos. The problem, of course, if that if it's that DM centric, DMs'll be overriding the broken 'system mastery rewards,' undercutting that player encentive.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 1:47PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
No.
Hasbro wants us on a subscription model.
Yeah subscription just isn't going to work though.
Hasbro needs to realize that it's marketing a tabletop game, not an MMO.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 2:14PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
No.
Hasbro wants us on a subscription model.
Yeah subscription just isn't going to work though.
Hasbro needs to realize that it's marketing a tabletop game, not an MMO.
Unfortunately, Hasbro has already realized that MMOs are vastly more profitable...
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 2:17PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Unfortunately, Hasbro has already realized that MMOs are vastly more profitable...
I'm pretty sure D&D online bombed given it had to switch to free to play shortly after its release.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 2:28PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Unfortunately, Hasbro has already realized that MMOs are vastly more profitable...
I'm pretty sure D&D online bombed given it had to switch to free to play shortly after its release.
Doesn't matter. WoW is basically a D&D rip-off, and it's making money hand over fist. TTRPGs are a puny market.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 2:47PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
Unfortunately, Hasbro has already realized that MMOs are vastly more profitable...
I'm pretty sure D&D online bombed given it had to switch to free to play shortly after its release.
Doesn't matter. WoW is basically a D&D rip-off, and it's making money hand over fist. TTRPGs are a puny market.
Well, Hasbro isn't Blizzard. The sooner they realize that, the better.
Computer games aren't some unbelievably awesome market. While sure, projected profits are bigger than TTRPGs, production costs are also way higher and there's a lot of competition out there. Plenty of game studios have filed for bankruptcy.
D&D is king of tabletop RPGs, but out in the MMO market, it's nowhere close to top dog.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 2:50PM
#29
|
|
|
In my experience each group has one or two dedicated players that buy all the books. This is often the DM, as they're they most dedicated to the game and willing to spend time thinking of the game away from the table. Many players only really think about D&D at the table, and only buy one book at best. While there are many more players at a table than DMs, there's no guarantee all will buy books. Or that all will buy all the books and not pick and choose. 3e and 4e were bad for this, giving books that appealed to only a percentage of players at a table (i.e. the players of martial character or spellcasters). The best thing they can do is make books with content for multiple types of players, and for both new and existing characters. I'd prefer less overlap between DM and player books. I dislike too much mixing, especially with setting books. Unless the books are sizable. 160 pages is too small to split.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? My Webcomic: 5 Minute WorkdayUpdated every Tuesday and Thursday Spoiler:
Show
Updated Tuesday and ThursdayRead my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list). You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 28, 2012 - 2:56PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Unfortunately, Hasbro has already realized that MMOs are vastly more profitable...
I'm pretty sure D&D online bombed given it had to switch to free to play shortly after its release.
Doesn't matter. WoW is basically a D&D rip-off, and it's making money hand over fist. TTRPGs are a puny market.
yup, things it lacks (the list is probably larger but I am lazy):
- Players having a long term sense of impact on the game world.
- Characters feeling they are central to the story (you are one amongst millions of adventurers and less capable than guards).
- Open Ended Story/Choices... DMs enable this.
- Actually Interactive NPCs ... DMs enable this.
|
|
|
