Accessories don't offer much money. The money comes from core books. DDI and online content would be profitable if WotC wasn't outsourcing payment and likely losing a good chunk of the profits.
While this may have been historically true, I don't think it needs to be the model going forward. Consider the micro-transaction economy of apps and in-app purchases. I don't necessarily think that's the best route for DDN, but I also don't think the current model has penetrated the marketplace nearly well enough.
This has less to do with business models and more to do with the realities of the publishing.
A 160 page book has a suggested price of $30. Due to the rule of doubling, stores sell for $30, distributors sell to stores for $15, the merchant (WotC) sells to the distributor at $7 and buys from the manufacturer (the printer) for $3.50. So WotC gets roughly $3.50 for each book ordered.
Now, that three fifty isn't profit. First, there are the production costs. Not the printing but the writing, the art, the editing, etc. Look at the list of credits on the front of the book. Each of those people had to be paid before the book was released. This is tens of thousands of dollars, all debt. For a big publisher like WotC with colour art and high pay, this can easily be a hundred thousand dollars. So the first few thousand sales pay off the costs. So it takes roughly 30k sales before WotC sees profit.
So if WotC sells 50,000 copies of three books (15,000 books total) they've made less money than if they sold 10,000 copies of a single book. And, if they do a reprint, they only need to pay the printer costs and not the development costs. It's already been written.
This is where the core books versus accessories come in. Even if you sell tones and tones of lots of copies of different books, it's still better to sell the same book again and again. For an edition to be a success it needs a strong core book that continually generates sales and several tent pole books that sell copies each year. The accessories need to support the content core book and complement it. Because or this, a cheap low profit core book is a bad idea. You can't guarantee accessory sales and many people won't move past the core book. So the core books needs to sustain itself and many other books. WotC has tried a couple different strategies to sustain its accessories. They tried higher prices in 3e, so while they sold fewer copies each copy generated more profit. They tried lower prices in 4e (compared to comparably sized core books), likely to encourage sales with the "cheaper" accessories while also generating more profit on the high selling books, while also emphasizing all books were core.
WotC hasn't been planning their books well. Some of the staff might have forgotten the above, or overlooked the obvious. In 4e, the simple rules accessories made it easy to ignore the core books. If you knew the game (or had someone to teach you) you could ignore the PHB1 and go right to the PHB2. Then they even released new core books... twice (the Essentials Heroes of Adjective Noun books). And had the Rules Compendium, further cutting sales. And the accessories they did have tended to be useful only to people who wanted to make new characters and then only to specific types of character.
Micro-transactions might translate for DDI. Small niche articles and content. Pay once and buy the article and unlock it in an online tool. A single staff writing and some stick art makes it cheap, and there's no printing cost. And it might be more palpable to pay once rather than subscribe for a month. But piracy would be an issue. And I think they dropped the idea of tying articles to accounts due to technical limitations, especially as payments and the like is tracked by a different company.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
@The_Jester: I've come to the exact same conclusions except one minor change: Game publishers sometimes enjoy this distribution instead: Retail: 40% Distribution: 20% Printing: 20% Developers: 20%
I don't mind the whole modular direction they're taking, but some of the things Mearls said have me a bit concerned.
He mentioned that you can roll for ability scores or use an array chosen for you by your class. But what about a point buy option? Or what if I want to choose an array that's NOT cookie cutter for my class? These things would hardly take up much word count and I can't fathom why they wouldn't want to include them.
He really makes it sound like the core rulebook is going to be a 1970s retroclone with nothing but a very basic fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard as options for play, and not even a basic skill system. Seriously? I don't mind having a modular system that lets people play that kind of game if they want to, but I better not have to buy a bunch of extra books just to be able to have a basic skill system or the ability to customize my character beyond "(race) [class]." I find even the current playtest material far too simple and lacking in character customization options for my taste. If even THAT is too complicated to be included in the core rulebook, Next will definitely not be for me.
He mentions that he'd like to "Simplify combat by removing extraneous options. We have 14 options in the rules now. The basic game needs only attack, cast a spell, disengage, hide, hustle, search, and use an item. I'd like the core rules boiled down to about 16 pages, not counting class-specific material." Are you kidding me? There are too many options? I look at the current playtest and have the exact OPPOSITE reaction. Besides, they are just that - OPTIONS. How does that ruin the grognards' game to have options in it? If they don't want to use them, they don't have to! But to not include them for the rest of us that do want them is just offensive. Next is supposed to be a big tent, a game that caters to all styles of play. But all I see lately is catering to those who want the most minimalist and basic game possible.
I don't mind the whole modular direction they're taking, but some of the things Mearls said have me a bit concerned.
He mentioned that you can roll for ability scores or use an array chosen for you by your class. But what about a point buy option? Or what if I want to choose an array that's NOT cookie cutter for my class? These things would hardly take up much word count and I can't fathom why they wouldn't want to include them.
He really makes it sound like the core rulebook is going to be a 1970s retroclone with nothing but a very basic fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard as options for play, and not even a basic skill system. Seriously? I don't mind having a modular system that lets people play that kind of game if they want to, but I better not have to buy a bunch of extra books just to be able to have a basic skill system or the ability to customize my character beyond "(race) [class]." I find even the current playtest material far too simple and lacking in character customization options for my taste. If even THAT is too complicated to be included in the core rulebook, Next will definitely not be for me.
He mentions that he'd like to "Simplify combat by removing extraneous options. We have 14 options in the rules now. The basic game needs only attack, cast a spell, disengage, hide, hustle, search, and use an item. I'd like the core rules boiled down to about 16 pages, not counting class-specific material." Are you kidding me? There are too many options? I look at the current playtest and have the exact OPPOSITE reaction. Besides, they are just that - OPTIONS. How does that ruin the grognards' game to have options in it? If they don't want to use them, they don't have to! But to not include them for the rest of us that do want them is just offensive. Next is supposed to be a big tent, a game that caters to all styles of play. But all I see lately is catering to those who want the most minimalist and basic game possible.
More or less this, hence the comment about the leap backwards to the early 1980s. I'm not going to pay $$$ for an incomplete game or very very basic game. Seems to be a revamp of bye moar stuff or a MTG way of D&D.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
It feels like the debate here is covering two connected but ultimately distinct issues:
1. Weapon properties are not sufficiently making up for the disparity in weapon damage. 2. Martial damage dice should (or should not) be based on the weapon's damage.
If we accept the first one as an issue for a moment, then it must be solved irrespective of the decision on 2, since we want a number of viable options right from level 1. Worse yet, if the same die type is used for martial damage dice regardless of weapon choice, you will find the issue that has been brought up before, namely that weapon damage decreases in significance over time, and any other benefits a weapon provides will seem much more important. You would likely end up with a hierarchy of the "best" weapons that actually changes in different level ranges, which hardly strikes me as good design. As such, effort should be taken to ensure that a variety of weapons are viable at first level without regard to how damage will scale over time.
However, if this issue is settled to general satisfaction, I agree that it makes more sense to have bonus damage be tied to weapon damage, rather than a flat d6 (or what have you.) This is based on a particular assumption: that any benefits you gain from giving up some weapon damage also scale in a similar fashion as you increase in level. This is not guaranteed by any stretch; a weapon property that allowed you to add dex to damage certainly doesn't scale that way if you are limited to adding it once per turn, for example. However, a weapon that allowed you bonus to defenses (either directly, or by freeing a hand for a shield, for example) is likely to scale in such a way, and under those circumstances maintaining the proportional difference is the better option.
As for giving up weapon damage for defense, I will point out that simply comparing changes in the fighter's incoming and outgoing damage isn't necessarily the best approach. If a fighter takes the front-line approach and is trying to absorb a substantial share of damage (which seems likely if they are working to increase their survivability) then it would be more helpful to consider the proportional decrease in the party's damage rather than the fighter's. That is not so easy to judge, requiring some assumptions on the size and make-up of the party as a whole.
I don't mind the whole modular direction they're taking, but some of the things Mearls said have me a bit concerned.
He mentioned that you can roll for ability scores or use an array chosen for you by your class. But what about a point buy option? Or what if I want to choose an array that's NOT cookie cutter for my class? These things would hardly take up much word count and I can't fathom why they wouldn't want to include them.
He really makes it sound like the core rulebook is going to be a 1970s retroclone with nothing but a very basic fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard as options for play, and not even a basic skill system. Seriously? I don't mind having a modular system that lets people play that kind of game if they want to, but I better not have to buy a bunch of extra books just to be able to have a basic skill system or the ability to customize my character beyond "(race) [class]." I find even the current playtest material far too simple and lacking in character customization options for my taste. If even THAT is too complicated to be included in the core rulebook, Next will definitely not be for me.
He mentions that he'd like to "Simplify combat by removing extraneous options. We have 14 options in the rules now. The basic game needs only attack, cast a spell, disengage, hide, hustle, search, and use an item. I'd like the core rules boiled down to about 16 pages, not counting class-specific material." Are you kidding me? There are too many options? I look at the current playtest and have the exact OPPOSITE reaction. Besides, they are just that - OPTIONS. How does that ruin the grognards' game to have options in it? If they don't want to use them, they don't have to! But to not include them for the rest of us that do want them is just offensive. Next is supposed to be a big tent, a game that caters to all styles of play. But all I see lately is catering to those who want the most minimalist and basic game possible.
The system he is talking about here is the Basic System. It would likely be included in the core rulebooks as the bare-bones system that D&D Next is built on. If you don't like it, use the Standard System, which likely resembles the game we have been playtesting, or the Advanced System, which would be more complex.
The system he is talking about here is the Basic System. It would likely be included in the core rulebooks as the bare-bones system that D&D Next is built on. If you don't like it, use the Standard System, which likely resembles the game we have been playtesting, or the Advanced System, which would be more complex.
I hope that's the case, because the Skill Die is currently embedded into two classes, and one of those classes is married into the skill system, which currently makes the supposedly-optional backgrounds/skills *not* completely optional.
I'm hoping I can run a barebones D&D Basic -- just 10 levels, core four classes, and ability scores -- with no need to adjust anything just to make sure that no character is overshadowed by class selection alone. Otherwise I may have to turn the "core four" into a "core two" or "core three".
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
It feels like the debate here is covering two connected but ultimately distinct issues:
1. Weapon properties are not sufficiently making up for the disparity in weapon damage. 2. Martial damage dice should (or should not) be based on the weapon's damage.
If we accept the first one as an issue for a moment, then it must be solved irrespective of the decision on 2, since we want a number of viable options right from level 1. Worse yet, if the same die type is used for martial damage dice regardless of weapon choice, you will find the issue that has been brought up before, namely that weapon damage decreases in significance over time, and any other benefits a weapon provides will seem much more important. You would likely end up with a hierarchy of the "best" weapons that actually changes in different level ranges, which hardly strikes me as good design. As such, effort should be taken to ensure that a variety of weapons are viable at first level without regard to how damage will scale over time.
However, if this issue is settled to general satisfaction, I agree that it makes more sense to have bonus damage be tied to weapon damage, rather than a flat d6 (or what have you.) This is based on a particular assumption: that any benefits you gain from giving up some weapon damage also scale in a similar fashion as you increase in level. This is not guaranteed by any stretch; a weapon property that allowed you to add dex to damage certainly doesn't scale that way if you are limited to adding it once per turn, for example. However, a weapon that allowed you bonus to defenses (either directly, or by freeing a hand for a shield, for example) is likely to scale in such a way, and under those circumstances maintaining the proportional difference is the better option.
As for giving up weapon damage for defense, I will point out that simply comparing changes in the fighter's incoming and outgoing damage isn't necessarily the best approach. If a fighter takes the front-line approach and is trying to absorb a substantial share of damage (which seems likely if they are working to increase their survivability) then it would be more helpful to consider the proportional decrease in the party's damage rather than the fighter's. That is not so easy to judge, requiring some assumptions on the size and make-up of the party as a whole.
Math may not be your strong suit, but if your parties damage is the same and you swap out the sword and shield Fighter for a two handed weapon Fighter your parties damage will go up and they will take out monsters proportionately twice as fast. That's just basic math...
The system he is talking about here is the Basic System. It would likely be included in the core rulebooks as the bare-bones system that D&D Next is built on. If you don't like it, use the Standard System, which likely resembles the game we have been playtesting, or the Advanced System, which would be more complex.
I hope that's the case, because the Skill Die is currently embedded into two classes, and one of those classes is married into the skill system, which currently makes the supposedly-optional backgrounds/skills *not* completely optional.
I'm hoping I can run a barebones D&D Basic -- just 10 levels, core four classes, and ability scores -- with no need to adjust anything just to make sure that no character is overshadowed by class selection alone. Otherwise I may have to turn the "core four" into a "core two" or "core three".
They mentioned the idea that the skill die would exist in Basic, but it would just be tied to a particular ability score for each class: fighters would use it on strength checks, wizards on int, rogues on dex, and clerics on cha. Not a bad system IMO, especially since there are a whole bunch of different dex skills. (Maybe rogues get to pick a second ability too, to simulate getting a scheme?) And rogues could still get to roll the skill die twice and/or use it for skill tricks.
@lokiare and cassi_brazuca: It feels like the debate here is covering two connected but ultimately distinct issues: 1. Weapon properties are not sufficiently making up for the disparity in weapon damage. 2. Martial damage dice should (or should not) be based on the weapon's damage. If we accept the first one as an issue for a moment, then it must be solved irrespective of the decision on 2, since we want a number of viable options right from level 1. Worse yet, if the same die type is used for martial damage dice regardless of weapon choice, you will find the issue that has been brought up before, namely that weapon damage decreases in significance over time, and any other benefits a weapon provides will seem much more important. You would likely end up with a hierarchy of the "best" weapons that actually changes in different level ranges, which hardly strikes me as good design. As such, effort should be taken to ensure that a variety of weapons are viable at first level without regard to how damage will scale over time. However, if this issue is settled to general satisfaction, I agree that it makes more sense to have bonus damage be tied to weapon damage, rather than a flat d6 (or what have you.) This is based on a particular assumption: that any benefits you gain from giving up some weapon damage also scale in a similar fashion as you increase in level. This is not guaranteed by any stretch; a weapon property that allowed you to add dex to damage certainly doesn't scale that way if you are limited to adding it once per turn, for example. However, a weapon that allowed you bonus to defenses (either directly, or by freeing a hand for a shield, for example) is likely to scale in such a way, and under those circumstances maintaining the proportional difference is the better option. As for giving up weapon damage for defense, I will point out that simply comparing changes in the fighter's incoming and outgoing damage isn't necessarily the best approach. If a fighter takes the front-line approach and is trying to absorb a substantial share of damage (which seems likely if they are working to increase their survivability) then it would be more helpful to consider the proportional decrease in the party's damage rather than the fighter's. That is not so easy to judge, requiring some assumptions on the size and make-up of the party as a whole.
Agreed. There are two issues are separated. I think that the weapon's damage die should be important across all levels, but the properties need to be good to. I just think that finesse is a good one. Now it would be helpful if the comparison was not with daggers or simple weapons. Fighters don’t use them a lot. The choice will probably be between a martial one handed weapon (probably d8) against a heavy two handed weapon (d10/d12). No edition tried to balance a dagger fighter with a greatsword fighter. Now we could raise the bonus of the shield. Also lokiare is assuming that nothing else will change. I mean, they can change things a little bit, make properties better, etc. But I think that the weapon’s damage die should be important across all levels, or the damage heavy weapons will be underpowered in comparison to properties heavy weapons (like the current package).
There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different. I've long advocated supporting both the Points of Light setting and settings full of magic items. I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes. First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters. Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters? Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management. Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun. Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system. Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
