You keep appealing to his dubious/flimsy credentials instead of providing any support for anything he actually said. I ask again - how are the solutions/suggestions he listed supposed to work? What data is he basing them on?
Again, as someone else said, those "dubious/flimsy credentials" included his having:
"spent years researching the history of the game and [he] has had access to TSR's and WotC's internal documents and financials, and personally interviewed dozens of people involved with both TSR and WotC throughout the history of the game."
Again, as someone else said, those "dubious/flimsy credentials" included his having:
"spent years researching the history of the game and [he] has had access to TSR's and WotC's internal documents and financials, and personally interviewed dozens of people involved with both TSR and WotC throughout the history of the game."
So nothing to explain why the recommendations he gave are worth the bandwidth they take up. Got it.
You mean the thing they stopped doing a long time ago.
Why do you think third-party publishers make the sorts of books they do? Because Wizards no longer do.
Why do you think a game like ShadowDark that is more DM-oriented and not just one full of player options managed to exceed its Kickstarter goal by over a million dollars?
So you see no sense in Wizards producing adventures and supplements DMs can use at their tables?
Wizards is producing adventures and supplements for DMs. If people don't want the results, well, that's a problem, but it's not a process issue, it's just them misjudging the market.
Why do you think a game like ShadowDark that is more DM-oriented and not just one full of player options managed to exceed its Kickstarter goal by over a million dollars?
Wow, a whole million in gross revenue! Impressive!
Why do you think a game like ShadowDark that is more DM-oriented and not just one full of player options managed to exceed its Kickstarter goal by over a million dollars?
Wow, a whole million in gross revenue! Impressive!
What that Kickstarter achieved is unprecedented in the hobby. That and the fact it's a damn good game is why it's being talked about by the most influential YouTubers in the TTRGP community. If your only game news comes from Beyond and these forums I can't blame you for being in the dark.
You can't list things Wizards haven't produced:
Where are their city generation kits? Their books of tables for adventure and campaign generation comparable to things like Tome of Adventure Design?
Their short modules and not just strings of them thrown into books trying to be everything for everyone?
Their zines and magazines with great content?
Their alternative monster manuals that think outside of the box?
The sorts of things that win awards.
For design. For exterior and interior art. For writing.
Wizards cheap out on the production of what they do make. And what they do make is leaving a very large hole.
A hole being filled by players who are also designers. Because they know what people want more than suits who just want more money.
So you see no sense in Wizards producing adventures and supplements DMs can use at their tables?
You mean the thing they're currently doing? 🤔
They still make ‘em, they’re just not very good anymore. I mean, Spelljammer was practically devoid of any real substance, and I expect Planescape will be just as bad. They’re intentionally making things as generic as they can to appeal to the broadest audience, but they’re making them so generic they aren’t really appealing at all. I would prefer if they focused on one major demographic at a time, and really give it some gusto. So what if Planescape doesn’t appeal to everyone? Make it really, really appeal to the people who are gonna like it. Then make the next publication appeal to people with different tastes. If the next one doesn’t appeal to all of the Planescape fans, so what? They would likely satisfy more people that way. Instead of selling a ton of copies of an unsatisfying book, sell slightly fewer copies but make the book so good that the people who do buy it love it. It’s objectively impossible to please everyone, so why attempt to? Just really, really please one audience at a time, and take all audiences in turn. Ne?
They still make ‘em, they’re just not very good anymore. I mean, Spelljammer was practically devoid of any real substance, and I expect Planescape will be just as bad. They’re intentionally making things as generic as they can to appeal to the broadest audience, but they’re making them so generic they aren’t really appealing at all. I would prefer if they focused on one major demographic at a time, and really give it some gusto. So what if Planescape doesn’t appeal to everyone? Make it really, really appeal to the people who are gonna like it. Then make the next publication appeal to people with different tastes. If the next one doesn’t appeal to all of the Planescape fans, so what? They would likely satisfy more people that way. Instead of selling a ton of copies of an unsatisfying book, sell slightly fewer copies but make the book so good that the people who do buy it love it. It’s objectively impossible to please everyone, so why attempt to? Just really, really please one audience at a time, and take all audiences in turn. Ne?
The bar was "adventures and supplements that DMs can use at their tables." Would I have preferred (and do I still prefer) actual campaign setting books like Van Richten's, absolutely, but I also acknowledge they have their hands a tad full right now with 5.5e. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that.
They still make ‘em, they’re just not very good anymore. I mean, Spelljammer was practically devoid of any real substance, and I expect Planescape will be just as bad. They’re intentionally making things as generic as they can to appeal to the broadest audience, but they’re making them so generic they aren’t really appealing at all. I would prefer if they focused on one major demographic at a time, and really give it some gusto. So what if Planescape doesn’t appeal to everyone? Make it really, really appeal to the people who are gonna like it. Then make the next publication appeal to people with different tastes. If the next one doesn’t appeal to all of the Planescape fans, so what? They would likely satisfy more people that way. Instead of selling a ton of copies of an unsatisfying book, sell slightly fewer copies but make the book so good that the people who do buy it love it. It’s objectively impossible to please everyone, so why attempt to? Just really, really please one audience at a time, and take all audiences in turn. Ne?
The bar was "adventures and supplements that DMs can use at their tables." Would I have preferred (and do I still prefer) actual campaign setting books like Van Richten's, absolutely, but I also acknowledge they have their hands a tad full right now with 5.5e. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that.
Who moved what goalpost?!? I agreed with you that they still make ‘em, I just also mentioned that they pretty 💩 lately is all.
The random person who wrote that article wrote a history of TSR and his perspective is only shared by dozens of game designers whose YouTube channels have kept Wizards in business.
You keep appealing to his dubious/flimsy credentials instead of providing any support for anything he actually said. I ask again - how are the solutions/suggestions he listed supposed to work? What data is he basing them on?
Wait, we're crediting YouTube randos for keeping WotC afloat now???
That's, uhh, definitely a take
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, in general I agree that his word shouldn't be taken as law, but to call him a "random person on the internet who grants themselves a title" is pretty disingenuous. He's "just a guy"" So he may entirely wrong, but he certainly has more knowledge of the business of D&D than just some "random person on the internet who grants themselves a title."
He's a middle school teacher who wrote a book about how TSR failed. That puts him in the random influencer category rather than the complete nobody category, but it's not any particularly distinctive mark of expertise.
A middle school teacher who wrote that book who as the person you're responding to said:
"happens to have spent years researching the history of the game and has had access to TSR's and WotC's internal documents and financials, and personally interviewed dozens of people involved with both TSR and WotC throughout the history of the game."
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you get to reduce them to a caricature of who they are.
He's more qualified to speak on the subject than you or I.
Yeah, I deleted my post because it's not worth arguing with random people on a message board about these things, but apparently deleted too late (and then, of course, it goes edited down in replies).
It shouldn't be difficult to grasp the concept that there are levels of expertise, but instead social media "debates" have trained us all to think in binaries of either "world class expert" vs "don't know anything" (and who falls into those binary categories are heavily influenced by how much we agree with them). I could get into discussing the research I've worked on concerning epistemology of ignorance and "active ignorance" in particular especially when it comes to verifying or countering preconceived theories, but in the expertise binary, I'm not a world class expert so it doesn't matter. And I have better things to do anyway like prep for my game tomorrow night as well as consider how Ben's advice might impact the writing projects I'm currently working on. :)
But it really doesn't matter whether a bunch of us random people on the internet think about his advice and whether WotC should listen to it or not. They will do what they will do regardless of how much we debate here and if either side "wins". *shrug*
The random person who wrote that article wrote a history of TSR and his perspective is only shared by dozens of game designers whose YouTube channels have kept Wizards in business.
That is to say people who make content and products that in turn direct people to Wizards' products.
I suppose you think Critical Roll are just "YouTube randos"?
If some of these people didn't have YouTube channels many new players who've never walked into a game store and who only know about D&D from Critical Role and other content creators wouldn't even know what D&D is.
That is to say people who make content and products that in turn direct people to Wizards' products.
I suppose you think Critical Roll are just "YouTube randos"?
If some of these people didn't have YouTube channels many new players who've never walked into a game store and who only know about D&D from Critical Role and other content creators wouldn't even know what D&D is.
They're not the people that wrote that article, your appeals to authority are getting even weaker. If you can't make a coherent case for the merits of the argument itself, on its own, regardless of who wrote it, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So you see no sense in Wizards producing adventures and supplements DMs can use at their tables?
You mean the thing they're currently doing? 🤔
They still make ‘em, they’re just not very good anymore. I mean, Spelljammer was practically devoid of any real substance, and I expect Planescape will be just as bad. They’re intentionally making things as generic as they can to appeal to the broadest audience, but they’re making them so generic they aren’t really appealing at all. I would prefer if they focused on one major demographic at a time, and really give it some gusto. So what if Planescape doesn’t appeal to everyone? Make it really, really appeal to the people who are gonna like it. Then make the next publication appeal to people with different tastes. If the next one doesn’t appeal to all of the Planescape fans, so what? They would likely satisfy more people that way. Instead of selling a ton of copies of an unsatisfying book, sell slightly fewer copies but make the book so good that the people who do buy it love it. It’s objectively impossible to please everyone, so why attempt to? Just really, really please one audience at a time, and take all audiences in turn. Ne?
But I’ve heard that’s one of the things that sunk tsr. They did almost too good a job of fleshing out different settings, and it ended up fragmenting the player base. You had FR players who weren’t going to buy anything for dark sun or council of wyrms or birthright. It became like they were publishing half a dozen distinct games instead of one game with half a dozen expressions. And no one product was making really good sales. That’s one of the things that’s led to kitchen sink books like xanathar’s and Tasha’s, something for everyone, and nothing too setting specific. I agree spelljammer was weak, and I also agree that if they’re going to publish a setting, do it right. It seems like maybe they over corrected.
One thing I found very telling in the Chris Perkins video about the DMG. He said, I’ll paraphrase cause I don’t remember exactly, the default setting of 5e has been the multiverse. I found that to be a bit of revisionist history, as I recall there was no default setting, and they’ve basically added that concept in the past couple years. But if one accepts that as what they’re going for, it does explain a bit of why so many products have been light on detail — the product isn’t meant to be a whole world, it’s meant to be a sliver of a multiverse.
So you see no sense in Wizards producing adventures and supplements DMs can use at their tables?
You mean the thing they're currently doing? 🤔
They still make ‘em, they’re just not very good anymore. I mean, Spelljammer was practically devoid of any real substance, and I expect Planescape will be just as bad. They’re intentionally making things as generic as they can to appeal to the broadest audience, but they’re making them so generic they aren’t really appealing at all. I would prefer if they focused on one major demographic at a time, and really give it some gusto. So what if Planescape doesn’t appeal to everyone? Make it really, really appeal to the people who are gonna like it. Then make the next publication appeal to people with different tastes. If the next one doesn’t appeal to all of the Planescape fans, so what? They would likely satisfy more people that way. Instead of selling a ton of copies of an unsatisfying book, sell slightly fewer copies but make the book so good that the people who do buy it love it. It’s objectively impossible to please everyone, so why attempt to? Just really, really please one audience at a time, and take all audiences in turn. Ne?
But I’ve heard that’s one of the things that sunk tsr. They did almost too good a job of fleshing out different settings, and it ended up fragmenting the player base. You had FR players who weren’t going to buy anything for dark sun or council of wyrms or birthright. It became like they were publishing half a dozen distinct games instead of one game with half a dozen expressions. And no one product was making really good sales.
A big part of that was that TSR was putting out a lot of different settings but doing a very poor job of supporting any of them: they'd put out a campaign setting book and a few tie-in articles in Dragon Magazine, then largely drop the setting to focus on another one. People observed this and became hesitant to actually buy books for a new setting because they assumed that it wasn't going to be supported. And that was on top of some other serious financial mismanagement that had been going on at the company for years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I suppose you think Critical Roll are just "YouTube randos"?
They sure as hell aren't 'game designers on YouTube'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
They're not the people that wrote that article, your appeals to authority are getting even weaker. If you can't make a coherent case for the merits of the argument itself, on its own, regardless of who wrote it, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
But I’ve heard that’s one of the things that sunk tsr. They did almost too good a job of fleshing out different settings, and it ended up fragmenting the player base. You had FR players who weren’t going to buy anything for dark sun or council of wyrms or birthright. It became like they were publishing half a dozen distinct games instead of one game with half a dozen expressions. And no one product was making really good sales. That’s one of the things that’s led to kitchen sink books like xanathar’s and Tasha’s, something for everyone, and nothing too setting specific.
I agree spelljammer was weak, and I also agree that if they’re going to publish a setting, do it right. It seems like maybe they over corrected.
I agree with this, and here's the thing - none of his suggestions would have actually made a book like Spelljammer any better. In fact, a couple of them ("shorter books!" "fewer collaborators!") would have actively made it worse!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Again, as someone else said, those "dubious/flimsy credentials" included his having:
"spent years researching the history of the game and [he] has had access to TSR's and WotC's internal documents and financials, and personally interviewed dozens of people involved with both TSR and WotC throughout the history of the game."
What are your credentials?
So nothing to explain why the recommendations he gave are worth the bandwidth they take up. Got it.
I'm not the one writing open letters to WotC.
So you see no sense in Wizards producing adventures and supplements DMs can use at their tables?
You mean the thing they're currently doing? 🤔
You mean the thing they stopped doing a long time ago.
Why do you think third-party publishers make the sorts of books they do? Because Wizards no longer do.
Why do you think a game like ShadowDark that is more DM-oriented and not just one full of player options managed to exceed its Kickstarter goal by over a million dollars?
Wizards is producing adventures and supplements for DMs. If people don't want the results, well, that's a problem, but it's not a process issue, it's just them misjudging the market.
They haven't stopped, but I don't see us going anywhere even if I list examples, so I'll leave it there.
Wow, a whole million in gross revenue! Impressive!
What that Kickstarter achieved is unprecedented in the hobby. That and the fact it's a damn good game is why it's being talked about by the most influential YouTubers in the TTRGP community. If your only game news comes from Beyond and these forums I can't blame you for being in the dark.
You can't list things Wizards haven't produced:
Where are their city generation kits? Their books of tables for adventure and campaign generation comparable to things like Tome of Adventure Design?
Their short modules and not just strings of them thrown into books trying to be everything for everyone?
Their zines and magazines with great content?
Their alternative monster manuals that think outside of the box?
The sorts of things that win awards.
For design. For exterior and interior art. For writing.
Wizards cheap out on the production of what they do make. And what they do make is leaving a very large hole.
A hole being filled by players who are also designers. Because they know what people want more than suits who just want more money.
It's really not. Colville, Dungeon Dudes, and several others have cleared a million on their kickstarters in this hobby.
Now, please stop rage-spamming my inbox. Please?
They still make ‘em, they’re just not very good anymore. I mean, Spelljammer was practically devoid of any real substance, and I expect Planescape will be just as bad. They’re intentionally making things as generic as they can to appeal to the broadest audience, but they’re making them so generic they aren’t really appealing at all. I would prefer if they focused on one major demographic at a time, and really give it some gusto. So what if Planescape doesn’t appeal to everyone? Make it really, really appeal to the people who are gonna like it. Then make the next publication appeal to people with different tastes. If the next one doesn’t appeal to all of the Planescape fans, so what? They would likely satisfy more people that way. Instead of selling a ton of copies of an unsatisfying book, sell slightly fewer copies but make the book so good that the people who do buy it love it. It’s objectively impossible to please everyone, so why attempt to? Just really, really please one audience at a time, and take all audiences in turn. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The bar was "adventures and supplements that DMs can use at their tables." Would I have preferred (and do I still prefer) actual campaign setting books like Van Richten's, absolutely, but I also acknowledge they have their hands a tad full right now with 5.5e. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that.
Who moved what goalpost?!? I agreed with you that they still make ‘em, I just also mentioned that they pretty 💩 lately is all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wait, we're crediting YouTube randos for keeping WotC afloat now???
That's, uhh, definitely a take
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, I deleted my post because it's not worth arguing with random people on a message board about these things, but apparently deleted too late (and then, of course, it goes edited down in replies).
It shouldn't be difficult to grasp the concept that there are levels of expertise, but instead social media "debates" have trained us all to think in binaries of either "world class expert" vs "don't know anything" (and who falls into those binary categories are heavily influenced by how much we agree with them). I could get into discussing the research I've worked on concerning epistemology of ignorance and "active ignorance" in particular especially when it comes to verifying or countering preconceived theories, but in the expertise binary, I'm not a world class expert so it doesn't matter. And I have better things to do anyway like prep for my game tomorrow night as well as consider how Ben's advice might impact the writing projects I'm currently working on. :)
But it really doesn't matter whether a bunch of us random people on the internet think about his advice and whether WotC should listen to it or not. They will do what they will do regardless of how much we debate here and if either side "wins". *shrug*
No. We're not doing that. That's just you misconstruing what someone said.
I wasn't talking about just any "YouTube randos." I said GAME DESIGNERS with YouTube channels:
That is to say people who make content and products that in turn direct people to Wizards' products.
I suppose you think Critical Roll are just "YouTube randos"?
If some of these people didn't have YouTube channels many new players who've never walked into a game store and who only know about D&D from Critical Role and other content creators wouldn't even know what D&D is.
They're not the people that wrote that article, your appeals to authority are getting even weaker. If you can't make a coherent case for the merits of the argument itself, on its own, regardless of who wrote it, there's no reason for anyone to take it seriously.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But I’ve heard that’s one of the things that sunk tsr. They did almost too good a job of fleshing out different settings, and it ended up fragmenting the player base. You had FR players who weren’t going to buy anything for dark sun or council of wyrms or birthright. It became like they were publishing half a dozen distinct games instead of one game with half a dozen expressions. And no one product was making really good sales. That’s one of the things that’s led to kitchen sink books like xanathar’s and Tasha’s, something for everyone, and nothing too setting specific.
I agree spelljammer was weak, and I also agree that if they’re going to publish a setting, do it right. It seems like maybe they over corrected.
One thing I found very telling in the Chris Perkins video about the DMG. He said, I’ll paraphrase cause I don’t remember exactly, the default setting of 5e has been the multiverse. I found that to be a bit of revisionist history, as I recall there was no default setting, and they’ve basically added that concept in the past couple years. But if one accepts that as what they’re going for, it does explain a bit of why so many products have been light on detail — the product isn’t meant to be a whole world, it’s meant to be a sliver of a multiverse.
A big part of that was that TSR was putting out a lot of different settings but doing a very poor job of supporting any of them: they'd put out a campaign setting book and a few tie-in articles in Dragon Magazine, then largely drop the setting to focus on another one. People observed this and became hesitant to actually buy books for a new setting because they assumed that it wasn't going to be supported. And that was on top of some other serious financial mismanagement that had been going on at the company for years.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
They sure as hell aren't 'game designers on YouTube'
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is the way.
I agree with this, and here's the thing - none of his suggestions would have actually made a book like Spelljammer any better. In fact, a couple of them ("shorter books!" "fewer collaborators!") would have actively made it worse!