You can't play D&D without a DM. And without reorienting things so we see the release of more things DMs can use at their tables the brand—and the game with it—will suffer.
In fewer pages than most books we have seen from Wizards in recent years we see single volumes that accommodate whole systems and then some. Other books by those who publish them provide exceptional tools for adventure and campaign generation and more.
Whether we favor running our own homebrew settings is moot. Most players want to explore different worlds. Most DMs could use supplements to help them flesh out their own.
The current approach by WotC is not working. They release books stripped of lore because WotC is afraid of social media feedback, in fact they've hired sensitivity readers to ensure their products won't upset anyone which makes for rather beige content. Typically the books are a setting, with a few new OP classes to get the player to buy the book, a few monsters for the DM and a small self contained module. The issue is, they are trying to sell to everyone to buy rather than the DM and it just doesn't work.
If D&D wants to help DM's then release an actual setting book, with maps, lore and culture. And then release a separate full campaign in said world. Eberon was an appropriate book for the DM - but WotC failed to follow through with a full scale campaign from level 1 to 20, with play time set up that it would last for one year of play. But how many more adventures would the DM buy if they had a campaign for a year, why nothing till that campaign was completed. Its why I believe the paucity of full length campaigns. And how we get such short snippets of content, to encourage buying the next snippet of information.
While I agree with Ben, the current approach appears to be digital to get players buying microtransactions for their characters, which leads to problems. I don't believe there will be anyway to convince the execs other than to focus on the virtual table top. It sounds like at the end he wants to start DM contests, which would be reverse tournament modules but rating the DM instead. There have been some DM contests before at conventions however. Rather than going to the extremes mentioned at the end, although yes a DM school would be profitable, I'm not keen on certifying someone to be an official 5E DM, it brings back visions of Gygax telling you in the 1E DMG about how you can only use official D&D miniatures or adventures or its not really D&D. Frankly, D&D should encourage adventurers league again at shops and should be pushing conventions including helping conventions by sending emails to their mailing list and hobby shops to get players to sign up. The more in person activity D&D can encourage, the more sales they will have. But I just don't see them realizing it, and its a shame. See how D&D hasn't been attending conventions for quite some time now as an example of not understanding face to face interaction with their customers.
I saw just today mention of how Wizards haven't even had a real presence at gaming conventions in years.
They are out of touch.
Consumers are fickle. If Wizards continue on a path where instead of providing for DMs they're just trying to sell books and subscriptions to players and particularly new players D&D will inevitably succumb to the same fate others have. Decline. Replacement.
To spin off of a point made by Portential, I think one major issue is the hybrid books. When I was in Italy (bear with me, here), we'd have gelatos (ice creams) regularly. There were two kinds of places that sold them - gelaterias (dedicated shops that sold just gelatos and related products) and bars (not what we think of when we use that word, but places that sell all kinds of snacks and drinks). We avoided bars like the plague and only ever went to gelaterias, because they were dedicated to perfecting gelatos. As a result, gelaterias, with the usual caveat that YMMV and there were exceptions, were generally much better in quality and much more consistent.
These hybrid books are like the bars. They're trying to cram in so many disparate things to appeal to everyone...that none of them really rise to the quality of good. It feels like WotC are trying to pressure everyone to buy everything by including something for everyone, and ends up providing not much for anyone.
Take Spelljammer - we got a short bestiary that's of no interest to players (but of significant interest to DMs), a very short adventure that's of no interest to players and due to its brevity is of little interest to DMs, and a rulebook/setting book with races that is somewhat of interest for players and quite a bit interest for DMs, but both finding that they have to skip large chunks. MotM had a similar problem - a large chunk at the beginning dedicated to PC races and of no interest to DMs, then a bestiary of no interest to players. It was useful for me though, where our party is our family, so it's all useful - less so for some I know where they're only a player or only a DM.
They need to focus their books again. Certainly into two streams - DM facing and player facing. Ideally more divide - rulebooks, setting/lore/deep dive books, adventures and then player books that have character options, etc.
There is nothing wrong with trying to sell to players, and it's a good thing. The problem is when they start trying to get everyone to buy everything. Not only is quality compromised, but content becomes too expensive. I can't afford to buy Spelljammer for half a dozen character options! Nor a mere 4 level adventure. The setting book wasn't carrying it's weight either. Instead, they should have products focused on the player. Have a few books that target the 80% as well as ones that target the 20% rather than ones that provide little for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's always amusing to see someone criticize unprecedented success because it doesn't cater specifically to them
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)
The parts that aren't banal ("Make DMs lives easier!" Wow what a revelatory concept that's completely at odds with everything they're currently doing...) or weirdly condescending ("Hey, did you guys know D&D isn't a video game?") are just poorly explained. He presents his suggestions as though how they'll lead to increased adoption and therefore profit are completely self-evident with no elaboration at all. The whole thing is just bizarre.
And even if everything he suggested truly would lead to increased adoption I don't agree with all of it anyway. Shorter books - the campaign setting stuff is shorter than it's ever been (see Spelljammer and Dragonlance); we haven't had a proper one since Ravenloft and it's just been gazetteers and player guides ever since. The Campaign authorship stuff, how many people are pitching and authoring today and why are the proposed numbers better? Playtesting included in the production cycle, uhh, they are doing that and it's definitely measured in months. Game designers should get paid like game designers in other fields, you can see the salary ranges on WotC's careers site and that's currently happening.
I'm sure Ben's heart is in the right place but this letter is almost entirely useless.
By "shorter books" he means modules and adventures. And books that come boxed together. With a player's guide and a DM's guide to the setting in question. Like in the past.
Maybe these could then be printed as softcovers instead of cheaply glued together hardcovers? Cheaply glued together hardcovers they still sell for more than they're worth.
Wizards should pay no attention to the D&D historian? They should instead pay attention to players who just want more and more player options? Their DMs be damned? Then when many of those new players who only started to play because of Critical Roll and COVID move on to the next cool thing?
Critical Roll are developing their own game. Watch them become the competitor Paizo might have been. Maybe when there are fewer and fewer people to play with you might reconsider your dismissive attitude.
What's "almost entirely useless" are most of the books Wizards have put out for the current edition beyond the core rule books. Even 4th ed. put out a decent follow-up to the DM's guide.
DMs are turning to third-party publishers or even other games because the official version of it is no longer DM-friendly.
Don't complain when there is no one left to run the game in which you want to play something from the umpteenth UA release.
Wizards should pay no attention to the D&D historian?
They should pay about as much attention to him as they pay to any other random person on the internet who grants themselves a title. Which is to say, they should treat it as the opinion of one person. Not completely valueless, but not particularly valuable. Not to say that Wizards hasn't made plenty of mistakes, but really, he's just a guy.
To spin off of a point made by Portential, I think one major issue is the hybrid books. When I was in Italy (bear with me, here), we'd have gelatos (ice creams) regularly. There were two kinds of places that sold them - gelaterias (dedicated shops that sold just gelatos and related products) and bars (not what we think of when we use that word, but places that sell all kinds of snacks and drinks). We avoided bars like the plague and only ever went to gelaterias, because they were dedicated to perfecting gelatos. As a result, gelaterias, with the usual caveat that YMMV and there were exceptions, were generally much better in quality and much more consistent.
Having been to Italy several times myself, I 100% get what you mean, and you’re not wrong. It’s a solid analogy.
By "shorter books" he means modules and adventures. And books that come boxed together. With a player's guide and a DM's guide to the setting in question. Like in the past.
Maybe these could then be printed as softcovers instead of cheaply glued together hardcovers? Cheaply glued together hardcovers they still sell for more than they're worth.
Wizards should pay no attention to the D&D historian? They should instead pay attention to players who just want more and more player options? Their DMs be damned? Then when many of those new players who only started to play because of Critical Roll and COVID move on to the next cool thing?
Critical Roll are developing their own game. Watch them become the competitor Paizo might have been. Maybe when there are fewer and fewer people to play with you might reconsider your dismissive attitude.
What's "almost entirely useless" are most of the books Wizards have put out for the current edition beyond the core rule books. Even 4th ed. put out a decent follow-up to the DM's guide.
DMs are turning to third-party publishers or even other games because the official version of it is no longer DM-friendly.
Don't complain when there is no one left to run the game in which you want to play something from the umpteenth UA release.
So... any response to the actual points I raised?
Even if I agreed with you that this guy correctly diagnosed some kind of endemic problem at WotC (which I obviously don't), neither he nor you have explained how the "solutions" are supposed to work. It's just Underpants Gnome logic. "Step 1: Do the stuff I listed. Step 2: ???? Step 3: Profit."
Also - as Pantagruel said, "D&D Historian," even if it somehow were a title that meant anything, would just be Appeal to Authority in lieu of an actual argument. And I don't see it as even being that.
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" who 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. 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.
They should pay about as much attention to him as they pay to any other random person on the internet who grants themselves a title. Which is to say, they should treat it as the opinion of one person. Not completely valueless, but not particularly valuable. Not to say that Wizards hasn't made plenty of mistakes, but really, he's just a guy.
Wizards already pay attention to random people on the internet. They obviously care a great deal about what random Twitter users think and more so than they do what attendees at game conventions think.
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 isn't to mention that you and I are random people on the internet. Why even participate in forums if you believe the opinions of people on the internet are of little to no value?
I disagree. As a GM I don't want to spend money on books with player options. I'm not going to use them. One or more players can buy them and bring them to the table.
They should pay about as much attention to him as they pay to any other random person on the internet who grants themselves a title. Which is to say, they should treat it as the opinion of one person. Not completely valueless, but not particularly valuable. Not to say that Wizards hasn't made plenty of mistakes, but really, he's just a guy.
Wizards already pay attention to random people on the internet. They obviously care a great deal about what random Twitter users think and more so than they do what attendees at game conventions think.
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 isn't to mention that you and I are random people on the internet. Why even participate in forums if you believe the opinions of people on the internet are of little to no value?
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?
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.
Every day on these forums people make bold statements and bold claims but shy away from any cogent criticism of these.
Opinions are opinions. Yours are of no more value than mine or his or any other poster's.
I'm not shying away from criticism - quite the opposite. I'm asking for something, anything to back that criticism up besides fallacious Appeal to "Authority". And I'm still waiting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How to Make Dungeons & Dragons a $1 Billion Brand
He's right.
I know he's right. You know he's right.
You can't play D&D without a DM. And without reorienting things so we see the release of more things DMs can use at their tables the brand—and the game with it—will suffer.
In fewer pages than most books we have seen from Wizards in recent years we see single volumes that accommodate whole systems and then some. Other books by those who publish them provide exceptional tools for adventure and campaign generation and more.
Whether we favor running our own homebrew settings is moot. Most players want to explore different worlds. Most DMs could use supplements to help them flesh out their own.
The current approach by WotC is not working. They release books stripped of lore because WotC is afraid of social media feedback, in fact they've hired sensitivity readers to ensure their products won't upset anyone which makes for rather beige content. Typically the books are a setting, with a few new OP classes to get the player to buy the book, a few monsters for the DM and a small self contained module. The issue is, they are trying to sell to everyone to buy rather than the DM and it just doesn't work.
If D&D wants to help DM's then release an actual setting book, with maps, lore and culture. And then release a separate full campaign in said world. Eberon was an appropriate book for the DM - but WotC failed to follow through with a full scale campaign from level 1 to 20, with play time set up that it would last for one year of play. But how many more adventures would the DM buy if they had a campaign for a year, why nothing till that campaign was completed. Its why I believe the paucity of full length campaigns. And how we get such short snippets of content, to encourage buying the next snippet of information.
While I agree with Ben, the current approach appears to be digital to get players buying microtransactions for their characters, which leads to problems. I don't believe there will be anyway to convince the execs other than to focus on the virtual table top. It sounds like at the end he wants to start DM contests, which would be reverse tournament modules but rating the DM instead. There have been some DM contests before at conventions however. Rather than going to the extremes mentioned at the end, although yes a DM school would be profitable, I'm not keen on certifying someone to be an official 5E DM, it brings back visions of Gygax telling you in the 1E DMG about how you can only use official D&D miniatures or adventures or its not really D&D. Frankly, D&D should encourage adventurers league again at shops and should be pushing conventions including helping conventions by sending emails to their mailing list and hobby shops to get players to sign up. The more in person activity D&D can encourage, the more sales they will have. But I just don't see them realizing it, and its a shame. See how D&D hasn't been attending conventions for quite some time now as an example of not understanding face to face interaction with their customers.
I saw just today mention of how Wizards haven't even had a real presence at gaming conventions in years.
They are out of touch.
Consumers are fickle. If Wizards continue on a path where instead of providing for DMs they're just trying to sell books and subscriptions to players and particularly new players D&D will inevitably succumb to the same fate others have. Decline. Replacement.
I do mostly agree with he said.
To spin off of a point made by Portential, I think one major issue is the hybrid books. When I was in Italy (bear with me, here), we'd have gelatos (ice creams) regularly. There were two kinds of places that sold them - gelaterias (dedicated shops that sold just gelatos and related products) and bars (not what we think of when we use that word, but places that sell all kinds of snacks and drinks). We avoided bars like the plague and only ever went to gelaterias, because they were dedicated to perfecting gelatos. As a result, gelaterias, with the usual caveat that YMMV and there were exceptions, were generally much better in quality and much more consistent.
These hybrid books are like the bars. They're trying to cram in so many disparate things to appeal to everyone...that none of them really rise to the quality of good. It feels like WotC are trying to pressure everyone to buy everything by including something for everyone, and ends up providing not much for anyone.
Take Spelljammer - we got a short bestiary that's of no interest to players (but of significant interest to DMs), a very short adventure that's of no interest to players and due to its brevity is of little interest to DMs, and a rulebook/setting book with races that is somewhat of interest for players and quite a bit interest for DMs, but both finding that they have to skip large chunks. MotM had a similar problem - a large chunk at the beginning dedicated to PC races and of no interest to DMs, then a bestiary of no interest to players. It was useful for me though, where our party is our family, so it's all useful - less so for some I know where they're only a player or only a DM.
They need to focus their books again. Certainly into two streams - DM facing and player facing. Ideally more divide - rulebooks, setting/lore/deep dive books, adventures and then player books that have character options, etc.
There is nothing wrong with trying to sell to players, and it's a good thing. The problem is when they start trying to get everyone to buy everything. Not only is quality compromised, but content becomes too expensive. I can't afford to buy Spelljammer for half a dozen character options! Nor a mere 4 level adventure. The setting book wasn't carrying it's weight either. Instead, they should have products focused on the player. Have a few books that target the 80% as well as ones that target the 20% rather than ones that provide little for everyone.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's always amusing to see someone criticize unprecedented success because it doesn't cater specifically to them
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)
I read through the whole article.
The parts that aren't banal ("Make DMs lives easier!" Wow what a revelatory concept that's completely at odds with everything they're currently doing...) or weirdly condescending ("Hey, did you guys know D&D isn't a video game?") are just poorly explained. He presents his suggestions as though how they'll lead to increased adoption and therefore profit are completely self-evident with no elaboration at all. The whole thing is just bizarre.
And even if everything he suggested truly would lead to increased adoption I don't agree with all of it anyway. Shorter books - the campaign setting stuff is shorter than it's ever been (see Spelljammer and Dragonlance); we haven't had a proper one since Ravenloft and it's just been gazetteers and player guides ever since. The Campaign authorship stuff, how many people are pitching and authoring today and why are the proposed numbers better? Playtesting included in the production cycle, uhh, they are doing that and it's definitely measured in months. Game designers should get paid like game designers in other fields, you can see the salary ranges on WotC's careers site and that's currently happening.
I'm sure Ben's heart is in the right place but this letter is almost entirely useless.
By "shorter books" he means modules and adventures. And books that come boxed together. With a player's guide and a DM's guide to the setting in question. Like in the past.
Maybe these could then be printed as softcovers instead of cheaply glued together hardcovers? Cheaply glued together hardcovers they still sell for more than they're worth.
Wizards should pay no attention to the D&D historian? They should instead pay attention to players who just want more and more player options? Their DMs be damned? Then when many of those new players who only started to play because of Critical Roll and COVID move on to the next cool thing?
Critical Roll are developing their own game. Watch them become the competitor Paizo might have been. Maybe when there are fewer and fewer people to play with you might reconsider your dismissive attitude.
What's "almost entirely useless" are most of the books Wizards have put out for the current edition beyond the core rule books. Even 4th ed. put out a decent follow-up to the DM's guide.
DMs are turning to third-party publishers or even other games because the official version of it is no longer DM-friendly.
Don't complain when there is no one left to run the game in which you want to play something from the umpteenth UA release.
They should pay about as much attention to him as they pay to any other random person on the internet who grants themselves a title. Which is to say, they should treat it as the opinion of one person. Not completely valueless, but not particularly valuable. Not to say that Wizards hasn't made plenty of mistakes, but really, he's just a guy.
Having been to Italy several times myself, I 100% get what you mean, and you’re not wrong. It’s a solid analogy.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So... any response to the actual points I raised?
Even if I agreed with you that this guy correctly diagnosed some kind of endemic problem at WotC (which I obviously don't), neither he nor you have explained how the "solutions" are supposed to work. It's just Underpants Gnome logic. "Step 1: Do the stuff I listed. Step 2: ???? Step 3: Profit."
Also - as Pantagruel said, "D&D Historian," even if it somehow were a title that meant anything, would just be Appeal to Authority in lieu of an actual argument. And I don't see it as even being that.
I disagree with his points because he didn't deign to explain any of them. His "expertise" (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it.
EDIT: The post I was responding to appears to have been self-deleted or nuked.
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.
Wizards already pay attention to random people on the internet. They obviously care a great deal about what random Twitter users think and more so than they do what attendees at game conventions think.
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 isn't to mention that you and I are random people on the internet. Why even participate in forums if you believe the opinions of people on the internet are of little to no value?
Every day on these forums people make bold statements and bold claims but shy away from any cogent criticism of these.
Opinions are opinions. Yours are of no more value than mine or his or any other poster's.
I disagree. As a GM I don't want to spend money on books with player options. I'm not going to use them. One or more players can buy them and bring them to the table.
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?
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.
I'm not shying away from criticism - quite the opposite. I'm asking for something, anything to back that criticism up besides fallacious Appeal to "Authority". And I'm still waiting.