Decline Sword Coast Legends - RIP n-Space!

[DeepOcean]

If you want to make a game for 7 yr olds by all means do. Just don't expect me to care.

That was what killed RPGs man.
"Can we make a game that 7 years old can play?"
"No? RPG mechanics are too complex?"
"Let's make a shooter then."

 

[Telengard]

cross competing with MTG against themselves

What the hell does this even mean?

Gotta get yourself into the mind of a suit. Drill these words into your brian - Market investment, synergy, ROI. Repeat them to yourself until you think they're the awesomest words in the human language. And...

Hasbro has all but openly stated that they bought WotC solely for Magic the Gathering. And of special note, Hasbro has consistently singled out MtG for special praise year after year during investor meetings. And that's, you know, competing with the likes of Monopoly. That's golden goose shit right there.

So, the goal in a suit's head is to synergize products, in order to cause each product to actively support and increase the sales of its related products. As in, Disney insisting on plugging other Marvel movies in their current Marvel movies, games, and comics. And vice versa. With MtG, Hasbro have a line of tabletop and video games that they see as actively synergizing. And the comment from Mr. Simmons is that the suits believe D&D, rather than synergizing with MtG products, is instead actively competing with them. And that competition translates to less money, which makes your suit brain freak out.

But why would it compete? Because if the target market for MtG and D&D is the same people, and those people have limited income and are only going to pour money into one line of products (such as if they're kids), then every purchase of a D&D product is a potential non-purchase of the MtG entry level gambling addiction product line. Looking at the books. With MtG profits being higher, the profit margins on cards being way higher than hardcover books, and the full product line of MtG being purchased by every single player multiple times to get the rares (with D&D, module and world book sales absolutely suck in the sales ratios of number of players v number of purchasers). And so, that place where they removed your brain and inserted dollar signs when making you a suit, that place gets a huge boner about MtG profit potentials.

It is a given that Hasbro doesn't want anything killing the golden goose of MtG. And Mr. Simmons' comment is that they will actively sabotage D&D so as to proactively prevent D&D from robbing MtG of new gambling addicts players.

 

[Irenaeus III]

The takeaway, nuke Hasbro and kill MtG players.

 

[Mustawd]

And so, that place where they removed your brain and inserted dollar signs when making you a suit, that place gets a huge boner about MtG profit potentials.

I'm a semi-suit, and I have one right now.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I don't really buy the "they want it to tank" idea. Why make a 5e then at all? DnD is really small compared to Magic (DnD isn't even mentioned in their financials, unlike games like "Littlest pet shop") and I think rather mobile is a threat to Magic than DnD. They don't have a competitive mobile/digital CCG. They have a low end one and a super high end one, but not a core gamer / mid tier one (but they will build one as they recently announced).

I just saw that Hasbro are shitlords, they have a "boys" (Star Wars) and a "girls" (MLP) category in their financial report. If only they knew.

 

[DavidBVal]

cross competing with MTG against themselves

What the hell does this even mean?

Gotta get yourself into the mind of a suit. Drill these words into your brian - Market investment, synergy, ROI. Repeat them to yourself until you think they're the awesomest words in the human language. And...

Hasbro has all but openly stated that they bought WotC solely for Magic the Gathering. And of special note, Hasbro has consistently singled out MtG for special praise year after year during investor meetings. And that's, you know, competing with the likes of Monopoly. That's golden goose shit right there.

So, the goal in a suit's head is to synergize products, in order to cause each product to actively support and increase the sales of its related products. As in, Disney insisting on plugging other Marvel movies in their current Marvel movies, games, and comics. And vice versa. With MtG, Hasbro have a line of tabletop and video games that they see as actively synergizing. And the comment from Mr. Simmons is that the suits believe D&D, rather than synergizing with MtG products, is instead actively competing with them. And that competition translates to less money, which makes your suit brain freak out.

But why would it compete? Because if the target market for MtG and D&D is the same people, and those people have limited income and are only going to pour money into one line of products (such as if they're kids), then every purchase of a D&D product is a potential non-purchase of the MtG entry level gambling addiction product line. Looking at the books. With MtG profits being higher, the profit margins on cards being way higher than hardcover books, and the full product line of MtG being purchased by every single player multiple times to get the rares (with D&D, module and world book sales absolutely suck in the sales ratios of number of players v number of purchasers). And so, that place where they removed your brain and inserted dollar signs when making you a suit, that place gets a huge boner about MtG profit potentials.

It is a given that Hasbro doesn't want anything killing the golden goose of MtG. And Mr. Simmons' comment is that they will actively sabotage D&D so as to proactively prevent D&D from robbing MtG of new gambling addicts players.

I think we're entering the realm of paranoia. They just released a very good edition, and they're being active and smart about it. I mean, if they believe at some point, closing the franchise forever earns 1 more dollar than keeping it alive, they'll put it into a grave. But they're doing the opposite.

 

[Mustawd]

I mean, if they believe at some point, closing the franchise forever earns 1 more dollar than keeping it alive, they'll put it into a grave. But they're doing the opposite.

This. Makes no sense to keep something like this alive at all if that were true. If the IP is purely defensive (i.e. acquired just so no one else will have it), then why not just hold the license and shut down the division? By Telengard's theory, the mere existence of D&D is costing sales. At the very least you're throwing money away instead of using it elsewhere.

Again, on paper SCL is not a bad idea. RTwP cRPG in a time of renewed interest in isometric style RPGs? Check. Multiplayer that's accessible without having to learn scripting? Check. Game that will have a lite DM mode, hopefully introducing new players to PnP? Check.

I mean it's a win on all levels...if executed correctly. Again, they misfired on the hardcore fan base that wanted more of a true 5e iimplementation and wanted a more robust module creator.

 

[Telengard]

Whether this line of theory is correct or not, I dunno.

But from a business perspective, the niggle with all this is - MtG is related to the D&D license. So, Hasbro has to hold onto the D&D license, at least in a kinda sorta way, in order to be seen as the legit seller of MtG.

Which may seem weird on the surface. But the thing about the market is: if, say, they were to allow the D&D brand to lie fallow for too long, somebody else *cough* Paizo *cough* could become the 'true' holders of D&D. At least in the eyes of the market. If they were to let it lie fallow for really long, they could even lose the right to exclusive use of the word 'D&D'. So, they have to release something, in order to preemptively prevent the competition from owning that space. But at the same time they wouldn't want to release things in such a way that it would take new victims custom from the real earner. Burn a little money on a burner to make a lot of money on an earner.

And that's not an unusual corporate tactic, by any means.

Or to take it a different way. What is a Booster Pack? I mean, what is it taking it as a product to be shipped to market. It's a couple sheets of full color printed, semi-nice card stock chopped and packaged by the printer (in China), and it retails for $20 - that's 20 for three sheets of paper, and it's bought up like that by all the gambling addicts players., and they usually buy it multiple times. Whereas, a hardcover book is 200-600 pages of full color glossy paper bound in cardboard, and it retails for $30 - $60, and is bought by a small percentage of the players of the game. Why, even the main book isn't bought by all of the players! Marketing has a fit about that one.

So, it would be a balancing act. Throw some red meat to the hardcore d&d players, to keep them quiet, but keep shoving the bulk of the suckers custom in the direction of MtG. In order to keep raking their wallets as much as possible.

EDIT: The price of cards has fallen from the heyday. It's back down to $12 at my local, and falls even lower online for old packs. Mhm. Things may be a-changen over at WotC.

 

[Infinitron]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are things you can potentially do with D&D that you can't with MtG. The intellectual property...the world of Dominaria hasn't really captured many peoples' imaginations, right? A roleplaying game is inherently more credible for anything with narrative purposes.

 

[Mustawd]

To me it seems more like the fact that Hasbro is saying, "well we don't want to give you too much of a budget right now. Why don't you prove yourself profitable first, and then we'll talk increased focus?"

So they give them enough to do a project here or a project there. But let's face it ..a NWN-like project would be a much more expensive endeavor. Probably one of the appeals of SCL was it's relative limited scope and not a full adoption of D&D or of everything in the universe. That and the upside seemed very big for relatively little as the license was probably all they had to worry about it. They don't take on a ton of risk as much as n-Space does.

 

[Telengard]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are things you can potentially do with D&D that you can't with MtG. The intellectual property...the world of Dominaria hasn't really captured many peoples' imaginations, right? A roleplaying game is inherently more credible for anything with narrative purposes.

I wholly agree. The question has always been not Can some be done with the D&D license? but Will Hasbro ever care about something so outside their normal line of products?

 

[DavidBVal]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are things you can potentially do with D&D that you can't with MtG. The intellectual property...the world of Dominaria hasn't really captured many peoples' imaginations, right? A roleplaying game is inherently more credible for anything with narrative purposes.

I wholly agree. The question has always been not Can some be done with the D&D license? but Will Hasbro ever care about something so outside their normal line of products?

I assume you are talking about cRPGs, because they are doing things extremely right regarding PnP.

In that regard, anything can happen. It can remain there as a hot potato, that none of the suits wants to risk to revive; or, it could one day happen, that they look at NWN1 and NWN2 sales figures and think, "I wonder if we could sell millions of copies again". Maybe the good name of 5E can eventually lead to such a move.

 

[Telengard]

To me it seems more like the fact that Hasbro is saying, "well we don't want to give you too much of a budget right now. Why don't you prove yourself profitable first, and then we'll talk increased focus?"

So they give them enough to do a project here or a project there. But let's face it ..a NWN-like project would be a much more expensive endeavor. Probably one of the appeals of SCL was it's relative limited scope and not a full adoption of D&D or of everything in the universe. That and the upside seemed very big for relatively little as the license was probably all they had to worry about it. They don't take on a ton of risk as much as n-Space does.

Not so so many years ago, Hasbro put all its sections on a profitability timeline. All sections had to raise their revenue to 100 mil or bust. Anyone who made it would, in future, receive full product support. Anyone who didn't would receive secondary support. At that time, WotC released 4e and made a push online for increased revenue. D&D didn't make the cut.

I would imagine if D&D keeps building, Hasbro will eventually revisit their decision. But they're going to, as ever, look at the entire product line, and its year-over-year potential earnings, not its sales of main books. D&D (and roleplaying in general) has always had a problem with long-term earnings potential. Which is one of the problems with having such things in the hands of giant corporations that having nothing to do with roleplaying games.

 

[DavidBVal]

Another thing that probably doesn't help much is the fact that 5e doesn't translate as well to cRPG as 3e did...

 

[Lhynn]

DnD audience is comparatively small, cheap, and noisy. This means that theres not much potential for money making. SCL proves this, brand recognition alone got them shit sales and no one at hasbro is willing to pour the time, money and attention on it when theres more money to be made somewhere else. Unless it happens to fall one someone that actually gives a shit about DnD, we are not going to see any significant change in how the property is handled.

 

[Mustawd]

Even SCL..how much are they really hurting? They have cash flow form the license and they spent some on marketing plus a bit of merchandise to hype SCL. Plus, don't they get some licensing from the new BG game as well?

Again, as long as they make enough money to sort of get close to profitability, then Hasbro will probably keep them around in the hopes they can turn a profit.

 

[prodigydancer]

I was a furious D&D (mostly 2E) fan fifteen or so years ago and I still occasionally feel a pang of when I think about what D&D has become under Hasbro, but then I remember that the same thing has happened to literally everything. Hey, the whole world is cutting corners everywhere so why should D&D be exempt?

The future is here and it's cost-effective.

 

[ArchAngel]

Another thing that probably doesn't help much is the fact that 5e doesn't translate as well to cRPG as 3e did...

I don't know why you would say this. It works even better because there is less little parts for new players to learn or fuck up with while also giving lots of options that change gameplay. For example 5e feats are finally what people on codex always want for their cRPGs, big deals that give real gameplay benefits instead of +1 to attack or something shitty like that.

 

[Havoc]

Why the fuck is this topic alive? Game is utter shit, not worth even the discussion about how shit it is.

 

[ArchAngel]

Why the fuck is this topic alive? Game is utter shit, not worth even the discussion about how shit it is.

Because Infinitron keeps bumping it up with new videos nobody cares or watches.

 

[DavidBVal]

Another thing that probably doesn't help much is the fact that 5e doesn't translate as well to cRPG as 3e did...

I don't know why you would say this. It works even better because there is less little parts for new players to learn or fuck up with while also giving lots of options that change gameplay. For example 5e feats are finally what people on codex always want for their cRPGs, big deals that give real gameplay benefits instead of +1 to attack or something shitty like that.

Well, 5e is definitely a great edition for tabletop, but there's many things in it (not all!) that make it worse suited for a cRPG than 3e, IMHO .

• Dice roll mechanics. things like, roll two dice pick highest/lowest, repeat all 1s and 2s on damage rolls, etc. are fun things on a table with physical dice, but would become a mere "hidden bonus" in a computer game. For instance, roll and pick highest of a d20 (i.e., advantage) is equivalent to something between a +3 and +5. On a PNP game, it is a super-fun idea that simplifies lots of calculations. On a cRPG it becomes a "hidden bonus" and its effects are less clear than a mere +4, harder to predict by the player, and without the charm of the dice roll.
• Game flow interruption. Plenty of exceptions to the normal flow of turns, like "no wait, I want to use indomitable and repeat that failed save". Or "I want to use my bardic inspiration on THAT roll I just made". Implementing something like that means, the game must give you a say on every roll made. Again, wonderful idea for tabletop, not so much for a cRPG, which would need to modify most of those abilities.
• Bounded accuracy and simpler character building. BA is my favorite feature of 5e. Basically, the game becomes a tad more realistic, because everyone can get hit, and it shrinks down the huge power ladder that the 3e 20 levels presented. The old scale 1-20 in bonuses has become a 2-8 scale, which is great for realism, and for story. But for a cRPG, where you will invest maybe 40 hours in combat? I think it would become boring much sooner this way, because the ladder has many less steps now. A better and more realistic system doesn't neccessarily mean more fun, for instance, Darklands or Fallout combat turn boring pretty quick, despite being greatly designed, because the scale is very short and it simply gets old. And the character building/tweaking is now simpler and clearer, yes, but again, if I'm going to go through 20 levels and 50 hours in a game, complexity is welcome. The crazy multiclassing was fun to tweak with in a cRPG, as did the insanity of magic item bonuses. I enjoyed it in the NWNs.

 

[ArchAngel]

Another thing that probably doesn't help much is the fact that 5e doesn't translate as well to cRPG as 3e did...

I don't know why you would say this. It works even better because there is less little parts for new players to learn or fuck up with while also giving lots of options that change gameplay. For example 5e feats are finally what people on codex always want for their cRPGs, big deals that give real gameplay benefits instead of +1 to attack or something shitty like that.

Well, 5e is definitely a great edition for tabletop, but there's many things in it (not all!) that make it worse suited for a cRPG than 3e, IMHO .

• Dice roll mechanics. things like, roll two dice pick highest/lowest, repeat all 1s and 2s on damage rolls, etc. are fun things on a table with physical dice, but would become a mere "hidden bonus" in a computer game. For instance, roll and pick highest of a d20 (i.e., advantage) is equivalent to something between a +3 and +5. On a PNP game, it is a super-fun idea that simplifies lots of calculations. On a cRPG it becomes a "hidden bonus" and its effects are less clear than a mere +4, harder to predict by the player, and without the charm of the dice roll.
• Game flow interruption. Plenty of exceptions to the normal flow of turns, like "no wait, I want to use indomitable and repeat that failed save". Or "I want to use my bardic inspiration on THAT roll I just made". Implementing something like that means, the game must give you a say on every roll made. Again, wonderful idea for tabletop, not so much for a cRPG, which would need to modify most of those abilities.
• Bounded accuracy and simpler character building. BA is my favorite feature of 5e. Basically, the game becomes a tad more realistic, because everyone can get hit, and it shrinks down the huge power ladder that the 3e 20 levels presented. The old scale 1-20 in bonuses has become a 2-8 scale, which is great for realism, and for story. But for a cRPG, where you will invest maybe 40 hours in combat? I think it would become boring much sooner this way, because the ladder has many less steps now. A better and more realistic system doesn't neccessarily mean more fun, for instance, Darklands or Fallout combat turn boring pretty quick, despite being greatly designed, because the scale is very short and it simply gets old. And the character building/tweaking is now simpler and clearer, yes, but again, if I'm going to go through 20 levels and 50 hours in a game, complexity is welcome. The crazy multiclassing was fun to tweak with in a cRPG, as did the insanity of magic item bonuses. I enjoyed it in the NWNs.

• I don't see a problem with dice rolls mechanics. Computers do it themselves and give the player finished result. Advantage bonus does not even need to be explained in detail to players, just told it gives a big bonus.
• Ok interruptions do present a problem, both in RTwP and Turn Based versions, but they can be fixed with lesser changes. Make all abilities active ones that you can only do on your turn or passives ones that activate automatically on enemy turn. Tweek their numbers as needed to make it work. Indomitable could work automatically vs next failed save and have a cooldown before it can be used again to balance it out (instead of after rest). Here SCL did one thing right, having cooldowns for short rest abilities is good. But they needed to keep long rest and abilities linked (and spells) to that.
• This can be solved easily by giving players more access to healing than in PnP to account for more combat. As for character advancement, classes in 5e have more advancement than those in 3e. And there are no crappy unbalanced Prestige classes. Just because your attack and saves advance slower it does not mean you got nothing to get by leveling. New options can easily be added if it is needed, like you choose new skills every X levels instead of at lvl 1 or only with feats, you can also have feats be gained more often (every 3 levels) but stat gains reduced back to +1 every 4 levels. Overall all classes gained more things they get at level up, most of those more interesting options that getting regular boost to attack or saves which is now slower.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Nuke Hasbro and kill MtG players.

Also, 5ed could be easier implemented on a cRPG than 2d AD&D or 3.0/3.5 ed. DavidBVal is out of his mind.

 

[ArchAngel]

5e has less different rule exceptions so in that way it is easier. Most effects and modifiers are advantage or disadvantage but he has a point with abilities interrupting actions outside your turn. That is hard to implement and still be fun to play. It would slow down the combat a lot and need special UI for it.

Also a proper 5e cRPG would most likely be RTwP and interruptions work even worse there.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Turn base is the real way to play D&D, sorry.