I don't think this can be remedied by what basically boils down to rules changes,
given that their problems seem to lie in their brand management structure,
and that too much damage has been caused to the brand already.

I think the only thing that can save D&D now is a high product autonomy: Their future products need to be truly better and different than stuff that is already on the market.
Which frankly, is never something TSR or Wizbro have been very good in, given that most of D&D's 80s success relied on brand recognition through fringe exposure,
through the novel lines, the cartoon, and Dragon magazine. That's a position that D&D will likely not get back, looking at what they have in store for the next few months or years.

But, hey, IMO that can only be good for the gamers - the less Wizbro sell, the friendlier they'll get.

Some things to consider:

4E is not doing poorly. It is still one of the most popular RPGs on the market. Its just that its not doing as well as WotC would have liked. The success of Pathfinder and others is annoying to WotC, but it doesnt mean 4E was a failure on all accounts.

The Old School segment of the fans make up a really small portion of the overall D&D fanbase. Not only that, but a large portion of the Old School segment have very little interest in spending $ on new material, since they already have more than they will ever need.

The problem isnt pleasing the fans, but its pleasing _all_ of the fans. There are tons of people who like 4E and it probably drew lots of new people into the hobby. But it failed to bring a large portion of players from 3E to 4E. Probably a great many more went from 2E to 3E than from 3E to 4E. Of course having Pathfinder around as an option for those who dont want to switch editions is a problem in itself, but I also think the article is spot on about making too dramatic changes away from the former games both in terms of rules and setting features with 4E. They might have been able to pull of one or the other, but both proved tricky, especially if you want to appeal to the existing fan base.

3E was controversial to the old school fan base because the rules seemed different, but it still focused on the same elements (Races, Classes, old settings, magazines etc) making it a very retrospective game in those regards. Perhaps there is a lesson there for those making the next edition...


-Havard

Good point.

No offense, amigos, but we don't really know how popular or unpopular 4e really is, given that Wizbro doesn't give out sales numbers any more.

The only completely valid indicator we have is that the D&D product line is continuously being reduced and shrunk down ever since the last year of 3e,
and that judging by reviews, articles, and overall community interest, 4e wasn't received with the same enthusiasm as 3e.

Now, I would assume, like we all do, that the closing down of Wizbro's roleplaying workshop and the other forms of reduction are measures taken for economical reasons,
not just to fuck with the fans. :wink:

Also, please understand, I am not invested in this emotionallly. Whatever Wizbro decides to do or not to do, doesn't bother me at my gaming table. Like, at all.

However, when I see these corporate monkeys play the blame game, I get annoyed.

We do know some things. I think from 2010 that first showed Pathfinder tieing with 4E and the Warhammer games doing very well too. I'm not sure if I have seen figures for 2011 yet, but it is not unreasonable to assume that the trend is continuing. IIRC these figures are based on sales in stores. WotC has additional income from the DDI. Of course the reason why these figures were so surprising was that TSR/WotC have never before seen any RPG come close to the sales of their flagship.

However WotC doesnt have to perform poorly to be unhappy about their results. The fact that another OGL based company is becoming such a serious rival is a problem in itself becose those customers are potentially D&D customers.


-Havard

Just found the sales :


1 Pathfinder (Paizo)
2 Dungeons & Dragons 4E ( Wizards of the Coast)
3 Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch (Fantasy Flight Games)
4 Dragon Age (Green Ronin Publishing)
5 Shadowrun (Catalyst Game Labs)

Again there could be errors here, but it does give us an idea of the situation.

-Havard

Let us also remember the economy still sucks and people have less money to spend on extras like gaming. Production costs are rising and I am sure Wizards is feeling the bite. You add that into a company seriously compeating with them and an edition that may not be performing as Wizards had hoped. With this you end up with a situation that is less than ideal for any company.

I'd say they are looking at what worked in the past and are trying to apply that to future products. Hopefully they will come up with something that works. As for trying to please everyone, that is not possible. Just look at our corner of the 'net. You have guys that think the game is some sort of holy writ that should not be changed. You also have guys that act like the staff of WOTC robbed their house, slept with their wife and killed their dog. If WOTC released something close to an older edition those guys would not like it for some reason or another. If WOTC was to reprint AD&D there would be guys that wouldn't buy it because it may have a WOTC logo instead of a TSR logo or they used the Wizard Logo instead of the Lizardman one.

WOTC needs to come up with something that can appeal to the broadest set of players and bring in the new blood the hobby needs to keep going. I hope we see this and I hope they succeed as the continuation of the D&D name may just hinge on what WOTC does.

Excellent points Julian!

BTW, I just noticed the Escapist's follow-up article:


-Havard