Looks like WotC has pulled the plug on both their 'Living Campaigns' and the RPGA. That leaves Encounters and their in-the-works 'Expert' in store adventures. Because community-only support worked so well for the D&D miniatures game....

Is it just me, or are they making some very odd decisions?

The Auld Grump

Looks like they are focusing on sales rather than marketing - which products are directly profitable, rather than which products attract and retain profitable customers. 'Tis a recipe for short term profits and long term decline.

I have always been under the impression that the RPGA stuff wasn't as popular as it could be. Now, that is limited to my direct vicinity, but I have never had anyone refute the claim.

I think there are some distinctly different things going on than most people suspect.

First... all 4e DMs are running everything from scratch. There is no other choice. Plus, 4e makes it dead easy. By definition this will preselect for a different kind of DM\Player than anyone expecting something premade. (Note: I'm likely to run Kingmaker in Pathfinder simply because I haven't got the time to do everything form scratch.)

Also, WOTC probably has some other ideas about how to get the best bang for their buck. While LFR and Encounters are bringing in new players by the tens of thousands, WOTC has been mum as to what the conversion rate is to real buying players.

I think its also important not to compare past market successes to current market conditions. Times are different, and I'm not sure as many folks are waiting to sit it out at their LGS, when they could sit at home and play Team Fortress. (Hmm... I wonder if it just gets doubly harder as we all leave high school\university.)


I don't doubt that Paizo has figured out the adventure/campaign cycle, I have noticed that their stuff is starting to stink up the shelves. There's also a lot of incomplete adventure paths sitting around too.

I honestly don't know - I run one and two half games, and could run four a week (and did, because I'm an idiot) if I wanted to run them. It can't be that hard to get folks together.

Maybe it's because I don't run 4e, but I seem to get plenty of players. I actually have more folks who want to play 3.X/Pathfinder than I have ever had. And these are folks who 4e did not attract, not conversions. Up until I got drafted to run that all-beginners game I thought that my experience was unusual, but apparently there are folks, brand new to the hobby, that don't like the way 4e handles things. (Pathfinder, It's Not Just For Grognards, Anymore.)

WotC is trying for an audience that does not seem to stick around.

I think Encounters, and 4e in general, really is WotC's attempt to pull in 'Casual Gamers' - who are the folks that Blizzard considers their bread and butter. But I also think that it is a foolish move - they are losing a market that actually spends money to try for one that may or may not do so. And, at this point, sales seem to be bearing out my suspicions. (Word from a friendly-not-so-local-game-store - Lots of people, no buying. Lots of teens an' tweens, who then buy Magic cards.... Maybe that is what WotC is really after? Not D&D sales, but attendant Magic sales?)

Don't bother with a campaign! Fill your night with a short and meaningless encounter! You will never need to build a meaningful relationship, go for instant gratification! Gods, even in my head it sounds like a series of one night stands.

The problem is that a lot of folks do want something more than a one night stand. They want something that they can build on, something that will be remembered, and those memories cherished.

The Auld Grump, who's only 'one night stand' has been going on for over a decade....

(There have been a couple of threads about the success, or otherwise, of 4e, most recently .)

Regarding abbandoning the RPGA, WOTC's does seem to be jamming itself even more solidly into the mold of rules publisher. In the process they're overlooking the fact that the tabletop RPG market is flooded with rules, not least of which are earlier versions and spin-offs of their own D&D.

I think they needed to abandon the RPGA for the simple reason that it couldn't coexist successfully with their 'all rules are canon' and 'we'll constantly be releasing new rules' strategies. To encourage sales of new rules they would want to roll them into each RPGA adventure. But this would drive the effective cost of participating in the RPGA through the roof. If they kept the RPGA costs down by not including new rules, they would end up with two conflicting versions of canon: one being what was published; the other being the reduced set of rules used and promoted by their most active customers, the RPGA participants.
= End result: RPGA has to go.