Ryan Dancey's letter on the death of TSR

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Shipyard Locked

How long do I have?
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
2,673
Reaction score
5,725
Because not everyone has seen this infamous document and it never fails to spark interesting discussions: Written March 16, 2000

In the winter of 1997, I traveled to Lake Geneva Wisconsin on a secret mission. In the late fall, rumors of TSR's impending bankruptcy had created an opportunity to made a bold gamble that the business could be saved by an infusion of capital or an acquisition with a larger partner. After a hasty series of phone calls and late night strategy sessions, I found myself standing in the snow outside of 201 Sheridan Springs Road staring at a building bearing a sign that said "TSR, Incorporated".

Inside the building, I found a dead company.

In the halls that had produced the stuff of my childhood fantasies, and had fired my imagination and become unalterably intertwined with my own sense of self, I found echoes, empty desks, and the terrible depression of lost purpose.

The life story of a tree can be read by a careful examination of its rings. The life story of a corporation can be read by a careful examination of its financial records and corporate minutes.

I was granted unprecedented access to those records. I read the TSR corporate log book from the first page penned in haste by Gary Gygax to the most recent terse minutes dictated to a lawyer with no connection to hobby gaming. I was able to trace the meteoric rise of D&D as a business, the terrible failure to control costs that eventually allowed a total outsider to take control away from the founders, the slow and steady progress to rebuild the financial solvency of the company, and the sudden and dramatic failure of that business model. I read the euphoric copyright filings for the books of my lost summers: "Player's Handbook", "Fiend Folio", "Oriental Adventures". I read the contract between Gary and TSR where Gary was severed from contact with the company he had founded and the business he had nurtured and grown. I saw the clause where Gary, forced to the wall by ruthless legal tactics was reduced to insisting to the right to use his own name in future publishing endeavors, and to take and keep control of his personal D&D characters. I read the smudged photocopies produced by the original Dragonlance Team, a group of people who believed in a new idea for gaming that told a story across many different types of products. I saw concept artwork evolve from lizard men with armor to unmistakable draconians. I read Tracy Hickman's one page synopsis of the Dragonlance Story. I held the contract between Tracy and Margaret for the publication of the three Chronicles novels. I read the contract between Ed Greenwood and TSR to buy his own personal game world and transform it into the most developed game setting in history - the most detailed and explored fantasy world ever created.

And I read the details of the Random House distribution agreement; an agreement that TSR had used to support a failing business and hide the fact that TSR was rotten at the core. I read the entangling bank agreements that divided the copyright interests of the company as security against default, and realized that the desperate arrangements made to shore up the company's poor financial picture had so contaminated those rights that it might not be possible to extract Dungeons & Dragons from the clutches of lawyers and bankers and courts for years upon end. I read the severance agreements between the company and departed executives which paid them extraordinary sums for their silence. I noted the clauses, provisions, amendments and agreements that were piling up more debt by the hour in the form of interest charges, fees and penalties. I realized that the money paid in good faith by publishers and attendees for GenCon booths and entrance fees had been squandered and that the show itself could not be funded. I discovered that the cost of the products that company was making in many cases exceeded the price the company was receiving for selling those products. I toured a warehouse packed from floor to 50 foot ceiling with products valued as though they would soon be sold to a distributor with production stamps stretching back to the late 1980s. I was 10 pages in to a thick green bar report of inventory, calculating the true value of the material in that warehouse when I realized that my last 100 entries had all been "$0"'s.

I met staff members who were determined to continue to work, despite the knowledge that they might not get paid, might not even be able to get in to the building each day. I saw people who were working on the same manuscripts they'd been working on six months earlier, never knowing if they'd actually be able to produce the fruits of their labor. In the eyes of those people (many of whom I have come to know as friends and co-workers), I saw defeat, desperation, and the certain knowledge that somehow, in some way, they had failed. The force of the human, personal pain in that building was nearly overwhelming - on several occasions I had to retreat to a bathroom to sit and compose myself so that my own tears would not further trouble those already tortured souls.

I ran hundreds of spreadsheets, determined to figure out what had to be done to save the company. I was convinced that if I could just move enough money from column A to column B, that everything would be ok. Surely, a company with such powerful brands and such a legacy of success could not simply cease to exist due to a few errors of judgment and a poor strategic plan?

I made several trips to TSR during the frenzied days of negotiation that resulted in the acquisition of the company by Wizards of the Coast. When I returned home from my first trip, I retreated to my home office; a place filled with bookshelves stacked with Dungeons & Dragons products. From the earliest games to the most recent campaign setting supplements - I owned, had read, and loved those products with a passion and intensity that I devoted to little else in my life. And I knew, despite my best efforts to tell myself otherwise, that the disaster I kept going back to in Wisconsin was the result of the products on those shelves.

When Peter put me in charge of the tabletop RPG business in 1998, he gave me one commission: Find out what went wrong, fix the business, save D&D. Vince also gave me a business condition that was easy to understand and quite direct. "God damnit, Dancey", he thundered at me from across the conference table: "Don't lose any more money!"

That became my core motivation. Save D&D. Don't lose money. Figure out what went wrong. Fix the problem.

Back into those financials I went. I walked again the long threads of decisions made by managers long gone; there are few roadmarks to tell us what was done and why in the years TSR did things like buy a needlepoint distributorship, or establish a west coast office at King Vedor's mansion. Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse? Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme? Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games? Why, when it was so desperate for cash, had it invested in a million dollar license for content used by less than 10% of the marketplace? Why had a successful game line like Dragonlance been forcibly uprooted from its natural home in the D&D game and transplanted to a foreign and untested new game system? Why had the company funded the development of a science fiction game modeled on D&D - then not used the D&D game rules?

In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.

No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.

In today's hypercompetitive market, that's an impossible mentality. At Wizards of the Coast, we pay close attention to the voice of the customer. We ask questions. We listen. We react. So, we spent a whole lot of time and money on a variety of surveys and studies to learn about the people who play role playing games. And, at every turn, we learned things that were not only surprising, they flew in the face of all the conventional wisdom we'd absorbed through years of professional game publishing.

We heard some things that are very, very hard for a company to hear. We heard that our customers felt like we didn't trust them. We heard that we produced material they felt was substandard, irrelevant, and broken. We heard that our stories were boring or out of date, or simply uninteresting. We heard the people felt that >we< were irrelevant.

I know now what killed TSR. It wasn't trading card games. It wasn't Dragon Dice. It wasn't the success of other companies. It was a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy. TSR died because it was deaf.

Amazingly, despite all those problems, and despite years of neglect, the D&D game itself remained, at the core, a viable business. Damaged; certainly. Ailing; certainly. But savable? Absolutely.

Our customers were telling us that 2e was too restrictive, limited their creativity, and wasn't "fun to play'? We can fix that. We can update the core rules to enable the expression of that creativity. We can demonstrate a commitment to supporting >your< stories. >Your< worlds. And we can make the game fun again.

Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.

Our customers were telling us that we spent too much time on our own worlds, and not enough time on theirs? Ok - we can fix that. We can re-orient the business towards tools, towards examples, towards universal systems and rules that aren't dependent on owning a thousand dollars of unnecessary materials first.

Our customers were telling us that they prefer playing D&D nearly 2:1 over the next most popular game option? That's an important point of distinction. We can leverage that desire to help get them more people to play >with< by reducing the barriers to compatibility between the material we produce, and the material created by other companies.

Our customers told us they wanted a better support organization? We can pour money and resources into the RPGA and get it growing and supporting players like never before in the club's history. (10,000 paid members and rising, nearly 50,000 unpaid members - numbers currently skyrocketing).

Our customers were telling us that they want to create and distribute content based on our game? Fine - we can accommodate that interest and desire in a way that keeps both our customers and our lawyers happy.

Are we still listening? Yes, we absolutely are. If we hear you asking us for something we're not delivering, we'll deliver it. But we're not going to cater to the specific and unique needs of a minority if doing so will cause hardship to the majority. We're going to try and be responsible shepards of the D&D business, and that means saying "no" to things that we have shown to be damaging to the business and that aren't wanted or needed by most of our customers.

We listened when the customers told us that Alternity wasn't what they wanted in a science fiction game. We listened when customers told us that they didn't want the confusing, jargon filled world of Planescape. We listened when people told us that the Ravenloft concept was overshadowed by the products of a competitor. We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures.

We're not telling anyone what game to play. We are telling the market that we're going to actively encourage our players to stand up and demand that they be listened to, and that they become the center of the gaming industry - rather than the current publisher-centric model. Through the RPGA, the Open Gaming movement, the pages of Dragon Magazine, and all other venues available, we want to empower our customers to do what >they< want, to force us and our competitors to bend to >their< will, to make the products >they< want made.

I want to be judged on results, not rhetoric. I want to look back at my time at the helm of this business and feel that things got better, not worse. I want to know that my team made certain that the mistakes of the past wouldn't be the mistakes of the future. I want to know that we figured out what went wrong. That we fixed it. That we saved D&D. And that god damnit, we didn't lose money.

Thank you for listening,

Sincerely,

Ryan S. Dancey
VP, Wizards of the Coast
Brand Manager, Dungeons & Dragons
 
It’s not a stretch for me to say the Pub might not be here if it wasn’t for Ryan Dancey. He got the OGL rolling and games made with that document reinvigorated my love for RPGs in 2000.
Yeah, there have been missteps along the way, but...

That we fixed it. That we saved D&D. And that god damnit, we didn't lose money.

...WotC are doing pretty well at that. Maybe they'll fuck it up one day, but currently they're being very careful with the brand and it's paying off.
 
This lays out the fundamental problem with 3E. They did too much listening and not enough decision-making.

People want skills? Let's give them skills!
People want monsters that work just like PCs? Throw that in!
People want more mechanical detail to PCs? Do that too!
People want to level up faster? Done!

They did everything that everybody wanted and never thought about how those ideas combined when used together. More mechanical detail to PCs was a reasonable idea by itself. Having monsters work like PCs could have been fine if PCs retained the same mechanical simplicity of early D&D. However, doing both gave you monsters that were a burden for the GM to both prep and use in play.

Upping the mechanical widgets on PC at the same time they sped up character progression also meant that PCs were constantly acquiring new abilities in a way that felt artificial.

The whole thing is classic corporate thinking. Even if 3E had failed, it wouldn't be their fault. They had polls saying this was what people wanted!


And it was a success. It brought a lot of people back to D&D because it was indeed giving them exactly what they thought they wanted. The problems with the system don't occur in the lower levels, so in my case, it was easy to get into a sunk-cost fallacy with the game. I didn't want to pull the plug on a game that had been going well for weeks even at the prep work began to really wear me down and take all the fun out of it.

It's complicated. For all its problems, 3E was an enormous boost for D&D, and as EF points out, the OGL led to a lot of good things. D&D, as a game, not a brand, belongs to everyone now, and that was worth the detour through 3E.

I do have lingering resentment towards the OGL though for leading so many games I liked into D20 or dual-statted versions that failed and sunk them. The gaming scene outside of D20 turned into a wasteland for a while, and I think the whole hobby would have been in very bad shape if PDFs and crowdfunding hadn't come along.
 
Oh yeah, going to the few stores that were still around 10 years ago was awful. Tons and tons of mediocre (I’m being generous) OGL product that everybody wanted but nobody was buying. Looking back though, the good stuff that came out of the OGL outweighed the bad in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
My only complaint about 3E was monsters as detailed as PCs as the only option. Other than that I've had a crap ton of fun with it.
 
Oh yeah, going to the few stores that were still around 10 years ago was awful. Tons and tons of mediocre (I’m being generous) OGL product that everybody wanted but nobody was buying. Looing back though, the good stuff that came out of the OGL outweighed the bad in my eyes.
I agree. In the long run, it has been fantastic for RPGs. Not just for D&D, but other classic games like BRP and Traveller have their own OGLs that set them loose, allowing them to flourish. Plenty of newer games like Fate and Gumshoe have adopted them as well.

It just didn't feel that way in 2005. I'm generally one of those people that rolls my eyes when people fret about the death of RPGs, but that was the one era where visiting game stores really had me concerned. The OGL was an extinction event that had drastically reduced the biodiversity of the gaming scene. With hindsight, we know it grew back healthier than it was in 1999, but it didn't seems at all like a sure thing at the time.

Getting back to Dancey's letter, I found this interesting.
Our customers were telling us that we produced too many products, and that the stuff we produced was of inferior quality? We can fix that. We can cut back on the number of products we release, and work hard to make sure that each and every book we publish is useful, interesting, and of high quality.

It's a valid complaint, and it interesting how badly WotC responded in trying to respond to it. They didn't seem to have a good handle on what is actually useful. They went with book after book of player options when players are quite limited in the number of options they can actually pick during a campaign. I found the enormous choice of feats and prestige classes actually made my players less happy, as they had a constant sense of dissatisfaction at being presented with alternatives they couldn't take.

As many people have noted in the past, they neglected making books that were actually useful for the person running the game. While I am not the biggest fan of adventure paths, WotC has done a much better job at giving the GM products that they can use.

My only complaint about 3E was monsters as detailed as PCs as the only option. Other than that I've had a crap ton of fun with it.

Detailed monsters, along with the length of combat, was my primary complaint, but it was a big one for me.

I did have a lot of fun with it as well. That's the issue. If 3E has just been terrible, I wouldn't have spent so much time putting up with the parts I didn't like, but it was a pretty solid game at low levels. It kept me in a love/hate relationship with the game for years.
 
What’s Ryan been up to lately? The last I read he was involved in Pathfinder Online. Did that ever get off the ground?
 
I agree. In the long run, it has been fantastic for RPGs. Not just for D&D, but other classic games like BRP and Traveller have their own OGLs that set them loose, allowing them to flourish. Plenty of newer games like Fate and Gumshoe have adopted them as well.

It just didn't feel that way in 2005. I'm generally one of those people that rolls my eyes when people fret about the death of RPGs, but that was the one era where visiting game stores really had me concerned. The OGL was an extinction event that had drastically reduced the biodiversity of the gaming scene. With hindsight, we know it grew back healthier than it was in 1999, but it didn't seems at all like a sure thing at the time.

Getting back to Dancey's letter, I found this interesting.


It's a valid complaint, and it interesting how badly WotC responded in trying to respond to it. They didn't seem to have a good handle on what is actually useful. They went with book after book of player options when players are quite limited in the number of options they can actually pick during a campaign. I found the enormous choice of feats and prestige classes actually made my players less happy, as they had a constant sense of dissatisfaction at being presented with alternatives they couldn't take.

As many people have noted in the past, they neglected making books that were actually useful for the person running the game. While I am not the biggest fan of adventure paths, WotC has done a much better job at giving the GM products that they can use.



Detailed monsters, along with the length of combat, was my primary complaint, but it was a big one for me.

I did have a lot of fun with it as well. That's the issue. If 3E has just been terrible, I wouldn't have spent so much time putting up with the parts I didn't like, but it was a pretty solid game at low levels. It kept me in a love/hate relationship with the game for years.
So my group at the time loved combat so 3E and 4e worked good for us.
 
What’s Ryan been up to lately? The last I read he was involved in Pathfinder Online. Did that ever get off the ground?
It is still in Early Enrollment with the last update a month ago. The Youtube video they have embedded on their home page is the same one that was widely mocked three years ago, which doesn't bode well for their progress.

It seemed a terrible mismatch of license and product. Pathfinder is a game famous for its adventure paths. Traditional CRPGs are pretty hot at the moment in the PC seen. A series of CRPGs with adventure paths would have been easy money for them.

Instead, they decided on some crazy PvP MMORPG sandbox idea which was clearly a huge risk.
 
So my group at the time loved combat so 3E and 4e worked good for us.
That brings us back around to the OGL. We live an era where everyone can have the D&D they want and have it supported, so there is a point for Dancey. People that like 3E have Pathfinder, and I have a vast array of retroclones. Everyone wins.

I'll add that I do like combat in games. I just like combat to move quickly in D&D.
 
Are you suggesting that gamers only buy material they'll actually use? :clown: There goes the industry! :hurry:
Well, GMs will buy hundreds of books they will never use. You are lucky if you can get a player to pick up the Player's Handbook. That's the critical error in thinking, "Hey! There are about five players for every GM! Why don't we focus on selling books to the players?"
 
Bwahahaha. No.
Fantasy EVE Online? Yeah, I can see that working.

But using the Pathfinder license? No. That's not what the fans are there for.

(The computer version of their card game is good, but I can't help but feel it's a waste of Obsidian's talents, as possibly the best CRPG makers out there right now; on the other hand, I wouldn't give up Tyranny for anything, so maybe it's a good job they didn't do it.)

Well, GMs will buy hundreds of books they will never use. You are lucky if you can get a player to pick up the Player's Handbook. That's the critical error in thinking, "Hey! There are about five players for every GM! Why don't we focus on selling books to the players?"
I don't know what it is, but for many games, only two of us will have rulebooks (And that's usually the GM and me); D&D is one of the few where everyone at the table will have their own book and associated play aids.

(The other games like this are local group favourites - SLA, Ars Magica, and Shadowrun)
 
Well, GMs will buy hundreds of books they will never use. You are lucky if you can get a player to pick up the Player's Handbook. That's the critical error in thinking, "Hey! There are about five players for every GM! Why don't we focus on selling books to the players?"
You have the wrong players. My last group everyone was rabid completionists.
 
I don't know what it is, but for many games, only two of us will have rulebooks (And that's usually the GM and me); D&D is one of the few where everyone at the table will have their own book and associated play aids.

Okay, I will concede that D&D players almost always will buy the Players Handbook, and maybe a relevant splatbook for the editions that have those. I think its because D&D is a staple. The players feel they will get their money's worth. If the GM wants to run something else, the players are less likely to throw money down on something that might be used for just a few sessions.

So, the 3E model works for two books. It's just that WotC would tend to skew a lot of its books towards PCs even when they weren't explicitly for PCs. Something like Sandstorm, the book on desert adventures, would devote a lot of space to things like desert feats and prestige classes that nobody ever took.

(The other games like this are local group favourites - SLA, Ars Magica, and Shadowrun)
Ars Magica is a game that only works when everyone own the book and knows the rules.
 
Bah, You are just recruiting groups from statistical outliers in order to spite me. I see what you are up to. :wink:
I live to spite!

Sadly both groups are now dead or on hiatus or I'm on the outside with.
 
I loved 3e. 3.5 was brilliant imo. It probably stands out as one of my all time favorites and is tied for Shadowrun 3e for the amount of time I have sunk into a system.
 
This lays out the fundamental problem with 3E. They did too much listening and not enough decision-making.
Still, it was a much-needed course correction, even if it was an over-correction. And they have learned since then.

One of the things I've learned from writing software is to listen to what the customer wants and then sell them on what they really need. Listening cannot happen uncritically or you'll give the customer exactly what they asked for and then get blamed when it doesn't do anything useful.
 
Still, it was a much-needed course correction, even if it was an over-correction. And they have learned since then.

Yes. It's really easy for me to nitpick with full hindsight. The system looked good to me in 2000.

One of the things I've learned from writing software is to listen to what the customer wants and then sell them on what they really need. Listening cannot happen uncritically or you'll give the customer exactly what they asked for and then get blamed when it doesn't do anything useful.
True. Requirements gathering is a delicate art.

Perhaps 3E was an elaborate stunt by a secret cabal of grognards who made an edition that gave everyone everything they thought they wanted in order to teach them they didn't want it after all, prompting the success of the OSR. It is all so obvious now!
 
It is still in Early Enrollment with the last update a month ago. The Youtube video they have embedded on their home page is the same one that was widely mocked three years ago, which doesn't bode well for their progress.

It seemed a terrible mismatch of license and product. Pathfinder is a game famous for its adventure paths. Traditional CRPGs are pretty hot at the moment in the PC seen. A series of CRPGs with adventure paths would have been easy money for them.

Instead, they decided on some crazy PvP MMORPG sandbox idea which was clearly a huge risk.

I suspect it's a (lack of) money thing. Making video games is expensive. Making video games with PvE content even more so. It's far cheaper to make the players each other's content instead.

Another aspect that shows a lack of money is actually charging alpha testers a monthly subscription fee, including those that backed the Kickstarter campaign.
 
Fantasy EVE Online? Yeah, I can see that working.

But using the Pathfinder license? No. That's not what the fans are there for.

It was amusing that when this was brought up in the initial Kickstarter campaign, the developers actively tried to persuade Pathfinder tabletop gamers that they should want to play in a gankbox.
 
I wonder what the product was that was sitting in the warehouse from the late 80s.
 
Ryan might like it here. I don't think we would get the torches and pitchforks out.
 
One of the best OGL games of the 00s was Mutants & Masterminds and I absolutely remember seeing that for the first time at Borders. It became much more complex with 2e, but one of the things I really appreciated about it was Kenson breaking down the d20 system to its nuts and bolts and building it back up again with point buy.
 
I think that 3E and the OGL was one of the better things to happen to the hobby in the long run.

Yes, the D20 Boom and subsequent bust was pretty bad, contributing to a major RPG recession in the mid-to-late 2000's (the negative reception that D&D 4E got didn't help matters), but without the OGL that 3E gave us, we would not have Pathfinder, which helped rejuvenate the RPG hobby in the wake of the D20 Bust and 4E and eventually set the stage for the smash success that is D&D 5E.

We also would not have the OSR without 3E and the OGL.

D&D 3.5 was my first RPG, even if my early games were heavily house-ruled and had more in common with AD&D or Basic D&D when I look back in retrospect. So, I will always have a place in my heart for D&D 3E and its derivatives.
 
Ryan might like it here. I don't think we would get the torches and pitchforks out.

Well, I have no reason to care one way or the other...I stopped buying D&D products when they were still published by TSR, so nothing Wizards of the Coast has done has had the opportunity to offend me!:thumbsup:
 
I wonder what the product was that was sitting in the warehouse from the late 80s.

It was largely Buck Rogers XXVc. Despite being a great game IMO, it did not sell well at all. People saw "Buck Rogers" and immediately (and incorrectly) associated it with the '70s space disco-riffic Gil Gerard television show, and was turned off even though the game's setting had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, the game largely had nothing to do with Buck Rogers at all. Anyhoo, about three years into the game line, TSR nixed the "Buck Rogers" from the game title and renamed it to just XXVc, but it didn't help. A year later, the entire game line was scrapped in favor of an extremely short lived new Buck Rogers RPG set in the original comic strip continuity, which died out of the gate.

This left a vast amount of Buck Rogers XXVc product sitting in a warehouse (from the board game to the RPG to the novels), untouched for over a decade. Around 2004 or so, WotC offloaded the old product that they inherited to Paizo. For a few years in the mid-to-late '00s, you could buy brand new shrink wrapped Buck Rogers XXVc game materials on both Paizo's online store and eBay. That's how I rebuilt my Buck Rogers XXVc collection from scratch around 2006.
 
Yes. It's really easy for me to nitpick with full hindsight. The system looked good to me in 2000.


True. Requirements gathering is a delicate art.

Perhaps 3E was an elaborate stunt by a secret cabal of grognards who made an edition that gave everyone everything they thought they wanted in order to teach them they didn't want it after all, prompting the success of the OSR. It is all so obvious now!
I've really rarely seen anyone with an issue with 3e... at least not 3.5. I thought it was a rather successful system overall. It had flaws, sure, but in the end it made up for that with incredible versatility and an ease of making house rules or content.
I play 5e now, but I still MUCH prefer 3.5 overall.
 
I’m sure it is a little. Ryan does have an ego.

Nobody does jack shit in this world if they don't have a hungry ego demanding to be fed. Most people didn't begrudge the late Gygax for his enormous ego over creating D&D; I find it a curious thing that people begrudge Dancey's ego so much more, when he preserved D&D for gamers who grew up with Gygax, and introduced to millions of budding young gamers who'd never heard of him.

No shit, I know many more gamers now who got their start after the turn of the century-- with d20 and the OGL-- than I ever knew gamers who got their start before it.

I'm not trying to ride this guy's jock or say he did any of it selflessly, but let's give credit where credit is due: without Ryan Dancey's work putting TSR back on its legs and spearheading the Open Gaming License, our hobby would be a fraction of the size and a fraction of the variety is now, neither the OSR nor the Indie movement would have found their voices, and none of us would be gathered together on forums like this one talking about Ryan Dancey's fucking ego and all the games it has made it possible for us to play.

It's always good to be able to criticize our heroes, as long as we remember why we're doing so.
 
What’s Ryan been up to lately? The last I read he was involved in Pathfinder Online. Did that ever get off the ground?

I believe he's back with AEG.

Well, GMs will buy hundreds of books they will never use. You are lucky if you can get a player to pick up the Player's Handbook. That's the critical error in thinking, "Hey! There are about five players for every GM! Why don't we focus on selling books to the players?"

The fact that player option splatbooks outsell GM-oriented products has proven true across so many different games and so many different companies, though, that it can't really be disputed. (The problem with your math, BTW, is that the "buy everything" GMs also buy the splatbooks; so even if you're talking about a group where the players refuse to buy anything, you're still maximizing your potential sales with that group.)

The problem is that the splatbooks aren't what generate a game's success: Those are adventure modules and anything else you can produce which will make it easier for GMs to continue running campaigns and for new GMs to start running campaigns. But, to be fair, that wasn't Ryan's error: He understood the importance of adventure modules. They're one of the primary reasons he created the OGL: So that WotC could essentially outsource that job to other companies, while reaping the benefit of the "evergreen" products.

There were a number of reasons why Dancey's strategy didn't fully pan out (mostly stemming from or resulting in the fact that WotC very rapidly abandoned the strategy):

- The evergreen products failed. Partly because they were addressing areas of play people weren't interested in. Partly because the first evergreen products (Epic Level Handbook and the original Psionics Handbook) were poorly designed. Partly because WotC stopped placing the content of the "evergreen" products into the OGL, which meant they weren't getting supported. (I've also come to believe that such evergreen products need to unlock new, robust game structures -- not just be a random collection of mechanics.)

- Star Wars D20 was a clusterfuck, creating a broken template for "D20 games" that negated the system mastery which was the entire point of the OGL. The relatively tepid sales of the other D20 games (along with some other problems, like the botched acquisition of Last Unicorn Games) also resulted in WotC abandoning additional D20 games.

- Without non-D&D games to develop, the strategy essentially meant that WotC would have needed to start firing designers. (The whole point was to radically streamline the number of D&D products they were developing. If there are no books for the developers to work on, then...) Institutionally, the company wasn't prepared to do that, which meant that they rapidly began developing the exact types of products that the OGL was supposed to render obsolete for them.

- But WotC was already locked into product formats for several of these product types (like the class splatbooks) that couldn't compete with the OGL-produced products in terms of production values (WotC was producing softcover B&W books; the rest of the industry outflanked them). They needed to reboot their product lines to fix the problem, which caused the premature move to 3.5 (and the deliberate decision to change just enough stuff to make it non-compatible with 3.0; which probably would have been fine, except they lied to all the OGL/D20 producers and claimed it was remain compatible, causing months of product development to be wasted and causing local game stores to get stuck with tens of thousands of dollars of dead stock).

Despite all that (and more!), the fundamental strength of Dancey's OGL business plan was so solid that it was nevertheless a massive success for the industry, D&D, and WotC. (And continues to be so.)
 
I've always wondered how Paizo was able to make Pathfinder independent of the core rulebooks. They reprinted much of the content. i thought that broke the OGL rules?
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top