[Industry] Escapist: State of D&D Present

[Angelo]

New versions of D&D are made mostly to attract new gamers, not to please people who already play D&D. To that end, they will try to appeal to a market share they do not already have.

[Angelo]

One thing is to create a complex ruleset. Another one, to force your customers to read around 1000 pages before they are even able to run things properly.

This entire series of articles really shows that the nerds from the basements at WotC have forgotten what it actually means to *play* a game.

That is exactly it. And they are smart to focus on a certain age group, because when you're young is when you have the most time to play. Their flaw is in thinking that 14 year old boys want to read 1000 pages to play a game rather than just flipping on the new PS3.

[Rafael]

Hehe, thanks.

I also think there is this false idea among fans - and designers, at least, should be aware of it - that D&D "won the 80s" because TSR had the better rules.

They won because they had the best artwork, the highest production values of the time,
and a viral media campaign in their favor that included a cartoon series and an extensive and popular movel line.

For comparison, Troll Lord Games easily put together the best fantasy RPG ruleset in the last decade, and their Castles & Crusades is a margin product.

So, it's not as if rules would necessarily be a selling factor...

[Havard]

Pre-prepared, "we'll do it for you" type games will loose out because video games will do that better. While new generations of gamers may well be different from the older generation, I am sure that there will always be kids out there who are willing to sit down for hours and dream up worlds of their imagination. RPGs are great because they are not limited by technology. Sure a computer generated map looks nicer than anything you could make yourself, but a hand drawn map can stimulate your imagination to no end.

I disagree.

One thing is to create a complex ruleset. Another one, to force your customers to read around 1000 pages before they are even able to run things properly.

I agree with that, but you dont have to read 1000 pages to play 4E. Even going by the core books, you dont really need to read the MM or even the DMG. You dont even have to read all of the PHB. If youre not going to DM, 4E is extremely simple since, once you have picked the handful of powers given to you, all you can do is really choose which power to use that round.


But you missed my point. My point wasnt about the ruleset but about its focus. By shifting the focus towards combat and away from world exploration and roleplaying, the focus is moved away from the things that computers cannot do better than P&P.

Also, as to what Mr Dancey said, not the hobby is dying: D&D as a brand is dying, and WoD as a brand is dead already.

The success of Pathfinder and the 40K games shows that the hobby is very much alive. You are right about that.

But D&D as a brand is not dying. As a brand it is still very strong and used to sell a wide range of games, including RPGS, Video Games, Board Games etc. The board games seem to be doing especially well.

The death of D&D as an RPG brand is also far from dying. WotC may not be happy about their sales, but they are still among the top selling RPGs. That they are getting alot of competition at a time when the economy is bad is reason for them to worry, but not a sign of the death of D&D.

It is tragic what happened to WoD, but I think that the success of that company was too tied up in a temporary youth culture as well as an attitude towards gaming that just got old.

And D&D died by its own hands, as I have, I think, demonstrated pretty well:

I have already commented on this. As much as I personally agree with many of these statements, I think they mainly reflect the opinions of the old guard of gamers. As Angelo says, the main focus will always be on attracting new gamers. But over the last few years I think they probably went too far. New gamers tend to be attracted to what their older gamer friends think is cool too.

But D&D is still very much alive and it is very much possible for WotC to regain their market leadership if they make the right decisions.



-Havard

[Rafael]

Of course, I am not debating YOU, I am debating the, with all the respect, shitty, yet inexplicably popular article.

Asking Ryan Dancey and Andy Collins about the state of RPG and D&D is as smart as asking a liver transplant whether he'd like another glass of wine.


I think you're mistaken though in reducing this to the old gamer vs. new gamers debate, as, generally, is the notion that Wizards is pursuing any consistent tactic here:

They simply created a product that is generally regarded, if not outright bad, inferior to its predecessors.
Yet they decided to stick with it.


And now they get bad press for it. My bad.


That, as far as I see it, is really the whole range of the problem.

[Havard]

Of course, I am not debating YOU, I am debating the, with all the respect, shitty, yet inexplicably popular article.

You really think the article is so bad? I found it rather interesting really.

Asking Ryan Dancey and Andy Collins about the state of RPG and D&D is as smart as asking a liver transplant whether he'd like another glass of wine.

But the series of articles include thoughts not only from former and current WotC representatives, but also from representatives of rival fantasy RPG companies like Eric Mona and Chris Pramas.

I think you're mistaken though in reducing this to the old gamer vs. new gamers debate, as, generally, is the notion that Wizards is pursuing any consistent tactic here:

They simply created a product that is generally regarded, if not outright bad, inferior to its predecessors.

Yes and no. My point is simply that alot of people like 4E.

Yet they decided to stick with it.

Again, yes and no. Both the Essentials line and the hiring of Monte Cook who is most likely there to write 5E does seem like a indication that they are considering other options. Firing Bill Slaviczek is also a good sign that they are reevaluating their position.

-Havard

[Rafael]

You really think the article is so bad? I found it rather interesting really.

Frankly, I think it's incredibly unreflected and pretentious. Also, it's highly speculative and overly dramatic.

But the series of articles include thoughts not only from former and current WotC representatives, but also from representatives of rival fantasy RPG companies like Eric Mona and Chris Pramas.

Whose assessments are very questionable, because they are the producers of the two main competitor products on the US market.
Why should they even be remotely interested in saying anything that strengthens their principal enemy product line? - Like, really?

Again, yes and no. Both the Essentials line and the hiring of Monte Cook who is most likely there to write 5E does seem like a indication that they are considering other options. Firing Bill Slaviczek is also a good sign that they are reevaluating their position.

Oh, I am pretty sure that, as soon as somebody even remotely able takes over the brand management again, things will go uphill again.

Now, if D&D ever gets back to become the standard and gamer favorite, I can't tell. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

Only exception: Wizbro releases OOP books by print on demand. No, I am not thinking 1e and 2e. I am thinking 3e. That would be a blast.

[Angelo]

Hehe, thanks.

I also think there is this false idea among fans - and designers, at least, should be aware of it - that D&D "won the 80s" because TSR had the better rules.

They won because they had the best artwork, the highest production values of the time,
and a viral media campaign in their favor that included a cartoon series and an extensive and popular movel line.

For comparison, Troll Lord Games easily put together the best fantasy RPG ruleset in the last decade, and their Castles & Crusades is a margin product.

So, it's not as if rules would necessarily be a selling factor...

Well I know for me personally, there's a lot less incentive to learn a second ruleset once I already know one. Law of diminishing returns is pretty high on learning new rules: you don't really gain much benefit from all the work you do. You might as well just play the ruleset you already know. Of course there are other factors that increase the reward, like being surrounded by other people who know a particular set of rules.

[Havard]

But the series of articles include thoughts not only from former and current WotC representatives, but also from representatives of rival fantasy RPG companies like Eric Mona and Chris Pramas.

Whose assessments are very questionable, because they are the producers of the two main competitor products on the US market.
Why should they even be remotely interested in saying anything that strengthens their principal enemy product line? - Like, really?

Sure, but I find it interesting to hear what those inside the business think. And while they obviously have an agenda, they say alot more than that. Counter Dancey's emphasis on the casual gamer vs. Mona's focus on the importance of the story.

Now, if D&D ever gets back to become the standard and gamer favorite, I can't tell. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

I think alot will depend on 5E, but also whether Pathfinder can survive another edition. Once they have printed every imaginable sourcebook for PF, will they try to do a PF 2nd Ed? Granted they rely just as much on the Adventure Paths so perhaps they will prefer to keep being the leading game within the OGL market...

-Havard

[Havard]

New versions of D&D are made mostly to attract new gamers, not to please people who already play D&D. To that end, they will try to appeal to a market share they do not already have.

While this makes sense, do they always have to choose? Why not try to make a game that can appeal both to your existing fan base and to newcomers? I think the success of Pathfinder is good evidence that they failed this, if they even tried. Winning over the oldschoolers might not be worthwhile, but it seems a waste to at least not try to win over the 3E folks...


-Havard