Publishing models of rpg lines: tools to design monsters vs new monsters

Current thread problematics about a design conflict on the unfortunate mixture of some traditional and new paradigms (back to the dungeon, numbers going up), make me want to ask you to think that one does not necessarily need to shift to the old methods to solve the problems of the conflict.

What if, instead of levels and monsters, the game provided universal power mechanics for players within a functional and clear way for DMs to build up interesting encounters without any more guesswork than the traditional level&monster method provided for DMs to run the game.

Eventually, I think what we are talking about here is about the two sides of the same coin. But in which way are these sides different? Are they necessarily different gameplay wise or are they mostly different commercially wise? I deem it is mostly the second than the first.

Providing universal tools beats the purpose of publishing dedicated game expansions, be it new dungeons or new monster and power mechanics due to their decreased appeal to the market. What the market mostly needs are guides with a universal appeal, guides beyond any artificial gimmicks put in place to force the market follow dedicated publishing lines.

The OGL and the D20 system kind of tried to explore this direction but was this effort successful to create any positive impressions in the long run? I would rather say no. But is the failure because of the OGL or because of the D20 system?

Your thoughts.

What if, instead of levels and monsters, the game provided universal power mechanics for players within a functional and clear way for DMs to build up interesting encounters without any more guesswork than the traditional level&monster method provided for DMs to run the game.
...
Your thoughts.

Click to expand...

I might not be grokking exactly what you mean, but it sounds like these already basically exist in 4e (and somewhat in 3e, despite the vagaries of the CR system).

The idea of a universal power mechanic for players has perhaps more problems then the build of an encounter, but those have been hashed and re-hashed ideas. I could give you a quick run-down.

I think one of the issues of "encounter building" from a DM's side is that it focuses on an individual encounter rather than on the entire adventure, but I go over that in a certain thread....

Maybe I don't quite get what you're getting at here, though.

I rather think that both 3E and 4E provide for this - though 4E's is more usable. That's not because 4E is "better", but because 4E and 3E take a very different philoophical path in terms of monster generation.

3E's path seeks crunch equivalence on both sides of the DM screen. The monsters and NPCs the PCs encounter in game are designed and developed according to the same rules that the PCs use. This aspect of creature designs is taken to its ultimate conslusion in Savage Species. That element to 3.xx's design had a certain elegance to it, I think we must all acknowledge that.

4E, otoh, goes for the more gameist deign principle and has decoupled monsters from the crunch that is used to make PCs. Accordingly, the purpose of a 4E monster is not to be consistent with the same rules that are used to make PCs - but to fulfill a role in how a monster is to be used to challenge the players during an encounter.

Both approaches have their good and bad points - but of the two, I think it is far easier to eyeball a 4E monster of a given level than it is to eyeball a 3E one - if for no other reason than 3Es level advancement for monsters is far more detailed and time consuming given its complexity.

@KM, short answer:
ehh, no they do not already exist.

Long answer:
well, it seems that 3.x or 4 e's efforts fail. We have accounts that for many groups, combats or preparations for combats take too long and many times, directly regarding gameplay there are feelings of boring repetition.
This means that, in practice, the system's design carries too much baggage in front of inducing the creativity needed to make the so called encounter gameplay fun and enjoyable.

I think they fail because they mix too many publishing models together, a mixture that for the tabletop environment seems to not be so much fun. You have a character building game, board (tiles) game, minis wargame, lore-setting development, scenarios, book lines and a subscription model to periodic services.

I think the most important of all of the above, regarding the brand's power is the lore-setting development because all of the rest can be very easily copied by anyone else. But, the lore-setting development can go so far regarding commercial viability. So, even if fundamental, it is kind of weak. The next one is a leading subscription model but Gleemax failed.

Will making a mixture of various stuff make a miraculous elixir to save the brand? From my experience, I really doubt it. What does this mean? Is there any chance to have one D&D game that will be dominating the hobby market in the long run? I am afraid it is not. Is there anything left to do so to save the brand name? Perhaps so yes. That would most probably be producing different lines in the sense of each line specializing on its own ground while they all share a common lore-setting.
Much like Games Workshop does it. They have a wargame, a roleplaying game, a card game, a computer game, a board game. They are different games, each one trying to do its best regarding the environment of its set up.

IMO, Wotc has been failing with D&D. They strategically invested in an open gaming movement around the D20 system but it seems that the D20 system was not good enough a platform for this endeavour and it was damaging for the brand in the long run. They needed to make something to change part of this course so that they could go on sailing sane and safe but instead of changing the D20 system, they tried to completely change their direction regarding opening the environment for their brand while at the same time trying to capture D20's fanbase in the new direction and sell to them as much as possible. That is, instead of trying to open their brand to the market they tried to open their game, tried to open the game play to as many aspects of the market as possible. But by doing this they kind of damaged the brand even further because while they failed even further to open it, at the same time they kind of made an underperforming game that alienated their existing fan base. And probably so in an unrecoverable way, judging by the course of Paizo's 3.x Pathfinder. It seems that, for its fans, D&D has self-created a leading rival regarding the capability of managing to be the market keeper of D&D's gonzo fantasy lore/setting, since Wotc's 3.x and 4e, for the fans, are everything regarding the brand.

What happened with Pathfinder does not mean that 3.x is a better game than 4e, or a good game still. It merely means that Pathfinder managed to be the means to capture some of D&D's brand power out of Wotc's hands by the brand developing mechanism that Wotc set in place but failed to use properly. Moreover, this change, manages to keep some of the existing interest afloat. Paizo by being the best publisher in scenarios and modules has managed to draw attention and when Wotc under delivered Paizo managed to capture some of Wotc's brand power. Fans do not or can not agree on the problems of the brand line, so even if D20 was the problem Paizo managed to pull this off. Realizing that fans happen to be fans due to perceiving that they are a sharing lot of a community we are dealing with a real life irony event over here.

Real life irony is hard to accept and makes it harder for you to acknowledge the problems you are into because if you follow through it makes you uncertain of any positive stakes of your investment that are prevalent to you so far. Uncertainty equals doubt and fear. Fear of losing whatever good lies withing your investment. And Wotc managed to create D&D fans that are heavily invested. In one thing -in one line -in one game. This managed the OGL with the D20 system.

So even if Wotc and Paizo are the leading publishers of tabletop rpgs this does not mean that the tabletop rpgs they make are actually good as tabletop rpgs. They make quality products. 3.x, Pathfinder and 4e are quality products. They have great art and many other things such as stories, ideas and whatnot. But as tabletop rpgs? Do they succeed in providing the best possible mechanics

And make no mistake. In today's world where activities and products battle for your free time you are only going to take the best. What I am talking about it does not already exist in 4e or 3.x. I am not in fond of old school design, that is a game design that drew its ideas from thinking about the perceived randomness of a fantasy adventure regarding our real world routines, perceived the way we regard, consider and perceive things in our real world routines. I am in favor of the new school trope that tries to cater to fun first and foremost. Clear design goals regarding fun. Everything else comes next. Even if regarding a product line this does not seem a good idea regarding its commercialability. It does not matter. You could develop other fun lines. Lines that share a common lore-setting and thus develop your brand. 4e designers said that they catered to fun. Regarding part of 3.x problems it might be true. But 4e at its core is still 3.x and its problems in many aspects. Minis, tiles, rule build-ups, game preparation and game set ups that drag without providing the fun they are supposed to do in the competitive free time fun environment of today. If I decide I want to play a tabletop rpg today, I want to play a game that is optimized as tabletop rpg. If I want to play a deck-building game I want to play a game that is optimized as a deck building game. Same for minis and what have you.

So, the answer is not flipping and flipping the old rusting coin just because we are afraid to recast and remodel the coin because we are afraid to lose its value: even if it keeps being a bigger and a bigger weight in our palm regarding the new opportunities and chances that are developed and offered in front of us. Unfortunately we have reached such a saturated and competitive market that the only viable answer is try to develop the best thing that we can do from our raw material, be it bronze or gold. The value lies in the material rather than the product itself. Tabletop rpgs may not be gold but the industry should treat them as what they are. Tabletop rpgs. Right now it is not doing it.

xechnao said:

I think they fail because they mix too many publishing models together, a mixture that for the tabletop environment seems to not be so much fun. You have a character building game, board (tiles) game, minis wargame, lore-setting development, scenarios, book lines and a subscription model to periodic services.

Click to expand...

What empirical evidence do you have that this is any form of failure? Some people want D&D to be all those things. How is having all of these publishing models as you call them a bad thing?

I think the most important of all of the above, regarding the brand's power is the lore-setting development because all of the rest can be very easily copied by anyone else. But, the lore-setting development can go so far regarding commercial viability. So, even if fundamental, it is kind of weak. The next one is a leading subscription model but Gleemax failed.

Click to expand...

Do you really believe there can be one true lore-setting that all people would embrace equally and fervently?

Gleemax was intended as a facebook clone. That's why it failed. RPG players don't want a social network limited only to RPGs. In fact having a social network limited to a specific social activity is a sure sign someone doesn't understand social networks.

Is there any chance to have one D&D game that will be dominating the hobby market in the long run? I am afraid it is not.

Click to expand...

Um, there is one D&D game dominating the hobby market, it's called D&D. No other RPG even comes close. How much more do you want D&D to dominate? Is there truly no room in the market for Mutants and Masterminds? Or GURPS?

Is there anything left to do so to save the brand name?

Click to expand...

Save it from what? D&D has had little value outside RPGs since the early 1980s. Short of another weird fad occurring it will never have that level of popularity again. So I ask again, save it from what?

IMO, Wotc has been failing with D&D. They strategically invested in an open gaming movement around the D20 system but it seems that the D20 system was not good enough a platform for this endeavour and it was damaging for the brand in the long run.

Click to expand...

You don't like the OGL. We know this. That is beside the point. How is WotC failing with D&D? On what scale are measuring the failure?

But as tabletop rpgs? Do they succeed in providing the best possible mechanics

Click to expand...

Again, are you implying there is a Platonic form for RPGs that someone could discover and release as a RPG and everyone would flock to it as the One True Game? What does "best possible mechanics" mean? Is there no room for variety? There are days when I want a combat system as rough and detailed as GURPS and other days I want a narrative game where I can just make it up as I go along and other days when a simple roll against a target number is good enough and days when I don't want combat featured in the game at all. Do you really think it is possible to create a game that gives me this range of choice without compromise? And once there is compromise, there is no best.

And make no mistake. In today's world where activities and products battle for your free time you are only going to take the best.

Click to expand...

What? People settle for crap all the time. If people only choose the best, there would be no McDonalds, no reality television, no 3-chord rock bands, etc. Do you really believe what you wrote?

I am in favor of the new school trope that tries to cater to fun first and foremost. Clear design goals regarding fun. Everything else comes next.

Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as a universal fun? Something that everyone would say "Yes, that is fun." Give some examples, please.

Honestly, you lost me. You talk about one thing in your title, another thing in your initial post and then a completely different thing in the follow-up post.

jmucchiello said:

What empirical evidence do you have that this is any form of failure? Some people want D&D to be all those things. How is having all of these publishing models as you call them a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Some people like this. But I think, in our case, the more complicated product you have, most probably the more hardcore piece of the market will be following you. Casuals or new blood? Not so much. They rather play a more straightforward and focused game -one that it can impress them and hook them in the shortest time possible.

jmucchiello said:

Do you really believe there can be one true lore-setting that all people would embrace equally and fervently?

Click to expand...

Yes. Many lines try to do this. Battletech, Warhammer, Magic the Gathering. It is true that it seems this would be a bit more problematic and harder for D&D as D&D stands now. But they always tried to do this. Plane Verse and things. The problem could be, that perhaps they did not focus enough to cater to this problem. Many say that setting-lore expansion created some commercial problems to TSR the way it handled it.

jmucchiello said:

Gleemax was intended as a facebook clone. That's why it failed. RPG players don't want a social network limited only to RPGs. In fact having a social network limited to a specific social activity is a sure sign someone doesn't understand social networks.

Click to expand...

Sorry, if I haven't been clear there. Gleemax was not only about D&D. It was about games. Board games, card games, rpg games, etch. If Gleemax succeeded it could have helped all of its brands as a service.

jmucchiello said:

Um, there is one D&D game dominating the hobby market, it's called D&D. No other RPG even comes close. How much more do you want D&D to dominate? Is there truly no room in the market for Mutants and Masterminds? Or GURPS?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately D&D's market is shrinking. It is not stable. It is shrinking. At the same time, Paizo's market is growing out of D&D's shrinking market. Hardcore D&D players and stuff. A leader that does not help expand the market is not dominating it. At the same time MtG is at least stable, so it seems for Games Workshop. Board games are also on the rise.

jmucchiello said:

Save it from what? D&D has had little value outside RPGs since the early 1980s. Short of another weird fad occurring it will never have that level of popularity again. So I ask again, save it from what?

Click to expand...

I do not agree with this. Baldur's Gate series were big around 10 years ago. So perhaps novels. Now? Today? So lets say, save it from dieing in the end. Cause it seems D&D is declining. It is not even stable.

jmucchiello said:

You don't like the OGL. We know this. That is beside the point. How is WotC failing with D&D? On what scale are measuring the failure?

Click to expand...

I was trying to say that the problem was not OGL but rather OGL plus D20. Their combined effect. If Wotc had launched and OGLed another system, better for this or its purpose I think things could have been a lot better.

jmucchiello said:

Again, are you implying there is a Platonic form for RPGs that someone could discover and release as a RPG and everyone would flock to it as the One True Game? What does "best possible mechanics" mean? Is there no room for variety? There are days when I want a combat system as rough and detailed as GURPS and other days I want a narrative game where I can just make it up as I go along and other days when a simple roll against a target number is good enough and days when I don't want combat featured in the game at all. Do you really think it is possible to create a game that gives me this range of choice without compromise? And once there is compromise, there is no best.

Click to expand...

So lets say a system that could show how to create what you are talking about in a timely sensitive way. A system that could provide the flexibility and variety you are talking about. Yes, I think it is possible.

jmucchiello said:

What? People settle for crap all the time. If people only choose the best, there would be no McDonalds, no reality television, no 3-chord rock bands, etc. Do you really believe what you wrote?

Click to expand...

Your attitude...Yes, the best is not a quality thing. It is a value thing. People balance things out and pick what has the best value for them. For example marketing, brand name power etch strive for an entrance to this sort of thing. Time has a value, money has a value, quality has a value. McDonalds would not exist if they could not have had some value out of what they offer in today's world. It is a comparative thing on many fronts with one end result: market presence.

jmucchiello said:

Is there such a thing as a universal fun? Something that everyone would say "Yes, that is fun." Give some examples, please.

Click to expand...

There are lot of things that can be "fun" in their own way and medium or ground. What I was saying is to totally focus on this parameter without trying to succeed in another way such as making a simulation or selling a byproduct to your customers.

D'karr said:

Honestly, you lost me. You talk about one thing in your title, another thing in your initial post and then a completely different thing in the follow-up post.

Click to expand...

I am lost as well but I think GURPS or maybe the HERO system may be more of the type of thing the OP is looking for.

MichaelSomething said:

I am lost as well but I think GURPS or maybe the HERO system may be more of the type of thing the OP is looking for.

Click to expand...

The appeal of D&D is that it has a structure that manages to easily illustrate what it can provide. Clarification: not what it provides but what it can provide. If D&D achieved to provide what it promotes then D&D would be the winner that -I am saying- it fails to be.

The problem with Gurps or Hero is that they cannot communicate as efficiently how they can practically guide your game around the activities or themes that you want your game to be set. D&D's design immediately and easily promotes efficient customizable archetypes (classes), the knowledge of what they can do (action/combat) and the knowledge of how to manage them in a campaign (character levels and accustomed monsters). So, I think, the design of tabletop rpgs needs to be like D&D. Not generic stuff like Gurps or Hero that require a more work to figure out what you should do.