D&D 5E The Next Generation

Morrus · May 5, 2012

On the subject of it aiming primarily at the youngsters:

I disagree. Firing your existing customer base in a risky attempt to create a brand new one is the definition of corporate suicide. If I was in a boardroom and someone said to me "Hey, this brand's strength is that over 40 years it has built up a fervent and dedicated customer base! That's awesome; what an advantage! Many busineses would kill for that! Now - I have an idea. Let's get rid of all those customers we built up over 40 years, and just start again from scratch and try to get new ones instead!" then I'd fire them on the spot.

That experiment has been tried with 4E, and it failed. Half the player base went and played Pathfinder instead. Sure, some new blood came in to embrace the brand, but a lot of old blook left; result: Pathfinder now vies with D&D for the top spot. One great definition of insanity s to try the same thing repeatedly and expect different results.

Expansion of the customer base is great and all, but the first priority should be consolidation. Play to the core strengths and get those players back. There's a time and a place for opening up new demographics, but I don't believe right now is the time.

And those lost customers are probably easier to win than brand new customers. Not all of them, but enough will still have a vested interest that winning them back is at least something that has a reasonable probablity of success if they get it right.

D&D is an aging hobby. A large percentage of the customers - the ones with the most money, incidentally, and the ones most able to bring in younger players (their kids) - are older. Ignoring that would be a risky move.

Consolidate, then expand. Losing the older demographic would be more disastrous for the game than not bringing in a bunch of fresh youngsters right now.

I don't disagree that some more modern fictional tropes could be embraced; anime is too far off-track for me by a long way, but certainly there have been great fantasy properties created in the last couple of decades. Classics like Lord of the Rings, though, are also vitally important influences. Heck, there's a new Hobbit movie coming - Hollywood certainly thinks there's an audience for older material!

AbdulAlhazred · May 5, 2012

"
If the next edition of D&D can't do Last Airbender or Harry Potter, then what incentive does the next generation of gamers have to pick it up?"

There's a much wider range of material out there, both old and new, than you imagine...

There's a much greater degree of acceptance and interest in new material at all levels of the fan base than you plainly imagine.

There are many things which are relatively constant considerations. Contrary to your imaginings on the subject there's not a big 'old vs new' divide here. The really classic stories persist. The really classic stories are also constantly re-imagined and recycled in new ways. The difference is mostly 'paint'. A game which elegantly handles the Gray Mouser, Conan, Aragorn, Elric, and Cudgel the Clever will also certainly be able to elegantly handle Airbender, Perdido Street, etc.

I agree with Gold Roger, a solid core set of mechanics that can be applied in a wide variety of ways and adjusted to take into account various differences in tone between different genre is the most fundamental thing. Heroes really are archetypes too. The fighter, the wizard, the rogue, the priest, those will always be found in every kind of story in some form.

Frankly I think 4e was and is a big step in some respects in terms of being able to portray characters with different style elements. It is quite flexible in that regard. 5e would be wise to retain that and extend it more in terms of tone and play style. There's no divide between newer and older players which has to exist, and there's no need for the game to create one.

I think you might also find that older players are a rather large store of expertise on how games work and how to make them successful. There's a reason for old people. By the time you reach 50 you've (hopefully) learned a lot. Pay attention, it might rub off!

Kaodi · May 5, 2012

Peter Jackson would like to have a word with you.

This looks suspiciously like a well written troll. Never might that it raises some good points, the fact is that even for a kid to be young enough to have not grown up on Frodo, they would have to have been no older than seven when the last Lord of the Rings movie came out. That would make them sixteen now, still not quite old enough to be in university, which is where some have argued is the prime place for D&D to be picked up. And, you know, there is that whole "my way or the highway" attitude.

I just turned twenty eight. I have not read most of the stuff that D&D is based on. But because I have played D&D, I am actually drawn to reading it at some point. Not sure how much interest I have in Elric, but the Lankhmar series is something I would be happy to read.

Also, your argument contains a majorly flawed premise: that idea that it was ever the case that most people who started playing D&D had heard of those things.

(And one other point: why the Hell would you bring up Cowboy Bebop in a post about fantasy literature?)

Ahnehnois · May 5, 2012

Gold Roger said:
But I absolutely disagree with you. I feel D&D needs to remain true to it's rich history and relatively stable core elements.

So do I, FWIW. This is what the original 3.0 rules did so beautifully. They kept the tropes of D&D, while modernizing the rules and adding new elements to attract a different group of fans. I like the Tarrasque and the cleric and the other D&D-isms, and I like the style that goes with them. If 5e doesn't allow you to run the same game you ran in 1e-3e, it's a failure.

I do think there's some room to modernize, by working "under the hood" and creating rules that are better at doing what they're supposed to do. But the D&D style isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed, it just needs to be inclusive.

Morrus · May 5, 2012

Kaodi said:
Also, your argument contains a majorly flawed premise: that idea that it was ever the case that most people who started playing D&D had heard of those things.

True dat. I'd never heard of Jack Vance before I started playing D&D. People don't think "Oh, that Jack Vance book was good - I wonder if there's such thing as an immersive interactive tabletop game which features a spellcasting system similar to but not identical to the one portrayed in these books?"

At least I've never heard of a D&D player who came to D&D via that route, except for Gygax himself.

Players come to the game through networks. They're introduced to it by their friends and families. These days, often it's those older gamers introducing their kids to it; another reason why those older gamers are vital to retain.

Plus we in our 30s and 40s have more money than teenagers do.

Fifth Element · May 5, 2012

Morrus said:
One great definition of insanity s to try the same thing repeatedly and expect different results.

It's only considered insanity if the thing is something you (as an observer) have already decided is a bad idea. If you think it's a good idea, trying again is instead called perseverance. Interesting discussion here.

WheresMyD20 · May 5, 2012

How about Hercules, King Arthur, Beowulf, and Robin Hood? Do youngsters still know about them?

As for Frodo, I seem to remember him doing pretty well at the box office not too long ago... and Bilbo should be doing well later this year.

I got into D&D long before I knew of Elric or the Gray Mouser. It didn't hamper my enjoyment of D&D. That's because the real foundation of D&D is built on archetypes far more elemental than Elric or Conan. Things like knights, wizards, dragons, etc. These elements have been part of common knowledge in the western world for over 1000 years.

When you start talking about Cowboy Bebop and the Last Airbender, I think you're way off base. D&D didn't need to change to mimic Star Wars to be relevant after '77.

Knights, wizards, and dragons will always be relevant. You don't need to add in the latest fad to make D&D relevant.

am181d · May 5, 2012

Morrus said:
I disagree. Firing your existing customer base in a risky attempt to create a brand new one is the definition of corporate suicide. If I was in a boardroom and someone said to me "Hey, this brand's strength is that over 40 years it has built up a fervent and dedicated customer base! That's awesome; what an advantage! Many busineses would kill for that! Now - I have an idea. Let's get rid of all those customers we built up over 40 years, and just start again from scratch and try to get new ones instead!" then I'd fire them on the spot.

But what's the size of that customer base? I don't have the numbers, but my sense is that RPG sales were at their highest in the 80s, spiked with the release of 2000 and have been trailing downward ever since.

Any given attempt to capture a new audience can fail if you don't get the approach right. Continuing to service the same dwindling customer base will NECESSARILY fail, because eventually you'll run out of customers.

That said, I understand why WotC's response after the 4e schism would be to design a "one system to rule them all" style game, and I can't really fault their logic. Clearly a second schism would kill the brand a lot faster than the "Long Dwindle" outlined above.

And THAT said, I'd be happy to have any of the above refuted with numbers. Ultimately, I want the hobby to be healthy and self-sustaining, so if there are data points that support that, please to be correcting me.

Morrus · May 5, 2012

am181d said:
But what's the size of that customer base? I don't have the numbers, but my sense is that RPG sales were at their highest in the 80s, spiked with the release of 2000 and have been trailing downward ever since.

Any given attempt to capture a new audience can fail if you don't get the approach right. Continuing to service the same dwindling customer base will NECESSARILY fail, because eventually you'll run out of customers.

That said, I understand why WotC's response after the 4e schism would be to design a "one system to rule them all" style game, and I can't really fault their logic. Clearly a second schism would kill the brand a lot faster than the "Long Dwindle" outlined above.

And THAT said, I'd be happy to have any of the above refuted with numbers. Ultimately, I want the hobby to be healthy and self-sustaining, so if there are data points that support that, please to be correcting me.

Heh. The "WotC's sales numbers" conversation only ever goes one way; and usually involves people being very unpleasant to each other with anecdotes about game stores and bestseller charts. Never a pleasant conversation to be part of (at least on the intrawebs).

Suffice it to say, we're all speculating. I don't know that my opinion is backed by data any more than anyone else knows the opposite. All we can do is speculate and offer opinions based on what we see.

Ultimately, one hopes WotC has done the correct market research, used the right logic, and that D&D will survive. We can all argue till the cows come home about the numbers, though.

Lord Mhoram · May 5, 2012

I agree with the purpose of the original poster, but not the methodology.

D&D should be more inclusive. But not at the expense of others. D&D emulates D&D fantasy better than anything - it's become it's own genre in some way. It can be used to do Conan, or LoTR. But embracing other elements is fine.

Take a Sorcerer - have a background "school trained mage" and theme of "wand mage" that sets up having bonuses from casting spells through a wand (not unlike implements in 4E) - and the artwork around these are very Harry Potter.

Not much of a change, but people wanting to play Harry Potter and young would see that and think "I want to play that!"

Then maybe a campaign source book for adventures based around a magical school.

Doesn't change D&D much and gives those that like it something they can key on, and adds options for those that don't want Harry Potter but like the background/Theme/Class option.