D&D Next Chat Transcript (Mike Mearls & Jeremy Crawford)

[El Mahdi]

If they mean lapsed customers, then say "hey we want you to buy our things again" and call them as such.

Again, these people aren't lapsed D&D players, they're still playing D&D in some form. Just not the one WoTC wants them to.

I understand what you're saying. And I agree.

What's happening is WotC's definition of lapsed D&D gamer is different than ours. In the end, their job is to make a game that people buy. Customers who play the game will likely mean more purchases, but someone playing it isn't necessarily required in order to sell it to that someone.

But yeah, what they are calling lapsed players are actually lapsed customers. And it's definitely not splitting hairs as Kobold Boots said.

However, calling them lapsed customers highlights things that they would rather not highlight. No company of a niche product like this would. So they instead say "lapsed D&D gamers". It's a minor bit of spin, but one that's mostly necessary.

I agree with you though. IMO, the people playing any edition or derivative of D&D, whether they are playing the most current edition or not, are playing D&D.

...I guess I'm just a little frustrated that the language WoTC is using (to me at least) portrays these people as yearning for something different or new or better. I'd just like them to be more upfront about what they're after.

i.e. "Hey, we're making a new game and we think it's awesome and you should come try it out!"

Because to me it just comes off as "We know you're unhappy with what you're playing, and we're going to make it all better"

Like I said though, that's just how I'M interpreting all this.

I understand what you're saying, but I really don't think there's anything consciously nefarious going on with how WotC is saying things. I can appreciate wanting them to be a little more plain spoken, but I'm sure they aren't trying to say "we know you're unhappy with what you're playing..."

From a practical sales objective though, you have to talk about your product as if it's assumed people are going to buy it. If you don't, it comes off as a lack of confidence in your product, and then nobody buys it.

 

[Kobold Boots]

If someone is able to run it as a beginner, which a game does need to facilitate, then no it doesn't require development of such skills for long term play. If one can DM it as a beginner, then one can DM it in prepetuity even if those skills are never developed.

Players will not tolerate a DM who does not improve those skills over time.

Not necessarily. It's only necessary if one is concerned with running a balanced game. That's not a universal consideration or constant.

I'm choosing to read this line as meaning you're simply interested in being contrary for the benefit of making an argument.

 

[Kobold Boots]

But yeah, what they are calling lapsed players are actually lapsed customers. And it's definitely splitting hairs as Kobold Boots said.

Fixed that for you.

I will grant you that your explanation of the situation is correct. It's still rather silly to get worked up over.

 

[El Mahdi]

Players will not tolerate a DM who does not improve those skills over time.

I agree. But that isn't the point you were making earlier. You said such skills were a requirement for long term DM'ing, which I find to be incorrect.

I'm choosing to read this line as meaning you're simply interested in being contrary for the benefit of making an argument.

It would probably be best to just read it as is, rather than trying to read my mind or divine my intentions. That's something that is frowned upon here at ENWorld, which makes it something one should probably avoid indulging in.

However, if you're asking me what my intention was in saying that, it most definitely was not simply for the benefit of making an argument.

You made a blanket, absolute statement: "If 5E has "dials" that increase or decrease complexity; this implies development of applied game design skill as a DM advances in table experience...", which I find incorrect and based on false logic. I was supplying you with one example that highlighted that. It was not intended to be argumentative at all, let alone argumentative simply for the purpose of being agrumentative.

I haven't felt this coversation has been an argument at any point. Without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.

Fixed that for you.

This is also something that's frowned upon here at ENWorld, excepting in jest. If it's in jest, it's usually best to use a or to highlight that, so there are no misconceptions.

Otherwise, I'd avoid doing this. Most people don't appreciate others changing their words to say something other than what they actually said. I know I certainly don't, and would appreciate your not doing this with my posts in the future.

I will grant you that your explanation of the situation is correct. It's still rather silly to get worked up over.

I agree, it is very silly to get worked up over. Though I'm confused as to why you added this. (Like I was also confused about your stating "I know what my experience is. Thank You.") I haven't seen anyone getting worked up over it. I've seen people politely stating their opinions, but no getting worked up. I didn't see any evidence of getting worked up in nillic's posts. I certainly don't feel worked up, nor do I think I posted anything that comes across as worked up. And I don't see anything in your posts that make me think you're worked up about it. That is unless you're feeling something that wasn't conveyed in your posts.

Again though, without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Hi -

Because you're making some serious assumptions with your reply, I'm writing more completely to correct them.

I agree. But that isn't the point you were making earlier. You said such skills were a requirement for long term DM'ing, which I find to be incorrect.

1. You are assuming that my point regarding long-term DMing has nothing to do with my comment in regards to players not tolerating DMs that don't have skill. They are intertwined.

I have no idea how you have a chance at being a long-term DM without retaining players to your table. Perhaps you do. Perhaps there's some central repository of tolerant D&D players that I lack access to. Perhaps not.

It would probably be best to just read it as is, rather than trying to read my mind or divine my intentions. That's something that is frowned upon here at ENWorld, which makes it something one should probably avoid indulging in.

2. I see the above as ironic. If you don't, then c'est la vie.

I haven't felt this coversation has been an argument at any point. Without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.

3. See above comment about irony. Repeat

This is also something that's frowned upon here at ENWorld, excepting in jest. If it's in jest, it's usually best to use a or to highlight that, so there are no misconceptions.

Otherwise, I'd avoid doing this. Most people don't appreciate others changing their words to say something other than what they actually said. I know I certainly don't, and would appreciate your not doing this with my posts in the future.

4. See the above two points about irony, repeat it, then realize it's what you and others have done through assuming my intention throughout.

I agree, it is very silly to get worked up over. Though I'm confused as to why you added this. (Like I was also confused about your stating "I know what my experience is. Thank You.")

5. Is it not possible that I already knew my experience had to do with my experiences or that I already knew it was anecdotal? Can I not, legitimately, thank you?

Again though, without ascribing motive or emotion to you, if that's how you're beginning to feel about this conversation, it might be a good idea to not participate.

I'm not the one typing books here mate.

Have a great day.

 

[Morrus]

That's enough. Take the snark and sarcasm elsewhere, please. It's not clever, and it's not appropriate here. Don't make me start handing out threadbans; though it's not like we have a limited supply of them.

 

[El Mahdi]

You are assuming that my point regarding long-term DMing has nothing to do with my comment in regards to players not tolerating DMs that don't have skill. They are intertwined.

I have no idea how you have a chance at being a long-term DM without retaining players to your table. Perhaps you do. Perhaps there's some central repository of tolerant D&D players that I lack access to. Perhaps not.

I understood your point, and I understood that you see them as intertwined.

I simply disagree that this is so (that they are intertwined).

Not all players are concerned with the design skills of their DM. I'd go as far as to say that most players wouldn't even notice the presence or lack of such skills. They're just there to play and hang out. There are likely more players that take D&D significantly less seriously than those of us here do. Those that post on such RPG forums as here, are most likely the minority of those that play D&D (or all RPG's collectively).

So, I do believe that DM's lacking design skills can retain players, and do so long term.

And even in situations where such a DM can't retain players, there are places with lots of available players. Only one example, but a high turnover rate would allow a DM to play long term, even if a lack of design skills was the cause of their losing players. Not everyone who plays D&D is lucky enough to have groups that remain stable for long periods of time. I don't know what the exact average a group lasts is, but I'd bet it's somewhere around only one or two years. And that's not always a matter of having a bad DM. Groups have turnover for lots of reasons. One such example would be my experience being in the military. It meant I and everyone I gamed with would move every couple to a few years.


As to the rest of your post, I see this as going nowhere good very fast. So I'm out.

Enjoy the rest of the thread, and I'll see you around the forums.

 

[Goonalan]

Yup, as I said. You could argue that if there isn't a majority of opinion steering in a particular direction then WotC should go a different way. I see from your sig you play 4E and I assume you like what you see in the direction of the new edition. Let's assume you like what they eventually produce and, along with some portion of the current base as well as a minor portion of lapsed players, you buy into the new edition. Then, let's say WotC doesn't feel the turnout is enough to support that new edition after but a couple/few years. I don't think those folks, maybe including yourself, are going to be all that happy having spent a hundred or more dollars on the new edition.


However, if they wish to recapture lapsed players and only a small percentage of the feedback is coming from lapsed players, do they ignore that small percentage in favor of a lot of feedback from current players? Do they abandon their plan to recapture the ones who are not giving feedback but WotC knows are out there and WotC wants if they are going to be as successful as they need to be to not just give up on this edition after a few years like the last one? I suppose the correlated question would be, how does a company unable to get feedback from some segment of the market manage to produce a game for that segment of the market if it really needs to reach them?


It seems they have created a slippery slope for themselves. They say they want "everyone" on board, but the early feedback is driving them toward creating a game with many of the features that were rejected by the very fans they want to recapture. The more they show they are going in that direction the less likely those lapsed players are to follow along, playtest, and give feedback. As that progresses, WotC works with the feedback they have and continues further in the direction away from pleasing the lapsed fans. The cycle accelerates. It might become a self-fulfilling failure based on the inability to see beyond the early, current fan feedback.


One way to adjust for the situation would be to make sure the feedback they do receive is weighted in such a way that sheer numbers from any one school of thought won't tilt the design process in a given direction. If they wish a design to ultimately please, let's say, five different editions' fans, then the feedback from each fan base would garner 20% of the design priority, regardless if any given edition had an overwhelming number of fans giving feedback. Wthout such an approach, they are bound to never have a chance to bring certain segments on board during the design phase and probably not once they reach the point when they plan to publish.

I play 4e because it plays well on Maptools and I live in Grimsby UK and without Mapotools I would have no one to play with, ergo... before 4e I played 3.5e, before 3.5e I played 3e etc all the way back to 1979. Every edition of D&D that has come along I've played (and dozens of other games).

In the last year I've also run (with some of my students) DCC RPG, Paranoia, Savage Worlds etc.

I'll play 5e but I don't get the brouhaha, at least... What I mean to say is there have been problems with more or less every RPG game I've played that have required house rules, so house rule 'em. Or else make some bastard hybrid, or else stick with what you know and love.

Now to WOTC and the insidious 4e conspiracy, how do they do that- how do they track down people who are lapsed D&D players and get some form of coherent opinion. I've seen forums here in which equally lapsed D&D players have said that (and I'm generalsiing but...) -

I don't dig 5e as its just 4e with...

And the next post-

I don't dig 5e because it's D&D.x with...

And an equal number of each.

Similarly I've read posts from 4e players saying, hang on though-

I don't dig 5e because they're going back to...

And I get that this partially proves your point, but it don't help me or WOTC none, so we end up here-

I suppose the correlated question would be, how does a company unable to get feedback from some segment of the market manage to produce a game for that segment of the market if it really needs to reach them?

And here is a difficult place to be, for all concerned, but here's the kicker- we're not even into the playtests and people seem to have some very rigid positions- 5e is not for me.

How do WOTC get around that, because there seems to be an awful lot of it about for a game that doesn't much exist yet, or at least could be re-written several times over if it all goes crazy in the playtest.

The point again from WOTC POV we don't tell you what we're up to (4e) you get mad, we tell you what we're up to (5e) and ask questions and you get mad and...

Just to make this clear- I couldn't tell you one thing I'm certain about in 5e, as in I've skimmed some stuff (on the 5e page here), rogues backstabs something, something about at wills I think- for wizards. But whatever it is that 5e turns out to be I'll either fix it and roll with the system or else stick with system X. JUst wanted to make clear where I'm at, oh and if 4e never existed I'd still be playing D&D. I'll still buy the crunch if the production values are up there- and I'll still use it (if I can), the same reason I still buy lots of Paizo stuff and have never played Pathfinder yet.

As to the 20% rule- fans of 4e vote now, fans of 3.5e vote now, fans of etc.

I've played them all, where do I sit, is there a system I like more than any other, well... yes, I mean no, I mean- well I'd like this from WFRP, I'd like this from DCC RPG. Is there a system of D&D I am a fanboy for- nope, 3.x at high levels drove me absolutely crazy for about 3 years- prep time spent crying (seriously); 4e is flavourless gick (at times). Oh I've fixed them though- eventually, or at least did some work arounds.

Or does it all boil down to 4e and the others, because that seems to be right up there- those that played 4e and enjoyed it... and then the true D&Ders- the people that kept the flame alive with Pathfinder et al. Is that what this is really about?

There's bound to be more people in the system right now who play 4e, that's the edition we're on, I guess many people who didn't get the 4e boat are maybe over on Pathfinder island waving and smiling.

Last bit, something I remember from the 5e spiel, wasn't it supposed to be some sort of base unit D&D- live and unplugged kinda thing with a 4e type top coat available, or a 3.5x, or a 2e feel- a modular system. What happened to that? Is that still how its going to work? Don't tell me we can't even agree at the very bottom level... Boy that'd be like getting 5 people in a room and having 5 different opinions, or it could be that we've all been playing our 'groups' version of D&D for the last whatever.

I get this is the internet but people are painting themselves in to corners and I don't even know what colour healing potions are- they're red and smell of apples, anything less and 5e is a joke.

Sorry for the levity, it's very serious though isn't it, arguing about a game I've not played and have seen exactly 0 of the rules for, oh and the rules are possibly subject to change in the next year or so...

I guess you're right- WOTC wants those lapsed players back, the point though is do you want D&D (and in particular 5e) if you do then you need to perhaps chillax a little more, see how it plays, if its not you then make some noise- tell WOTC in any way you can, otherwise I think the numbers may have it.

PS none of this was meant to offend, just POV, just spitballing.

Last bit, about my sig, if you'd have bumped into my sig five years ago it would have been full of my Goodman Games 3.5e campaign, and my Temple of Elemental Evil 3e campaign, and my 'Auntie and the Professor' Campaign- I kind of mixture of Paranoia, D&D and some other stuff campaign, and... I've been so busy playing D&D (my version based on whatever edition plus some stuff I made up) that I've almost had no time to worry about what's coming around the corner.

Cheers PDR

 

[Mark CMG]

I play 4e because it plays well on Maptools (. . .)

I'm not sure what this means. I've recently playedx a game using MapTools and don't see that any system wouldn't "play well" on it.

I'll play 5e but I don't get the brouhaha, at least... What I mean to say is there have been problems with more or less every RPG game I've played that have required house rules, so house rule 'em. Or else make some bastard hybrid, or else stick with what you know and love.

Tourney and convention play doesn't include house rules and a lot of people think the game should work fine out of the box without needing rewrites.

(. . .) how do they track down people who are lapsed D&D players (. . .)

Some are making the point that the only "lapsed" players are those that don't play D&D at all, reqardless of edition, so calling those who don't play 4E lapsed players isn't accurate. It's a good point.

There's bound to be more people in the system right now who play 4e, that's the edition we're on (. . .)

Doesn't seem to be the case if one considers PF to be 3.75, and one considers that it seems to be running neck and neck with 4E, and then one considers all of the 3.XE and previous ediiton players still out there. This seems to be one of the main reasons WotC has moved on from 4E to building a 5E.

Last bit, something I remember from the 5e spiel, wasn't it supposed to be some sort of base unit D&D-(. . .)

A default game with modularity, though the concrete things they are saying seem to lean in the direction of the current edition with only a bit of a nod thus far toward previous edition play. It might be that they are going to have even fewer and fewer previous edition players giving them feedback which then leads to further design decisions along the same lines, etc. I can see why you, as someone who is definitely buying in (the production values seem guaranteed given WotC budgets), might wind up getting an edition where fewer people play than ever, especially if only a portion of the current player base buys in and WotC doesn't draw much in the way of previous edition players and players who never played D&D. It would mean a reduced player pool and even getting online games going might become problematic. We'll see.

 

[SteveC]

We've passed that point in the discussion. What you suggest doesn't help WotC make sure they build an edition that draws back lapsed players and likely leads to fewer players than those using the current edition. That's the danger.

This made me laugh a bit. I'm going to playtest the ... heck ... out of this game, and I'm going to suggest D&D Next be exactly the kind of game I and my group wants. I have no interest in creating a game I don't want to play. At the same time, how much is WotC going to cater to our small but loud voices? Probably not much at all, but I'm still going to talk about it. And I know that many folks who want a different style of game are going to do the same thing.

I know you don't like 4E, so talking about how you want a return to earlier concepts is your job as part of this playtest, and the job of other people who feel the same way. If you don't do it, well, I'm going to say that WotC staff don't have the [psychic] keyword, so there's little chance that what you want will be heard.

It's WotC's job to take all the feedback they get, and synthesize it together to make the next edition. I think that strong and direct feedback about what a group wants or doesn't is how they do that.

I've heard that false analogy before. Paying taxes gives people the right to complain. Voting is just one of the ways in which they voice their complaints.

This explains the disagreement: paying taxes in no way gives you a right to complain (in my opinion, of course). Paying taxes but not voting or getting involved is the equivalent of taking no part in the playtest, then buying the books sight unseen and complaining that WotC didn't give you what you wanted and stole your money.

The bad restaurant? The bad movies? The bad government? The bad game? None of them change until you vote them out in different ways. When I was in college, we'd go to a diner at 2AM after finishing up gaming. One of the people in the group hated doing this, and complained about it all the time ... but only after we got there, and after we had ordered!

So I'll say it again: even if you don't like the same things as I do in D&D (and when I say "you" in this, it's the generic you of anyone reading this... ) get involved with the playtest and let WotC know what you want. I want the next edition to be successful, even if it turns out that it doesn't resemble something I like or will play at that point. Success of D&D is that important to gaming as a whole (all of this being my opinion, of course...).

And hey, I can even invoke one of my favorite quotes:

" We're told every day, 'You can't change the world.' But the world is changing every day. Only question is...who's doing it? You or somebody else?"
-J. Michael Straczynski