D&D 5E Does WotC suck at selling games?

[Neonchameleon]

So....

has anyone been paying attention to Thornwatch?

Because the stated design goal there of a D&D that's as easy to pick up and put down as Ticket to Ride seems very to the point.

I think WotC has been within throwing distance of that a couple of times. With the right pedagogical emphasis I think they'd be in good shape.

I haven't. I am now, thanks! And there's a lot of good stuff from what little I've seen in there - far more in there I find actually exciting than in 5E. Innovations coming in from outside the tabletop RPG community (it bears a lot of resemblance to Mage Knight and its twist on deckbuilders).

It is not unreasonable to speculate that 5E's direction was a retreat back to the kind of game that unified the whole community at the start of the millennium.

You mean what Dragonsfoot calls The Edition That Shall Not Be Named?

Thornwatch looks neat, but I think it leads to a bigger point. When the Penny Arcade guys basically started evangelizing D&D to their audience, it was the best thing to happen to D&D in a very long time. It was finally a break from the "older cousin" model. It was a genuine in-road to a group of people who should have been "D&D people", because they like a lot of the stuff D&D is generally about, but never had that "older cousin" experience.

Yup!

Coming back around to Thornwatch, I think that project might kill a lot of momentum D&D gained in the PA crowd. Based on the recent clip from PAX, it looks pretty slick. It appears to have nice mechanics and you know it'll be pretty. But the biggest thing is that it takes on the "spending four hours having fifteen minutes of fun*" problem in most RPGs. Pick any edition of D&D, and it will lose on character/adventure prep time to almost any other modern system**.

This too. Thornwatch looks, like most of my favorite RPGs, as if you can just plonk it down on the table and start running. He's absolutely right about using Mage Knight style mechanics for combat with wounds that limit your options although I can't think of a good homebrew way of doing this for a genuine Indy-game. Cards cost money - even if you can get probably three classes off a standard 55 card custom deck.

If the theme wasn't so ... specific, it would feel like a next stop from D&D 4e.

 

[Wrathamon]

I agree with jesse? about the admitting nerdiness to playing D&D ... My home game none of those players would ever come to any of the public play events I was organizing.

"Play in a shop in a mall? Play at a comic store? no way" It's the being seen with the "super nerds".

I have to admit when I hit my late teens early 20s I didn't want to be seen as a cheetoo eating Mt Dew wizard, and neither did most of my friends. I decided to be proud that I played D&D, and I took pride when people where shocked that I did. "Really you play?"
I still know lots of players that "hide" that they play D&D. This closet syndrome isn't healthy. We are in an age where playing D&D can be seen as cool. I wonder thou, do the players that see it as "their thing" want that?

When something is niche like watching VHS fan subbed anime taps was cool, then when it becomes mass market appealing, do you loose something? I think that is partially why OSR has evolved.

Basically, are we ready to let everyone in on our secret and are okay with letting them partake? Can we embrace that D&D isn't something you do in secret and not feel ashamed?

some of us are ... not sure all of us are.

 

[Wrathamon]

I also agree with the Bad DM Good DM comments.

I have read lots of posts about the current Hoard adventure ... That adventure run by a "bad" DM makes it really a horrible adventure, but in the hands of a DM who is entertaining and knows their stuff it has a lot of value. It isnt a new DM friendly adventure. It isnt open sandbox, it's more themepark style. Where the players can find which ride they want to go on when they want, or go explore if they want to. But, if a DM isn't capable of understanding the freedom and encouraging the players to explore or make their own choices, it can fall flat and be 'railroady'

I have played in two games of it. One by a DM who is running it straight and linear and not "selling" the drama of the events and it sucks. He is running it as set pieces, not holding punches and its boring and frustrating. I am the only really experienced player and I am trying to not have a TPK each fight. For new players ... this isnt a good DM.

The second game is fantastic. Lucky for me I played in this one first. He roleplays, sets up the scenes, encourages creative thought and lets the players make the choices and when they stubble he masterfully places hints to help tease them to make a choice. The drama of each set piece provides tension and encourages us to want to play more. We care about the town. We care about our lives. The adventure has a wonderful flow. We have had tough fights, but it wasnt all the kobolds "focus firing" on the wizards first, then cleric. They told a story.

The first game, because I am an experienced player made me want to DM because I felt bad for the new players, the second, made me want to play and gave me tricks on how to be a better DM.

I think entertaining videos on youtube on How to DM by the Masters of DMing .... could be a SUPER useful tool on how to DM. But, entertaining is needed. Boring videos no one is going to watch.

 

[Astrosicebear]

Teaching someone how to DM is like teaching someone how to be a stand up comic. You can give them the tools of the trade, and show them how its done and how everyone else does it, but until they find their own audience relationship, their own candor, their own style, they are just poorly imitating or regurgitating crunch.

 

[Keldryn]

I learned to GM from a standing start, using Moldvay Basic. And I'm absolutely certain that thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of other kids did the same.

Same here, except it was Mentzer Basic in my case. I was a DM before I was a player.

Before starting to play D&D, I had read some of the Endless Quest books (as I liked Choose Your Own Adventure books) and I'd also seen the Saturday morning cartoon. I also saw a lot of ads for D&D in my Star Wars, G.I. Joe and Transformers comic books. I started looking at the books and boxed sets in book stores, and eventually bought the Basic Set and ran the sample dungeon for a couple of friends (who were also new to the game).

That technique is an important one for running skill challengs, or any similar "indie"-style conflict resolution system. But it is not self-evident, and I know from my posting experience on these boards that it is very counter-intuitive to many experienced D&Ders. I am familiar with it, an recognise its use, because I have read advice about in written by Robin Laws in HeroWars/Quest, and by Luke Crane in Burning Wheel. The Essentials rulebook, by contrast, does not call out or explain the technique.

I didn't understand this technique until I read some of your older posts (I think it was the Scene Framing thread). I still find it really counter-intuitive. It's clear to me now that the 4e designers were intentionally building this technique into the system, but it's baffling to me how they never actually explained it. Especially when you consider how transparent most of the system is.

I agree that it makes for a more compelling game, but it does feel somewhat disconnected to me. Part of it is the need to come up with the fictional context on the spot as the situation within the game develops. I also feel like it could open me up to accusations of railroading.

I'm just hostile to poor advice - or rather, to a design approach (that Monte Cook called "Ivory Tower") that favours presenting the rules and the flavour as if that's all there is to playing the game, without any attention to explaining the practical details of actually taking those rules, and that flavour, and turning them into a play experience.

I'm hoping that the 5e DMG focuses some attention in this area. Optional rules modules are cool, but I really hope that they don't comprise most of the book.

 

[pemerton]

Teaching someone how to DM is like teaching someone how to be a stand up comic. You can give them the tools of the trade, and show them how its done and how everyone else does it, but until they find their own audience relationship, their own candor, their own style, they are just poorly imitating or regurgitating crunch.

Suppose this is true. It's still not a reason no to explain the tools of the trade.

I didn't understand this technique until I read some of your older posts (I think it was the Scene Framing thread). I still find it really counter-intuitive. It's clear to me now that the 4e designers were intentionally building this technique into the system, but it's baffling to me how they never actually explained it.

<snip>

I agree that it makes for a more compelling game, but it does feel somewhat disconnected to me. Part of it is the need to come up with the fictional context on the spot as the situation within the game develops. I also feel like it could open me up to accusations of railroading.

These are some of the things an instruction manual could explain - set out some techniques, and then have "expert tips" on some of the pros and cons of each.

 

[Morrus]

I've been playing D&D for 30 years. When I started, I ran games which I'm sure 40-yr-old-me would think were truly rubbish when I ran them. But I enjoyed them immensely, and so did my friends. We had no education in the subject.

These days, I know what I'm doing. I'm a GM with 30 years of experience and at the pointed end of craploads of tutelage both in the form of magazines and in-person.

I don't think I have more fun now than I did then.

Trust kids to find their way of having fun. They're not more stupid than my generation was. Indeed, they have a thousand times more resources because, hey, internet.

They'll have fun. They have a thousand times more info at their fingertips than I did, and I had fun. I had no Starter Set. I had no internet. I had no Twitter. Let's not assume everybody is an idiot. If I could do it without an internet, and without a starter set, they will do it with one on their phones.

Let's not invent problems just to get internet traffic. Or invent idiots where none exist.

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

A starter set that gets you going in the manner described in the article is brilliant.

If WotC did something like this then they should set the adventure in the Realms, at Haunted Halls near Eveningstar. Then set the potential next adventures in the environs nearby, since you have a forest to the south, mountains to the north and a good sized city to the east.

Team up Ed Greenwood with someone at WotC, the former to do the fluff and the later to do the mechanics, and you'd hook 100% of the people who played the introductory adventure.

 

[Joddy37]

Teaching someone how to DM is like teaching someone how to be a stand up comic. You can give them the tools of the trade, and show them how its done and how everyone else does it, but until they find their own audience relationship, their own candor, their own style, they are just poorly imitating or regurgitating crunch.

It is not necessary to teach him how to be a good DM. You just need to encourage him to try to be a DM. You need to spark his imagination. Every person in the world has a world of imagination in their own minds. You have to show new players how to easily bring their own imaginations onto the tabletop. Hey, you have an idea in your mind that a company of heroes stumble upon a forgotten cellar in a backyard and find out that some ruffians were visiting it lately? I will show you how to expand this idea and how to blend it to the game mechanics. I will give you hints about how to create a short story and build on it in time to make it a grand campaign. I will give you examples from famous DMs, how they improvised in certain situations, how they succeeded to grab the attention of the players when the game just felt boring etc...

 

[The Hitcher]

II will give you examples from famous DMs, how they improvised in certain situations, how they succeeded to grab the attention of the players when the game just felt boring etc...

Now that's a good idea. I would love to see anecdotal examples of play from experienced GMs in a starter product.

They'll have fun. They have a thousand times more info at their fingertips than I did, and I had fun. I had no Starter Set. I had no internet. I had no Twitter. Let's not assume everybody is an idiot. If I could do it without an internet, and without a starter set, they will do it with one on their phones.

Let's not invent problems just to get internet traffic. Or invent idiots where none exist.

I wouldn't dispute any of that. But they also have a lot more potential avenues of available entertainment, and potentially shorter attention spans. If they don't get D&D quickly, they may just more on. Sure, some will stick with it, but I think Angry's point was that with some stronger strategies in place for engaging beginners, it could capture a LOT more. I agree with him on that.