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

[Stalker0]

A good "DM's Manual" is not what you fear. It wouldn't teach the "one-true-way" to run games, but walk folks through the basics while encouraging them to free their creativity once they have their feet under them. You've got to learn the rules before you can intelligently break the rules. Right now most DM's just kind of throw themselves into it . . . and some survive to continue on running games well, others survive to continue running games poorly, and others run screaming from the table. While that satisfies the elitist in us surviving DM's, it doesn't do much to grow sales or the hobby.

Yep I agree. DMing is too important to screw up imo. A good DM will be Dnds best sales pitch, and bring in players. A bad DM can destroy a group's desire to ever play again.

I don't believe that a DM teaching guide has to teach the "one true path to DMing"...but I think we can all agree there are certain practices good DMs use, and certain bad practices we would want new DMs to avoid.

 

[Thank Dog]

I don't believe that a DM teaching guide has to teach the "one true path to DMing"...but I think we can all agree there are certain practices good DMs use, and certain bad practices we would want new DMs to avoid.

But that's the thing. What I consider a good practice and a bad practice can be the ruination of an entire table's worth of players. What you consider to be a good practice and a bad practice could ruin the game for me, but be great for everyone else at the table.

I hate the way Pathfinder games are run because every experience I've had at a PFS or home game has been exactly the opposite of what I enjoy. Does that mean the way they play and DM is bad?

RPG players can't even agree on what direction is up. How on earth can you say that "we can all agree"?

 

[Tommy Brownell]

The Angry DM thinks so. What do you think?

http://www.angrydm.com/2014/09/dear-wotc-why-do-you-suck-at-selling-games/

They convinced me.

I've got every WotC 5e book either bought or preordered, and I had very loudly and vocally gave D&D up two editions ago.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

And in terms of the media presence of D&D? Marvel's great and all but I think the real brass ring to grab for is the Lego movie.

That thing was anarchic (in exactly the way D&D needs given that its lore is a lot closer to Lego's than Marvel's), glorious, and made you want to play.

 

[Joddy37]

Ok, he is a bit harsh in his critics but he is telling the truth basically. I think there are minor issues about the PHB but the bigger problem I saw was in the Starter Set.

Fist of all, why do you publish a Starter Set?

Because you want to introduce your game to an alien audience. These people are supposed to have never played D&D, never played a role playing game before, ever. So your starter set should target them only, not anyone else. I am an experienced DM from 2e era, I bought the starter set, invited a big group of friends half of whom have never played tabletop role-playing before. You know what, my group got into the action and began to give life to their characters under 1 hour of play. But only because I was experienced in the game, and was DMing. I taught them step by step, the rolls, the saves, the skill checks. This starter set and LMoP is a very nice product if you find a DM that knows how to run a role playing game. If you are a bunch of friends that never played before and don't have a DM already, it is still a little hard for you to learn the game. Yeah, you can learn it but without an `old cousin` you should eventually invest a lot more time on it.

I prefer the Starter Set rulebook (and basic rules PDFs) to be a pure tutorial of how to play a character AND how to manage a game. A 32 page tutorial for the player, a 32 page tutorial for the DM (this is the most important one) and an adventure module, that's all. Just put 4 or 5 premade characters, explain briefly how they were created, include background, racial lore, illustrations of how they look like, highlight their special skills and strong points. Omit anything that won't be used in the starter module. Include tips to DM instead. Most of the time, rulebook addresses the player only. Nearly everytime it says `your DM will determine this, your DM will do that, your DM will help you resolve...etc..` Ok so I happen to be that DM, how should I do all that? Where do I begin?

I think, WotC must present a step by step `game mastering tutorial` for D&D in a pdf format. Tips on narrating, storytelling, resolving actions, steering the PCs through an adventure, managing combat, roleplaying npcs and monsters. The current pdf is a set of advanced rules and magic items, nothing really appealing for a novice player. Because all the starting players need only a story to get hooked, get used to their characters, run combat seamlessly, that's all.

 

[delericho]

Well, it's an interesting read, but I'm afraid he's wrong. The three "on-lanes" for 5e aren't all the same. In particular, the "Starter Set" is aimed, largely, at getting people to run their first adventure - it is, in fact, the exact thing he says is needed: a tool for DM conversion.

Now, it's entirely valid to ask if it's a good tool for that purpose, but the answer to that, at the moment at least, is "we don't know". We know the Starter Set has sold well, but we don't know how many of those copies went to new DMs (whether they were players previously or not), whether they'll actually get used or just end up gathering dust, or how many new players they'll attract.

But he's wrong to criticise WotC for a failure to sell the game when they are, at least, trying. Between the new approach to this Starter Set, and their Organised Play offerings, they're at least trying. And if they're really lucky, 5e will appear on "The Big Bang Theory" and/or Wil Wheaton's Tabletop before too long, which will help. (I don't think that last is particularly down to WotC, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it make an appearance, given that D&D has appeared on BBT more than once already.)

 

[pemerton]

he's wrong to criticise WotC for a failure to sell the game when they are, at least, trying.

I think it's legitimate to criticise WotC's efforts, especially when better models are available, and especially because one of them - Moldvay Basic - is wholly owned by WotC, and has been around for over 30 years, allowing plenty of time to absorb and reflect!

Most of the time, rulebook addresses the player only. Nearly everytime it says `your DM will determine this, your DM will do that, your DM will help you resolve...etc..` Ok so I happen to be that DM, how should I do all that? Where do I begin?

I think, WotC must present a step by step `game mastering tutorial` for D&D in a pdf format. Tips on narrating, storytelling, resolving actions, steering the PCs through an adventure, managing combat, roleplaying npcs and monsters.

I completely agree. Moldvay Basic does most of this, in Chapter 8. Because both the focus and the mechanics of the game have changed a bit in 30 years more is required than just cutting and pasting, but it is still the best working example that WotC has.

Just as one example, setting DCs is pretty important to GMing 5e. How does a GM do this? What sorts of considerations might be relevant (eg "objective" ingame difficulty of the task; pacing, and as related matters the significance of the task and the consequences of success or failure; the bonus that the player will be bringing to bear; etc)?

Or another example: per pp 59 and 60 of the Basic PDF, Strength measures athletic training, while Dexterity measures agility, reflexes and balance. So is a contested roll to resolve a sprinting race STR vs STR, DEX vs DEX, or something more complicated? How is a GM meant to decide?

It is possible to write good advice to help a GM learn to handle these questions. Which also gives the designers a chance to gently nudge GMs to work with the overall design of the system, rather than against it.

 

[wedgeski]

So....

has anyone been paying attention to Thornwatch?

Yes. It looks pretty incredible, I have to say. Gabe's stated goal was to "fix 4E"...by which he meant, get rid of all the fiddly numbers tracking that gets in the way of the DM facing the table and engaging the players. From what I saw in the recent PAX videos, he's onto a winner.

Is that a design goal WotC should buy into? I'm not sure about that. A D&D that looked like Thornwatch would make the great edition wars of oh-ten seem like a polite disagreement over who buys the next round of drinks. 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.

 

[wedgeski]

It is possible to write good advice to help a GM learn to handle these questions. Which also gives the designers a chance to gently nudge GMs to work with the overall design of the system, rather than against it.

How do you avoid such a book simply becoming a rules compendium with 101 examples of play codified into something we subsequently all argue over?

Having said that, more examples always help in some way, I suppose.

My issue with "WotC needs to teach DM's how to DM" is that the primary piece of advice to live by as a DM, as I see it, is "Do whatever is coolest. Do whatever is most fun." Now I can imagine a book or product that tries to teach that lesson, but I certainly don't know if anyone would buy it.

 

[delericho]

I think it's legitimate to criticise WotC's efforts, especially when better models are available, and especially because one of them - Moldvay Basic - is wholly owned by WotC, and has been around for over 30 years, allowing plenty of time to absorb and reflect!

We don't know that better methods are available - it's too early to tell how well the 5e Starter Set has done, and we don't know how the Moldvay Basic set (or a 5e equivalent thereof) would have done in today's marketplace.

In one of his more recent Legends & Lore columns, Mearls talked about the thinking that went into the 5e Starter Set, and in particular why they didn't stick with the tried-and-tested "tutorial books plus mini-adventure" model. (Unfortunately, with the redesign of the Wizards site, I now can't find anything from before the change, so can't provide a link - sorry.) I don't particularly agree that the approach they have taken is necessarily the best one, but I couldn't fault the logic that says "we've done this several times now, and it's never been better than okay - let's try something different."

But, yes, you're right that it's legitimate to criticise their methods, and it will be even more legitimate if the passage of time shows that their new approach has failed. But it's not fair to dismiss the Starter Set as one of three identical on-ramps, then say they should focus on DM conversion instead, when the whole purpose of the Starter Set is DM conversion.