Game complexity...

[JDJblatherings]

Read a book my folks gave me recently: "A Theory of Fun for Game Design" by Ralph Koster.

The book is an enjoyable look at game theory from a video/computer game designer. There are a number of insights on games in general (regardless of media) and a number of points that apply to RPGs so very much.

from page 136:

"Games, however, are always formal. The historical trend in games has shown that when a new genre of game is invented, it follows a trajectory where increasing complexity is added to it, until eventually the games on the market are so complex and advanced newcomers can't get unto them- the barrier of entry is too high. You could call this the jargon factor because it is common to all formal systems. Priesthoods develop terms enter common usage, and soon only the educated few can hack it."

... hmmm, sound familiar?

 

[Piratecat]

It does. Good book, I agree.

 

[Clavis]

It seems to me that WOTC is in a bind. If they don't make a complex rule system, the RPGA crowd (who enjoy mastering complex rules, and can be counted on to buy books) will get bored, and perhaps move on to complex systems like HERO or GURPS. If the D&D game is complex, however, WOTC can't get many new players to grow the hobby. Plus, if they lose the "hard-core" players, they may get a new, more casual player base that doesn't buy as many books. So it comes down to a business decision: do they want to sell to a smaller customer base who will buy more units per head, or a larger customer base with fewer units per head.

I think there is another way out for them, however. Make the basic game very simple (much more simple than 3.x or even AD&D was, along the lines of C&C), and sell the additional rules (such as skills, feats, and miniature-based tactical combat) as modular add-ons. The basic game should be of a a nature that specific add-ons can be easily slotted in, but are not necessary for game play. In fact, there could be multiple different systems for adding complexity (such as multiple in-depth combat systems), each presented as an option. This way, the "hard-core" players can have a challenging game that is very rules heavy, and the casual gamers can have a D&D that can be spontaneously played whenever 3 or more people get together.

Of course, its now too late for WOTC to do any such thing, as 4th edition is essentially in the bag. Oh well, it could have been nice.

 

[Mark]

Priesthoods

Good book

"hard-core"

Careful. The Moderatron 2000 still sifts through keywords on these forums and has no concept of context.


Looks like some used copies of that can be had fairly cheaply through Amazon.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

The problem for D&D over the last two decades has been simplifying the "entry-level" game while retaining a sufficient level of complexity and modularity to make it playable for an extended period of time- i.e., long enough to get the players hooked on the game, and turn the basic rules of the game into a "structural vocabulary" that can be built on by the more advanced products.

The perfect example of this was the early 90's D&D Basic Set (the big black box with the beautiful red dragon on the front- wasn't she a beauty? ). The set contained the complete rules for all the major classes in the original D&D game for advancement from 1st-5th level, a good selection of monsters and treasure; one complete dungeon (with a map, and pop-out creature & character counters); one dungeon map waiting to be filled in; a study course for new DMs; and enough material to easily last a gaming group for months on end. It even had the dice. All in one box! By the time a group had gone through everything in there, they were more than ready to graduate to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia- or to AD&D, as their tastes may run.

By contrast, pretty much all of the introductory material put out in the WotC era has been fairly lame; the introductory set doesn't look like it could hold a group's attention for one session, let alone months. Nor does it contain the material necessary to run even a brief campaign; you pretty much have to graduate to the full $90 rulebook set, with all it's complexities, after the first adventure is completed. Not exactly an easy way in, though I can understand how it makes sense for a business point of view- to a point.

Most people I know who play came in from one of two ways- they started playing as children, with either the 1991 D&D game or the Red Box D&D... or (80-90% of cases, based on my experience), they were initiated into the mysteries of our cult by a friend or family member. Relying on this "word-of-mouth" initiation, however, isn't a very good marketing strategy; especially when it's coupled with how much competition there is these days for "mindshare" of the same target market- videogames, graphic novels/manga, TV shows and anime- comparing today's pop culture with that of my childhood/teenage years (the 90's), you'd think that America had lost a war with Nerdistan (which, when you consider the impact of the Japanese as cultural exporters, and the ascendancy of geeky billionaires to the top of our country's social pyramid, we practically have)... there are too many other competitors in this market for WotC to merely leave D&D coasting on it's run of success.

 

[Imaro]

The problem for D&D over the last two decades has been simplifying the "entry-level" game while retaining a sufficient level of complexity and modularity to make it playable for an extended period of time- i.e., long enough to get the players hooked on the game, and turn the basic rules of the game into a "structural vocabulary" that can be built on by the more advanced products.

The perfect example of this was the early 90's D&D Basic Set (the big black box with the beautiful red dragon on the front- wasn't she a beauty? ). The set contained the complete rules for all the major classes in the original D&D game for advancement from 1st-5th level, a good selection of monsters and treasure; one complete dungeon (with a map, and pop-out creature & character counters); one dungeon map waiting to be filled in; a study course for new DMs; and enough material to easily last a gaming group for months on end. It even had the dice. All in one box! By the time a group had gone through everything in there, they were more than ready to graduate to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia- or to AD&D, as their tastes may run.

By contrast, pretty much all of the introductory material put out in the WotC era has been fairly lame; the introductory set doesn't look like it could hold a group's attention for one session, let alone months. Nor does it contain the material necessary to run even a brief campaign; you pretty much have to graduate to the full $90 rulebook set, with all it's complexities, after the first adventure is completed. Not exactly an easy way in, though I can understand how it makes sense for a business point of view- to a point.

Most people I know who play came in from one of two ways- they started playing as children, with either the 1991 D&D game or the Red Box D&D... or (80-90% of cases, based on my experience), they were initiated into the mysteries of our cult by a friend or family member. Relying on this "word-of-mouth" initiation, however, isn't a very good marketing strategy; especially when it's coupled with how much competition there is these days for "mindshare" of the same target market- videogames, graphic novels/manga, TV shows and anime- comparing today's pop culture with that of my childhood/teenage years (the 90's), you'd think that America had lost a war with Nerdistan (which, when you consider the impact of the Japanese as cultural exporters, and the ascendancy of geeky billionaires to the top of our country's social pyramid, we practically have)... there are too many other competitors in this market for WotC to merely leave D&D coasting on it's run of success.

I agree with nearly everything you said, and will elaborate on my thoughts about this subject a little more...

IMHO, the D&D basic games for 3.0 & 3.5 were pure and simple a waste. It did not provide enough of a gameplay experience to hook a potential buyer, when after playing up to 2nd level you are now required to make an investment (on top of the $25 already payed) of $90. It just seemed more focused on flash and not enough on the actual play experience. Part of this I blame on D&D's focus on minis in play and as a money maker. In the 3.5 Basic sets, I got the impression it was more important to hook people on the shiny toys (minis & tiles) than on the actual game.

Now the biggest response is that you only have to make a $30 investment, but in the end without a DM there is no game. So again someone has to be willing to make a $90 investment off what they experienced with the D&D basic set.

WotC seems unwillng to risk a perceived loss in making a decent basic game, which is a shame. In the videogame indutry, an overall loss on consoles is often expected and pursued in order to hook gamers on becoming continued consumers for that particular system. D&D could benefit from exploring this type of model. Let the basic set go up to 5th level, provide simple rules...even something along the lines of the " For Dummies" books so that new players can actually see why they would want to invest more heavily in the game. Minis and Tiles are cool, but you don't sell continued interest in something through flash...you have to give it some substance.

On a side note I would be curious to ask a representative of WOtC why the D&D boardgame was never released in the states. This seemed like exactly the type of thing that could hook younger gamers and slowly steer them towards the full game or allow them to continue supporting D&D by sticking with the boardgame and buying the enhancements. Again wasted opportunity WotC, I would have definitely bought this and some of the supplements for my son, who is starting to show interest in the roleplaying games I play.

 

[Andre]

The problem for D&D over the last two decades has been simplifying the "entry-level" game while retaining a sufficient level of complexity and modularity to make it playable for an extended period of time...

I'm going to disagree slightly. While some players want more complex rules, an RPG doesn't have to have them to be complete or durable. Don't get me wrong - I believe strongly that the rules matter - but it's what a group adds to the rules that make the most difference. I believe the problem for WOTC is that RPG's don't require complex rules.

The risk for WOTC is that they would produce a simplified rules-set that would satisfy too many players, who would never purchase a single supplement. The opportunity for WOTC is that they would produce a simplified rules-set that would satisfy many players, who would never purchase the core books anyway, and even if they did, would never purchase a single supplement.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

There's lots of talk here on Enworld about the marketing of RPGs. I was wondering if anyone had ever seen, or knew of, any proper marketing research done on the subject. I'd just be curious to read it is all.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

From the very little that I've gathered about 4E (I'm avoiding any thread about it), it sounds like 4E _might_ be an attempt to tap into both the complex/rule monkey market, as well as the market (like myself) that is not interested in joining or dealing with that part of the hobby.

Face it, people like me (I'd be termed a "casual gamer" by folks I suppose) aren't going to bother doing the online thing that WotC has set up. I don't need it. I can buy whatever corebook is put out, and go from there. All the hardcore people can log into their special website, argue themselves sick over the rules, and get instant errata updates.

Best of both worlds (potentially).

The real problem is whether or not the casual people will stay around long enough to be able to bring in new people.

To an extent, a new edition is a way of being able to hit the "reset" button. You can lower the bar enough so that once again everyone is on a relatively "equal" footing, and while new/casual people will still have to put up with a certain amount of "Man, in the previous edition, it used to be...[insert some story nobody cares about]" it does mean that the conversation doesn't have to be entirely about some obscure interpretation of some rule that we've never heard of, let alone learned how to abuse.

Although I would say that Magic The Gathering is a pretty good example and warning that new editions and rule changes don't necessarily mean that the barrier to entry is really reduced. Or even if it is, that the overall system complexity can still be overwhelming.

I've got a friend that was really into MtG for the past couple of years. I played a bit with him, and had fun. But I was completely out of my depth. I quit playing MtG one or two sets after Legends. Sold all my cards, and turned a tidy profit. The game he was introducing me to? Way beyond what I used to know.

Back when I started playing rpgs 20 years ago, I remember meeting a fair number of the "old school wargamer" crowd. A bunch of the people I knew and played with had been wargamers themselves. There was this kind of contempt from some of the old-school guys, about RPGs and how they weren't "real" games, where tactics didn't matter, and it was a bunch of sitting around and playing make-believe with elves. "Fru-fru crap" I heard on more than one occasion.

Fast forward, and I look at RPG players these days, and see that same kind of contempt for anyone that's not into the "hardcore" way of doing things. I don't personally know anyone that does those old hex style wargames these days. Chits and counters and all that. I'm sure there's still holdouts; they just don't dominate the game scene like they used to.

It'll be interesting to see if the hardcore gamers suffer the same fate or not.

There's lots of talk here on Enworld about the marketing of RPGs. I was wondering if anyone had ever seen, or knew of, any proper marketing research done on the subject. I'd just be curious to read it is all.

You can start with the information that was made public regarding the research for D&D 3.0.
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Take anything Raph (not Ralph) Koster says with a tremendous grain of salt. See Star Wars: Galaxies (before it was rebooted) for a good example of his ideas given free reign.