Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Promotions/Press
How Important is the D&D Brand?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Radiating Gnome" data-source="post: 7652100" data-attributes="member: 150"><p>Is the brand identity of Dungeons and Dragons something other games should be targeting?</p><p></p><p>[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]</p><p>[ATTACH]58175[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p><strong>So You're Going To Sneeze.</strong> </p><p></p><p>Do you reach for a kleenex? A Tissue? A Puffs? </p><p></p><p>I'm betting that you do so in roughly that order. Most people will say kleenex (leading brand name), others will use tissue (generic term). And a few stubborn, difficult folks will say "puffs", mostly expecting to be misunderstood so they can vent a little spleen. </p><p></p><p><strong>What The Hell Are You Talking About Kleenex For?</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>We are in the middle of a really interesting period for our hobby -- probably more interesting in the long run than the original boom in 3rd party publication that followed the d20 Open License release. </p><p></p><p>The dominant brand -- Dungeons and Dragons -- has been essentially on a re-design hiatus for over a year and a half. They're still out there, developing products that use the IP like board games and computer games. They're working hard to be open and stay engaged with their existing fans through the monumental open playtest program. But for quite some time now they haven't really been pushing their core product. </p><p></p><p>This has created a window for other products. Some were already well established -- Pathfinder, which was born in the sturm und drang over the 4th edition release, is probably the most significant. Paizo's product quality has been the standard by which all others are measured for a long time, and their evolution of the d20 ruleset is no exception. </p><p></p><p>But this past year or so has given rise to many other games that I think could have been easily ignorable in other circumstances. Clearly, the rise of the Kickstarter RPG engine has roared into the D&D vacuum, and systems that might have been minor boutique products like FATE have exploded onto the scene and have developed audiences they might not have dreamed of just three years ago. Other games that have been around for a while are also getting a bump in the D&D break -- Savage Worlds, for one, seems to be coming on strong on many fronts. </p><p></p><p>The interesting question, though, is how much does that all matter to D&D? With the D&D Next fallow period coming (eventually) to an end, will D&D come back from it's walkabout and return to it's top dog position? Or are the other games, other publishers, becoming viable contenders for the top spot? </p><p></p><p><strong>Another Brand Example</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Think about this: In conversations with people who are not gamers, which gets the point across more quickly -- "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" or "World of Warcraft"? </p><p></p><p>It's World of Warcraft, hands down. And even today, when the market dominance that WOW had years ago has eroded substantially, it's still the descriptor that has the cultural capital to mean MMORPG better than the actual term does (at least to outsiders). </p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Beating the Brand</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Imagine someone who has never played RPGs before. She likes Star Wars, thinks Avengers was awesome, likes board games like Risk and Settlers of Catan, but that's as far as she's gone. </p><p></p><p>So, you tell her "Vin Diesel, Wil Wheaton, and Dan Harmon play Pathfinder." Does that mean anything to her? How about "Vin Diesel, Wil Wheaton, and Dan Harmon play Dungeons and Dragons"? </p><p></p><p>The difference is the power of the D&D brand. The vast audience of non-geeks out there has heard of Dungeons and Dragons. Their perceptions D&D are probably silly and wrong to our ears, but at least they know what it is; there's cultural capital there that these other games simply don't have. </p><p></p><p>When you come right down to it, when it becomes time to explain a non-D&D game to an outsider, we probably need to mention D&D as starting point. </p><p></p><p>Now, I'm not a member of the staff of any of those other games….but I imagine that must get pretty galling after a while. Anyone else trying to take over the mindshare that D&D has is facing 35+ years of brand recognition, recognition reinforced by TV shows, movies, books cartoons, board games, comic books, and probably a breakfast cereal.</p><p></p><p><strong>But Does It Matter?</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>The brand dominance of D&D isn't a bad thing -- even if your first choice RPG isn't Dungeons and Dragons. It's a reality that puts D&D in a position the other companies don't need to be in, however. For a long time now they have been the primary recruiters for the hobby. </p><p></p><p>Their sheer size, and their need for a large audience, has meant that they have need a flow of new players and new customers that they can't get by stealing them away from other games. (DDN seemed, at first, to be a bid to try to change this reality and try to win players back; I'm not so sure of that anymore).</p><p></p><p>But for a long time, I have felt like that's okay, because the other brands have been able to create their own audience by grabbing D&D players away from D&D. Someone who wants more story flexibility from D&D might discover FATE. Someone who wants faster action or wider variety of settings might discover Savage Worlds or GURPS. Someone who loves micromanaging might discover Rolemaster. Once you've been brought into the community there are games for every taste. </p><p></p><p>The question the #2, #3, or ambitious #10 games out there need to answer is Can We Compete For D&D's Position as the Gateway Game? And Do We Want To? </p><p></p><p>And if we want to, HOW? </p><p></p><p><strong>Sidebar: Is there a Risk for WOTC?</strong></p><p></p><p>When a brand becomes the generic term for the product, there are grave risks for the company with that brand. It's vitally important to defend the brand name, because once the brand becomes that generic descriptor (aka a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark" target="_blank">Generic Trademark</a>) the company may lost the ability to trademark their brand name. </p><p></p><p>So, It's actually important for the WOTC brand managers -- while keeping the Dungeons and Dragons brand on top of the heap -- from becoming the generic name for the heap of RPGs. They should cringe at the idea that their brand name is used when we talk about our hobby -- despite the fact that it remains the most clear way of communicating what we do to people who aren't part of the community. </p><p></p><p>They've got nearly 40 years of brand identity behind them, but if they aren't careful, they might lost the ability to control it. And that's why you'll never see a WOTC staffer use the term "Dungeons and Dragons" as a collective term, the way I'm arguing the general public might. </p><p></p><p><strong>Back To Beating Them</strong> </p><p></p><p>For more than a year Pathfinder has been outselling D&D. That's not much of a surprise to anyone -- D&D's primary delivery method had become online via subscription, and they haven't been selling much except reprints of old editions for a while now. </p><p></p><p>When D&D comes back, they're going to roar back into the stores and it's going to be interesting to see if Pathfinder can remain on top. It's also going to be interesting to see if Wizards continues the subscription model for the game. I'd bet they do, but anything's possible. Maybe they'll just run the whole thing through Facebook. Everybody loves Facebook. </p><p></p><p>Any game property that really wants to try to compete for that brand recognition -- especially in the awareness of people who are outside the hobby -- needs to be creating that awareness through non-rpg IP. </p><p></p><p>Take a look, for example, at the way <em>Defiance</em> is both an MMO and a TV Show. The MMO is getting far more attention that it may deserve because people are also interested in the TV show. Can you imagine a similar tie-in show on SyFy for Pathfinder? A live-action show called "Pathfinder Society" about an adventuring company? Heck, I'd watch that, even if the effects and writing were <em>Sharknado</em>-level bad. </p><p></p><p>What do you think? Should companies like Paizo try to compete for that brand identity space in the general public?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Radiating Gnome, post: 7652100, member: 150"] Is the brand identity of Dungeons and Dragons something other games should be targeting? [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK] [ATTACH=CONFIG]58175[/ATTACH] [B]So You're Going To Sneeze.[/B] Do you reach for a kleenex? A Tissue? A Puffs? I'm betting that you do so in roughly that order. Most people will say kleenex (leading brand name), others will use tissue (generic term). And a few stubborn, difficult folks will say "puffs", mostly expecting to be misunderstood so they can vent a little spleen. [B]What The Hell Are You Talking About Kleenex For? [/B] We are in the middle of a really interesting period for our hobby -- probably more interesting in the long run than the original boom in 3rd party publication that followed the d20 Open License release. The dominant brand -- Dungeons and Dragons -- has been essentially on a re-design hiatus for over a year and a half. They're still out there, developing products that use the IP like board games and computer games. They're working hard to be open and stay engaged with their existing fans through the monumental open playtest program. But for quite some time now they haven't really been pushing their core product. This has created a window for other products. Some were already well established -- Pathfinder, which was born in the sturm und drang over the 4th edition release, is probably the most significant. Paizo's product quality has been the standard by which all others are measured for a long time, and their evolution of the d20 ruleset is no exception. But this past year or so has given rise to many other games that I think could have been easily ignorable in other circumstances. Clearly, the rise of the Kickstarter RPG engine has roared into the D&D vacuum, and systems that might have been minor boutique products like FATE have exploded onto the scene and have developed audiences they might not have dreamed of just three years ago. Other games that have been around for a while are also getting a bump in the D&D break -- Savage Worlds, for one, seems to be coming on strong on many fronts. The interesting question, though, is how much does that all matter to D&D? With the D&D Next fallow period coming (eventually) to an end, will D&D come back from it's walkabout and return to it's top dog position? Or are the other games, other publishers, becoming viable contenders for the top spot? [B]Another Brand Example [/B] Think about this: In conversations with people who are not gamers, which gets the point across more quickly -- "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game" or "World of Warcraft"? It's World of Warcraft, hands down. And even today, when the market dominance that WOW had years ago has eroded substantially, it's still the descriptor that has the cultural capital to mean MMORPG better than the actual term does (at least to outsiders). [B]Beating the Brand [/B] Imagine someone who has never played RPGs before. She likes Star Wars, thinks Avengers was awesome, likes board games like Risk and Settlers of Catan, but that's as far as she's gone. So, you tell her "Vin Diesel, Wil Wheaton, and Dan Harmon play Pathfinder." Does that mean anything to her? How about "Vin Diesel, Wil Wheaton, and Dan Harmon play Dungeons and Dragons"? The difference is the power of the D&D brand. The vast audience of non-geeks out there has heard of Dungeons and Dragons. Their perceptions D&D are probably silly and wrong to our ears, but at least they know what it is; there's cultural capital there that these other games simply don't have. When you come right down to it, when it becomes time to explain a non-D&D game to an outsider, we probably need to mention D&D as starting point. Now, I'm not a member of the staff of any of those other games….but I imagine that must get pretty galling after a while. Anyone else trying to take over the mindshare that D&D has is facing 35+ years of brand recognition, recognition reinforced by TV shows, movies, books cartoons, board games, comic books, and probably a breakfast cereal. [B]But Does It Matter? [/B] The brand dominance of D&D isn't a bad thing -- even if your first choice RPG isn't Dungeons and Dragons. It's a reality that puts D&D in a position the other companies don't need to be in, however. For a long time now they have been the primary recruiters for the hobby. Their sheer size, and their need for a large audience, has meant that they have need a flow of new players and new customers that they can't get by stealing them away from other games. (DDN seemed, at first, to be a bid to try to change this reality and try to win players back; I'm not so sure of that anymore). But for a long time, I have felt like that's okay, because the other brands have been able to create their own audience by grabbing D&D players away from D&D. Someone who wants more story flexibility from D&D might discover FATE. Someone who wants faster action or wider variety of settings might discover Savage Worlds or GURPS. Someone who loves micromanaging might discover Rolemaster. Once you've been brought into the community there are games for every taste. The question the #2, #3, or ambitious #10 games out there need to answer is Can We Compete For D&D's Position as the Gateway Game? And Do We Want To? And if we want to, HOW? [B]Sidebar: Is there a Risk for WOTC?[/B] When a brand becomes the generic term for the product, there are grave risks for the company with that brand. It's vitally important to defend the brand name, because once the brand becomes that generic descriptor (aka a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark"]Generic Trademark[/URL]) the company may lost the ability to trademark their brand name. So, It's actually important for the WOTC brand managers -- while keeping the Dungeons and Dragons brand on top of the heap -- from becoming the generic name for the heap of RPGs. They should cringe at the idea that their brand name is used when we talk about our hobby -- despite the fact that it remains the most clear way of communicating what we do to people who aren't part of the community. They've got nearly 40 years of brand identity behind them, but if they aren't careful, they might lost the ability to control it. And that's why you'll never see a WOTC staffer use the term "Dungeons and Dragons" as a collective term, the way I'm arguing the general public might. [B]Back To Beating Them[/B] For more than a year Pathfinder has been outselling D&D. That's not much of a surprise to anyone -- D&D's primary delivery method had become online via subscription, and they haven't been selling much except reprints of old editions for a while now. When D&D comes back, they're going to roar back into the stores and it's going to be interesting to see if Pathfinder can remain on top. It's also going to be interesting to see if Wizards continues the subscription model for the game. I'd bet they do, but anything's possible. Maybe they'll just run the whole thing through Facebook. Everybody loves Facebook. Any game property that really wants to try to compete for that brand recognition -- especially in the awareness of people who are outside the hobby -- needs to be creating that awareness through non-rpg IP. Take a look, for example, at the way [I]Defiance[/I] is both an MMO and a TV Show. The MMO is getting far more attention that it may deserve because people are also interested in the TV show. Can you imagine a similar tie-in show on SyFy for Pathfinder? A live-action show called "Pathfinder Society" about an adventuring company? Heck, I'd watch that, even if the effects and writing were [I]Sharknado[/I]-level bad. What do you think? Should companies like Paizo try to compete for that brand identity space in the general public? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Promotions/Press
How Important is the D&D Brand?
Top