Is it WotC’s responsibility to bring people to the hobby?

[GreyICE]

Well I don't claim to be a marketing professional, but so far PnP RPGs have segmented themselves into a limited market that is slowly shrinking. And I don't see many successful businesses in the larger world who have done this. I mean take video games as an example - some of the most successful video games of the early era were literally just PnP RPGs - but digital! Baldurs Gate, Planescape Torment, even Dragon Age.

If RPGs can be "PnP games, but with the advantage digital features," and attract a huge crowd, certainly PnP games can incorporate elements of video games, with the advantage of human features. I mean unless you're saying there literally are no advantages of human features that video game players would be interested in. And I think that statement would do a huge disservice to both Video Game Players and the very many excellent DMs out there.

 

[Console Cowboy]

Well I don't claim to be a marketing professional, but so far PnP RPGs have segmented themselves into a limited market that is slowly shrinking. And I don't see many successful businesses in the larger world who have done this. I mean take video games as an example - some of the most successful video games of the early era were literally just PnP RPGs - but digital! Baldurs Gate, Planescape Torment, even Dragon Age.

I agree. RPGs are fighting in the wrong weight category. It has been placed in the wrong market, and gone after the wrong marketplace. That's the segmentation.

And I agree that the hobby is shrinking. Dancey's Model Train Hobby model is a believe and achieve self-fulfilling prophesy. However, I think this is due to the segmentation and the result of marketing's 90 lb weakling in the 800 lbs gorilla cage rather than from some weakeness (perceived or real) of the hobby itself.

If RPGs can be "PnP games, but with the advantage digital features," and attract a huge crowd, certainly PnP games can incorporate elements of video games, with the advantage of human features. I mean unless you're saying there literally are no advantages of human features that video game players would be interested in. And I think that statement would do a huge disservice to both Video Game Players and the very many excellent DMs out there.

I am a firm believer that, rather than pursue a model of RPGs as complementary to the electronic media in positioning the hobby, the hobby SHOULD BE taking the lead in that relationship. Electronic media should complement the tabletop experience and not replace it. But, first, dumb-dumb needs to understand the differences and the limitations of mixed media. That's where someone with my background comes in.

Table accessories and tools are not truly innovative thinking: AD&D 1e had flash cards; DM's screen; paper notes; corridor meetings; mood music; and everything a virtual tabletop does but in a real room. Those things do not upset the experience of RPGs - they complement it. But we haven't mixed media in those examples.

The challenge is not how to use new media to replace what is but to understand how and when new media culturally fits with the RPGs experience. But dumb-dumb needs to understand that culture first.

Paco mentioned to me that PnP game designers go on to become computer game designers in a kind of apprenticeship step because of the money involved. This would lead me to wonder what's on the mind of the PnP game designer as he or she builds his or her portfolio; what this signifies to the market (industry and hobby); and what sort of self-fulfilling prophesy this creates; and what could be done to stop it.

At its core a lack of respect will be the death of the hobby. Lack of self-respect. Lack of respect given to players. Lack of respect for the Game Master. Lack of respect (or appreciation for) the differences in media between table and monitor. Lack of respect for the RPGs themselves and their creators in general.

Fans, really good fans, act out the industry behaviour of stumbling through edition wars that drive people away.

It is the industry responsibility to not only prevent consumer exodus but to bring in new consumers. And I mean WotC. I mean Dungeons and Dragons. WotC, and I take into account the direction of 5e, is participating in a Coney Island shell game for consumers.

 

[GreyICE]

Wow, I... I couldn't more strongly disagree with everything you said. A lot of it is wrong. Some of it doesn't even have the substance to be wrong. It's just not there.

I think the worst part is probably the idea that if we were all super respectful of everything, all the problems would vanish.

But the problem is people not buying books and materials. There's several factors, certainly TPB didn't help. But if people don't buy they're not interested. If they're not interested it's not because of respect, or lack thereof. It's because the hobby doesn't hold their interest.

And if it doesn't hold their interest, while other hobbies do, there's probably a reason for that. Wizards was on the right track in a lot of ways with 4E, and it's sad to see it go so thoroughly. Could it have used a reboot, done better? Yes. But that's not what is happening.

As for the idea that a $70 million industry will lead a $70 BILLION one around, well it's a nice, noble dream, but there's no mechanism to that dream. There's no way the $70 million industry gets somewhere the $70 billion one is going before they do. If they're in a similar niche, the best they can do is carve out their own space, and this is not done by declaring "We are the Visionaries of the Future!" and ignoring everything the $70 billion dollar industry does. That way lies madness and Segway.

 

[Console Cowboy]

Wow, I... I couldn't more strongly disagree with everything you said. A lot of it is wrong. Some of it doesn't even have the substance to be wrong. It's just not there.

I think the worst part is probably the idea that if we were all super respectful of everything, all the problems would vanish.

But the problem is people not buying books and materials. There's several factors, certainly TPB didn't help. But if people don't buy they're not interested. If they're not interested it's not because of respect, or lack thereof. It's because the hobby doesn't hold their interest.

And if it doesn't hold their interest, while other hobbies do, there's probably a reason for that. Wizards was on the right track in a lot of ways with 4E, and it's sad to see it go so thoroughly. Could it have used a reboot, done better? Yes. But that's not what is happening.

As for the idea that a $70 million industry will lead a $70 BILLION one around, well it's a nice, noble dream, but there's no mechanism to that dream. There's no way the $70 million industry gets somewhere the $70 billion one is going before they do. If they're in a similar niche, the best they can do is carve out their own space, and this is not done by declaring "We are the Visionaries of the Future!" and ignoring everything the $70 billion dollar industry does. That way lies madness and Segway.

First off, let's define the word respect....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect

Next, you simply have not understood - or maybe do not want to since 4e was the Giant Killer that WotC gave up on too early and no one is going to dissuade you from that argument. For other people, however, that same scenario plays out with 3x. Yet the problem is not within the edition wars; they are the Asperger's hobby fever from the industry malaria.

I never claimed WotC is not going to become Blizzard. I said they have to get away from that comparison. You say you are fine with that and look at the market realistically. Perhaps you even believe you do. Yet you want to market RPGs as a cage match between the 800 lbs gorilla and the 90 lbs bookworm whereby you foresee a victory for the bookworm. That is a fantasy.

There is a very solid reason why marketing is defined in war terms: because it is a war, like any war, for resources. And that battle, more often than not, takes place in the consumer mind. RPGs are not video games. They never will be. So far WotC persists on defining itself against competitors (Paizo) and fighting on improperly drawn market segmentation (video game market) to its detriment. This also impacts the growth of the hobby, and leads to decline. And the more the bottom line failure supports the claim the hobby is shrinking, the more the hobby will shrink.

I believe the hobby market could expand, might even be ready to expand, and that it certainly has not been fully explored in marketing terms. The fact remains it is not expanding because the responsibility for gaining new hobbyists weighs heavy on the backs of the players. Maybe that model was okay in the 1970's and 80's but it is not a workable model today.

Demographics are not the sole driver of segmentation. WotC needs to understand its product and the media of its product (or were you also disagreeing with my observation that RPGs and video games exist in entirely different media?) when deciding on a target market.

Just because a consumer plays a fantasy themed video game does not automatically make that person a candidate for RPGs. We're not talking Budweiser vs. Pabst, but, apples and oranges.

Do people who eat apples also drink Budweiser? Sure, some do. But do not be selling apples in place of beer. That’s sheer and expensive folly.

WotC will realize that only when they respect the hobby enough to have the courage of their marketing convictions. Otherwise, this sloppy seconds strategy of catching breadcrumbs off Blizzard's (or Paizo's) table is all they’ll ever have and the hobby will continue to shrink.

 

[GreyICE]

It is becoming quickly apparent to me that you believe you understand what I write, and this belief has become a permanent impedent to understanding what I write. I could play the game of insulting you while attempting to bury it in language that might slide past the mods (dictionary links, references to asbergers syndrome, hollow threats, pretending that liking something is 'edition warring'). I find this holds no interest for me. I bid you adieu.

If anyone else is interested in holding a discussion, I'll be around.

I will end on the note that economics is not a zero sum game. Your entire point is predicated around it being a zero sum game. To win video game players, DnD must take their video games. You view it as a direct competition - to play DnD, you must take their WoW, take their Final Fantasy, take their Mass Effect. You judge this competition, and say it will never happen.

Instead I note that DnD consumes, for many, one evening/day of the weekend. And that their normal hobbies still exist, and continue around that evening/day. They'll still play all of the video games they love - just as I do. I currently play, on and off, Dungeons of Dredmor, Guild Wars 2, Imperishable Night (I'm TERRIBLE, y'all would laugh) and Final Fantasy XIII-2 (bargin bin sale!). And yet I still have time to play both 4E and FATE!

 

[Console Cowboy]

Your entire point is predicated around it being a zero sum game.

You're putting words into my mouth. Thus, I see you do not understand. But I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. You are propagating the zero sum theology yourself. Of course, marketing communications (PR PsyOps) is my field of expertise here so I will explain with a case study to make the obtuse clear.

Retail food. McDonald's vs. Burger King. Now, in fairness to my argument, I do not believe RPGs and computer games share the same market. The words from my mouth are that the consumer of video games and RPGs should be better segmented to promote differentiation. My vision to re-segment would separate these two competitors into non-competitive markets [that would be me espousing the opposite of zero sum.]

In food retail, my example of re-segmentation would simply acknowledge you can eat at both McDonald's and Burger King non-competitively as separate things. But you want a competitive analogy. So I am choosing retail food to address you. You have expressed RPGs and video games exist in the same market. So, the case on Burger King versus McDonald's comes to mind. (Hence a zero sum, "win" all or "win" nothing at all scenario.)

McDonald's marketing focus is on children: happy meals; kid's toys; playgrounds back in my day; and commercials addressing issues that went only as far as adolescence. Burger King is a rival fast food joint. In order to compete within McDonald's segment, it also has to address kids. It has to steal away those consumers from the market segment.

IF Burger King would aim at the adolescent market they could have sent out a message like: kids, when you are ready for a grown up experience, Burger King will be here for you. But they did not. Could have does not win ball games or increase balance sheets.

What Burger King did was make the same appeal to McDonald’s market, as did McDonald’s. They had party hats, meal deals, and commercials with kids having parties in them, showing the flame broiled shtick. And it failed naturally.

McDonald’s = WoW. Burger King = D&D There is the essence of your zero sum: targeting the video game consumer with RPGs. Will some people spend at both? Surely. They will also spend at Subway, too. But not enough will spend at Burger King to satisfy Burger King or worry McDonald’s.

I think this addresses putting words into my mouth. And maybe clarifies my argument that the battle should not be for video gamers. When they are ready for a grown up experience, they will come - to coin a phrase.

Kamikaze Midget here with a friendly reminder for all to try and avoid language that can seem insulting to other posters -- stuff like implying that people who don't like tabletop RPG's are somehow not as "grown up" as the rest of us isn't likely to get a lot of friendly constructive conversation as a result, folks. Remember: only YOU can prevent flame wars! /smokeythebear

To coin a phrase I used (in the post itself!) to describe a missed opportunity for Burger King against McDonald's in creating a very strong differentiation that would pull McDonald's customers while ALSO targeting their own market (older kids). Only misdirection and twisting from my clear intent suggests an argumentative reader. Please read the post to parse it rather than judge a soundbite.

Al Ries articulated the Burger King versus McDonald's case better than me: http://adage.com/article/al-ries/exciting-burger-king-s-menu-expansion/234145/

 

[GreyICE]

When they are ready for a grown up experience, they will come - to coin a phrase.

Wow.

I...

Wow.

I don't even want to play RPGs anymore. And I love em.

 

[Rogue Agent]

3.5 was, of course made by WotC and the differences with Pathfinder are only some very minor house rules.

And there was [clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction in the existing customer base] with 3.5.

If you think that was clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction with the existing customer base for 3.5, where do you think all those Pathfinder players came from? You've already admitted that Pathfinder isn't substantially different.

I'm aware that a lot of online theorists and CharOppers like yourself were dissatisfied with 3.5. But that doesn't actually constitute clear, deep, or widespread dissatisfaction.

Yes, the dungeon structure is a tight one and the quest is a loose one - but it's there.

4E Quests don't constitute a robust game structure. While it provides a goal, it doesn't provide a default action. Without that, you don't have a structure at all.

 

[GreyICE]

If you think that was clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction with the existing customer base for 3.5, where do you think all those Pathfinder players came from? You've already admitted that Pathfinder isn't substantially different.

I'm aware that a lot of online theorists and CharOppers like yourself were dissatisfied with 3.5. But that doesn't actually constitute clear, deep, or widespread dissatisfaction.

Given that the sales of 4E were hardly anemic (even with 5E announced, the system years old, and the online tools giving you most of the benefits of the books, it's the second best selling system) I think it's fair to say that both 3E and 4E had fans and detractors.

As is usual though, we're mostly just losing players. Not to other editions. Not to other systems. Just in general. Gone.

 

[S'mon]

If you think that was clear, deep, and widespread dissatisfaction with the existing customer base for 3.5, where do you think all those Pathfinder players came from? You've already admitted that Pathfinder isn't substantially different.

I think there was a lot of dissatisfaction with 3e's class imbalance and broken high-level play (Scry & Fry, for instance). But most people were looking for a fixed 3e, not a new game system - and 4e looked more like a new game than a fixed 3e. Personally I happen to think 4e is an excellent game, but it gives quite a different sort of play experience to 3e.