Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.

 

[Remathilis]

But did they play with them or just read about them?

You couldn't have paid them to.

This matters from an "industry" perspective because if what you want is for people to use the material you develop in their games (you want your audience to get a lot out of the development dollars you spend), and you know that the people complaining about a lack of content aren't actually using content more intensively, you know that just making more content isn't going to get you what you want. If your audience is ignoring the content you're producing, the issue isn't quantity, it's relevance. If you want people to use the material you develop, you're going to need to be relevant more than you are going to need to be prolific.

Which is why right now, all D&D material is geared toward Forgotten Realm's mega-adventures. They are supporting one type of play at the exclusion of all others.

Which means surveys. Market research. Even things like the most recent polls point in that direction: tell us what you're looking for. Tell us where your campaign is now. Tell us what you're playing, what level you are, if you've restarted your campaign. They need to ask that question in a thousand different ways to find out what need people actually have.

I have no problem with market research. My question is, what are they going to do with it? For example, is the questions in the June Survey going to lead to new campaign support? What is the end goal for this research?

Because if no one is using the free content they provided, then nobody really needs more.

Nobody uses everything. You pick and choose. Choice requires diverse options. Right now, WotC isn't letting us know what options they are considering. Ergo, its reasonable to ask what support will we get in the future, or is this "it"?

 

[I'm A Banana]

You couldn't have paid them to.

Then clearly they aren't option-starved.

Which is why right now, all D&D material is geared toward Forgotten Realm's mega-adventures. They are supporting one type of play at the exclusion of all others.

I presume that's what the market research indicated would actually get used in play. Data like "the average campaign lasts for about a year and people rarely buy supplements mid-campaign, but they might buy adventures,m and mega-adventures have proven success with the Paizo model" (just off the cuff) would certainly lead to that behavior.

I have no problem with market research. My question is, what are they going to do with it? For example, is the questions in the June Survey going to lead to new campaign support? What is the end goal for this research?

The goal is to find out what the market needs! If they find that people are chomping at the bit for Mystara material featuring Catfolk and Runepriests, you'll probably see something with that! The purpose of market research is to find out what kind of products people will use so that you can then go about making those products.

Nobody uses everything. You pick and choose. Choice requires diverse options. Right now, WotC isn't letting us know what options they are considering. Ergo, its reasonable to ask what support will we get in the future, or is this "it"?

OGL would solve this problem, but how many of the 3rd party stuff for 5e is your table using now? How much fan stuff are you using?

Nobody uses everything and WotC can't cater to everything, but it's not like there's not content out there for those looking for content.

It sounds like you're not directly looking for content, though. Which means WotC needs to find out which content is most likely to sell the most things to the most people. Which means research. Playtesting. Blah blah blah. That stuff can take a lot of time. It hasn't even been a year since 5e's launch. There hasn't been another holiday buying season. WotC's not even sure what most people are doing with all the stuff they bought (though I bet that recent survey asking stuff like table time helped a bit!).

And given mearls's word that their media strategy involves bigger news than "we're working on Supplement X," it shouldn't be too shocking that we haven't heard much.

It's just different than the last 15 years have been.

 

[Remathilis]

Then clearly they aren't option-starved.



I presume that's what the market research indicated would actually get used in play. Data like "the average campaign lasts for about a year and people rarely buy supplements mid-campaign, but they might buy adventures,m and mega-adventures have proven success with the Paizo model" (just off the cuff) would certainly lead to that behavior.




The goal is to find out what the market needs! If they find that people are chomping at the bit for Mystara material featuring Catfolk and Runepriests, you'll probably see something with that! The purpose of market research is to find out what kind of products people will use so that you can then go about making those products.




OGL would solve this problem, but how many of the 3rd party stuff for 5e is your table using now? How much fan stuff are you using?

Nobody uses everything and WotC can't cater to everything, but it's not like there's not content out there for those looking for content.

It sounds like you're not directly looking for content, though. Which means WotC needs to find out which content is most likely to sell the most things to the most people. Which means research. Playtesting. Blah blah blah. That stuff can take a lot of time. It hasn't even been a year since 5e's launch. There hasn't been another holiday buying season. WotC's not even sure what most people are doing with all the stuff they bought (though I bet that recent survey asking stuff like table time helped a bit!).

And given mearls's word that their media strategy involves bigger news than "we're working on Supplement X," it shouldn't be too shocking that we haven't heard much.

It's just different than the last 15 years have been.

Bad options aren't real options. If you come to my house for dinner and I give you a choice of hamburgers or undercooked chicken, you really don't have an option.

 

[GobiWon]

Serious question.

Why are you assuming in all of your arguments like this that we all are somehow supposed to like what has been put out so far?

I DO NOT like Eberron so coming out with stuff for Eberron is of no use to me. How about you put yourself in someone else's shoes and try to imagine stuff be putting out that you don't like with no alternative? Why would I use something I don't like?

Please stop telling us there is stuff there to use when it's not liked by some of us.

What happens if you go to a party and they offer nothing but cheese and you don't like cheese. Now mind you they are offering lots of different cheeses. Are you going to sit there and eat it anyway or are you going to want something else?

So what if WotC had devoted 1000s of man hours and a million dollars developing an Eberron campaign book. You'd still be unhappy about the content and WotC might be out a lot of money if it didn't sell well? Maybe all the resources and energy at WotC should be devoted solely to creating content that you are interested in. Perhaps they should fire Mearls and put you in charge of what needs to be created, because your happiness is much more important than the long term viability of the company.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Bad options aren't real options. If you come to my house for dinner and I give you a choice of hamburgers or undercooked chicken, you really don't have an option.

First, your analogy compares stuff like the waterborne adventures playtest to something that will actually kill you, so I think perhaps you should revisit it, unless using the WotC playtest artificer would actually poison someone at your table as opposed to just annoying them a bit.

Second, "bad options" or "options you don't like" are literally by the definition of words in language still options. The complaint shouldn't be about QUANTITY.

Third, "bad options" apparently include rather well-received playtest material and well-reviewed third party products (like this!), so I think your view of what might be "bad" could use some re-visiting as well.

Fourth, if complaint is more about "I don't like the options they're giving me," you should be optimistic that they're doing research to find out what the people playing D&D would like for their games! The next step after that is usually to make the thing people said they wanted.

 

[Cybit]

Fundamentally, I agree with Mike about the way 5E is going. I think that if you want a D&D type game that is heavy on crunch and full of new options every couple of months - Pathfinder is your niche. For those players; it fits their needs perfectly. As someone who has been running public D&D games (as well as private) and Pathfinder Society weekly for ..4 years or so now - I like the idea that D&D itself is much more friendly to newbies (and by newbies, that does not include people being shown how to play the game step by step by an experienced player), and less prone to eventually killing itself with bloat. I don't like the idea that D&D should be made in such a way that we would have never picked it up ourselves when we first started if we didn't have an experienced player hand-holding us through the system.

I think we're used to the paradigm of "new system + lots of content + system mastery + collapses in on itself due to the sheer amount of stuff and then back to the new system" - but I think the new paradigm (which appears to be most player option content is released free on the website, and is tied to the story arc / adventure coming out twice a year or whatever) is probably more sustainable. Even PF is starting to collapse in on itself (ask folks about ACG) in terms of mechanical content.

I like the idea of a new Monster Manual once a year, and player options tied to the main story arcs - but I also think that more universes are coming eventually.

My perfect amount of content would be

2 / year: Large Adventure (probably in FR), levels 1-18, with player options tied to adventure story released online for free and within books.

1 / year: New Universe Book (Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Eberron, Greyhawk) with player options for said universe released in book (and maybe a tiny adventure). Of a 320 page book, 64 pages of player options & monsters, 64 pages for an adventure, and 192 pages of setting.

1 / year: New Monster Manual - tied to both the story arcs & the new universe book maybe?

Monthly playtest / player options from Unearthed Arcana columns that are current size.

 

[GobiWon]

I like the idea of a new Monster Manual once a year, and player options tied to the main story arcs - but I also think that more universes are coming eventually.

I like your release schedule with the exception of the idea of a monster manual a year. I can't really see MM5 four years from now. If there are going to be monsters in the setting expansions, I could live with a general monster manual once every three years.

 

[Shasarak]

That sure didn't look positive in tone.

It is if you like ADnD.

 

[Mistwell]

It is if you like ADnD.

I love AD&D, but I still don't see how you can spin, "...rather uninspired for D&D... It seems like a very half-hearted game really." as a positive.

 

[Shasarak]

I love AD&D, but I still don't see how you can spin, "...rather uninspired for D&D... It seems like a very half-hearted game really." as a positive.

It seems like an honest critique in a "could do better if he applied himself and stopped talking to the girls" kind of way.