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
*TTRPGs General
Publishing models of rpg lines: tools to design monsters vs new monsters
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="xechnao" data-source="post: 5156243" data-attributes="member: 58105"><p>@KM, short answer: </p><p>ehh, no they do not already exist.</p><p> </p><p>Long answer:</p><p>well, it seems that 3.x or 4 e's efforts fail. We have accounts that for many groups, combats or preparations for combats take too long and many times, directly regarding gameplay there are feelings of boring repetition. </p><p>This means that, in practice, the system's design carries too much baggage in front of inducing the creativity needed to make the so called encounter gameplay fun and enjoyable.</p><p> </p><p>I think they fail because they mix too many publishing models together, a mixture that for the tabletop environment seems to not be so much fun. You have a character building game, board (tiles) game, minis wargame, lore-setting development, scenarios, book lines and a subscription model to periodic services.</p><p> </p><p>I think the most important of all of the above, regarding the brand's power is the lore-setting development because all of the rest can be very easily copied by anyone else. But, the lore-setting development can go so far regarding commercial viability. So, even if fundamental, it is kind of weak. The next one is a leading subscription model but Gleemax failed.</p><p> </p><p>Will making a mixture of various stuff make a miraculous elixir to save the brand? From my experience, I really doubt it. What does this mean? Is there any chance to have one D&D game that will be dominating the hobby market in the long run? I am afraid it is not. Is there anything left to do so to save the brand name? Perhaps so yes. That would most probably be producing different lines in the sense of each line specializing on its own ground while they all share a common lore-setting.</p><p>Much like Games Workshop does it. They have a wargame, a roleplaying game, a card game, a computer game, a board game. They are different games, each one trying to do its best regarding the environment of its set up.</p><p> </p><p>IMO, Wotc has been failing with D&D. They strategically invested in an open gaming movement around the D20 system but it seems that the D20 system was not good enough a platform for this endeavour and it was damaging for the brand in the long run. They needed to make something to change part of this course so that they could go on sailing sane and safe but instead of changing the D20 system, they tried to completely change their direction regarding opening the environment for their brand while at the same time trying to capture D20's fanbase in the new direction and sell to them as much as possible. That is, instead of trying to open their brand to the market they tried to open their game, tried to open the game play to as many aspects of the market as possible. But by doing this they kind of damaged the brand even further because while they failed even further to open it, at the same time they kind of made an underperforming game that alienated their existing fan base. And probably so in an unrecoverable way, judging by the course of Paizo's 3.x Pathfinder. It seems that, for its fans, D&D has self-created a leading rival regarding the capability of managing to be the market keeper of D&D's gonzo fantasy lore/setting, since Wotc's 3.x and 4e, for the fans, are everything regarding the brand. </p><p> </p><p>What happened with Pathfinder does not mean that 3.x is a better game than 4e, or a good game still. It merely means that Pathfinder managed to be the means to capture some of D&D's brand power out of Wotc's hands by the brand developing mechanism that Wotc set in place but failed to use properly. Moreover, this change, manages to keep some of the existing interest afloat. Paizo by being the best publisher in scenarios and modules has managed to draw attention and when Wotc under delivered Paizo managed to capture some of Wotc's brand power. Fans do not or can not agree on the problems of the brand line, so even if D20 was the problem Paizo managed to pull this off. Realizing that fans happen to be fans due to perceiving that they are a sharing lot of a community we are dealing with a real life irony event over here.</p><p> </p><p>Real life irony is hard to accept and makes it harder for you to acknowledge the problems you are into because if you follow through it makes you uncertain of any positive stakes of your investment that are prevalent to you so far. Uncertainty equals doubt and fear. Fear of losing whatever good lies withing your investment. And Wotc managed to create D&D fans that are heavily invested. In one thing -in one line -in one game. This managed the OGL with the D20 system. </p><p> </p><p>So even if Wotc and Paizo are the leading publishers of tabletop rpgs this does not mean that the tabletop rpgs they make are actually good as tabletop rpgs. They make quality products. 3.x, Pathfinder and 4e are quality products. They have great art and many other things such as stories, ideas and whatnot. But as tabletop rpgs? Do they succeed in providing the best possible mechanics </p><p> </p><p>And make no mistake. In today's world where activities and products battle for your free time you are only going to take the best. What I am talking about it does not already exist in 4e or 3.x. I am not in fond of old school design, that is a game design that drew its ideas from thinking about the perceived randomness of a fantasy adventure regarding our real world routines, perceived the way we regard, consider and perceive things in our real world routines. I am in favor of the new school trope that tries to cater to fun first and foremost. Clear design goals regarding fun. Everything else comes next. Even if regarding a product line this does not seem a good idea regarding its commercialability. It does not matter. You could develop other fun lines. Lines that share a common lore-setting and thus develop your brand. 4e designers said that they catered to fun. Regarding part of 3.x problems it might be true. But 4e at its core is still 3.x and its problems in many aspects. Minis, tiles, rule build-ups, game preparation and game set ups that drag without providing the fun they are supposed to do in the competitive free time fun environment of today. If I decide I want to play a tabletop rpg today, I want to play a game that is optimized as tabletop rpg. If I want to play a deck-building game I want to play a game that is optimized as a deck building game. Same for minis and what have you.</p><p> </p><p>So, the answer is not flipping and flipping the old rusting coin just because we are afraid to recast and remodel the coin because we are afraid to lose its value: even if it keeps being a bigger and a bigger weight in our palm regarding the new opportunities and chances that are developed and offered in front of us. Unfortunately we have reached such a saturated and competitive market that the only viable answer is try to develop the best thing that we can do from our raw material, be it bronze or gold. The value lies in the material rather than the product itself. Tabletop rpgs may not be gold but the industry should treat them as what they are. Tabletop rpgs. Right now it is not doing it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="xechnao, post: 5156243, member: 58105"] @KM, short answer: ehh, no they do not already exist. Long answer: well, it seems that 3.x or 4 e's efforts fail. We have accounts that for many groups, combats or preparations for combats take too long and many times, directly regarding gameplay there are feelings of boring repetition. This means that, in practice, the system's design carries too much baggage in front of inducing the creativity needed to make the so called encounter gameplay fun and enjoyable. I think they fail because they mix too many publishing models together, a mixture that for the tabletop environment seems to not be so much fun. You have a character building game, board (tiles) game, minis wargame, lore-setting development, scenarios, book lines and a subscription model to periodic services. I think the most important of all of the above, regarding the brand's power is the lore-setting development because all of the rest can be very easily copied by anyone else. But, the lore-setting development can go so far regarding commercial viability. So, even if fundamental, it is kind of weak. The next one is a leading subscription model but Gleemax failed. Will making a mixture of various stuff make a miraculous elixir to save the brand? From my experience, I really doubt it. What does this mean? Is there any chance to have one D&D game that will be dominating the hobby market in the long run? I am afraid it is not. Is there anything left to do so to save the brand name? Perhaps so yes. That would most probably be producing different lines in the sense of each line specializing on its own ground while they all share a common lore-setting. Much like Games Workshop does it. They have a wargame, a roleplaying game, a card game, a computer game, a board game. They are different games, each one trying to do its best regarding the environment of its set up. IMO, Wotc has been failing with D&D. They strategically invested in an open gaming movement around the D20 system but it seems that the D20 system was not good enough a platform for this endeavour and it was damaging for the brand in the long run. They needed to make something to change part of this course so that they could go on sailing sane and safe but instead of changing the D20 system, they tried to completely change their direction regarding opening the environment for their brand while at the same time trying to capture D20's fanbase in the new direction and sell to them as much as possible. That is, instead of trying to open their brand to the market they tried to open their game, tried to open the game play to as many aspects of the market as possible. But by doing this they kind of damaged the brand even further because while they failed even further to open it, at the same time they kind of made an underperforming game that alienated their existing fan base. And probably so in an unrecoverable way, judging by the course of Paizo's 3.x Pathfinder. It seems that, for its fans, D&D has self-created a leading rival regarding the capability of managing to be the market keeper of D&D's gonzo fantasy lore/setting, since Wotc's 3.x and 4e, for the fans, are everything regarding the brand. What happened with Pathfinder does not mean that 3.x is a better game than 4e, or a good game still. It merely means that Pathfinder managed to be the means to capture some of D&D's brand power out of Wotc's hands by the brand developing mechanism that Wotc set in place but failed to use properly. Moreover, this change, manages to keep some of the existing interest afloat. Paizo by being the best publisher in scenarios and modules has managed to draw attention and when Wotc under delivered Paizo managed to capture some of Wotc's brand power. Fans do not or can not agree on the problems of the brand line, so even if D20 was the problem Paizo managed to pull this off. Realizing that fans happen to be fans due to perceiving that they are a sharing lot of a community we are dealing with a real life irony event over here. Real life irony is hard to accept and makes it harder for you to acknowledge the problems you are into because if you follow through it makes you uncertain of any positive stakes of your investment that are prevalent to you so far. Uncertainty equals doubt and fear. Fear of losing whatever good lies withing your investment. And Wotc managed to create D&D fans that are heavily invested. In one thing -in one line -in one game. This managed the OGL with the D20 system. So even if Wotc and Paizo are the leading publishers of tabletop rpgs this does not mean that the tabletop rpgs they make are actually good as tabletop rpgs. They make quality products. 3.x, Pathfinder and 4e are quality products. They have great art and many other things such as stories, ideas and whatnot. But as tabletop rpgs? Do they succeed in providing the best possible mechanics And make no mistake. In today's world where activities and products battle for your free time you are only going to take the best. What I am talking about it does not already exist in 4e or 3.x. I am not in fond of old school design, that is a game design that drew its ideas from thinking about the perceived randomness of a fantasy adventure regarding our real world routines, perceived the way we regard, consider and perceive things in our real world routines. I am in favor of the new school trope that tries to cater to fun first and foremost. Clear design goals regarding fun. Everything else comes next. Even if regarding a product line this does not seem a good idea regarding its commercialability. It does not matter. You could develop other fun lines. Lines that share a common lore-setting and thus develop your brand. 4e designers said that they catered to fun. Regarding part of 3.x problems it might be true. But 4e at its core is still 3.x and its problems in many aspects. Minis, tiles, rule build-ups, game preparation and game set ups that drag without providing the fun they are supposed to do in the competitive free time fun environment of today. If I decide I want to play a tabletop rpg today, I want to play a game that is optimized as tabletop rpg. If I want to play a deck-building game I want to play a game that is optimized as a deck building game. Same for minis and what have you. So, the answer is not flipping and flipping the old rusting coin just because we are afraid to recast and remodel the coin because we are afraid to lose its value: even if it keeps being a bigger and a bigger weight in our palm regarding the new opportunities and chances that are developed and offered in front of us. Unfortunately we have reached such a saturated and competitive market that the only viable answer is try to develop the best thing that we can do from our raw material, be it bronze or gold. The value lies in the material rather than the product itself. Tabletop rpgs may not be gold but the industry should treat them as what they are. Tabletop rpgs. Right now it is not doing it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Publishing models of rpg lines: tools to design monsters vs new monsters
Top