Spaghetti Sauce

[Remathilis]

Im actually predicting a 5e (Quite a few years away) that will have 3 versions. They'll all be derived from 4e, but will push the ruleset in different ways.

"Main" will be a logical refinement of 4e, like 2e from 1e or so.

"Advanced" will be a more simulation derived rules set.

"Basic" will be a more rules light version that ditches the grid in a balanced way. this will be a subset of the common rules of the other variants.

The key trick here would be that all three versions were cleanly translateable in some way. A Basic Monster's stats would work in Main or Advanced. It would just be a simpler monster with less powers and detail.

Of course I'd also have a highly genericized version also compatible called d20 Fantasy...

TSR did that for years; look where it got them.

Part of the oddity of D&D is that it was never a homogeneous game except for a small amount of years after its initial release. From 1977 to 2000, there was two D&Ds, Basic (growing from the OD&D and Holmes/Metzner/Moldvay/Cook) and Advanced (growing from Gygax's AD&D) which splintered the fanbase. Only since 2000 have we been able to talk of D&D as a single game with a "default" set of assumptions. (Whether that is good or bad is beyond the scope of this discussion).

While the idea of creating varying complexities of D&D might appeal to some players who want more/less detail than the current editions provide, I think it would go a long way to splintering the fanbase again. A much better alternative would be a game that allowed a slide-scale of complexity (either modular enough that you could remove rules without breaking the game or starts simple with the ability add complexity via supplements).

Heaven knows though, that doesn't appear to be the direction the game will probably take.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Funny, I thought there was already multiple versions of D&D to choose from already?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The trouble is spagetti sauce is a comsumable but an rpg is not. It is not clear that servising multiple games for different classes of comsumers is profitable at the scale that WoTC operates.
That said the central thesis of the video is reflected in the hobby as different people do prefer different flavours of D&D

 

[Sadrik]

Funny, I thought there was already multiple versions of D&D to choose from already?

Yes but this is talking about prego and ragu both are spaghetti sauce. So no, there can only be one version of WoTC "sauce".

The trouble is spaghetti sauce is a comsumable but an rpg is not. It is not clear that servising multiple games for different classes of comsumers is profitable at the scale that WoTC operates.
That said the central thesis of the video is reflected in the hobby as different people do prefer different flavours of D&D

I don't know, I think rpgs are in a way a consumable - they are not consumables but in a way they are. It is something that you come back to again and again, something you use, something you definitely have taste and preferences for. I agree at the scale of service that WoTC operates at it may not be profitable to do something like have three interlocked version of the game. Then again, a creative design team can make three games that are all interlinked and that provide what most everyone wants.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't know, I think rpgs are in a way a consumable - they are not consumables but in a way they are. It is something that you come back to again and again, something you use, something you definitely have taste and preferences for. I agree at the scale of service that WoTC operates at it may not be profitable to do something like have three interlocked version of the game. Then again, a creative design team can make three games that are all interlinked and that provide what most everyone wants.

I think we are using different values of consumable. A bottle of spaghetti sauce once consumned cannot be consumed again. An rpg manual can be consummed each time you game but is not diminished in any way.

So either you create multiple distinct lines of 'D&D' that all compete with one another (a position that WoTC rejected when they took over TSR) or you create some kind of interlocked system that synergises each other.

However, in the latter case how would this work? It would seem to me that monster and modules should be interchangable (or nearly so) otherwise you are really running two competing games.

 

[Sadrik]

I think we are using different values of consumable. A bottle of spaghetti sauce once consumned cannot be consumed again. An rpg manual can be consummed each time you game but is not diminished in any way.

You are correct. I was not thinking of the product but the experience, I will stop there.

So either you create multiple distinct lines of 'D&D' that all compete with one another (a position that WoTC rejected when they took over TSR) or you create some kind of interlocked system that synergises each other.

However, in the latter case how would this work? It would seem to me that monster and modules should be interchangable (or nearly so) otherwise you are really running two competing games.

I think you don't look at them as competition but simply covering all of your customer bases. If you only sell one type of spaghetti sauce, some buy it for brand loyalty, some buy it because they genuinely like that specific type of spaghetti sauce, others just eat it because they have to, and others don't really care, and others hate the brand or simply dislike that sauce. If you had three sauces you penetrate the market better and leave people happier, from the brand loyal on down.

The current model simply does not cover all bases. They may be able expand market penetration with their products given three coherent and exchangeable components rather than 1 component and perhaps a myriad of smaller options. At the least it is worth considering.

 

[WizarDru]

To be honest, his speech went a little over my head. I'm really not seeing the link between sauces and D&D.

Well, I guess I never got past the hair

The point of Gladwell's talk and it's relation to D&D has to do with the dispelling of the notion of universal absolutes. Gladwell references his professional colleague Howard's work history to illustrate the point.

This applies to D&D in several ways. If we extrapolate (as I assume the OP is suggesting we do):

• People will often not give answers about their actual preferences that area accurate.
• No single item will please all consumers.
• There is no 'PERFECT' D&D. There are only perfect D&DS.

So most gamers might answer a poll about D&D and say "I like non-combat encounters." But in actuality, testing might show that 65% rate combat-heavy games as their favorite. So a D&D with heavy social elements falls flat while a combat simulator sells well, despite what the testers found.

A case could be made that TSR's various settings sort of illustrated this, except TSR's bookkeeping was weak enough it might be difficult to find the diamonds from the coal. In theory, though, I think the OP is suggesting that this might be an approach that WotC could benefit from: instead of trying to make a single D&D, find out what your customers REALLY prefer out of their games...and then make different varieties of D&D to serve those customers individually.

For example: The Basic D&D line thrived and survived at the same time as AD&D. Perhaps alternate versions of the current version are possible.

I don't know if this would work that well for D&D...but it's an interesting idea. But given the niche nature of the RPG industry and the fact that WotC already is the 800 lb. gorilla, I'm not sure whether its advisable or actionable for them. That would take someone like Gladwell's friend to do that kind of analysis...and frankly I think its too expensive for WotC to bother with.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think you don't look at them as competition but simply covering all of your customer bases. If you only sell one type of spaghetti sauce, some buy it for brand loyalty, some buy it because they genuinely like that specific type of spaghetti sauce, others just eat it because they have to, and others don't really care, and others hate the brand or simply dislike that sauce. If you had three sauces you penetrate the market better and leave people happier, from the brand loyal on down.

The current model simply does not cover all bases. They may be able expand market penetration with their products given three coherent and exchangeable components rather than 1 component and perhaps a myriad of smaller options. At the least it is worth considering.

It is definitely worth considering the problem is on the manufacturing process (if you will). The spaghetti sauces all essentially use the same ingredients so, simple variations in the manufacturing process will produce different sauces. It is technically quite trivial in a well designed manufacturing process.

Now, in the case of an rpg, If there is significant difference in the mechanics of combat then the monsters will have different numbers to produce a similar experience. So if we consider a module say Keep on the Borderlands. Each version would need different stat blocks for all the monsters and in a new module they all would have to be playtested for balance and so forth.

For example, if you too the 4e mechanic and allowed only fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard but restricted everyone to only at wills except the cleric and wizard. Who you also allow their dailys. I suspect that you would get something that would feel very akin to 1e AD&D to most people but you would have to adjust every monster with regard to hit points and defenses to get the right play experience.

The problem is that an rpg module requires a lot of work and is pretty much an art not a science that is the bottle neck.

I do believe that 4e is a step toward that kind of goal as WoTC spent a lot of effort looking at the math. I suspect that the new WHFRPG may have characteristics that could be used to design such a system.

I also suspect that the a newer generation computerised tools will replace alot of the number crunching we do by hand in this hobby. The iPhone and things like it are the shape of things to come. Solve the screen real estate problem and with the right UI the character sheet could be on the hand held the maths would be handled by peer to peer networking and not all the players need even be in the same room and this discussion becomes moot.

 

[WizarDru]

Now, in the case of an rpg, If there is significant difference in the mechanics of combat then the monsters will have different numbers to produce a similar experience. So if we consider a module say Keep on the Borderlands. Each version would need different stat blocks for all the monsters and in a new module they all would have to be playtested for balance and so forth.

Well, that assumes massive differences between the versions, if you were to follow that route. I don't necessarily think that such massive differences are required. For example, many of the d20 variants out there did NOT require massive retooling to use the same core mechanics...and yet they managed to present very different versions of the same core game.

Compare combat in D&D versus M&M or True20, for example. Similar, but different. Heck, just swapping a few variant rules in and out, the way that Unearthed Arcana worked, could fulfill the requirement. A version of D&D 3.5 that featured the M&M damage system would not require massive stat-block rewrites. It would require minor retooling, possibly even just a macro to swap text bits or a conversion section at the back of an adventure. Which is what many non-TSR adventures did, back in the 80s.

Changes to a system don't have to be radically dramatic, which is sort of what Gladwell is saying. 'Chunky' spaghetti sauce could be D&D without hit points. Similar, but slightly different.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, that assumes massive differences between the versions, if you were to follow that route. I don't necessarily think that such massive differences are required. For example, many of the d20 variants out there did NOT require massive retooling to use the same core mechanics...and yet they managed to present very different versions of the same core game.

Compare combat in D&D versus M&M or True20, for example. Similar, but different. Heck, just swapping a few variant rules in and out, the way that Unearthed Arcana worked, could fulfill the requirement. A version of D&D 3.5 that featured the M&M damage system would not require massive stat-block rewrites. It would require minor retooling, possibly even just a macro to swap text bits or a conversion section at the back of an adventure. Which is what many non-TSR adventures did, back in the 80s.

Changes to a system don't have to be radically dramatic, which is sort of what Gladwell is saying. 'Chunky' spaghetti sauce could be D&D without hit points. Similar, but slightly different.

I cannot comment on M&M or True20 since I never played either not read the rules. I don't get a lot of opportunities to play in a given year and the people I play with want D&D and often I run the game. I was never happy with DM'ing 3.5 and none of of the variant I got to look at seemed to me to be simpler than 3.5.

However, I am not convinced that 3.5 or 4e without hit points would be a much simpler game. Of course none one here is conducting the kind of experiments that went into working out how many flavours of sauce or coffee were required to cover the market. Doing that alone would be a formidable piece of work and pretty expensive.
You would have to get large groups to play a large number of variants to the game segmented a variety of axises, from the simple chargen + simple abstract combat to heavy crunch and all the variations between.
How may play sessions of each type per group before you have valid results?