[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[Cyronax]

I think people talking about WoTC not wanting its old fans back are completely off base.

They don't make a pardoy of Tome of Horrors, bring back the thief with backstab, change magic missile back to auto-hit etc.... to please the NEW fans. They don't have Elmore do a cover and make the rules for fighters easier to grasp to please the new people.

Mike Mearls, at the least, tends to have a deep, or at least his online 'persona', tends to have a deep respect for previous editions of the game.

Somewhere along the line I think the head counters/bean counters saw the old numbers that actively played D&D and wanted those players.

But in my opinion, they will NEVER get them because the rules have strayed so far past what people who are older might have the time to review/look at, attempt to play, that perhaps one book gets bought and put back on the shelf.

But then again, I could easily be 100% wrong.

I agree with you on most of your points. The whole premise of this discussion pigeon-holes long-time gamers in a caste of unruly grognards vs. kids with no attention span. It does no service either group.

I was in high school on the AOL boards back in the mid-90's. I remember being entranced by all of the fandom for Greyhawk, especially creative people like Erik Mona and other posters. By all rights I should have not even been into Greyhawk, but I loved the history and at-that-time old feel that that world had.

Anyway, my point is that even back then, kids were being overwhelmed by video games and computer games and all sorts of stuff like that. The D&D brand and reputation still drew many kids in, especially because a lot of people didn't like the railroad impersonal nature of video games.

I think tabletop rpgs will be around for a long time. Though it might be enhanced by iPhones and other enabling tech, it'll still be more than a video game.

 

[frankthedm]

But in my opinion, they will NEVER get them because the rules have strayed so far past what people who are older might have the time to review/look at, attempt to play, that perhaps one book gets bought and put back on the shelf.

But then again, I could easily be 100% wrong.

The march of videogame technology is what ensures D&D will never have those numbers until the power grids are no more.

 

[rounser]

We think, or it seems to some of us, that the designers have stripped out a lot of the legacy crap from earlier editions, concentrating instead on Fun. But the DevTeam haven't even gone all the way in this direction.

I think this gets to the crux of where things have gone so wrong; applying too much logic to as ornery a beast as D&D.

Logic suggests that simpler rules are better, and this is the error you're making here - if that were true we'd all ditch D&D for FUDGE.

Logic also suggests that twelve year olds are the lowest common denominator, and that the vocabulary and depth have to match that.

Logic is wrong. One of D&D's core appeals is as a bastion of the arcane in the world of the mundane. It can never be balanced and represent a believable world anymore than the real world can. To dispose of it's depth and frills of color and detail is to strike at it's heart. Look at 4E Wotc D&D and 4E Kenzerco Hackmaster. Both are fun yet extremist, and D&D used to straddle that divide, but does no more.

D&D cannot beat the computer games, except in three key areas: Self actualisation, improvisation, and arcane-ness. D&D's fun is NOT in the combat engine, but as a fantasy construction kit to make your own world, characters and adventures, and should support that more. Prep time is still ridiculous, and support for improvised play near nonexistent. D&D can never beat the computers at combat, so IMO they should just relinquish that pie in the sky and speed it up. The focus should be on epic quests, not 60 minute single encounters.

And arcane-ness could be played up instead of binned. The AD&D books looked and read like spellbooks, and hinted at wonders to come, and didn't treat it's readers like fools (yes, even twelve year olds know when they're being patronized). Nothing else in our culture, short of the occult, can offer the sense of mystery and possibility that D&D books with the right style of writing, look and feel can offer. And 4E PHB is not just patronizing and peppered with insulting purple prose, but reads like a reference manual, which for a game which requires lots of reading is not only not Fun (TM), but also death for a game whose job it is to inspire as a lifeblood for it's players.

You're basically saying that reductionism is the only path to fun; I'm saying that's classic geek style thinking (of a type I'm well subscribed to), but also very missing the point, and a guaranteed way to throw the baby out with the bathwater (which is where we are now).

 

[ggroy]

Today's kids are too jaded with video games and CGI (or ruined, depending upon who you ask). Their imaginations have been filled with garbage imagery from Barney and Sponge Bob to Grand Theft Auto and Avatar. They don't want to "make stuff up" because they don't have to - they can just plug in and turn on.

Just wondering. (Feel free not to answer).

Any chance you are an English teacher at the jr high or high school level?

I have a few non-gamer acquaintances who are jr high or high school teachers, who frequently make complaints of this sort about their students.

 

[Mercurius]

Let's get these two out of the way first before I hit the interesting stuff...

I know I'm sick of many of the fans.

And I know I'm sick of snarky comments that add nothing to a conversation.

I've been playing since 2e, and man, WotC hates me so much they made two editions that were better and are incredibly fun that I love.

DAMN YOU WOTC!

I think you missed the point of the thread, or at least much of the forest for specific trees.

As a general rule I have preferred each new edition to the one prior to it. This does not mean that something crucial hasn't been lost in the process.

I wrote about this a few years ago, in regards to another company, Games Workshop.

Here's the breakdown folks....

snip

Good points, Matt. I do, however, think you are missing something very key, which is that while 4E may be fun it can't possible compete with the style of funness (or funnity?) of World of Warcraft and other computer games. No matter what nifty gadgets and doodads it employs, no matter what modernized tropes it utilizes and idiosyncratic sacred cows it slays, it can't compete with CGI, with MMORGs, with Playstations and XBoxes.

A tabletop RPG couldn't possibly have 25 million players in today's cultural context because of the advancement and prevalence of video games. Sure, they were around in the 80s but they weren't nearly so advanced or immersive, there was no World of Warcraft, and most kids didn't have home consoles (remember video arcades?).

It is a very simple principle, really. If you are given the option of either a ton of organic ingredients to make your own gourmet meal with or you can order a pizza delivered to your house in 20 minutes, 90+% of people order the pizza 90+% of the time. The path of least resistance which, in the end, offers less reward.

Now I hear and agree with you that WotC almost has to appeal to a new generation of gamers--and there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with that. I just think that "trying to stay relevant" is a doomed endeavor from the start, sort of like the 40-year old dorky dad who tries to be hip around his kid's 13-year old friends. In a sense we have at WotC a bunch of 40-year old dorky dads (or rather, aging geeks) who are trying to be hip, or create something hip, for 12-15 year olds. Will it work? Maybe to some extent, but I don't think so, not in the long run.

(A quick aside: I remain open in general, but I do have some optimism for the board games to bring in new players. Board games as a classic endeavor that families can play together in a social and face-to-face way that can't be done with video games. If 40-year old dads who haven't played D&D since the 80s get their kids Wrath of Ashardalon, not only might their interest in all things D&D be rekindled, but their kids might get into it.)

There's that famous phrase from an otherwise cheesy movie, Field of Dreams: "If you build it they will come." This is why I think the folks at WotC should never lose sight of the diehard fanbase, because we are the ones that know the game; we are the litmus test for its greatness; we have seen it all, done it all (or at least read about someone who has seen or done it all!).

Obviously it isn't either/or, either try to please the diehard fanbase--who are ultimately unpleasable, at least as a group--or try to draw in a new generation of gamers, which won't happen to the degree that WotC hopes or, in my opinion, in the way that they have been trying to draw them in, at least outside of Castle Ravenloft and Wrath of Ashardalon. It is both. But I would focus on making D&D the RPG the best possible tabletop/pen-and-paper RPG that it can be, and for all of the frills--DDI, miniatures, and all the other doodads--to remain just that, frills, and thus optional and secondary to the tabletop game itself. And I would also create secondary products like boardgames and even video games to try to draw kids in.

I think people talking about WoTC not wanting its old fans back are completely off base.

Yeah, I know, I agree with you--I was being facetious. Actually, the original post started as a purely comedy bit but then ended up getting more serious.

Obviously WotC wants its old fans back - it needs its old fans because we are the folks that buy most of the product. I mean, it is generally known that a large percentage--50% or more--of all RPG sales are from a very small segment--10% or less--of the total gaming population. Just as in many (most?) gaming groups the regular DM buys and owns many times the number of gaming products than the rest of the group combined.

What I am saying is that WotC has lost sight of and disenfranchised many old-timers through catering to some idea of what they think will draw in a new generation of gamers. In some ways I think the success of 3E screwed them up a bit because 3E did draw in a lot of newbies, and bring back a ton of retired players--many more than it pushed away. But this wasn't the case with 4E; first of all, a lot of folks stayed with 3.5--or went back to it after trying 4E out--or they eventually went to Pathfinder. And then a few drifted off to older editions or other games. Essentials seems to be mildly successful in drawing people back, but it may be too little, too late.

Somewhere along the line I think the head counters/bean counters saw the old numbers that actively played D&D and wanted those players.

But in my opinion, they will NEVER get them because the rules have strayed so far past what people who are older might have the time to review/look at, attempt to play, that perhaps one book gets bought and put back on the shelf.

You are probably right (see my "too little too late" above). That said, I refuse to believe that what I call the Holy Grail of D&D Editions: One Edition to Rule Them All, One Edition to Find them...meaning, an edition of D&D that appeals to everyone (OK, more realistically, most everyone, or more of everyone than has happened before). I think it is possible.

I agree with you on most of your points. The whole premise of this discussion pigeon-holes long-time gamers in a caste of unruly grognards vs. kids with no attention span. It does no service either group.

That wasn't my intention. If anything I think that "kids these days" would be more drawn to a D&D that wasn't trying to condescend down to them as being video gaming ADHDers, but rather as trying to invoke and inspire their imaginations. It is my belief that most kids would actually enjoy a great game of D&D more than a video game session if they actually got a chance to play one, in the same way that an organic gourmet meal is actually more enjoyable than fast-food if you really sit down and taste what you are eating.

I think tabletop rpgs will be around for a long time. Though it might be enhanced by iPhones and other enabling tech, it'll still be more than a video game.

I hope so! And I think you hit on a key word: enhance, which implies secondary rather than primary. My worry is that D&D is moving to the iPhones and laptops as primary, that DDI is becoming the new core and that, in essence, "5E" will be DDI-as-core. We're going to lose something precious if it does.

I'm not against the technology and enjoy, for example, using the older versions of Monster Builder and Character Builder. But again, as long as they are enhancements. I want my books, I want my face-to-face table-top game, I want my imagination.

The march of videogame technology is what ensures D&D will never have those numbers until the power grids are no more.

Yes, as I said above. Hey, if Howard Kunstler is right, that might just happen!

I think this gets to the crux of where things have gone so wrong; applying too much logic to as ornery a beast as D&D

...snip...

You're basically saying that reductionism is the only path to fun; I'm saying that's classic geek style thinking (of a type I'm well subscribed to), but also very missing the point, and a guaranteed way to throw the baby out with the bathwater (which is where we are now).

Interesting post, rounser. While I agree with much of what you wrote, I will turn something around on you: I think it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to disavow completely modern streamlined game mechanics (I'm not saying that you are saying that, but it seems you are pointing in that direction). I think there is a middle ground which 3E tried to do but it got a bit unwieldy, which is have a very simple core mechanic with endless possible exceptions, modifiers, and other rules added on. Where I think it went wrong is that it was too simple/complicated at the same time. The simplicity was good, but because of it the designers thought they could hang a ton of weight on it without getting out of control. But it did.

4E took a slightly different tactic where they kept the same simple core mechanic but expanded it out a bit so that the the second layer of rules was also simple, also elegant and streamlined and...well, formulaic. And so we go the well-intentioned and clever power structure, which ended up homogenizing the classes.

I don't want to derail the thread, but my view is that the best way (that i can think of, at least) is a more modular design. You still keep the d20 core mechanic but everything becomes modular. You have a very simple basic game that anyone can play as is without adding further rules. This game would be as simple and old school--if not moreso--than OD&D. Then you'd have as many optional modules as you like from alternate class structures to power systems to feats, skills, etc etc as an Advanced game.

This would be a toolbox approach to D&D. Everyone plays Basic D&D, but beyond that everyone has their own version, their own combination of factors.

But I've strayed...

 

[Mercurius]

Just wondering. (Feel free not to answer).

Any chance you are an English teacher at the jr high or high school level?

I have a few non-gamer acquaintances who are jr high or high school teachers, who frequently make complaints of this sort about their students.

LOL! My true colors are revealed. Actually, I don't teach English, at least not right now, but I am a high school teacher - both a dorm counselor and Humanities teacher. The school I work at is a small independent boarding and day school with a very artistic vibe, so the kids tend to be more on the creative side of things. But I still see a lot of what I've been complaining about, especially from the students with more conventional backgrounds (e.g. public school). However, I also see a lot of fertile young imaginations just dying to be inspired, and I think partially because of technology inundation.

Actually, I just started teaching a class on World Building to a group of 15 juniors and seniors and they are absolutely loving it. It is experimental and the faculty is going out on a limb a bit to let me teach it, but I'm hoping it is successful enough that I can not only continue teaching it but expand on it.

I personally think that World Building provides a potentially almost complete academic and artistic experience: you can pretty much include anything in it and customize the experience for each student. For example, one of my students is creating her own language while another is focusing on strange planetary/orbital dynamics, while a few are creating utopian spiritual cultures, others in-depth biospheres, etc.

 

[Almacov]

Very simply put: They're sick of us, the fans - especially the long-time fans. In fact, the longer you've been into D&D the sicker-of-you they are.

After the last few months of releases, this reads as madness to me.
They rejigged their core books in an attempt to reel in old-timers with Essentials.
They brought back freakin' Gamma World, which would have absolutely tanked if they hadn't given it the love they did.

I'm just... baffled. If you could put forth some evidence that suggests they're not interested in catering towards long-time fans, it might make this more of a conversation, and less of a puzzling rant.

 

[Mark CMG]

Started in the 70s? You're senile (. . .)

You've misspelled "puerile."

please don't transform D&D from being a pen-and-paper RPG.

Good morning, Mister Van Winkle.

Mike Mearls, at the least, tends to have a deep, or at least his online 'persona', tends to have a deep respect for previous editions of the game.

That must be his "power."

I can vouch that it's certainly real. No question at all about that.

psst they're not hiring at present

 

[lamia]

I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.
It would really be incredibly easy to pacify me. A reprint. That's it. My imagination hasn't been tapped out, I can keep running games in the same system for a very long time. But in order to continue bringing people into the hobby, I need a little support!

But the main reason I came around to comment, is because I am a video game gal. I started on the Atari when I was 4 years old. I have 8 consoles. And I play the hated WoW.

The thing I feel gets overlooked is that video games and tabletop have always appealed ,to me anyhow, for completely different reasons. I don't think bringing new players in is going to happen by imitating the video game medium. I think the focus should be on what makes it a unique experience.

Video games need not be the doom or our dear hobby! Let each medium do what it does best.

I apologize for the slight derail, I just very often see comments about video games being the reason for D and D going sour and wanted to say something!

 

[Almacov]

psst they're not hiring at present

If you're going to make jabs like that, please be so kind as to grace us with an argument to back up the meaning behind them.

I do agree with the post. I'm very disgruntled myself, trying to run a 3.5 game with all the players huddled around my single PHB because they can't afford to buy the 50 to 60 dollar out of print books.

I know it's not a perfect solution, but the SRD really is a poor 3.5 gaming group's best friend. I know it was for mine.