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

[I'm A Banana]

snip replies

Oh, I wasn't disputing that there's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I was just wondering the particular context of this particular butthurt.

I'm well aware that a lack of adequate perspective is almost a prerequisite to be able to sit in someone's basement for four hours a week and pretend to be an elf as D&D requires.

I just like my quotes sourced, dammit!

 

[Ycore Rixle]

I'd be interested to see the context of that quote.

The Escapist : Complete Mike Mearls D&D 4th Edition Essentials Interview

I believe that's the interview. I'm not going to go searching through its pages right now, so apologies if it's not.

Anyway, I don't at all doubt the team's thorough dedication to the game, or their good intentions.

I share your non-doubt over their good intentions and dedication to the game. Their execution was the problem, in my opinion. In that interview I linked above, it's pretty clear that WOTC has figured out there was a major problem with 4e and is trying a new tack with 4.5e/Essentials.

 

[Ariosto]

The suggestion (http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...nity-i-think-ive-figured-out.html#post5413160 ) that "to stay relevant" D&D has to be played mostly by adolescents seems to me unfounded. The notion that it has to be traded in for something like a computerized RISUS (or whatever "Minimal" mattcolville had in mind) is even more bizarre, being apparently contrary even to the first!

Gygax and Arneson and most of the rest of the gamers who got the hobby started were not little kids. They were not averse to children playing, either -- Gygax's were the first play-testers of his version. The Basic/Expert Set cover blurb, "For 3 or More Adults, Ages 10 and Up", seems right on to me.

I think that getting stuck in the ghetto of "just for adolescent boys" is about as bad for paper-and-pencil games as it was for video games. What that does is shrink the market!

It certainly doesn't make D&D a video game. The closest you can get to that is actually to make a video game and slap the D&D name on it. "Burning down the village to save it" really just means you've got one village less.

S. John Ross is not exactly sweeping the teen set with his "Here's some arbitrary dice rolls, now you make up some $#!%" pamphlet. Kids already know how to play "let's pretend" or social-network themselves into online collaborative story-telling groups. If that's what they want, they've got it!

It's mainly old farts who are ready to fork out filthy lucre for such stuff, and not a lot at that. RISUS, for example, is free. So is FUDGE, and at least one version of FATE, and tons of other "indie RPGs" that kids generally don't know or want to know about.

I'm not seeing Hasbro-level profits there, and at any rate I'm not seeing how "D&D" has jack to do with luring people who don't give a fig about D&D (much less about that "indie RPG" scene).

 

[Dice4Hire]

Oh, I wasn't disputing that there's been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I was just wondering the particular context of this particular butthurt.

I'm well aware that a lack of adequate perspective is almost a prerequisite to be able to sit in someone's basement for four hours a week and pretend to be an elf as D&D requires.

I just like my quotes sourced, dammit!

To help you source this post.

In the room of infinite monkeys and typewriters, Monkey #345,432,567 at computer XT654456YZ typed this exact post on January 23rd, 2008 at 23:34:03

Just for your information.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.

... why did you have to bring up Buster?

I loved that dog.

 

[Ariosto]

Killing monsters is a solved problem. What's next?

Killing monsters hasn't seriously been "an unsolved problem" in game design since the Pharaohs ruled Egypt, or some time prior. The Fantasy Supplements for Chainmail and WRG (4th?) were just popular rules sets -- not groundbreaking discoveries in mathematics or something.

As for D&D, what's next is up to you.

It has been since 1974!

 

[Ariosto]

You don't want the rules to hang together logically or focus too heavily on tactical combat (though how you figure 1E and 2E, with their obvious roots in miniatures wargaming, are an improvement in this respect is lost on me).

About ten minutes versus an hour or more, for a start!

As The Man said,

The fun of the game is action and drama. The challenge of problem solving is secondary. Long and drawn out operations by the referee irritate the players. More "realistic" combat systems could certainly have been included here, but they have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure.

If your tastes are different, then that is fine. Why must D&D attract the perverse "It's not fun because it's not my rules-set with the D&D trademark on the cover" types? Can't they go pick on someone else's hobby? The perpetual "re-imagining" is just making the brand worthless.

How about Palladium or SenZar? Either you can carry on merrily making the same complaint about them -- or you'll recognize their awesome perfection and be too busy playing them to play the crying game! (You can still go on about how D&D sucks, but it won't be so annoyingly perverse when you're a partisan of a game you actually like.)

 

[Mercurius]

Damn, I step out for a day or two and look what happens. It may be difficult to go back and find which posts I left unanswered, so I'll just throw in a few comments.

First of all, I think Ycore Rixle (and others) hit the nail on the head when they say that the execution has been the problem, or at least (one of) the biggest problem(s). I think this has something to do with a strange incapacity to really work with feedback, or to have a living, dynamic feedback mechanism with the fans.

Secondly, Ariosto re-iterates one of my points, which is that it is the old farts which fork out a lot of the dough. This isn't popular music, where it is the 11-14 year olds that are buying the singles on Itunes and it doesn't matter if we old guys want a new The The or Jamiroquai album. Not only is this a greying hobby, but the old farts now have at least some disposable income. Even poor private school teachers like myself can afford to spend $50+ a month on RPGs; most 12-year olds can't do that (or at least I couldn't).

Finally, I have to agree with what Kamikaze Midget and others have said about what amounts to a lack of vision on WotC's part. Back to execution. I have seen similar situations where it isn't as much the problems with what, say, a leadership body does and how they need to change, it is that they might not have the right personnel. I am wondering if this is the case with WotC; afaict they don't seem to have as many independent thinking, lone wolf designers as they did back in the early 3.x days. No Jonathan Tweets, no Monte Cooks.

I would love to see WotC try some more experiments like the setting search competition, but with more things going on, more variations, even as a regular practice. How about polls in Dragon with campaign world or adventure seeds, and the question: "Which do you want us to develop?" Then people vote and we get to choose which idea they develop. Stuff like that - a greater degree of interaction with the fanbase, with a stronger feedback loop.

 

[Ydars]

I don't believe that WoTC's designers woke up one day and thought 'Let's smash D&D and disenfranchise all the old fans.'

However, I do think 4E was designed with the following (invalid) assumptions and that these assumptions and starting points were fuelled by corporate anc commercial concerns;

1) Any game released by WoTC labelled 'D&D' will be successful.

2) D&D4E will lose some 'old skool gamers' with but the increase in new gamers will MORE than compensate.

3) WoTC designers know and can closely define what is 'fun' about the experience that everyone has when they play D&D. The 'fun' part of D&D is all about minatures based tactical combat and there is no requirement for the game to model the real world in any way = dissociated mechanics are just fine.

4) 4E must distance itself from 3E and cut off 3PPs and the OGL; hence some of the stranger and more abtruse changes to D&D.

I am not accusing the D&D designers of lacking passion; I AM accusing them of bowing down to corporate pressure to design a game that would be a commercial success by tapping into minatures sales and DDI and that would be distinct enough from the 3E based OGL generation of games to mean that the D&D IP is protected.

There is nothing wrong with these goals per se, but when they are the PRIMARY drivers for the content of an RPG, then you have a BIG problem.

 

[Umbran]

Gygax and Arneson and most of the rest of the gamers who got the hobby started were not little kids.

So? How old the original people were has exactly diddly to do with who, in the long run, actually bought (and buys) the stuff.

Secondly, Ariosto re-iterates one of my points, which is that it is the old farts which fork out a lot of the dough.

I'm going to guess that WotC knows it's market data better than we do.

The only data we have access to is now old - the 1999 market survey results. They have about 66% of tabletop RPG players as being under 25 years old. We don't know the breakdown in terms of dollar sales. Nor do we know the reason why the bulk of gamers were so young.

However, it does look like the traditional market was young. And I don't think you'll build a cogent argument that the older set is a place where they're apt to be able to grow the market substantially. Keeping older gamers around isn't a bad idea, but if you can manage it, getting new gamers is a better long-term strategy.