Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[Eric Tolle]

A bolt-on-your-own-complexity-options model for UD&D is following the MMORPG model as well, specifically the so-called "free to play" model, where people buy add-on option packs as the company's primary source of revenue.

I've said before that I think this ous leading toward a Korean mmorpg model, where basic access is cheap and add-ons can be had for extra one-time or continuous charges.

The basic structure of D20 works well for a modular approach; attributes, skills, attack & defense, feats, powers. I do think the best version of it was True 20, which folded hit points into saves, and powers into feats. All of which would be trickier with D&D, but doable.

If you don't target the existing market, it only means fail...

And yet as the enthusiasm for Pathfinder shows, going after that market is pretty pointless. They really have no ability to won those gamers over unless they made a new version of 3.5, in which case they would still be at a disadvantage.

No, they need to go after the gamers who don't like 3.X/Pathfinder. It has to be an alternative, not a mirror image.

Regarding the casual gamer and Pathfinder, for example, there exists both the PRD, and the d20pfsrd.com - show me where the rules are free to online users with 4e. Of course, you can't - so which is better targetting the casual online user - Pathfinder or 4e. I argue Pathfinder does a better job, because its rules are free and available online.

Yes Pathfinder does have the rules online for free. In fact, I have made Pathfinder characters and can play in Pathfinder games, AND I have no reason to spend any money on any Pathfinder product. And so I won't.

Pathfinder has made it so I don't need to ever give them my money. Just what would I be spending money on- their incredibly sexist artwork?

Paizo is depending on old school players who just have to drop 100+ dollars on hardback books in order to feel like they're properly gaming. Which is silly from my perspective, since I can access the pfsrd.

Although not created by Paizo, there are many free and paid-for Virtual Terrain and Character generators. I can use MapTool VT app, and PCGen to play PF online and create my characters and never have to pay anyone for a DDI subscription.[/qoute]

Or give Paizo a penny. This is getting into "90's internet startup" level of economics. And downloading some spyware filled character generator? How so very year 2000.

What I'm looking for is a centralized, cloud-based character creation and campaign management system, one where for one minor monthly fee gamers can have access to the basic materials needed to play or run a game. Then using a modular system, gamers who want advanced materials or extras can can spend a small monthly fee to access them. Done properly, that should be more attractive then spending up front $100 or more.

But I would never be a DDI customer, and by preference never a PF DDI is such a thing existed.

So you're one of the gamers which it would be pointless for WOTC to market to in the first place. Which emphasizes my original point that WOTC should aim for the non-grognard, non-Pathfinder set.

 

[triqui]

By my count, excluding only adventures, WotC released 6652 pages of material during the first two years of 3.5, while Paizo released 3832 pages of material during the first two years of Pathfinder. That means Pathfinder has a release rate which is about 58% that of 3.5. Since 3.5 had a 57 month lifespan, extrapolating that gives Pathfinder until November 2016 to reach the same saturation point. That's still some time away, but a lot sooner than 2024...

However, there are two different reasons to need a reboot. The first one, which you have accounted for, is saturation point. The second one is lack of selling power. If they don't get enough money from their products (once the core book sells start to tank), they'll need to reboot, just to sell the core book once again. That's what's called "planned obsolescence".

It's true that Adventure Paths make for a much better business plan. It's more sustainable, and has more staying power, as you never have "enough" adventures as long as you keep playing. But that said, I doubt Paizo could make profit only selling AP. They need to sell other products as well (both splatbooks and supplements like Bestiary, and, mainly, the evergreen products like Core rulebook). Once those start to go below a level, they'll *need* a reboot, and it doesn't matter if they have 50.000 pages published or just 20.000. They'll need to sell the Core again.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So you're one of the gamers which it would be pointless for WOTC to market to in the first place. Which emphasizes my original point that WOTC should aim for the non-grognard, non-Pathfinder set.

Yikes.

Sadly, it does seem that WotC feels roughly the same way.

It is worth noting however, that while it is an internet neologism, "Grognard" generally refers to older players playing of out-of-print games who are nostalgic for "the way things used to be". Pathfinder is a current game (and, strictly speaking, newer than 4e). The group of people playing out-of-print or OSR games is small, fractured, and generally older. The group playing Pathfinder is substantial, more unified in interest, and more diverse in age and background. I wouldn't equate the two. Frankly, both groups are numerous enough and have enough purchasing power that I would think WotC should be interested in what they think.

Yes Pathfinder does have the rules online for free. In fact, I have made Pathfinder characters and can play in Pathfinder games, AND I have no reason to spend any money on any Pathfinder product. And so I won't

...and despite the fact that you personally (and I, and many others) use the pfsrd without buying any Pathfinder products, enough people do buy them that the company is highly successful. The beauty of the open gaming model is that it's a more extreme version of the "Korean mmorpg model". The buy-in cost is $0, and people who are interested in the game based on the rules online can buy full rulebooks for reference, adventures to play in, and accessories. The prd is basically cheap advertising from a business perspective, and that business model, despite the fact that it involves giving away a large part of a company's product for free, has had quite a bit of success.

When WotC created the OGL with 3e, they rang a bell that couldn't be unrung. Now many people won't buy an rpg, regardless of quality, unless it's open. If WotC were ever going to try to expand their customer base, the best way to do it would be to release a new open game to directly compete with Pathfinder and the other OGL games out there. Not that this is likely to happen.

For the record, I don't play Pathfinder or 4e, and I'm 25.

 

[Azgulor]

WotC may be in a no win situation. I'd be willing to bet on that, but I think the DDI model makes them enough $ and D&D itself is still enough of a draw that 4e is doing respectably well. Maybe not well enough for the WotC business plan/goals, but respectable/good by any other measure.

If Paizo were taking the same design-what-if approach that Mearls is doing today, I wouldn't be happy. The reason for it is that the Pathfinder RPG is waaaaay too early in its life cycle. IF I were a 4e fan, I'd be very concerned by these articles.

However, if Paizo were to get any slack from me, it would be by virtue of their business model - I was an AP & Golarion fan since their inception and the PF RPG came later. So they've got me hooked on multiple fronts: RPG, campaign setting material, and APs & modules.

Since I'm not a 4e fan and have a game that I'm very happy with (and very invested in at this point), WotC releasing a new edition does nothing for me. I left D&D for other games in the 2E era, came back to D&D in the 3e era, and left again with 4e. I don't have to play a game with "D&D" on the cover to get my FRPG fix -- it's irrelevant.

While it's possible that some future edition of D&D will have "unifying appeal", I don't think that it's likely. I certainly don't think that it's necessary or even a reasonable goal.

At this particular point in time, I don't think a new edition buys WotC anything. It's too early in 4e's life cycle - a new edition would result in many 4e fans being ticked off. Yet it hasn't been so long since 3e that "lapsed" D&D fans are seeking D&D nostalgia. Also, while there have always been other FRPGs to compete for the "D&D experience", the difference now is that Pathfinder provides that competing RPG and is able to hit that "D&D experience" mark dead center for a growing number of players.

If 3e is the last edition of D&D that I ever buy, I won't be bothered by the fact that I'm "not playing D&D".

 

[IronWolf]

Paizo is depending on old school players who just have to drop 100+ dollars on hardback books in order to feel like they're properly gaming. Which is silly from my perspective, since I can access the pfsrd.

Except of course those that prefer PDFs and can get the core rulebooks at $10 a pop. Or who simply like to support the openness Paizo has with their rulesets and show their support by purchasing their product in either paper or PDF form.

Or give Paizo a penny. This is getting into "90's internet startup" level of economics. And downloading some spyware filled character generator? How so very year 2000.

Spyware filled? Where did you grab that from? Show me where PCGen has been shown to be spyware filled?

What I'm looking for is a centralized, cloud-based character creation and campaign management system, one where for one minor monthly fee gamers can have access to the basic materials needed to play or run a game. Then using a modular system, gamers who want advanced materials or extras can can spend a small monthly fee to access them. Done properly, that should be more attractive then spending up front $100 or more.

I have cloud based now. I can save my Hero Lab or PC Gen character files to my free Dropbox account and have easy access to my characters from any of my computers and even a friends computer if I happen to forget to bring my character sheet one night.

I can use d20pfsrd.com to access the rules from any Internet connected computer - as you have already noted you have done.

As for a small monthly fee (i.e. subscription), depends - how many months until that monthly fee exceeds the $100. (this ignores of course that I can get started without spending anywhere near $100). What happens when I decide I don't want to pay a subscription fee? Do I lose access to the material I was using? If so - then that up front fee seems much more favorable.

So you're one of the gamers which it would be pointless for WOTC to market to in the first place. Which emphasizes my original point that WOTC should aim for the non-grognard, non-Pathfinder set.

And this I don't necessarily disagree with. Of course you like to use the term grognard - keep in mind Pathfinder players are introducing new people to the game all the time, people that are not long time RPG players. There are lots of new Pathfinder players who are also new to RPGs as well.

 

[BryonD]

I'm with Mouseferatu here. It really doesn't matter if WoTC reunify the existing market. What matters (for them) is being able to get *new* players.

If Mike Mearls make a edition that loses all of us, and get as many 12 years old players, it's still a good move in the long run. Our beloved Gary Gygax died, of *old age*. That alone should be indicative that you can't have a sustainable rpg product if you only target your product to *existing* audience.

At surface level I, of course, agree with this 100%.

If you can trade me for a 12 year old who will be a life long gamer then it is a complete no-brainer.

But, I think there is an underlying flaw in the presumptions.

First, getting *new* players and increasing the portion of players are not remotely at cross-purposes and, to the contrary, are mostly aligned. Yeah, us older folks might prefer elves where the kids like dragonkin or whatever the age cultural differences are. But there is a hell of a lot more overlap in a Harry Potter inspiration and a Tolkein inspiration than their are major differences.

But, second, and more importantly, 90% of RPG gamers are RPG gamers by nature. At least, to a very reasonable extent there are people who are and people who are not and never will be RPG gamers.

If you were to jump into a point in time, say in the early 1980s once the D&D boom was fully established but still going, and then had a method of measuring, I'd bet the percentage of 12 years olds who became lifelong gamers has been fairly constant ever since. Sure, there have no doubt been fluctuations. And awareness that the hobby exists almost certainly has vastly more to do with that than the specifics of edition. If you were 12 the year 2nd edition came out, there is a higher chance that the buzz caught your attention than if you were 12 four years later. But that just means more 13 year olds found out the next year... That trend cancels out.

But taking someone, 12, 21, or 50, who isn't somewhere in the "gamer" type and trying to make them into someone who starts being a regular on-going spender is a very tough task. The number isn't zero, but it isn't a big part of the marketplace.

Bottom line, advertising that the hobby exists to kids is a great idea. But it has a limited peak potential return. But trying to custom craft a specific ruleset to appeal to kids, openly at the expense of existing older gamers will be a losing exchange. Losing 10 adults and gaining 15 kids may sound great. But if the alternative was losing 3 adults and gaining 13 kids, then you didn't do so well. (and why not gain 2 adults and 15 kids....)

The D20 boom was huge. And it *probably* had a bit of a spike in growth in kids. But, that wasn't really because it appealed to them better remotely so much as because the duldrums of late 2E/ TSR implosion had reduced the profile of the overall hobby and there was simply a rich field of potential gamers out there to harvest.

Love it or hate it, there is no questioning that 4E had plenty of buzz. And I'm certain it has kept the 12 years fresh blood flowing. It is still D&D and that is the recognized brand name for the hobby. It is the entry game.

But the new 12 year old players start playing not because of the details of the system. They are new players, they don't know anything about that by definition. They are new players because they hear the basic idea of what RPGs are, and like the rest of us, it sounds cool to them. They start with the obvious choice and it may be some time before the idea of different system even occurs to them. And, ultimately, the breakdown in taste for what makes a good system will break along pretty much the same lines as people of any other age. The kids will have more Harry Potter or dragonmen flavor to go with their system. But they are still going to look for a system they like and then put their dragon men into that.

When you design a system, design it for GAMERS. Advertise to KIDS, design for GAMERS.

 

[Sonny]

I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.

Shrinking? Pathfinder is outselling D&D. When you add all those people playing older editions and the success of retro clones this "shrinking market" is larger then their current one.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think WOTC should even try to go for the 3.x or retro gamers. Fighting over a shrinking pool of grognard gamers is not the way to grow the hobby. Instead they should go more toward capturing the near-rpg gamer market segments, such as mmorpg and crpg players. DDI already goes a long way toward making D&D accessible to casual and computer-based gamers, but if the virtual tabletop and other virtual services are expanded, I think there's a potentially profitable area between tabletop and other games that can be exploited.

I believe this is exactly the policy that was followed for designing 4E. And that led to these debates we are having now. If it had worked the massive base of new fans would drown out any grognards pointlessly trying to suggest how they could do better next time.

(And no, I don't think 4E is an mmo or a card game. I do think that the heavy focus on easy to DM, etc... was clearly aimed at those markets, and there was a ton of talk about exactly that during the lead up to and early months after release. Of course, at that time the spin was that us "grognards" wouldn't be missed because we would be replaced by so much new blood. Now that exact same point is just being moved from it not having happened for 4E to how it so clearly will work for some future game.)

 

[triqui]

If you were to jump into a point in time, say in the early 1980s once the D&D boom was fully established but still going, and then had a method of measuring, I'd bet the percentage of 12 years olds who became lifelong gamers has been fairly constant ever since.

I highly disagree with this. Though I have no actual data to back up my claims (just like you don't, either).

But taking someone, 12, 21, or 50, who isn't somewhere in the "gamer" type and trying to make them into someone who starts being a regular on-going spender is a very tough task. The number isn't zero, but it isn't a big part of the marketplace.

Never in history you have had more "gamer" type kids than now. Ever. We are talking about a group (young people interested in games) that spend in CCG more than TSR was able to sell in one year. (And I mean games like yugioh, pokemon or WoW TCG, I'm not even talking about the 600lb Gorilla MAgic the gathering) Those young gamers spend in YuGiOh about 15% of the 800 million dollars that CCG move each year, which is closelly five times what TSR reported in 1982 (20 million $) and more than twice what they were selling in 1996. To put it in perspective, WoTC is spending more money on ProTour *prizes* than TSR was making with their whole brand (including not only D&D, but also novels, minis, etc) And that's about CCG. World of Warcraft is getting 12$ from each of their 11 million susbcribers per month, and videogame industry has surpassed films and music.

So there is no shortage of "gamers" this days. It's just that those gamers aren't attracted by games with long preparation times, complex rules, and 1 hours per combat.

But trying to custom craft a specific ruleset to appeal to kids, openly at the expense of existing older gamers will be a losing exchange. Losing 10 adults and gaining 15 kids may sound great. But if the alternative was losing 3 adults and gaining 13 kids, then you didn't do so well. (and why not gain 2 adults and 15 kids....)

First, it's not only about gaining kids. It's about gaining new gamers. Including people with 22 years old that play often to CCG and MMorpgs, or people that love the shiny new Game of Thrones TV serie. Second, the problem with your alternative, is that is proven wrong: the 4e sellings have tanked, and whatever amount of books they've sold, it does not seem to be enough. That's why, imho, Mike Mearls is opening the debate about what to do now (both with Essentials line, and this "wannabe 5e")

The D20 boom was huge. And it *probably* had a bit of a spike in growth in kids. But, that wasn't really because it appealed to them better remotely so much as because the duldrums of late 2E/ TSR implosion had reduced the profile of the overall hobby and there was simply a rich field of potential gamers out there to harvest.

Do you have data about that, or are you talking about your personal experience?

But the new 12 year old players start playing not because of the details of the system.

No, but they STOP playing becouse of the details of the system. And they told their YuGiOh partner that "that game sucks", and say so in their Guild's Chat in World of Warcraft. Becouse, you know... who wants to spend two hours to make a character? That sucks. Greatly. (fun part is that probably it would had sucked in 1982 too... just that in 1982 you did not need 2 hours to make a character )

The kids will have more Harry Potter or dragonmen flavor to go with their system. But they are still going to look for a system they like and then put their dragon men into that.

The kids (and not-so-kids) of today can buy Dragon Age 2 and build a character in like 5 minutes. Anything that can't compete with that in easy use, is doomed.

When you design a system, design it for GAMERS. Advertise to KIDS, design for GAMERS.

When you are a non-profit organization (also known as independent rpg publishers that go bankrupt), you design it for gamers. When you are a company that has to pay bills (including your designer wages), you build games for CUSTOMERS.

Do you think Pathfinder is hurting D&D? Just wait until Blizzard launches Diablo 3.

 

[Ahnehnois]

At surface level I, of course, agree with this 100%.

If you can trade me for a 12 year old who will be a life long gamer then it is a complete no-brainer.

...

Bottom line, advertising that the hobby exists to kids is a great idea. But it has a limited peak potential return. But trying to custom craft a specific ruleset to appeal to kids, openly at the expense of existing older gamers will be a losing exchange. Losing 10 adults and gaining 15 kids may sound great. But if the alternative was losing 3 adults and gaining 13 kids, then you didn't do so well. (and why not gain 2 adults and 15 kids....)

...

When you design a system, design it for GAMERS. Advertise to KIDS, design for GAMERS.

A couple of points I'd just like to add.

One, older people have kids, and they introduce their kids to the games they play.

Two, kids are never as stupid as big companies think they are. They can handle "adult" game rules. They don't need to have the game dumbed down or simplified for them. And I think that particularly those gamer-type kids want an "adult" game and would be turned off by anything designed or marketed strongly towards children.

Three, turning non-gamers into gamers is indeed exceedingly difficult, but in the long run, is valuable to the hobby.

Last, I just hate the idea (held by many) that kids prefer dragonkin to elves, or that kids need their fighters to have kewl powerz, or that kids don't want the same things out of their game that adults want. While generational differences surely exist, the commonalities are much greater. Kids want the same things adults want: adventure, inspiration, and a solid underpinning of logical rules.