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

[BryonD]

Yes, but 4e is not some failed flirtation with the concept of attracting new players and underlining certain design principles over those in past editions, like easier DMing. 4e is a first couple of steps in a continued evolution that is both digital and not beholden to the mechanics of the past. As you say in another post, the goals were good ones, but the implementation still needs work in areas like combat. WotC willing, they will continue to pursue them and not try some universal edition or reconcile with past editions. That leads to stagnation, and I believe is largely futile with the support in place for those editions. There must be forward progression.

There must be progress.

But frequently the best path forward is to admit your mistakes, go back and find a better path from where you once were.

I actually think a goal of targeting MMO players and Card game players *IS* as bad goal. You have to know who your market really is and wishful thinking for a bigger potential is just bad planning.

No one is calling for "stagnation". But there are things worse than stagnation and wandering off the path can be one of those things.

 

[BryonD]

(Plus, the more complex the game--at least initially--the higher the barrier of entry to new players.)

I think that is an over stated simplification.

And I really don't believe that there is any evidence that it works out that way.

Certainly not at the "editions of D&D" level. I think it just underestimates the fans and leads to giving them less than what they want.

 

[BryonD]

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.

But there have been other hobbies through the decades and yet there is no observable difference in the proportion of tabletop gamers.

You make some pretty strong statements about CCGs and I think they are reasonably accurate. We know this because we see it going on around us.

What we DON'T see is the same thing happening in RPGs. You are equating potential CCG players with potential RPGers. And that is your flaw right there.

As you demonstrate, if the data existed tyo show what you believe, we would have that data.

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.

I agree that a those people don't want to do those things. But, you know what, those people also don't want to sit around a table with friends pretending to be an elf. Erase prep time, dumb down the rules and drop combat to 10 minutes and you will get a tiny fraction of those people. And you will lose a huge chunk of you existing base as a cost.

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.

I think you are selling the potential fans very short here.

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.

You have missed my point. I'm saying know who your market really is. The customers don't want simplistic games.

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

First, I think at this point Pathfinder is now helping D&D.

But Diablo 2 was released at almost the exact same time as 3E. It didn't hurt it. Now , maybe, because 4E managed to lose so many old fans and is working with what they would get of "new" fans, it might be different. But I doubt it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why the hell not? Because it isn't "real work" or isn't worthy, somehow? Should they get "real jobs?"

If people want to pay for what you offer the world in volumes and prices enough to make you rich, so be it.

It would be hard to answer this without violating the no-politics rule. I'm not saying that producing entertainment isn't a real job, I'm saying more that in general no one deserves to be exceedingly rich when so many people are struggling. Most people who work in the entertainment industry are not particularly rich, but there are a few who are, and I'm not a fan of "celebrity culture". While producing entertainment is valuable and difficult and can be a real job, I do believe that there are more essential roles in society, and that compensation should be disseminated accordingly. Obviously, this is only my opinion.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't want a D&D game that's about profit rather than entertainment, and it's tough to walk that line and still make a living.

 

[Jasperak]

That wouldn't be wise. It's like Intel giving up on the x86 line in exchange for the Itanium (aka Itanic.) It would have been the death of Intel, at least on the PC. The industry leader is almost never wise to break new ground with their mainline product; do it in an experimental model, or let other companies do it, and merge in the successful experiments, instead of possibly crashing the mainline product with a failed experiment.

I think 4e would have had me if it were marketed as DDMv3 or advanced DDM

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ahnehnois, I actually agree with you on several points, but on others I clearly don't...

So in the intrest of brevity and non-threadjacking, I'll just respond to this:

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't want a D&D game that's about profit rather than entertainment, and it's tough to walk that line and still make a living.

Up to a point, the more money you make doing what you love, the easier it becomes to find the time to devote to doing that at your highest level of proficiency.

(Ani Di Franco has made some very interesting personal observations on this.)

 

[Pour]

There must be progress.

But frequently the best path forward is to admit your mistakes, go back and find a better path from where you once were.

I actually think a goal of targeting MMO players and Card game players *IS* as bad goal. You have to know who your market really is and wishful thinking for a bigger potential is just bad planning.

No one is calling for "stagnation". But there are things worse than stagnation and wandering off the path can be one of those things.

Dead ends or overly-fiddly bits or new problems are to be expected in design, and I agree that's when you return to your original aim and try again, more or less the process of making a practical, functional rules system. This is kind of where I see 4e right now. They're in a position to rework the weak points of the system, but there isn't enough cause, in my opinion, to dump the majority of it in favor of different design principles in an new edition, nor is it productive to reverse design principles established at the outset and seek the answers in older rules. It must be a forward process, and if it looks less like the D&D rules of the past, so be it.

Targeting MMO and CCG players is a fine goal, but I don't think it was limited to those two segments in regards to new players, I just think they've failed, thus far, to return to a wider public consciousness, and that requires good video games (here's hoping for Neverwinter- or better yet, pick a hungry, young studio and announce Baldur's Gate 3 for a spike in game press) and a Nentir Vale CN animated series, but I digress...

They never forgot their core market, though, to say those who play 4e or would play 4e. In fact, they're doing more now than I recall in my gaming past to reach out to me and my friends (gamers and non gamers), between Encounters and the upcoming Lair Assault, both of which offer me easy ways to introduce the game without having to do anything but show up, and which are way more accessible and constant than LFR ever was in my experience.

Not only that, these programs have garnered the attention of adjacent markets, for instance my Encounters program is run in a comic book and game shop, and we've drawn in comic readers as well as traditional hobbyists. Come to think, the shop also holds a number of Yugi-Oh, Pokemon and Magic tournaments, and they too have been reeled into the culture (and me back into Magic after a long lapse- Commander format is awesome). Will all of them stay with it, no, probably not, but there is exposure and a way for anyone to walk off the streets Wednesdays (and Lair Assault can be run any day of the week) to game.

For all the good I believe WotC have done, I by no means believe they've handled everything perfectly, or that the rules system doesn't need work. They didn't, and it does, but I kind of embrace the refining process and discovery. It feels exciting, you know, taking the game new places. And I've said this before, but it's a beautiful thing that as they do this, the other editions are always there for people, and all of them are supported.

I feel I've gotten way off topic. Sorry about that.

Speaking to your last point, though, getting lost can be frustrating, confusing, messy, ugly, yes, but if they keep pressing through the unknown, cutting through the doubts, moving forward into new mechanics, new settings and fluff, digital frontiers, instead of trying to retrace their steps to get back where they started, I believe the destination is just over the next hill. It's not design for design's sake, it's design for the game's sake, for our sake.

Also, I tend to favor the bold designers willing to try new things, to let the historical iterations of the game be what they are, and find new paths. You know, WotC are almost like path-finders...

 

[Ahnehnois]

Up to a point, the more money you make doing what you love, the easier it becomes to find the time to devote to doing that at your highest level of proficiency.

Can't give XP, so here's to financial security.

 

[BryonD]

Dead ends or overly-fiddly bits or new problems are to be expected in design, and I agree that's when you return to your original aim and try again, more or less the process of making a practical, functional rules system. This is kind of where I see 4e right now. They're in a position to rework the weak points of the system, but there isn't enough cause, in my opinion, to dump the majority of it in favor of different design principles in an new edition, nor is it productive to reverse design principles established at the outset and seek the answers in older rules. It must be a forward process, and if it looks less like the D&D rules of the past, so be it.

But as a 4E fan you don't represent the lost market.

If a D&D of the future looks nothing like D&D of the past and is a huge hit, then awesome. But if the D&D of the past had a better footprint than the D&D of the present, then it is probably a better starting point for finding that D&D of the future. We both agree completely on the merits of progress, but you keep throwing in a hand wave that gives the present credit for things it has not achieved.

Targeting MMO and CCG players is a fine goal, but I don't think it was limited to those two segments in regards to new players, I just think they've failed, thus far, to return to a wider public consciousness, and that requires good video games (here's hoping for Neverwinter- or better yet, pick a hungry, young studio and announce Baldur's Gate 3 for a spike in game press) and a Nentir Vale CN animated series, but I digress...

I do think they can make a ton more money off the brand in general by continuing to reach out into other areas, such as having D&D video games that keep up with technology. But tying the fans of those efforts directly back to the fans of the tabletop game is a mistake.

You can make the most awesome video game in the world and make so much money that the entire tabletop industry is negligible. And the vast majority of those people playing will still never become table top gamers who spend money in the hobby month after month.

They never forgot their core market, though, to say those who play 4e or would play 4e. In fact, they're doing more now than I recall in my gaming past to reach out to me and my friends (gamers and non gamers), between Encounters and the upcoming Lair Assault, both of which offer me easy ways to introduce the game without having to do anything but show up, and which are way more accessible and constant than LFR ever was in my experience.

That depends on what you mean by your words. When 4E was announced I was an advocate from day 1. As is always the case, the initial response was "those money grubbers" blah blah blah... I was enthused and ready to see what they had. I absolutely qualify as someone who "would play 4E". It was only after I saw the specifics of the game itself that I went looking elsewhere. And I know I'm not uncommon.

Your position seems to exclude me from the pool of potential market. And I think that does a good job of summing up WotC's problem.

Not only that, these programs have garnered the attention of adjacent markets, for instance my Encounters program is run in a comic book and game shop, and we've drawn in comic readers as well as traditional hobbyists. Come to think, the shop also holds a number of Yugi-Oh, Pokemon and Magic tournaments, and they too have been reeled into the culture (and me back into Magic after a long lapse- Commander format is awesome). Will all of them stay with it, no, probably not, but there is exposure and a way for anyone to walk off the streets Wednesdays (and Lair Assault can be run any day of the week) to game.

I was playing D&D in comic book shops in the 80s. This is nothing new.

And again, I agree 100% with ADVERTISING, but you have dodged away from the point that the game ITSELF needs to appeal to the right target.

Also, I tend to favor the bold designers willing to try new things, to let the historical iterations of the game be what they are, and find new paths. You know, WotC are almost like path-finders...

So do I.

But boldness buried under blindness to learning from mistakes is not a merit.

Yes, WotC found *A* path.

As Auld Grump correctly pointed out, 90% of innovation leads to failure. That doesn't remotely make the innovation bad. Failures and learning from mistakes is what lead to progress.

but you are cutting out that critical part and declaring that because boldness is good all results of boldness are good. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Pour]

Interesting thoughts, Bry, but do I really sound so elementary there at the end?

I'm actually someone who is against focusing on lost markets beyond 4e rules conversions of past modules and prequels/sequels (if that's focus on the lost market at all, which, kind of off topic, I can't wait for the prequel to Temple of Elemental Evil). Focusing on the lost market won't help the game or its players in the slightest, especially if in doing so we move backwards into mechanical territory 4e already broke away from. The differences between the present and the past are too drastic, OSR and Pathfinder cater perfectly to previous editions (not to say I don't love their material, ala I'm totally picking up Petty Gods when it releases), and it makes the idea of some harmonic, universal system seem not only impossible, but repetitive, stagnant, which we're both against.

That said, focusing on a lost market of gamers happy with their editions is not the same thing as focusing on a game past, present, and future D&D gamers can enjoy, and I think we both heartily advocate the latter, no matter what it looks like. If there is ever going to be any appeal for past markets, the way is forward, in the evolution of the current game until it reaches a point where lapsed players might again investigate it, when it ceases to be the game they didn't like and has evolved into something else. I, as a 4e DM, want the same thing, the continued expansion, creation and exploration of rules and settings. When I can no longer happily share in that process, then I think I know I've found my edition of choice, and will use it to my heart's content, until which time I may jump back on the train.

I never meant to exclude you, and neither did WotC. If you didn't like what was offered, that was your right, and you've put your money where your mind is and look at all the wonderful stuff that came from it. I don't see the problem in Pathfinders or... can I say it as a non-loaded term, grognards jumping ship. I know much is made of it, and I'm sure there are business ramifications from it, but if we're ever going to get to a new place, we need to cover new ground. Informed by the past, sure, but not beholden to it.

I think I'm having trouble understanding, and this may be where I'm hand-waving, at what point you consider something a mistake, failure or wrong path when I'm claiming we shouldn't return to mechanical territory 4e broke away from. Are you talking about mechanics, that we should go back to defense saves and Vancian magic and monster/NPC blocks built more like PCs? Are you referring to actual IP/PR management? I feel I need a little more clarification there.

I will say, though, that I got into D&D through video games. The majority won't, but I did, because of the exposure to the IP, and afterward exposure to two different editions, at which point I chose 4e. The game itself appealed to me, and the ideas of where it could go. I wouldn't call it a mistake to attribute some influence on the number of gamers related to what's out there at any given time, comics, games, animation, movies, etc. I also have to wonder at the gains from temporary players with public play programs, fortune cards, lower price-point Essentials material, and so on.

Bry, I like you, I respect you, but the end of that post is a little harsh. 4e is not boldness buried under blindness (love the alliteration there, though) and not everything bold is good (the Blitzkrieg for instance). True, WotC took a step, and we're now seeing all editions take their continued, divergent evolutionary steps, which is exciting beyond belief, but 90% dead-end mutation and 10% new species is exactly the kind of failure and learning we need for progress. Would you be willing to say that 4e is a necessary and continued process on the road to new iterations of D&D, which may or may not appeal to any and all lapsed, current and future players through virtue of its mechanical differences from the past and reverence to the IP, and that we may differ where designers should start when trying again, it's ultimately agree it's for the better?

And I was born in the 80's, old man! (just kidding)