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

[BryonD]

I bolded the really important words. And, once again, I have to agree, but, once again, I have to repeat myself: what Mike Mearls hinted is not targeted to you (or me) as intended audience. So what you find interesting in RPG is of little importance here.

Certainly, and if they make a game that appeals to a vast audience and *I* hate it, then absolute kudos to them.

But you presented an opinion and I presented an alternate. And, I think it would be clear from context that I think the alternate I presented is common enough to be significant to the overall market assessment.

Now that's a funny argument marketing-wise. I can imagine people in Coca-Cola saying "hey, we might make a new Coke without sugar, let's call it Coke Zero" and someone saying "no, if consumers would like Coke, they'll be already drinking it". Or someone in Apple "hey, let's make a tablet" and someone else saying "nah, if customers would want a tablet, they'll be using a 2002 Tablet PC already". Yep, that's a nice way to self-defeat any attempt to appeal new customers.

All you have done here is go right back to the "all change is good change" fallacy.

And, bottom line, the people you are talking about as gamers now were not playing table top then and they are not playing tabletop now. And there is no reason to expect they will be playing tabletop tomorrow.

"Hey, lets market tabletop to them" is like Coke saying "Hey, lets market seaweed flavor soda to the USA."

If Mike Mearls keep his job as R+D head of D&D, your last sentence might prove untrue LONG before I get to my death bed.

I predict it won't.

Of course, there are other ways for Mike to keep his job without needing to prove me wrong.

 

[TheUltramark]

I might be insulated, but 4e is massively popular in MD/DC/VA. I also don't subscribe to the notion that broad appeal is an indicator of good game system. We're dealing more with politics of the industry than anything else.

here in missouri/central U.S. 4e is the game of choice as far as I can see.

I also don't subscribe to the idea that narrow appeal is any indication of a poor system, either. However, if 100 people like game A and 10 people like game B - I am more apt to consider game A first, but that is my nature, as there are also plenty of people who in the same scenario would check out the underdog first (and there is no right or wrong in this case)

 

[Cergorach]

4e might currently be popular in your area/circle, but according to sales globally, Pathfinder is currently selling better. There is of course the period were 4E was selling better then Pathfinder and the period were there was 4E and no Pathfinder RPG for sale, so total sales over it's life 4E still has an advantage. But that's not how publishers see things, less sales, or even worse, less sales then the main competition (that was working for you just a few odd years ago) means your in trouble (and they are right). That's often when companies start to panic and do odd things (like last years new core range), or even worse, desperate things that might blow up in their face.

in the 3(.5)E era D&D was the big fish (post nWoD), had close to 90% of the RPG market in it's grip and most of the rest of that market was directly linked to D&D through it's ruleset. 4E broke the fanbase worse then it ever did before, not to mention that they alienated a lot of 3rd party publishers with their move away from the OGL. Even those that initially stayed with 4E eventually didn't. A lot of publishers either threw in the towel, did their own new rules set, or stayed with the old OGL. That means far less threads that lead back to 4E to fill in holes that 4E doesn't fill itself. So I doubt that 4E even covers 40% the RPG market, the RPG market has also become smaller thanks to computers (MMORPGs), so WotC/Hasbro is raking in far less then it did in the 3(.5)E days and that worries corporate, which in turn worries the investors. And Hasbro doesn't have the best track record for properties, the End of G.I.Joe in 92-94 was horrible with gaudy looking toys (use of neon colors, eco-squad, star-squad, sky-patrol) and ripe with horrible looking reissues (neon green doesn't make a Cobra vehicle look cooler!). It was almost a decade before we saw a proper relaunch...

What I'm trying to say is that WotC/Hasbro has a bad track record with 4E, there are a lot of folks really happy with what 4E does (and doesn't do), why risk this group when a 5E might further fracture this group. Sure a 5E might redirect some Pathfinder and other RPG fans to 5E, but imho the new players attracted would never weigh up against the players lost. Just like 4E didn't attract oodles of brand new RPG fans, 5E wouldn't suddenly change that situation.

Another issue with 4E is that it's mostly crunch books and relatively little fluff. That makes the books people have very useless when a new (and completely different) D&D version shows up. I used my 2E Forgotten Realms books for my 3E FR campaign extensively, the same could be done with a lot of the 3E books, but 4E just doesn't have the fluff imho to be useful. So a lot of 4E folks would feel a lot more 'betrayed' by a new edition then 3E ever did, because 90% of the books they have is now completely useless (compared to maybe 50% from 3E to 4E).

I also see an issue with product accessories, thing from miniatures, to battlemaps, to cards, to coins, dice, etc. WotC/Hasbro has been killing off those accessories for D&D 4E, Paizo has been making those accessories for Pathfinder. While not everyone wants those things, a lot of DM/GMs do, and generally those opinions count more then the players. I suspect that we have a 10-20% customer group that dictates what is played in groups (within reason) and WotC/Hasbro just isn't providing the toys they want/need. A lot of us are already drowning in minis, cards, dice etc. But what of the new generation of DM/GMs?

 

[Echohawk]

4e might currently be popular in your area/circle, but according to sales globally, Pathfinder is currently selling better.

I have not been following sales stats particularly closely, but the impression I have is that the publicly available stats are far from a complete picture, and that it would be dangerous (or at least disingenuous) to assume that they are.

For example, I'm pretty sure that any publicly available figures for D&D sales do not include DDI subscriptions. Since it is clearly a WotC strategy to move some of the income from D&D to online subscriptions, ignoring that and focusing only on the sales of printed goods will probably give misleading conclusions.

 

[Echohawk]

Another issue with 4E is that it's mostly crunch books and relatively little fluff.

I am not sure that this is supported by an actual examination of 4e products, especially not recent 4e products. From where I'm sitting -- which is a few steps away from a whole shelf of Pathfinder products and a whole shelf of 4e products -- it seems to me that:
1. On average, Pathfinder has a fluff to crunch ratio that leans more towards fluff than 4e products.
2. Pathfinder has fewer very heavy crunch books than 4e.
3. 4e has moved away from an initial flurry of crunch-heavy material, towards a fluff/crunch balance closer to Pathfinder's.

It might have been fair to say that 4e was mostly crunch up to about a year after it's release, but I don't think that's a fair claim now.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

While D&D can attract new players, i am pretty skeptical about the notion of the breakout rpg. Any 4 people that can read can sit down and play a satisfactory game of Settlers of Catan, Britannia or World In Flames but rpgs are different. Some one has to be the Dm, this is quite a peculiar role and quite intimidating if one is coming at it with no prior experience of rogs. The responsibility for the fun rest on the DM's shoulders and it is very easy to make a messofit.
The only way rpgs could become mainstream is if the potential players can buy the rules and create a character an immediately join a game with a good DM runing a table. I am pretty sure that that is not viable on economic terms.
WoW and other MMOs work because they remove the DM issue. The game is instantly available 24/7/365.

 

[amerigoV]

The millions of players that each Legend of Zelda has ARE siting around a table pretending to be an Elf. An elf named "Link", actually.

A few pages behind here - but I had to reply.

I got a coworker that has convinced HR that his first name is Link. And he has a Link suite. So some take it a bit further than just the game...

 

[broghammerj]

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.

I have to respectfully disagree with this on a few levels:

1. Grognards vs. 3E players are not the same. Grognards play old school ADnD DnD, etc. 3E managed to bring a lot of old players back into the fold. I don't sense 4E did that, and in fact pushed many existing players away. I don't want to play "old school" DnD any more than I want to play 4E. So yes, a new edition could bring me back.

2. I have bought every iteration of DnD since the old box sets, yet I didn't buy 4E. No, reason I won't buy 5E if they create a game I like. 4E ain't that game.

3. Paizo does something that WotC doesn't by providing customer service. I actually have the obtuse sense that if I needed to get Eric Mona on the phone and called Paizo, I may have a reasonable chance of talking to him. I don't get that sense from any WotC employee. This is totally crazy thinking, but that's how I "feel" and there is something to be said for customer impressions.

4. Paizo has what I would term a mutual respect for its customers. It's both of our game. 4E and WotC try to come off that way but it never succeeds. At least it only does if I pay a monthy installment fee. Too many of us got burned with the marketing of 4E which pretty much was, "your current game sucks but this new edition is awesome". That is a lot different from marketing 4E as, "your game is awesome, but this new edition is super awesome."

Do I bear ill will toward WotC, not at all. Am I an avid Paizo fanboy, no. I haven't bought any products from either company. I am out of gaming due to moving. bit if I got back in it wouldn't be with 4E. It's simply a game I don't like. Essentially, a new edition could motivate me to get back into the game.

 

[broghammerj]

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.

Sometimes with innovation you get things like Betamax, Laser disc, and mini-discs. Important products for technological advancement, but not the products we are using today. 4E may be the next betamax or it may be the next Blu-ray. Time will tell.

 

[Pour]

Sometimes with innovation you get things like Betamax, Laser disc, and mini-discs. Important products for technological advancement, but not the products we are using today. 4E may be the next betamax or it may be the next Blu-ray. Time will tell.

Indeed. I have a feeling we're mostly on the same page. Just going to drop some quotes from my response to Bry a couple of pages back because I think they figure into my reply to you, as well.

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.

... 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...

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 their mechanical differences from the past and continued reverence to the IP, and even though we may differ on where designers should start when trying again, this process is ultimately for the better?
​