D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[Emerikol]

Yep I was mainly referring to that particular point in time when D&D changed to 4e and Paizo released Pathfinder. So Paizo took many of the 3e fans under its wings while WotC opened a new chapter in the evolution of their brand.

The interesting question for me is what Paizo will do in a few years when they might get a feeling that a "new Pathfinder" might be a viable option. WotC can build on their own IP without boundaries but Paizo is restricted to what the OGL is allowing them to do, unless they decide to create something entirely new. Or they stick with what they have, with only marginal changes for years to come. That might sound static and traditional but perhaps that is what the audience is expecting.

Paizo has already added tons of rules that don't exist in the OGL. They could easily build on top of Pathfinder. Just produce a version of D&D that looks like it came from Pathfinder and the D&D's that came before. There is no law against mixing OGL and new rules.

As for creative ability? I don't see Pathfinder lacking any more than WOTC. And if they were going to do a new edition, I'm sure they'd hire some extra talent focused specifically on the new edition. If I thought Pathfinder 2e was coming I'd be excited. I would like something new but something that respects the past editions as well. (Even though technically I know Pathfinder has no predecessors, I imagine 1e,2e,3e as it's predecessors. 4e to me is the totally new game.)

 

[Mark CMG]

I think because boardgames do not have the stigma attached to them that they are complicated, archaic and that they belong into the realm of geekdom. As for books it is less a question of D&D being the setting but because they are fantasy themed general and they are light reading. And just because you like reading fantasy books does not mean that you are a board/rpg gamer. It could make you one but I imagine that not that many readers of D&D books would make the jump over to the boardgame, or even the rpg product itself.
The marketing folks at WotC will tell you that the books/boardgames are the entry point for the RPG but the question is what percentage will actually make that transition.

You could compare it to the Star Wars novels, somehow. There are and have been dozens of different writers creating SW novels over the past decades but even if they introduced their own parts and pieces to the setting with their books the overall picture still adheres to the core that was defined by Lucas back then.

A board game is an evenings entertainment that is begun and ended that day. "Mostly". We aren't talking wargames here so much as just games. Wargames though still have a definite beginning and end.

D&D is a pretty big commitment. In my playstyle it is a massive DM commitment. Fun for me but not something everyone necessarily wants. Even players though are more invested time wise than they would be for a board game. A lot of people don't want to spend that kind of time on a hobby.

I find myself thinking this way on other stuff. I have a choice of a six hour miniatures game or a one hour indie game and I often find myself choosing the one hour option. I really like roleplaying so the extra commitment is worth it but that may not be true for a majority of the populace.

Right, no question on mostly all of that but why specifically *D&D* fiction and boardgames when there are so many others and if D&D itself is not the draw? Folks who know and play D&D (the RPGs) understand the conceits and constraints that it would necessarily put on a fiction, but what allows someone who has no interest in D&D accept those boundaries? As to boardgames, I've played most of them and like them quite a bit but I do know many who would turn up their nose at the idea that something with D&D on the box could be a good boardgame. It seems that the branding might actually work against them in this case. So, with all of the boardgame options these days, and they are legion, what makes non-RPGers look toward WotC for boardgames in the first place?

 

[Mark CMG]

They like B fantasy fiction and/or boardgaming? D&D isn't just an RPG system: it's a particular take on generic fantasy tropes, plus its own weirdness.

RPGing does seem to be something of a minority hobby, but there appears to be a market for the fiction that it produces.

D&D is and always has been (as far as I've ever known) kitchen-sink generic fantasy gaming, not a particular take with or without its own weirdness. This is why I don't see that the brand can be a big draw to people who aren't starting from the RPG and why the numbers you've put up early seem to defy that idea. If folks don't come to the fiction and other offshoots from the RPG, how can it be that the RPG does *less* than the others revenue-wise?

 

[Emerikol]

Right, no question on mostly all of that but why specifically *D&D* fiction and boardgames when there are so many others and if D&D itself is not the draw? Folks who know and play D&D (the RPGs) understand the conceits and constraints that it would necessarily put on a fiction, but what allows someone who has no interest in D&D accept those boundaries? As to boardgames, I've played most of them and like them quite a bit but I do know many who would turn up their nose at the idea that something with D&D on the box could be a good boardgame. It seems that the branding might actually work against them in this case. So, with all of the boardgame options these days, and they are legion, what makes non-RPGers look toward WotC for boardgames in the first place?

Part of it is nostalgia. A lot of 40 somethings can't run a campaign or even commit to one but they still like the flavor of D&D from childhood. No question D&D is trading on their name and targeting these people who coincidentally also happen to have the most money.

Also there is the association of D&D with fantasy in general by much of the populace. So even people unfamiliar with it may try the game. Also WOTC is by no means bound very much to stick to anything close to the D&D rules in their game design. In fact just the opposite. They are though leveraging their novels (which have their own following now independent of rpgs) and world flavor in their games. It's just like George R.R. Martin making a Song of Ice and Fire board game. (or rpg for that matter).

 

[Manbearcat]

If WotC doesn't get this one right, instead of branching it may "make like a tree."

 

[Mark CMG]

Part of it is nostalgia. A lot of 40 somethings can't run a campaign or even commit to one but they still like the flavor of D&D from childhood. No question D&D is trading on their name and targeting these people who coincidentally also happen to have the most money.

Also there is the association of D&D with fantasy in general by much of the populace. So even people unfamiliar with it may try the game. Also WOTC is by no means bound very much to stick to anything close to the D&D rules in their game design. In fact just the opposite. They are though leveraging their novels (which have their own following now independent of rpgs) and world flavor in their games. It's just like George R.R. Martin making a Song of Ice and Fire board game. (or rpg for that matter).

Again, all this seems fine, and I don't disagree, but then you add in the part I don't understand, " leveraging their novels (which have their own following now independent of rpgs)." Why? How? There are thousands of fiction options and if D&D the RPG(s) itself isn't the draw, what built the independent following? As to the part above of lapsed gamers still keeping a toe in the water, well they were drawn by the RPG earlier so they wouldn't be part of the independent following, I suppose. Clearly there seems to be one but I'd not seeing how it came about.

 

[Bluenose]

Again, all this seems fine, and I don't disagree, but then you add in the part I don't understand, " leveraging their novels (which have their own following now independent of rpgs)." Why? How? There are thousands of fiction options and if D&D the RPG(s) itself isn't the draw, what built the independent following? As to the part above of lapsed gamers still keeping a toe in the water, well they were drawn by the RPG earlier so they wouldn't be part of the independent following, I suppose. Clearly there seems to be one but I'd not seeing how it came about.

People get attached to characters. Drizzt is into his third decade of novels, for instance. And it's a lot easier for someone to buy/read a book than it is to get a group of people together to buy/play an RPG. It's not as if D&D novels are particularly popular even in the general "fantasy fiction" category, outside a very few specific authors who are still out-sold by the really big names.

 

[Mark CMG]

People get attached to characters. Drizzt is into his third decade of novels, for instance. And it's a lot easier for someone to buy/read a book than it is to get a group of people together to buy/play an RPG. It's not as if D&D novels are particularly popular even in the general "fantasy fiction" category, outside a very few specific authors who are still out-sold by the really big names.

No doubt, but the question is what gets you there in the first place if it isn't the RPG? I get being attached to characters once you've been introduced. And I get using the D&D fiction sources as a substitute for RPGing. But the contention, and there seems to be evidence that supports it upthread, is that many seem to come to the fiction and the boardgames without coming by way of D&D the RPG(s). So the question becomes, "What makes that happen?"

Or are you contending that folks do not get to the fiction and boardgames except by way of D&D the RPG(s)? I'm keen to hear that side too if it is the case.

 

[Bluenose]

No doubt, but the question is what gets you there in the first place if it isn't the RPG? I get being attached to characters once you've been introduced. And I get using the D&D fiction sources as a substitute for RPGing. But the contention, and there seems to be evidence that supports it upthread, is that many seem to come to the fiction and the boardgames without coming by way of D&D the RPG(s). So the question becomes, "What makes that happen?"

Or are you contending that folks do not get to the fiction and boardgames except by way of D&D the RPG(s)? I'm keen to hear that side too if it is the case.

I know several people who read the novels after having seen one of mine lying around. And they've read it, enjoyed it, and carried on reading novels from the series or about the character without ever having an interest in playing D&D. In the case of my eldest sister, her children also read some of the novels, and at least one still does and has got her eldest son reading them (when he isn't playing WoW and reading WoW novels/comics). There's a market for rather middle-of-the-road fantasy in a rather generic setting, and D&D novels aren't the worst written segment of it.

 

[Mark CMG]

I know several people who read the novels after having seen one of mine lying around. And they've read it, enjoyed it, and carried on reading novels from the series or about the character without ever having an interest in playing D&D. In the case of my eldest sister, her children also read some of the novels, and at least one still does and has got her eldest son reading them (when he isn't playing WoW and reading WoW novels/comics). There's a market for rather middle-of-the-road fantasy in a rather generic setting, and D&D novels aren't the worst written segment of it.

Thanks. Interesting. In some ways an indirect connection but I'd still say that is independent. Certainly many bookstores have sections where series are kept separate from the "by author" section and if someone were reading Warhammer novels they might easily find FR novels and the like nearby, so there's an easy way to find a path to them that isn't really brand specific as well. Also, I suppose, non-RPG gamers might come across the spin racks of novels in game stores and have a cover catch their eye since those are often more conspicuously displayed. I wonder what the real percentages are of non-RPGers reading RPG-generated fiction. (edit - I'll bet [MENTION=2174]Erik Mona[/MENTION] has some ideas about this.)


But maybe this is getting too far from the Branching discussion. So, in the interest of keeping that alive, which works better: A Basic/Advanced setup or a parallel multiple-playstyle approach tied to various settings, ALA 2E's Ravenloft/Birthright/DarkSun/etc.?