D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[Incenjucar]

It's worse than that- all of your market research data can be unanimous...and your product will still fail because, even if it makes people happy, it isn't what they want. Exhibit #1: New Coke.

Coke's extensive testing showed New Coke's taste beat the original recipe AND Pepsi every damn time, in all markets, in all demographics. And yet, the can't fail product became THE textbook example of the perversity of humanity in the market. People didn't want a Coke that tasted like a better version of Pepsi. They wanted their Coke to taste like Coke.

Not to mention that it doesn't matter if Next is #1, it only matters that it sells enough for WotC to continue production. It could be the most popular RPG in all of history past and future and still get discarded if it doesn't hit the right bar.

This is all speculation for the sake of speculation and doesn't provide anyone with an real insight.

 

[Mistwell]

You put a lot of faith in this Hot Games List but fail to realize that a measurement of how often a name is mentioned at a single source is absolutely no indication of if people are interested in it.

Yes, it is. Not for everyone mentioning it. But, if you have no interest at all in something, most people won't talk about it much. Sure, you might mentioning it once when it comes up in conversation. But most people won't go on and on about it for days, months and years. If you're talking about it a lot, for a long period of time, it's most likely to be of interest to you .

I mean, if I don't like country music, I don't go on and on for days months and years talking about country music. I talk about the music that interests me.

And notice, the discussion of Next is increasing over time, not decreasing. When the tracking started it was ranking below Pathfinder. Now, it's almost lapped Pathfinder. Each day the number goes up for Next a bit, and down for most other things a bit. That's showing interest in the product. Even on days when there is no news on Next, discussion increases. Even well after the last playtest package came out, discussion increases. If you're not interested in it, you don't increase how often you talk about it over time, you decrease, on average.

Also, as the measured sites are primarily blogs and news sites, the ranking is also heavily influenced by how much marketing the product gets.

1) Next hasn't had any marketing yet to speak of - it's mostly word of mouth at this point as their marketing campaign hasn't really started;
2) Marketing works - if it's getting people to talk about your product, they do that because people buy things they talk about, more than they buy things they don't talk about;
3) Discussion of Next increases even on days where there is no new news, even well after the last playtest package, so it's something more than news driving discussion of that;
4) Its over 1000+ sites. When you're talking about those products, for a niche industry, it's a pretty hollow argue to say the sources are not representative of the whole. That many sites is damn representative of the whole...that's gotta be a majority of sites.

 

[Desdichado]

That it's unreliable for determining market share of the games in it's list... yeah I did.

But wait you have proof that it does correlate to the point where we can give numbers or exact ranks in market share and popularity by the numbers in the chart like... oh yeah... none so far.

EDIT: I've shown two cases where it doesn't correlate so far... what have you presented?

No, you didn't. You showed two cases where it doesn't correlate so far, but which have wildly different assumptions and which therefore aren't comparable. Rather obviously, I might point out. You haven't demonstrated anything.

 

[Desdichado]

CircvsMaximvs.com misses you.

The longer I stick around here, the longer I miss the Schadenfreude of the "Asshattery Afoot" threads.

That's probably a good sign that the expiration date of my "comeback" is getting near...

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Another anecdote:

My 10-year-old son wants to start gaming in earnest with dad and his friends (we are playing the D&D Next playtest rules currently). I told him to wait till summer when D&DN comes out 'for real', so he can read about the races and classes and finally make his own character. The ponderous Pathfinder Core rulebook would bake the brain of a 10 year old I think. D&DN seems a much easier game for a younger gamer to learn and play.

I suppose my point is DDN seems to be the best game, for various reasons, to bring new players into the hobby. If it fails, I don't think that bodes well for the hobby in general.

Since no one else said, I'll say it - Pathfinder Beginner Box. It's very good and I did exactly that with a similarly aged group. I was mostly running 4E at the time for the grown-ups, so it was not an "I like Pathfinder" thing. It's just good.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

None of us are interested it as a product at this point. The expansion modules might bring us back, but the product we’re seeing now is some sort of hybrid between 2E and 3E with a dash of the RC thrown it. That’s not a product we’re interested in, and not one we need, because we already have all those editions.

I’ve seen absolutely nothing in Next that speaks of innovation, and I suppose that’s rather the point. We’re going back to the game’s roots, but when you already have all of the root products, what is the interest in buying it again?

This is my problem as well and I've phrased it very similarly. How much retro do I need when I have that stuff from the first go-round? I was hoping for more, at least mechanically.

Similarly, with the focus on the classic game, you're losing the opportunity to bring in new, younger blood. Next reminds me very much of 70s/80s fantasy, and has very little of what "the kids" are reading today.

I've talked about this too. It's all very comfortable for those of us who grew up on the Hobbit/LOTR/Conan/stuff that used to be in Dragon's book review section but there's very little Harry Potter/Percy Jackson/ Warriors type stuff in D&D. I'm not sure you could do more than a supplement on those types of games without drastically altering D&D anyway, but it's worth considering if you're trying to attract their attention on its own.

 

[Imaro]

No, you didn't. You showed two cases where it doesn't correlate so far, but which have wildly different assumptions and which therefore aren't comparable. Rather obviously, I might point out. You haven't demonstrated anything.

So there are at least 2 cases (thought I'm almost certain there are others as well) we know it doesn't correlate for... correct?? which would mean we know the the charts are not 100% (without us discounting data that doesn't support a pre-supposed conclusion) accurate for determining which games have a larger market share, or are more popular then others. All we know is which games are being talked about the most. Is there a correlation, sure... does that correlation give us the data we need to rank the market share of each of the games on that list accurately? No it doesn't. Now, I've shown that the lists are not accurate for the purposes of determining market share (I only need one case where the result can be proven to be inaccurate)... what is your evidence that they do in fact correlate accurately to market share?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

We’ve been active participants in the playtest, giving a LOT of feedback on how we want Next to be shaped. So that’s the background. Why is Next in trouble (in my opinion)?


None of us are interested it as a product at this point. The expansion modules might bring us back, but the product we’re seeing now is some sort of hybrid between 2E and 3E with a dash of the RC thrown it. That’s not a product we’re interested in, and not one we need, because we already have all those editions.

My group is just the opposite of yours. We are seeing a 3e/43 hybrid and not much of anything resembling a classic D&D product. Different tastes and all, but the fact that two groups with diametrically opposite wants in a D&D game are both dissatisfied does not bode well for the game.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Similarly, with the focus on the classic game, you're losing the opportunity to bring in new, younger blood. Next reminds me very much of 70s/80s fantasy, and has very little of what "the kids" are reading today.


So that’s my negative post. It’s coming from the perspective of WANTING Next to succeed, but also not being interested in the product as presented. Ugh. This isn't meant to rain on anyone's excitement about the system, by the way: buy it, enjoy it, tell me about what's awesome about your game.

I would like to focus on this part because I disagree.

These kids today were not around back then, so showing them an old version of D&D would be new to them. Just because something was made in the 70's and 80's doesn't mean it's automatically going to be disliked by the younger generation. Hell, Pink Floyd continues to gain fans from the younger crowd and they've been around since the 60's. Who's to say the younger wouldn't like D&D or even AD&D? All you would need to do is take the older rules and put them into a book containing all the newest and coolest fantasy art and the kids wouldn't know the difference.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

My group is just the opposite of yours. We are seeing a 3e/43 hybrid and not much of anything resembling a classic D&D product. Different tastes and all, but the fact that two groups with diametrically opposite wants in a D&D game are both dissatisfied does not bode well for the game.

I don't like 4th edition because of the mechanics period, and I know people who don't like 3rd edition for it's mechanics so why in the hell would the designers think that making a game containing elements from both, would be a great thing?