D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[pemerton]

RPGs are also not like breadboxes.

So what if someone's character wears a TV (cathode ray model) on one foot, and a breadbox on the other?

 

[Parmandur]

My understanding is that video game design incorporates a fair bit of "addiction research" (and not with an eye to avoiding addiction). And "gotta have them all" was part of the marketing strategy for Star Wars collectables back when I was a kid.

More generally, a big part of how a consumer-based economy works is by producers creating the "needs" that they then satisfy via sales.

I'm not saying that selling games or toys is evil - I have shelves of games and game books, and my kids have toys - but I don't think the cycle is necessarily as straightforward as you suggest.

Well, nothing is: but still the main driving factor even with those sorts of practices is providing enjoyment. It's not like holding a monopoly over food or housing, say, as far as business models go: if people aren't entertained, they will leave.

 

[Parmandur]

So what if someone's character wears a TV (cathode ray model) on one foot, and a breadbox on the other?

Disadvantage on stealth.

 

[Lanefan]

So what if someone's character wears a TV (cathode ray model) on one foot, and a breadbox on the other?

Well, if nothing else their standard move speed drops to near zero until that footwear is removed...

 

[pemerton]

Well, nothing is: but still the main driving factor even with those sorts of practices is providing enjoyment. It's not like holding a monopoly over food or housing, say, as far as business models go: if people aren't entertained, they will leave.

I'll let the consumption/profit aspect go, as it obviously gets complex and possibly fraught fairly quickly.

But to bring it back a bit more to @hawkeyefan's point: a big commercial publisher like WotC, which forms a view about what good design consists in, does have some capacity to shape popular taste so that it is more oriented towards than away from good design.

 

[teitan]

How do you define minority? I'm not being a jerk here, but it's a serious question. As we've seen from 5e, there was a massive market for "D&D" that 4e wasn't filling. There were people who never chose to play 4e, and instead kept playing 3e. There were people that transitioned to PF. There were people that hadn't been playing D&D (or were playing TSR versions), and instead of playing 4e, kept not playing D&D until 5e. There were people that bought 4e, tried it (thus accounting for the initial sales) and then gave up.

I define it as your opinion isn't a reflection of why everyone rejected 4e or why even a majority rejected 4e. You keep saying "we" but there was not a consensus reason for why people didn't play 4e or eventually moved away from it in it's short lifespan. I know a good chunk of people simply did not tap into 4e because they had so much invested in 3.5 and that is why they eventually moved to Pathfinder. 3.5 was a massive money sink, even in it's wind down it had a steady pace of release and people still play off of that material and barely scratched the surface of the 3.5 experience. It seems to me from the time period that that was the major reason people didn't buy it outside of the initial core rules. The same people bought into Pathfinder on the promise that their 3.x material would still be compatible with what Paizo was putting out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You appear to be making assumptions about WotC's motivations here.

It may be true that WotC's overall goal is to make profits (which I'll assume you mean when you say "sales", since maximizing sales of unprofitable products is a bad idea (cf TSR)).

However, it does not follow that the most important metric WotC has for the success of a survey is "does it increase profits". It is much more likely to be something more directly related to the actual survey, such as "how many people responded" or "is the feedback more positive than the last survey" or (slightly more cynically) "has doing a survey increased brand awareness even if we toss the results in the bin".

A successful survey might eventually indirectly contribute to more sales/profits, but that isn't going to be how WotC decides if their surveys are beneficial right now.

I assume they care about making money more than anything else, if for no other reason than that they have shareholders that demand it. All the other things they do, including how they conduct their surveys and what they do with the results, are in service to that goal. I see no evidence that I am wrong in this, at least since they were purchased by Hasbro.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree, those are features of 5E. It is a game, that does not have have form until given one at the table. That is probavly one of it's greatest strengths.

Not really sure what there is to argue? 5E is an incredibly flexible tool for DIY gaming, yes.

As to comparisons to art...RPGs are not like TV shows or movies, they are like cookbooks. The actual art happens in the kitchen.

But a cookbook isn't going to leave a bunch of stuff up to you. A recipe is a set of specific instructions. You don't get to a certain point in a recipe and then it says "Ah, you know what? Use some herbs, whatever amount you think it good and you got it from here."

Rule books and cook books are more technical writing than creative writing, and as such should be complete.

I mean, first, yes checkers is juat about perfect. That's why it hasn't changed appreciably for centuries. Same with Backgammon and chess. Because they are refined and evolved fun engines.

Second, yes, a game designer is designing fun. That's the job...?

So designing checkers and designing D&D is the same job? They have to worry about the same things? Namely, producing fun?

No... they have different concerns. They have to do different things. And they can do them well... as checkers does... or they can do them poorly.

That's why they do these "Does This Spak Joy?" survey playtests, to gather as much data as possible as to what is fun for people. Thwt is probably WotC major advantage over any other RPG company, as much as brand name: data to inform design as to what constitutes a good game, i.e. a game people will find fun.

I don't know if that's the case. Just because various elements of a game seem satisfactory enough to get a 70% rating when tested individually doesn't mean that the game in its entirety is going to be all that great.

I expect it will be serviceable. Many will find it fun. I imagine I'll play it at some point, and I'll try and make the most of it, and I expect I'll have a good enough time.

But given the resources they have, I don't expect to get excited about a serviceable game that's biggest standout feature is that it's inoffensive to the most people. It's a shame that they can't do better with so much.

 

[Parmandur]

I'll let the consumption/profit aspect go, as it obviously gets complex and possibly fraught fairly quickly.

But to bring it back a bit more to @hawkeyefan's point: a big commercial publisher like WotC, which forms a view about what good design consists in, does have some capacity to shape popular taste so that it is more oriented towards than away from good design.

I think what WotC has painfully learned is that they have little control as tastemakers: researching user needs and designing for those needs is what is currently "in" with design studies, and thst is what WotC has become very good at since they embraced data over gut.

 

[Parmandur]

I assume they care about making money more than anything else, if for no other reason than that they have shareholders that demand it. All the other things they do, including how they conduct their surveys and what they do with the results, are in service to that goal. I see no evidence that I am wrong in this, at least since they were purchased by Hasbro.

Depends on when you mean by "they." I don't think that Chris Perkins or Jeremy Crawford, or even Kyle Brink, only care about making money: but they play the game as it exists to get done what theybwould like to do. Nature of the beast.