D&D General What Does New Coke Tell Us About Designing for D&D

[Remathilis]

As with any analogy, you can poke enough holes in it to show it doesn't work if you try, but I think Snarfs analogy is quite apt. A brand will only tolerate so much tinkering before people no longer accept it as part of the brand. It doesn't matter how objectively good the changes are.

There is a world where a fantasy RPG has strict controls on magic, limited but flexible character options to create whatever you want and a combat system that is elegant, balanced and equally in line with the other parts of the game. And it will never be called Dungeon & Dragons because people will not accept it as such. D&D has to, at some level, resemble the game played in the late 70s and 80s (even if it gets all manner of glossy updates) because that's what people associate.

A different, imperfect analogy. For near a long while, DC has attempted to update Superman's costume. It's outdated. Its a carnival strongman outfit with a cape and a big S on it. They have removed the trunks, added belts, changed it to armor, added collars, gloves, and shoulder pads. Changed it to black and all other different colors, and even put him in a T-shirt and jeans. And every time, he eventually goes back to the iconic original, red underpants and all. Make all the underwear on the outside jokes you want, scream "NO CAPES" like Edna Mode. Superman is going to wear some variant of the same thing he's worn for 90 years. D&D is like that. You can dream of all manner of better designs that are modern, improved, and well designed, but if your D&D variant doesn't allow for a Chaotic Good High elf Ranger, it's not going to be accepted as D&D.

 

[mearls]

Actually came up in meetings, huh?

Yes. The person who said it clearly did not mean to and just let it slip, but we were all thinking it (or some variation).

 

[amethal]

I was thinking about the ways in which we (the consumers of D&D) often misunderstand the forces that drive the decisions that designers face when they are working for a brand. More specifically, I was thinking about one of the most well-known and discussed "changes" of a brand, and what lessons we might learn from that. Of course, given that this occurred two score years ago, the lesson (while evergreen) might not be as well-known to everyone as it used to be.

What am I talking about? New Coke.

Literally everything I know about New Coke I learned on ENWorld. I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else.

Was New Coke ever sold outside the USA?

It sometimes seems like there are a whole lot of sub-sets of Godwin's law in operation. Discussion about free speech - shouting "fire" in theatres. Marketing - someone will mention New Coke.

Anyway that was a great description of the New Coke situation that I've seen.

Obviously, the general point that "if you don't understand your customers then you run the risk of making an unpopular change to your product" will apply to all businesses. However, I'm not sure how relevant the specific case of New Coke is to role-playing games in general, and especially not to D&D, where there are lots of different editions and most players have a favourite one (and, more importantly for internet squabbles, a least favourite one).

 

[payn]

Whatever sort of Coke you drink, it’s massively bad for you, and you really should stop.

Yeap, hard liquor does just fine by itself.

 

[R_J_K75]

NEW COKE WAS F'NG AWESOME!!!

 

[Mannahnin]

Whatever sort of Coke you drink, it’s massively bad for you, and you really should stop.

Sugar is fine in moderation.

The one I drink doesn't have sugar, and I average less than a can every few days, so that's not doing me any appreciable harm either.

 

[MGibster]

It tells us that companies make mistakes? The makers of D&D have made many.

They do. Very often people tend to look at companies, especially large companies like Coca-Cola, believing they do all sorts of market research and don't make blunders. It's true they do market research, Coca-Cola did a ton of it leading them to think New Coke was a good idea, but there are still people today who think the New Coke campaign was designed to be a "failure." They simply can conceive of a large, well funded company making such a critical error. In Coca-Cola's case, New Coke is an example of a beautiful failure. i.e. It helped them.

When it comes to D&D, it's not so easy figuring out what players want. Ask five D&D players a question and you'll get seven different answers. So many people seem to want D&D to be different things.

 

[R_J_K75]

Whatever sort of Coke you drink

You were supposed to drink Coke and I've been doing it wrong all this time?

 

[MGibster]

You were supposed to drink Coke and I've been doing it wrong all this time?

If you get ice cubes stuck in your sinus cavity you're doing it wrong.

 

[Osgood]

While not a perfect analogy, it's a pretty decent one. I do wonder if things like new Coke (and 4E) have made the design team too skittish about taking big swings with changes. While in my estimation I like probably 80% of the changes in the 2024 rules, I would have liked to see a few a few more bold moves (though the number of complaints about how its's not backward compatible enough probably prove that they made the right call).

One thing that struck me was the bit about the sip not being enough of a taste test compared to a whole can of Coke. This really resonates with how fast some of the most recent play test packets have been moving to the survey stage--there's really no way to actually play test anything in a couple of weeks. I worry that getting an impression form a read through just isn't the same as actually playing through something with a character. I feel like they would be better served to include a short adventure (3-4 encounters) and some pregen characters with the latest subclasses/species/feats/items/spells to put everything through its paces. I think the next time they test something, I will include that as a suggestion in my feedback.