Another RPG company with financial difficulties
- Thread starter Ghostwind
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
I just stopped in quickly to say I'm enjoying the discussion immensely, and that I'm glad to see it steering itself back away from the rather charged political waters it seemed to have touched on for a short while. Guess that's why I love it here.
Carry on, ladies and gents.
Carry on, ladies and gents.
Belen
Legend
Nisarg said:
Isn't that what Wizards did? They created a nice tactical game. The problem is that they forgot to make it simple enough to create characters on the fly or make it inspiring enough to want to play. The PHB reads like a textbook. Why in the heck would kids want to do more schoolwork!?
D&D has an incredible buy in these days. 90 bucks for the core books and then another 40 for either FR or Eberron. And you almost need either FR or Eberron in order to have flavor. The core books are light on it and impossibly boring reads.
The basic game really is a joke. Instead of basic, you get PHB lite and tack on the price of the basic game to the overall buy-in to the game.
Why pick of D&D when you could get 4-5 PS2 game for the same price?
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Belen, I think your hat of d02 is showing ...
Patryn of Elvenshae said:
No, I actually agree with most of what Belen is saying. The Buy-in for D&D IS too high, the rules ARE too tactical for beginners, and the basic set, while certainly a step in the right direction, could have been done somewhat better.
I'm hoping that the "step in the right direction" that Wizards did take with the basic set is a sign that when the 4th edition rolls around, they'll design it with their target market being beginners (ie. making the more complex rules, AoO, skills, etc, being optional advanced rules, and having a really simple toolkit style modular system), and they'll make a basic set that really lets you make characters fast, and play easy.
With the sole exception of the incompatibility issue it had with Ad&D, the D&D "basic/expert" boxed sets should be the role model to follow in all aspects of making really successful introductory games. Really, D&D basic was the only successful introductory RPG in history, IMO.
Nisarg
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Henry said:In Belen's case, it's more like his "hat of 3E feel"... He runs some awesome Modern games.
Ah, that's probably it, then.
It seemed like, in any given thread, you could find BU saying something disparaging about D&D, Nisarg saying something disparaging about White Wolf, and Akrasia calling the whole thing too complicated.
Of course, you have to come in and say something reasonable ...
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
I agree with Nisarg's take - most young gamers want a tactical wargame with a little character-building to give you a sense of continuity and acomplishment.
They want to remember how Bob the Brawny, barbarian/rogue, totally laid the smack down on the red dragon when Bob had, like, two hit points left and everyone thought he was crazy to stay and fight. Not how Ranulf Huermach, barbarian/rogue, won a kingdom and the hand of a princess by his guile and cunning, without rolling a single die save for a Diplomacy check now and they.
That's probably why Paladium, for all its oft-repeated problems, still captures a good portion of the youth market.
The buy-in to D&D is way too high, the industry's designer base way too concerned with what they and their current audience like rather than what the potential audience likes, the traditions and tropes that new players neither know nor care about given far, far too much weight.
I personally would like to see Wizards of the Coast produce a cheap, basic game with "kool" styling and a version of the d20 rules stripped of their most complex elements, namely character creation and spells. Lose the "dungeonpunk" art for a more "in" style, either mangaish (to cash in on video games and anime) or realistic and "gritty," by which I mean "characters who wear dirty clothes most of the time" (to cash in on the Lord of the Rings movies). Who cares if it's dated? It should be cheap and modular enough to be rereleased with whatever the new "in thing" is in a couple of years.
Somebody else could do this, but they lack the resources to market it. White Wolf probably could, but their games seem to be lighter on the tactical aspect and so less appropriate.
They want to remember how Bob the Brawny, barbarian/rogue, totally laid the smack down on the red dragon when Bob had, like, two hit points left and everyone thought he was crazy to stay and fight. Not how Ranulf Huermach, barbarian/rogue, won a kingdom and the hand of a princess by his guile and cunning, without rolling a single die save for a Diplomacy check now and they.
That's probably why Paladium, for all its oft-repeated problems, still captures a good portion of the youth market.
The buy-in to D&D is way too high, the industry's designer base way too concerned with what they and their current audience like rather than what the potential audience likes, the traditions and tropes that new players neither know nor care about given far, far too much weight.
I personally would like to see Wizards of the Coast produce a cheap, basic game with "kool" styling and a version of the d20 rules stripped of their most complex elements, namely character creation and spells. Lose the "dungeonpunk" art for a more "in" style, either mangaish (to cash in on video games and anime) or realistic and "gritty," by which I mean "characters who wear dirty clothes most of the time" (to cash in on the Lord of the Rings movies). Who cares if it's dated? It should be cheap and modular enough to be rereleased with whatever the new "in thing" is in a couple of years.
Somebody else could do this, but they lack the resources to market it. White Wolf probably could, but their games seem to be lighter on the tactical aspect and so less appropriate.
A couple of points:
1) Pining for the Basic set ain't gonna do it. WotC has already produced one or two introductory sets for D&D. In a way, wanting to renew a strategy from the early to mid 80s to sell a game 20 odd years later is just as exclusionary. The kids now are not the kids of the 80s.
2) WotC already has a lead-in product that not only pushes the D&D brand to new gamers but is relevant in the post-console, post-CCG world: The D&D miniatures set. It's not for nothing that WotC broke its rule about separate brand identities for the miniatures game.
3) Complexity is something that bothers older folks more than kids. Others have explained why complexity and the commitment around mastering the system can be selling points.
However, the point of this thread wasn't to discuss the fortunes of top-5ers. It was to ask how the broad industry can stay healthy. That's why complaints about WotC not being discussed all the time are off-base.
Nevertheless, I'd say that the fact that D&D is the most common first game is definitely an issue. For one thing, outside of fandom, WotC does not even promote D&D as a roleplaying game. Note that the term "roleplaying" is usually avoided in D&D material in favour of "adventure game." Star Wars and D20 Modern are called roleplaying games, but as they sell on the scale of a number of RPGs they do benefit more from acknowledging an RPG community. I'm of the opinion that WotC would very much like D&D to be thought of as its own thing. This gives them the flexibility to redefine the brand as much as they like without gamers' expectations having even a residual effect. I expect 4e to, accordingly, present a core miniatures combat system with optional rolegaming elements. I don't think this is a bad idea, either.
There are, however, a few other games that are lternate first games for gamers. The most common two are RIFTS and Vampire (especially LARP). I've seen a lot of new gamers come from these two and I suspect that the proportions roughtly equal the games' marketshare (or more for LARPers, since there are lots and lots of Vampire LARPers).
What is necessary, ultimately, is for there to be a brand/genre identity that cuts across individual games. This will be inaccurate and games will cross boundaries, but this is OK, just like it's OK for music, books and film.
1) Pining for the Basic set ain't gonna do it. WotC has already produced one or two introductory sets for D&D. In a way, wanting to renew a strategy from the early to mid 80s to sell a game 20 odd years later is just as exclusionary. The kids now are not the kids of the 80s.
2) WotC already has a lead-in product that not only pushes the D&D brand to new gamers but is relevant in the post-console, post-CCG world: The D&D miniatures set. It's not for nothing that WotC broke its rule about separate brand identities for the miniatures game.
3) Complexity is something that bothers older folks more than kids. Others have explained why complexity and the commitment around mastering the system can be selling points.
However, the point of this thread wasn't to discuss the fortunes of top-5ers. It was to ask how the broad industry can stay healthy. That's why complaints about WotC not being discussed all the time are off-base.
Nevertheless, I'd say that the fact that D&D is the most common first game is definitely an issue. For one thing, outside of fandom, WotC does not even promote D&D as a roleplaying game. Note that the term "roleplaying" is usually avoided in D&D material in favour of "adventure game." Star Wars and D20 Modern are called roleplaying games, but as they sell on the scale of a number of RPGs they do benefit more from acknowledging an RPG community. I'm of the opinion that WotC would very much like D&D to be thought of as its own thing. This gives them the flexibility to redefine the brand as much as they like without gamers' expectations having even a residual effect. I expect 4e to, accordingly, present a core miniatures combat system with optional rolegaming elements. I don't think this is a bad idea, either.
There are, however, a few other games that are lternate first games for gamers. The most common two are RIFTS and Vampire (especially LARP). I've seen a lot of new gamers come from these two and I suspect that the proportions roughtly equal the games' marketshare (or more for LARPers, since there are lots and lots of Vampire LARPers).
What is necessary, ultimately, is for there to be a brand/genre identity that cuts across individual games. This will be inaccurate and games will cross boundaries, but this is OK, just like it's OK for music, books and film.
Similar Threads
