Another RPG company with financial difficulties

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Which edition of Monopoly are we on, again? Or poker? I can buy "Pokemon Monopoly," but it isn't Monopoly 122nd Edition Special Pokemon Rules. It's Monopoly with pokemon's pictures on it.

A well designed game can have relevant subject matter without changing its format or rules. A boxed game is still the most familiar format to the WalMart buyer.

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.

Purely antecdotal evidence, but the people I see mostly buying and playing D&D miniatures are wargamers who want a (somewhat) cheaper hobby than Warhammer and people who bought into from D&D. The miniatures gamers have a significantly higher average age than the roleplayers, and the youngest of them are the crossovers.

The Star Wars miniatures game has, at least in my area, pulled in a lot more new gamers, as opposed to new miniatures gamers. That one has real potential as a gateway product to the SWRPG.

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.

For years, video game designers aspired to games that were "easy to learn, difficult to master" - the same applies here. Spellcasting and character creation come in basically from day one and can be offputting and confusing. A complex and especially tactical rulesset is indeed a plus, but it should start of "easy to learn." That's my biggest knock on 3.x D&D and, to a lesser extent, the rest of d20. It's more "difficult to learn, easy to master" than the inverse.

 

[francisca]

It's not for nothing that WotC broke its rule about separate brand identities for the miniatures game.

What rule is that? There was a D&D Clue for goodness sake!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Purely antecdotal evidence, but the people I see mostly buying and playing D&D miniatures are wargamers who want a (somewhat) cheaper hobby than Warhammer and people who bought into from D&D. The miniatures gamers have a significantly higher average age than the roleplayers, and the youngest of them are the crossovers.

Again anecdotal, but I have seen the direct opposite, older wargamers seem less likely to buy the randomly packaged minis than the younger crowd.

About half of the people that I have seen buying D&D minis also play D&D, but all of them play Magic.

The game that they tend to go for after playing the D&D minis for a while isn't D&D but WARMACHINE, most likely because there is a lot of it being played by very noisy, very happy, players. WARMACHINE also plays very quickly.

I am actually one of the few quiet players of WARMACHINE, and don't play D&D minis at all. I hate the random packaging, and like painting my own miniatures.

I suspect that this varies widely from region to region, having players tends to create more players.

The Auld Grump

 

[eyebeams]

What rule is that? There was a D&D Clue for goodness sake!

Search for discussions about D&D and Magic: The Gathering. Brand identity was the stated reason for never producing a D&D setting based on M: TG.

 

[eyebeams]

Which edition of Monopoly are we on, again? Or poker? I can buy "Pokemon Monopoly," but it isn't Monopoly 122nd Edition Special Pokemon Rules. It's Monopoly with pokemon's pictures on it.

A well designed game can have relevant subject matter without changing its format or rules. A boxed game is still the most familiar format to the WalMart buyer.

You've hit upon why D&D is nothing like Monopoly, as there have been 6-7 different versions of D&D.

Purely antecdotal evidence, but the people I see mostly buying and playing D&D miniatures are wargamers who want a (somewhat) cheaper hobby than Warhammer and people who bought into from D&D. The miniatures gamers have a significantly higher average age than the roleplayers, and the youngest of them are the crossovers.

My experience has been the opposite.

The Star Wars miniatures game has, at least in my area, pulled in a lot more new gamers, as opposed to new miniatures gamers. That one has real potential as a gateway product to the SWRPG.

Yep. I think D&D's the same.

For years, video game designers aspired to games that were "easy to learn, difficult to master" - the same applies here. Spellcasting and character creation come in basically from day one and can be offputting and confusing. A complex and especially tactical rulesset is indeed a plus, but it should start of "easy to learn." That's my biggest knock on 3.x D&D and, to a lesser extent, the rest of d20. It's more "difficult to learn, easy to master" than the inverse.

I personally prefer simpler rules, but I just can't deny the draw of D&D's intricacies. I think it's not much of a barrier for younger gamers, but it might contribute to less staying power for gamers over time.

 

[Belen]

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 ...

Again, it's not D&D. I run D&D campaigns. It's the culture of optimization and crunch to the exclusion of all else that pees me off.

 

[Belen]

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.

I'd love to agree with you here, yet I have encountered very few D&D Minis players. This may be changing, but I can safely say that a large percentage of those buying the minis in my area are older gamers who use them for D&D RPG games or war gamers.

I encounter a lot of people as a delegate and have not met anyone under the age of 24 who plays the minis game.

I do agree with you about 4e though. It will be a miniature tactical game with very little in the way of RPG elements. Of course, I have a feeling that this will so alienate the core audience of D&D RPG players as to seriously tank the game. Of course, that depends on how well D&D online does. If it gets anywhere near WoW, then D&D may see the second coming.

In any event, the D&D RPG buy-in is a serious issue with recruiting young players. You are NOT going to get a group of ten year olds who want to throw a game together with the one of them spending 90+ and the rest spending 30+, especially with minis being so integral to 3.5 and this jacking up the cost.

 

[francisca]

Search for discussions about D&D and Magic: The Gathering. Brand identity was the stated reason for never producing a D&D setting based on M: TG.

Interesting. Maybe they are more strongly protecting the M:TG identity (a bigger money maker) than D&D (at least in the past), or they are just hypocrites.

 

[Belen]

Interesting. Maybe they are more strongly protecting the M:TG identity (a bigger money maker) than D&D (at least in the past), or they are just hypocrites.

Dude, do you remember the fuss in the D&D community in the late 90s when rumors of a MTG setting appeared? I think that WOTC was worried about large masses with pitchforks and torches.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Dude, do you remember the fuss in the D&D community in the late 90s when rumors of a MTG setting appeared? I think that WOTC was worried about large masses with pitchforks and torches.

Sadly, I agree.

This is WotC's biggest weakness as a company - they want to bring in new players, but they're paralyzed with fear of the existing fanbase.

Look at the outcry over the alleged "Guns n Robots" of Eberron and the subsequent string of denials. Maybe Kieth Baker really doesn't think warforged are robots. Maybe, just maybe, WotC themselves don't. But they look basically like robots, are created basically like robots, suffer and benefit from ethical and philosophical issues basically like robots, and are even customizable... basically like robots. Yet Wizards, getting a whif of fanbase dissaffection, vehemently denied that they were going away from accepted fantasy tropes, which, one assumes, was the whole point of brining out a new setting in the first place.

I've never quite understood why D&D has to be locked in to a single genre, or why the existence of a more unusual setting, be it Eberron or Magic the Gathering's Dominaria, infringes on other people's ability to play the same old fantasy campaigns.