Are we fair to WotC?

[Wicht]

[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION] The failure of companies to follow a sound plan does not prove the plan would not be sound. Pathfinder is in its 4th year and still going pretty strong and there is a solid core of 3pp who are making a living off of supporting it. (and by "a living" I mean there are more than 1 where being a 3pp for Pathfinder is their day job.) I would also suggest that printing a 2nd edition rulebook is not analogous to reinventing your game. Call of Cthulhu has done a pretty good job of sticking with a core set of rules (a ruleset which is flexible enough to support other systems) and of producing support material for the core system, while at the same time branching out. Of the companies following the current WotC model (Games Workshop follows a similar path) I notice growing dissatisfaction and eventual migration to other steadier systems.

As for the OGL, it was adopted by another company (more than one actually) and they are the current leader in roleplaying games. In point of fact, the OGL was even adopted by other companies to support other rule's systems than d20.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=6681948]As for the OGL, it was adopted by another company (more than one actually) and they are the current leader in roleplaying games. In point of fact, the OGL was even adopted by other companies to support other rule's systems than d20.

Can you explain further what you mean here? Citations would help

 

[Savage Wombat]

Side note, since it came up:

Al-Qadim was intended to have very limited support from the get-go. It was actually expanded by a couple of modules because it was popular. (Don't know if that translates into "selling well".)

 

[TwoSix]

... Go back to the days of having D&D, Star Frontiers, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, Alternity and half a dozen RPGs out in field rather than sink all their eggs in one RPG where you have to make product for it every flipping month or go under. Y'know, diversify. I actually think that's one thing that has hurt D&D - it has come to a point where if something new (or two) isn't coming out every month for it, it's "dead"....

I wonder how much of this development goes back to the late 80s-early 90s, and the emphasis on the long term "campaign" over one-shot adventures. Look how many of the problems associated with TTRPGs are based on the modern-life issues of "no time to play" and "can't keep getting friends together". In a one-shot world, you play with whoever comes over, you make characters in the first 10 minutes (or maybe you have a guy already made from last time), and you pull out the latest adventure pack you picked up for $10 and run it. If you win, you level. If you lose, you don't, or maybe your character dies. The level of persistence is completely dependent on what the players want to do. You want to bring your character from Pete's house and go play at Joe's house, go right ahead.

If you want more of a long-term thing, the core rules have a big module for "off-table" play, where you craft your magic items and rule your domain what have you, and whatever friends are interested can play via email or social media or whatever.

I guess, basically, maybe the D&D market would be better served by a pointed emphasis on the OD&D/"West Marches" playstyle, and also emulating how indie games like Fiasco play (the emphasis on one-and-done over continuity). A strict moving away from the zero-to-hero storyline that's characterized D&D from the Dragonlance modules onward, and particularly made mainstream by 2e.

 

[7heprofessor]

I give them good and bad responses. So, overall, fair if you ask me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I wonder how much of this development goes back to the late 80s-early 90s, and the emphasis on the long term "campaign" over one-shot adventures. Look how many of the problems associated with TTRPGs are based on the modern-life issues of "no time to play" and "can't keep getting friends together".

That definitely resonates with me. For a long campaign, it makes sense for me to hack 3e D&D until the rules work, invest a lot of time in character creation, and have a "zero to hero" track of advancement. When I want to run one-shots I find myself getting away from that system more and more because it isn't. And from 2e through 5e, there isn't anything under the D&D label that I would want to use for a one-shot game.

I guess, basically, maybe the D&D market would be better served by a pointed emphasis on the OD&D/"West Marches" playstyle, and also emulating how indie games like Fiasco play (the emphasis on one-and-done over continuity). A strict moving away from the zero-to-hero storyline that's characterized D&D from the Dragonlance modules onward, and particularly made mainstream by 2e.

I could get behind that, but I imagine it'd be difficult to do without pissing a lot of people off.

 

[Warbringer]

I guess, basically, maybe the D&D market would be better served by a pointed emphasis on the OD&D/"West Marches" playstyle, and also emulating how indie games like Fiasco play (the emphasis on one-and-done over continuity). A strict moving away from the zero-to-hero storyline that's characterized D&D from the Dragonlance modules onward, and particularly made mainstream by 2e.

To be fair, I've been playing 0-hero since '78; continuous play is right there in the rules (xp/levels)

... but, I can't help bu feel a pseudo board game like sandbox structure, with pre-gen cards is a good direction to go .. at least as an intro-game. I look at my zombicide and WHFRP and can't help but think, yep. (Note, the dnd boardgames just don't cut it)

 

[billd91]

I think you're mistaken here (though it's possible I could be mis-remembering the internet info I have read on this subject). It's fairly well-established now that one of the main factors behind TSR's decline was having support for multiple product lines under the same brand (D&D)... as an example they were simultaneously creating product for the Planescape, Dark Sun Ravenloft, Birthright, Forgotten Realms, etc. lines. This splintered their D&D customer base and made it so that each product was only bought by a very small subset of the D&D consumer. There were brands outside of D&D that were failures and had D&D money funneled into them for various reasons (the Buck Rogers rpg) but I don't think diversification of different games (as opposed to diversification of a single game) has ever been cited as one of the main reasons for TSR's decline.

This is the analysis I've seen as well. Plus, production of too many units of each campaign product without a clear idea how many would actually sell, production of box sets that were more expensive to make than the selling price, etc. But I've never seen anything implying that proliferation of different games like Star Frontiers, Gamma World, or Top Secret were primary factor.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Yeah, it seems to me that if you've got good market research on the subject, you should be able to produce multiple product lines without over-producing. And clearly box sets were not cost effective after a certain stage. But that's not a problem with the basic concept of multiple products, just how they're packaged.

 

[TwoSix]

To be fair, I've been playing 0-hero since '78; continuous play is right there in the rules (xp/levels)

... but, I can't help bu feel a pseudo board game like sandbox structure, with pre-gen cards is a good direction to go .. at least as an intro-game. I look at my zombicide and WHFRP and can't help but think, yep. (Note, the dnd boardgames just don't cut it)

Oh, I agree that campaign play has been around since the game itself started. But XP and leveling are methods of representing character growth, and the campaign model is just one possible outgrowth of the development of persistent characters. I think it's character persistence that makes RPGs so popular. I remember back when I was learning to play, back around 1990 or so, that there were players who still brought their characters from game to game with their levels and items from other games. Even back then, that practice was already being frowned upon, and there was an expectation that characters should be made to fit the game (and the story!) the DM was currently running.

Now I have nothing but love for the campaign model (that's what I've always done), but I wonder if a version of D&D that made the characters the focus of development, rather than the narrative of the campaign, might be better for more casual players. Sort of a D&D meets Skylanders.