"Back to the Dungeon" aiming for the wrong target?

[Tonguez]

rounser I agree with you entirely - CRPGs simply are better at hacknslash and of course suck at roleplay (choice of option A, B or C isn't roleplaying!) so WOTC should recognise that fact and keep licencing Dungeoncrawls to software developers who can then produce quality work that gets CRPGs players interested in PnP.

WOTCs PnPs should emphasis story and roleplaying - which might or might not involve a dungeon - a policy of "Out of the Dungeons and into the World!" sort of thing. Then you have DnD working in two markets, developing better Roleplaying potential and hopefuly getting cross polination between the two types of game....

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Bah -- I'm all in favor of "Back to the Dungeon." Dungeon crawls have been unfairly stigmatized as hack-and-slash crapfests, which they absolutely don't need to be. A well-played dungeon crawl has all of the elements people here are saying they like.

Given the much larger market for hack-and-slash CRPGs (face it, they're much bigger than PnP RPGs) this is a good strategy -- we're more likely to steal crossover market from computer games. CRPGs and PnP are too different an experience to ever replace each other (in the near future, anyway).

BTW, my experience is almost the exact opposite: the majority of adventures I've experienced that were designed to emphasize roleplaying and "story" were unabashed railroads.

 

[TiQuinn]

In the case of WotC, it also affects the kind of modules that get released (or, at least, used to), and is even written into the Dungeon magazine submission guidelines (so maybe you have a point about writing the editor).

These modules are also some people's first taste of the game, and if they can compare it directly to a CRPG's hacking and think, "that does hack'n'slash better, why bother with this" then there may be implications for D&D's popularity.

I'm not going to argue with either WotC or Ryan Dancey when it comes to their sales perspectives. WotC requires much higher sales and margins than other companies, so if all they see selling is the stuff that promotes heavy combat and dungeon crawling, then that's what they'll make. Is this shortsighted? Possibly. I know it's not what I'd prefer. However, I attribute this more to the revenue expectations Hasbro has for WotC than just shortsighted policy on content.

 

[Mark]

The best thing D&D has going for it is that, when all is said and done, even the best CRPG is finite.

 

[Gellion]

I agree with Olger, not all Dungeoncrawls are strictly hacknslash. Another thing i like about Dungeoncrawls is that they give me a sense of adventure. Which is why i play D&D. Some of my favorite moments in the game have been when my group is in a Dungeon.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Originally posted by TiQuinn
I'm not going to argue with either WotC or Ryan Dancey when it comes to their sales perspectives. WotC requires much higher sales and margins than other companies,

Actually, given their volume (and their attachment to a larger corporation, they may need a higher margin for the quarterly report, but in terms of a "break even" point per product the margin they require is actually much lower. This is why they produce books with better paper, better than average artists (still not DP9 quality though), more colour, etc.

 

[TiQuinn]

Originally posted by TiQuinn
I'm not going to argue with either WotC or Ryan Dancey when it comes to their sales perspectives. WotC requires much higher sales and margins than other companies,

Actually, given their volume (and their attachment to a larger corporation, they may need a higher margin for the quarterly report, but in terms of a "break even" point per product the margin they require is actually much lower. This is why they produce books with better paper, better than average artists (still not DP9 quality though), more colour, etc.

That's true, but therein is the problem. There are much higher expectations for products at WotC than at other companies, therefore they aren't willing to try anything other than what has worked successfully for them in the past. When WotC goes out on a limb with a new product with a new idea, it may not be enough that the product is profitable. It has to perform at a certain level of expectations, well beyond a modest profit.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't know what the current numbers are, but I do know that one point, WotC was claiming that after the release of 3E, the number of active D&D players was in the range of 6 million, which was either double or triple compared to pre-3E.

I'd say that 'Back to the Dungeon' worked just fine.

 

[d12]

I don' t know if its fair to call RttToEE a "Diablo" book. Its got a bit of the hack-fest quality to it but there's also mystery, intrigue, betrayal, moral dilemas, puzzles, opportunities for stealth and disguise and lots and lots roleplaying opportunities in the main dungeon. Sure, as a DM I took about 10 encounters out that were just "room with monnster with no connection to the plot" but for every one of those, there were two really cool areas that could be played in multiple ways.

 

[Henry]

While it's an interesting point, the alternative is much worse. Many, Many companies have gone out of business dealing in products that centered more on roleplay than combat. The ones who are successful are few. (White Wolf/Sword&Sorcery and their affiliates are the only ones I can think of that are seriously solvent right now.)

In fact, rounser, your observation that they have ceased modules for the future is telling of your point: It is true that CRPG's sell better, far better, than PnP products and modules. Therefore, they aren't in a margin of profitability for WotC, and anyone outside of small press publishers.

Pen and Paper still adds a communal aspect that is unmatched in CRPG's - Even in a LAN party you don't get the same level of interactivity between players. Neverwinter Nights, while close, still doesn't quite emulate it.

However, my greatest fear is that ever since 1999, the Everquest/Ultima Online/Morrowind phenomenon has created roleplay opportunities (witness online "marriages," guilds, etc.) but they isolate the people involved, instead of bringing them together.

Most Gamers know one another - it's hard to game with someone for a long time and NOT get to know something about them. But Online gaming, and online CRPG's begin to create idealized images of oneself to others online - and the "fantasy" extends in more than one dimension then, both a shared fantasy game, as well as the "fantasy" of what the represented person is like in real life.

I know my gaming buddies as the people they are - the skinny ones, the overweight ones, the loquacious ones, the shy ones, and the jackes. If I had never met them in person, I would have totally different perceptions of them - ones not necessarily grounded in reality, and this unnerves me.

It's one of the reasons I relish Conventions, and the upcoming Gencon - I enjoy the "grounding" I get by seeing the people I post with as who they are! It's a shock in some cases, but 9 times out of ten it's a pleasant surprise.

But what happens when you find out that the guy you've been slaying dragons with for 3 years, and swapping sexual conquest stories with in the off-hours, turns out to be female? It's a strange reality adjustment to be sure - but one that does not happen if you see these people face to face, see who they are, and see their lifestyles, just as they see yours.

The alteration of the style of personal interaction is the only concern I have every had about the burgeoning popularity of both the Internet and online gaming over the past 7 years.