Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Psion]

Well, I dunno. People talk about "people leaving D&D for WW in droves".

Actually, from what I hear, quite the opposite is true. WW sales are not quite what they had hoped, and they are finding that a lot of their player base is turning to D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, from what I hear, quite the opposite is true. WW sales are not quite what they had hoped, and they are finding that a lot of their player base is turning to D&D.

Yes, but that's a recent phenomena. In the early to mid-nineties, the trend was the other way. I'm a living example of the "left D&D, and now am coming back like a prodigal son" kinda person.

But, on topic, it's not because of dungeons, classes, levels or hitpoints. In many ways it's in spite of all those things, as they no longer are inhibitors the way they kinda used to be (speaking specifically of classes, I suppose, but kinda applies a little to all of the above.)

 

[Umbran]

But if anyone has an idea, it's designers of other games during the mid-nineties or so. I trust their opinions on the state of the industry even if they don't have hard and fast marketing data to back it up.

Well, you shouldn't. As I noted before, a designer without market data is just as vulnerable to being misled by anecdotal evidence as anyone else. If you don't do the market research, all you have is sales data and anecdotal evidence. Sales data tells you what was bought, but not if it's actually used, and how it is used. And the anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.

Plus, the fact that they write stuff that isn't good for dungeon crawl is not actually evidence that dungeon crawl is out of favor in the majority. Not all gaming books are written with the intent of selling to a majority of gamers. Aiming to sell to a minority niche is still a good way to make a buck.

Think - WOTC has always been the one selling the most product. They're selling to the majority, and had not only the same anecdotal evidence, but did some market research. And they produced a game with heavy dungeon-crawl possibities. Yes, the game can be seen as far more role-play friendly than earlier editions, but it certainly is not specifically designed for deep immersion role-play. The DMG still has 10% of it's bulk dedicated to dungeoneering. If the situation were as you claim, WOTC knew full well that this section would be unneccessary, and that they could increase sales by putting something else there. They didn't.

And the "droves" probably needs "" too. I don't know what "droves" means, I just know that lots of folks left D&D. Tons of posters over at rpg.net, for instance. Most of them it seems, sometimes. And some of them are still pissed at 3e even today. All the gamers I knew in college.

Anyway, I'm not claiming my opinion is backed up by irrefutable evidence. But it's not just anecdotal either.

Actually, it is all anecdotal. You're basing off of individual stories and inferences - that's exactly what anecdotal evidence is.

WotC market research in 1999 suggested that there were some 2.8 million people playing tabletop RPGs, 1.65 million of them played D&D at least once a month. RPG.net boasts some 3100 users. Even if every account were a unique user, and single person on RPG.net said exactly the same thing, they wouldn't comprise a very statistically relevant sample. Even if you add every single person on EN World, you'd be less than one third of one percent of the total gaming population.

Add to that the fact that yours isn't a random sample. Message-board users do not comprise a random selection of gamers. They represent a specific subset of internet-heavy, loudmouthed, opinionated, cranky gamer . If you're basing off of one message board, you're also then selecting for people who's personal style happens to match that board. If you base off your personal gaming friends, you're basing off of a group which has already been selected to have opinions and tastes similar to your own.

No matter how you cut it - the statements of a few folks you know, and a few folks on a message board, are a drop in the bucket and not statistically valid, either in number or in randomness of sample. They simply don't speak to what the majority does. I'm sorry, but your opinion doesn't have a solid foundation. You are still welcome to have it, but don't expect others to accept it as a valid argument.

 

[Psion]

But, on topic, it's not because of dungeons, classes, levels or hitpoints.

Oh, I think you are wrong.

In many ways it's in spite of all those things, as they no longer are inhibitors the way they kinda used to be

Certainly they are not the inhibitors that they used to be. Multiclassing and races are more balanced, nice consistent core system, more options for monsters, ability and modifier type classifications, and dozens of other improvements that *D&D has been hurting for came about in 3e.

But it is still because of those basic functional elements and the enjoyable nature of the games they produce that helps the game retain its popularity.

3e got rid of the bathwater. This thread stikes me as a bunch of people begging us to throw out the baby while we are at it!

 

[Desdichado]

Well, you shouldn't. As I noted before, a designer without market data is just as vulnerable to being misled by anecdotal evidence as anyone else. If you don't do the market research, all you have is sales data and anecdotal evidence. Sales data tells you what was bought, but not if it's actually used, and how it is used. And the anecdotal evidence isn't worth much.

A game designer like Monte Cook? Or is his essay to be taken as gospel truth, somehow? The WOTC market research didn't delve at all from my understanding, into the causes of gaming habits. Therefore, your inferral of these causes is just as anecdotal as anything I used.

Plus, the fact that they write stuff that isn't good for dungeon crawl is not actually evidence that dungeon crawl is out of favor in the majority. Not all gaming books are written with the intent of selling to a majority of gamers. Aiming to sell to a minority niche is still a good way to make a buck.

Hmmm... that's a good point. I'll have to concede that!

Think - WOTC has always been the one selling the most product. They're selling to the majority, and had not only the same anecdotal evidence, but did some market research. And they produced a game with heavy dungeon-crawl possibities. Yes, the game can be seen as far more role-play friendly than earlier editions, but it certainly is not specifically designed for deep immersion role-play. The DMG still has 10% of it's bulk dedicated to dungeoneering. If the situation were as you claim, WOTC knew full well that this section would be unneccessary, and that they could increase sales by putting something else there. They didn't.

Last time I read about the market research, what exactly the gamers liked about the game wasn't even addressed. The fact that we had that whole fable by SKR on game design philosophies shows me that WotC is still stabbing in the dark here. There's no reason whatsoever to assume they have market research that supports dungeon crawls.

WotC market research in 1999 suggested that there were some 2.8 million people playing tabletop RPGs, 1.65 million of them played D&D at least once a month. RPG.net boasts some 3100 users. Even if every account were a unique user, and single person on RPG.net said exactly the same thing, they wouldn't comprise a very statistically relevant sample. Even if you add every single person on EN World, you'd be less than one third of one percent of the total gaming population.

I agree that the online community is a very skewed community, but from a numbers perspective, it's still an important sample. And according to those numbers, D&D market share isn't even close to what I assumed: that's less than 60%. Still the lion's share, no doubt, but hardly to the point where the other players are insignificant, as Dancey claimed.

 

[Storminator]

But, on topic, it's not because of dungeons, classes, levels or hitpoints.

I've got a whole gaggle of new players (and no experienced players to balance them out) and I must say what they want are dungeons, classes, levels and hitpoints!

The dungeon is an RP "safe zone." Almost everything you meet is an enemy, there are only so many ways to go, only so many different decisions to make, and you get to put your minis in a row and roll dice. It's easy. Some say dungeons are a crutch for starting DMs, I think they are a crutch for the players. I certainly don't need simplification, but my players got hammered in the city, and lost in the wilderness. Their relief when they found the dungeon was palpable.

And classes! They haven't played them all, or even close. Most of them have played one or two different classes. These aren't straightjackets yet, but unexplored paths. When the wizard died, he couldn't wait to roll up a fighter. The realization that the party is light on clerics (and what that means for a group of inexperienced dungeoncrawlers...) reordered their entire reality. Again, classes are easy on new players.

Levels! My god, levels! Not every player makes it every session, and the ones that come level faster. In the world of teenage boys, being a level ahead puts you in charge. I can't tell you how many arguments I've seen one with the statement "Because I'm third level!" No one wants to miss a game and fall behind.

And hp are magic. Having 'em, losing 'em, getting them back, it's all good for them. When to fight and when to run, decided by hitpoints.

Lets face it, the future of the game is the brand new players. Their game is a LOT different from the games of us old-timers. Classes, levels, hp and dungeons suck 'em in and bring 'em back. Sure, three or four campaigns from now they might want something different, but how many years and how many dollars later is that?

PS

 

[Furn_Darkside]

This thread stikes me as a bunch of people begging us to throw out the baby while we are at it!

Do you think it might stop the crying?

FD

 

[Desdichado]

But it is still because of those basic functional elements and the enjoyable nature of the games they produce that helps the game retain its popularity.

3e got rid of the bathwater. This thread stikes me as a bunch of people begging us to throw out the baby while we are at it!

Nah, just trying to figure out what's baby and what's bathwater. Really, the thing to keep in mind here isn't even what I would want changed. I'm pretty happy with the system as it is. But I know (and know of) a lot of folks that aren't. How hard would it be, really, for WotC to reach that market as well?

 

[Mercule]

Well, I dunno. People talk about "people leaving D&D for WW in droves". I've yet to meet a gamer who did so. Some picked up WW games, but didn't stop playing D&D. *shrug*. I don't think anyone's actually done a study or survey, and anecdotal evidence on the topic is highly suspect. "Industry consensus" isn't convincing unless it's actually backed by hard data. Industry people are just as likely to be misled by a story as anyone else.

Well, I left D&D in... 1993? *shrug* I did it because I got annoyed with junk products, the Realms (gack), and bad management. The final straw was the whole "can't use the terms 'hit points' or 'armor class' on a newsgroup," statement. My whole group dropped D&D like a hot potato.

I didn't leave D&D _for_ any other game, though. I left because of what D&D (and TSR) was becoming.

We spent about a year doing Champions. Then, when my turn to GM came around, I pulled an old paperback book off my shelf. None of us had ever played the game, but I bought the first copy of the book sold in my city just because I really liked Vampires. That started a streak that lasted until 3E came out.

By that time, I was pretty well played out on melodrama and anti-heroes and pansy "intellectualism" that I just wanted to kill something. Greyhawk being touted as the the "default" setting sure piqued my interest, too.

The cleaned up classes, multiclassing, skills, feats, leveling, etc. is what kept me. About the only sacred cow that I still want to see slaughtered is the Vancian magic system. Although I still want to meet, in a dark alley, whoever decided to ruin the ranger by giving it two-weapon fighting.

Epic battles are good. Usually, they don't happen in a city square. Considering that even exploring the dark lord's fortress is considered being "in the dungeon", I can't imagine how you could play a reasonable game of D&D without some sort of "dungeon". It would feel more like Sorcerer's Crusade (cool game, but not the same) or Ars Magica.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Nah, just trying to figure out what's baby and what's bathwater. Really, the thing to keep in mind here isn't even what I would want changed. I'm pretty happy with the system as it is. But I know (and know of) a lot of folks that aren't. How hard would it be, really, for WotC to reach that market as well?

Actually, it would be impossible. There will always be those who want the game changed. D&D now has more players than ever, just about - trying to please everyone is a fruitless quest. Concentrating on what is making all those who do like the game happy seems a better tactic.