Coming to a MM near you- FLAVOR!

[Jack99]

IIRC, in RPGs WoTC has about 43-45% market share, White Wolf is second with 22% and GURPS third with 5% -- these have been pretty consistent, at least for the first half of the decade (caveat: I think my most recent source is from 2005 or 2006, so I may be wrong).

Certainly. But the poster I responded to was talking about the D&D/d20 scene from what I could tell (he said D&D was fragmented), hence my number.

 

[Shemeska]

Certainly. But the poster I responded to was talking about the D&D/d20 scene from what I could tell (he said D&D was fragmented), hence my number.

You think that of all the people playing D&D right now, 90% of them are playing 4e from WotC. Really?

 

[fanboy2000]

And giving reasons why ENCOUNTER GROUPS hang together? I laughed out loud with that. Who uses encounter groups anyway? Now they will waste even more space.

I used the encounter groups quite often. Of course, I used the flavor in the monster knowledge DCs also. (Or created my own.)

 

[Scribble]

You can always ignore the fluff, if you don't want/like it... however, if you want it, writing it all yourself or referring to your old MMs/MCs is not easy (especially at the table). Besides, well-written fluff may even inspire adventure or campaign ideas -- it has happened to me many times.

This is both true and untrue... Dependant upon the situation.

In the 2e style, where it was all pretty much in one big blob, while at the table this was very untrue. Often I would find myself scanning for a while trying to figure out what the "important" parts were, or missing them entirely. Doesn't matter if I liked the flavor or not, it was there and even if I wasn't currently in a situation that might make use of it, I had to scan through it all to find what I DID want to make use of.

With the 4e style, if they stick to it, and just increase the amount, there's no scanning. I have a section for knowledge, so I know instantly what flavor the PCs might know, I have a section for encounter groups, so I know what other creatures might be found nearby, and I have a stat block with the relevant combat info so I know what it can do in combat.

If they stick to THIS format, but increase the info the non combat areas offer I will be happy.

If they jumble things up, and get the flavor in the way of what I need when I flip the book open at the table- I will be unhappy.

If they give me as MUCH flavor as I got in 2e, but also format it in an easy to use at the stable style like 4e... I will be REALLY happy!

 

[Jack99]

You think that of all the people playing D&D right now, 90% of them are playing 4e from WotC. Really?

Maybe its more like 85%, but lets not quibble over stats .

Instead understand that I doubt WotC's change is seen as a step to change the minds of those playing other editions.

The change was made to cater to us, who play the game. Getting more players is the job of the Red Box and other Essentials. And those seemed aimed mostly at new players, not old players who chose to stick to an older edition.

 

[avin]

I'd have to agree with Jack99 on this, Shemmie, I think it's too late to attract people who don't like (or hate) 4E by changing a Monster Manual... I guess it reflects more the feedback made by people such as me who DM on 4E but think 4E MM's are the worst of the four editions, while DMGs are probably the best.

About % I have no clue.

 

[Dannager]

You think that of all the people playing D&D right now, 90% of them are playing 4e from WotC. Really?

That's not what he was talking about. Market share is not the same as number of people playing a game. There are probably a lot of people (well, perhaps not a lot, but some) playing 2e or 3.0, who have no interest in purchasing new RPG products. These people are not part of the market. They might play D&D, but they have removed themselves from the hobby's customer base.

Put simply, the only real market that exists right now for D&D is the one involving PFRPG and 4e, and it would not surprise me at all if WotC had 90% of that market. In fact, it would surprise me if the number was that low.

 

[Primal]

Certainly. But the poster I responded to was talking about the D&D/d20 scene from what I could tell (he said D&D was fragmented), hence my number.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood... but I still have to say that Paizo is probably somewhere between 15-25% these days (a rough estimation). Still, as you said, there's no point in arguing over numbers...

I agree that it's probably good for the game that WoTC is releasing a better entry-level set of the rules aimed primarily for "newbies".

 

[Squizzle]

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood... but I still have to say that Paizo is probably somewhere between 15-25% these days (a rough estimation). Still, as you said, there's no point in arguing over numbers...

I agree that it's probably good for the game that WoTC is releasing a better entry-level set of the rules aimed primarily for "newbies".

While I'm sure Paizo is doing just fine, having 15-25% of the "greater D&D" market would make them one of the top three RPG companies in existence. It is practically inconceivable that this is the case, considering how new their major offering is.

 

[Primal]

While I'm sure Paizo is doing just fine, having 15-25% of the "greater D&D" market would make them one of the top three RPG companies in existence. It is practically inconceivable that this is the case, considering how new their major offering is.

Hmmm.... in retrospect, you're probably entirely correct (always hated math). Still, it's entirely possible in a couple of years, if PF RPG and APs keep selling.