Could this be the future format of 4th Edition D&D?

[cthulhu_duck]

UK, you keep touting the D&D boardgame. They were selling it in New Zealand. Or trying to. The last time I saw a pile, they were on discount (over 50% off) in order to try and clear a product that wasn't selling. I think it's fairly safe to say the D&D boardgame failed in the New Zealand market. A couple of favorable reviews on a boardgaming geek site (similar to Enworld I'd imagine) doesn't always equate to market success.

I disagree. If you can create a game that covers all the same ground as D&D but its far simpler, then its hands down better designed.

Simpler products don't always succeed.

It's not a simple vs complex dynamic really - it's a matter of designing a system as simple as possible (following the KISS principle for example) that is still complex enough to provide what people want. Getting the balance right to make the product appeal to as wide an audience as possible isn't an easy thing.

If we can create a roleplaying game that covers the same ground as 3rd Edition, but is simpler, then the simpler one is better designed.

That's a subjective opinion, not gospel truth.

So by your logic, if someone already owns one boardgame there is no incentive to ever buy any others?

If you already have Monopoly, then unless you're a Monopoly collector, buying something that's like Monopoly, but now with added roleplay elements may not appeal.

It's somewhat like folk who like Big Macs may not care for a competing burger which is more or less the same. Or like the difference between Coca Cola and New Coke.

The Miniatures Market (according to Ryan Danceys Blog) is larger than the RPG market.

How are we measuring that? $$ of revenue (expensive miniatures perhaps?) or actual hard figures of miniature buyers?

....because why? Any quick glance around toy stores/catalogues shows the themes that are in vogue: Pirates, Dinosaurs, Robots, Ninjas etc.

And the Dungeons are where? You're suggesting 'Dungeons and Dinosaurs', 'Dungeons and Ninjas', but it seems to me that Dragons appeal more than Dungeons... just look at the number of Dragon pewter collectables you can find c.v. Dungeon pewter collectables.

I'd like to think I do have an understanding of the market, I have addressed all your criticisms above with what I think are logical answers.

If you really understood the market, then you wouldn't need to ask 'why'. QED, your understanding, while it may be a good understanding isn't perfect.

You have a product you want to believe in, and that's great. But you need to avoid confusing subjective opinion with truth.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya JV mate!

Hey Upper_Krust! Round 2 I suppose...

There is a huge part of the market that buys the core books and that is it certainly, but discounting existing players in a market where getting new players into the game is a monumental task is very nearsighted and foolish IMO.

I'm not discounting them, I just think its going to be impossible to appease the majority of existing 3/3.5 gamers with ANY new product.

Why do you think it won't be a success? A lot of people here don't want a new edition next year, and no matter how much they kick and scream when its released they'll buy it.

I just don't think they'll be able to resell the same books, and they have already covered so much ground with 3/3.5 that its going to be difficult not repeating themselves.

The marketing people at Wizards aren't stupid. Take a look at a starter set of miniatures for Dreamblade for example. On the box there is a sticker that says, "All New Game Design". You know why that's there? Because "All New" is the second best marketing term aside from "Free". Trust me, they know what they are doing and they know how to sell another edition.

I am sure Wizards are on top of the situation. They hired Mike Mearls which I think was a good step - I loved Iron Heroes, the classes were a lot more focused and the feat chains well implemented. If anyone could could design a pen & paper 4th Ed. I might be interested in, its probably him (though even then I see no reason to get anything past the core rulebooks).

But as Ryan Dancey has commented, there is a marketing release and a new design release. I would be far more interested in the latter.

First off, I don't believe they'll call it 4th Edition. I'm banking on Dungeons & Dragons Revised. Secondly, I think it can do really well and certainly be as successful as 3rd Edition.

I'm skeptical. I'll stand by what I said, the core rulebooks might do well, but after that I see no way that they'll get me to buy anybook resembling 3/3.5 purchases I have already made, and I can't imagine too many others will either.

But they can't just sit on their laurels and release the same game. I think they'll do what RyanD said they'll do and release a 3.5 on steroids and clean up a lot of the rules.

Even then, what rules need to be revised? Anything major? It just sounds like they'd be clearing up a bunch of nitpicks.

They'll tie in a subscription format with great electronic support and use things like the Delve Format to make the game more miniature friendly. Just the phrase "Brand New Dungeons & Dragons" at your FLGS will be enough to sell tons of copies. That's what brings people in, something brand new they can start following from the very beginning.

I don't think selling 3.75 (or whatever) core rulebooks will be a problem, its all the books after that I can't see shifting.

Who says it won't be different? I just doubt that it will be changed to the capacity that you are suggesting in that I think it will still be 3 core books with electronic support and support in other areas.

Then thats a marketing release, not a new design release.

Dude, you're starting to go off the deep end. I'd love to see the malice generated by that poll. People in here are annoyed because they think it'll be a strict boardgame and you have like 4% of the vote. Its a roleplaying game for crying out loud and its the father of pen & paper games. Trying to take pen & paper away from D&D is like trying to take a beard from a dwarf!

I think a lot of the naysayers would give it a try and love it. The poll is more of a kneejerk reaction to a radical change.

Um, okay. How do you figure? All the people out there who know NOTHING about what a roleplaying game is are going to look at a very cool looking boardgame at Walmart that they can play with the whole family and think its inferior because its not like something they know nothing about? Sorry, try again.

That doesn't make sense, I'm not suggesting something totally alien.

The Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game doesn't sound negative to me. It implies adventure which is something everyone can relate to. Almost exactly like what you were talking about when you were defending your Dora idea. How is it negative?

I like it!

Yes that could definately work! It doesn't sound condescending. You could be onto a winner.

Looks like I'm getting bad as you with quoting line by line...

He he!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Shin!

I use Paizo's item cards as well as the Item cards from TOGC. Also I promote the use of thier (TOGC) Status, Buff and Spell Cards in my game. Thier easier to reference and less distracting than flipping through a book, in my experience anyway. With the Spell cards the Players literally choose their spells and have thier effects handy when it's time to cast them.

With the Buff cards you just hand them out to players whose characters have been...well buffed.

The Paizo item cards I use in conjunction with the TOGC cards. I hand out the relaively featureless TOGC cards (which is not a slight against the cards at all) when the players find some item. When they have the item identified if it's magical I swap the TOGC card with the Paizo item card. On the back of the Paizo card I have a little label with the items abilites and so forth. If it's a regular item they just keep the TOGC card.

Right now I'm waiting for TOGC to come up with Feat Cards or at least a blank template so that I can fill in my own. Over on the WOTC site they had maneuver cards for their Tome of Battle book and I thought that was a great idea for quick reference. As long as it's not made into a collectable thing I'm all for the idea of using cards for the game.

You see! Thats the sort of stuff I am talking about being in the game as standard! Item, spell and feat cards. Throw in the collectible nature of cards and have the marketing ploy of common, uncommon and rare feats/items/spells and it adds up to more revenue for WotC.

Buff cards sound like a great idea too!

I was also thinking Template cards for the monsters, so if you have a half dozen different template cards that means you have multiplied your monster options sevenfold!

I use mini's and counters for my game. I also use battle mats and am a big fan of WOTC's Dungeon Tiles.

Those look excellent - again, this is the sort of thing that make the game more attractive, especially to casual/new gamers.

My problem with these things being incorporated into a basic set has less to do with my use of them and more to do with you being determined to alienate the existing customer base by basically forcing them to buy this extra stuff that they dont want or need if they want to upgrade. While I may find these things useful, there may be ten players who HATE that stuff and won't buy your product. And really that's only part what I object to in your presentation.

Thats true. I'd release the rulebooks (within the boxed sets) for free to those people.

I can see any 4th Edition alienating the majority of 3/3.5 gamers.

The other part is the dilution of the D&D brand name, which is, and I really dont understand how you can't possibly see this, damaging to the actual product. Like I said, people who've never played Dungeons & Dragons have at least HEARD of Dungeons & Dragons. To essentially take that away ultimately causes more harm than good in terms of trying to get your product out there.

I think JV had a good idea:

Dungeons & Dragons: Adventure Game

Then either you could use my idea Dungeons & Pirates Adventure Game or have something like Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Adventure Game, Dungeons & Dragons: Dinosaur Adventure Game...although that seems a tad longwinded, what do you think?

 

[painandgreed]

I have stated this on multiple occasions:

1) Less/No Book-keeping, meaning more play time.
2) Faster game.
3) Easier to create for.
4) Less daunting to new players.
5) More visually attractive.
6) Collectibility.
7) Better from a tactical viewpoint.

And I think that anybody who wants all those points is already playing Warhammer or D&D minis. While I think it would be good to include RPG elements into D&D minis, i don't see the other way around as good for D&D because that's not what people who play D&D want. 1-4 sound nice but there are already games out there that satisfy those requirements and while a few people have switched, it's not many. D&D is a nice middle point between complexity and playability and I think moving too far in either direction will lose players. 5 is nice for those that have space and money. 6 & 7 are hardly attractive to the standard role player (wargamer maybe of which there is planety of crossover, but not RPer).

Better solutions would be to add advanced layer to D&D minis as a crossover from that to the full RPG game.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Throw in the collectible nature of cards and have the marketing ploy of common, uncommon and rare feats/items/spells and it adds up to more revenue for WotC.

Aaaaaaaaaand you lost me again.

If WOTC makes these collectable then they've lost me as a customer. I want these as part of the game. If the feats are in the core book I want them as cards in the core set. I'd bend as far as WOTC selling them as units separately.

For Example:
a set of complete Core Rulebook Feats Cards for $12.
a set of complete Complete Warrior Feat Cards for $6

If I have to buy boosters to get a complete set of feats then no money from me.

I was also thinking Template cards for the monsters, so if you have a half dozen different template cards that means you have multiplied your monster options sevenfold!

I forgot to mention that there are Monster Cards out there as well from TGM. They come with a blank card template so that you can create your own leveled or templated moster cards.

Once again if you make these collectable, you loose me. If you include these as part of the core then that's awesome. Even if you make a complete monster deck for $20, that's fine as well. Collectable? Nope.

I can see any 4th Edition alienating the majority of 3/3.5 gamers.

Only if it invalidates everything that was 3.5. I have a nice collection of 3 -3.5 books, that I've spent hundreds if not thousands on and that's including PDF's.

I think JV had a good idea:

Dungeons & Dragons: Adventure Game

Then either you could use my idea Dungeons & Pirates Adventure Game or have something like Dungeons & Dragons: Pirate Adventure Game, Dungeons & Dragons: Dinosaur Adventure Game...although that seems a tad longwinded, what do you think?

Long winded, but stll better than Dungeons & Pirates or Dungeons & Dinosaurs.

 

[Ranger REG]

I disagree. If you can create a game that covers all the same ground as D&D but its far simpler, then its hands down better designed.

You're missing the point. We don't want dumb sports jock to be playing our game. We want to give them brain fart and repel them from our geek-only hobby.

Its a smaller demographic than 10+

You want to market D&D to 10-year-olds? It only works with the prepubescent geeks in the 80's.

Only character assassination.

Darn. *puts away knives and poisons* :\

I don't see being overly complex a strength.

It deters dumb jocks. That's strength enough for me.

Which is why we wouldn't start it like that.

Oh, you're going to make a pink dinosaur sing it.

Obviously they don't have the brand strength tomatch D&D in terms of sales.

Of course. So why stoop to the rules-lite brand labels when they can't profit as much as D&D?

Lets just hope he buys enough copies of 4th Edition to keep the company in business then.

Well, if I have children, I'll make sure they don't become one of them dumb sports jocks.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey c_d!

UK, you keep touting the D&D boardgame. They were selling it in New Zealand. Or trying to. The last time I saw a pile, they were on discount (over 50% off) in order to try and clear a product that wasn't selling. I think it's fairly safe to say the D&D boardgame failed in the New Zealand market. A couple of favorable reviews on a boardgaming geek site (similar to Enworld I'd imagine) doesn't always equate to market success.

I think a lot of that is down to awareness,

1) I'd never heard of it until a few weeks ago! Which tells me that WotC did next to nothing to market it to gamers.
2) I checked the major catalogues over the past few years and they were not selling it, which means WotC did nothing to push it into the mainstream market.

So if its not marketed to gamers OR the mainstream, then all you basically have is word of mouth and the internet.

Simpler products don't always succeed.

I agree. But at the same time I think variety/options are the key. SO you can still have something intrinsically simple with tons of variety - which is basically what I am suggesting here.

It's not a simple vs complex dynamic really - it's a matter of designing a system as simple as possible (following the KISS principle for example) that is still complex enough to provide what people want. Getting the balance right to make the product appeal to as wide an audience as possible isn't an easy thing.

Again, I agree 100%. I think that balance is the key. But looking at the existing boardgame format I think I could easily incorporate all the variety of D&D without sacrificing the simplicity.

I already thought of a method for incorporating wealth/trade, levelling (to any level), multi-classing/prestige classes, races as optional from the start, far more diverse combat rules (with such a simple tweaking of the existing setup), and a dozen or so other features all with changes so minor they won't 'upset the applecart' of simplicity.

That's a subjective opinion, not gospel truth.

I disagree. Complexity for its own sake is a bad thing. But again, don't confuse complexity with variety.

If you already have Monopoly, then unless you're a Monopoly collector, buying something that's like Monopoly, but now with added roleplay elements may not appeal.

It's somewhat like folk who like Big Macs may not care for a competing burger which is more or less the same. Or like the difference between Coca Cola and New Coke.

The difference there is that having multiple monopoly sets doesn't expand the game in any way.

How are we measuring that? $$ of revenue (expensive miniatures perhaps?) or actual hard figures of miniature buyers?

I presume it was $$ of revenue.

And the Dungeons are where? You're suggesting 'Dungeons and Dinosaurs', 'Dungeons and Ninjas', but it seems to me that Dragons appeal more than Dungeons... just look at the number of Dragon pewter collectables you can find c.v. Dungeon pewter collectables.

I think a number of people have suggested a change of nomenclature, perhaps to JV's

Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game

But I think as a (certainly mainstream at least) marketing tool getting in the words Pirate, Dinosaur, Ninja, Robot etc. in there somewhere could really help.

If you really understood the market, then you wouldn't need to ask 'why'. QED, your understanding, while it may be a good understanding isn't perfect.

So Wizards of the Coast would never conduct market research...is that what you are saying?

You have a product you want to believe in, and that's great. But you need to avoid confusing subjective opinion with truth.

I don't remember laying down the gospel according to Saint Krust, simply giving my opinion and backing it up with logic as best I see it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi painandgreed!

And I think that anybody who wants all those points is already playing Warhammer or D&D minis.

Both of those are Wargames through and through. They are not roleplaying games even in the basic dungeon-crawl sense of the term as with a product like Descent.

While I think it would be good to include RPG elements into D&D minis, i don't see the other way around as good for D&D because that's not what people who play D&D want.

Then how come so many already use minis/counters/battlemats/tiles in their D&D games?

1-4 sound nice but there are already games out there that satisfy those requirements and while a few people have switched, it's not many.

Whether D&D is the 'best' RPG or not, its always going to be more popular by far than other RPGs simply on the strength of the brand.

D&D is a nice middle point between complexity and playability and I think moving too far in either direction will lose players.

I happen to think its more compex than it needs to be, and if you pay attention to this and other threads thre are a lot of people out there talking about support for DMs because the task itself can be very time cosnuming and daunting for the inexperienced.

5 is nice for those that have space and money.

I don't think the boxed sets need to be bigger than 12" x 12" x 3-4".

6 & 7 are hardly attractive to the standard role player (wargamer maybe of which there is planety of crossover, but not RPer).

Actually according to WotCs market research 44% of roleplayers are of the strategic/tactical sort, and a further 12% are casual gamers.

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Better solutions would be to add advanced layer to D&D minis as a crossover from that to the full RPG game.

Sounds a tad half-hearted.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Shin mate!

Aaaaaaaaaand you lost me again.

If WOTC makes these collectable then they've lost me as a customer. I want these as part of the game. If the feats are in the core book I want them as cards in the core set. I'd bend as far as WOTC selling them as units separately.

For Example:
a set of complete Core Rulebook Feats Cards for $12.
a set of complete Complete Warrior Feat Cards for $6

If I have to buy boosters to get a complete set of feats then no money from me.

I'm not sure I agree with you here.

I'd rather have random cards from a larger pool than a lot of multiples.

By that I mean, each boxed set will need a certain amount of feat/spell cards to operate independantly.

So either you have a situation where each boxed set has the same feats/spells cards or they have different cards. But at the same time there needs to be some commonality.

I forgot to mention that there are Monster Cards out there as well from TGM. They come with a blank card template so that you can create your own leveled or templated moster cards.

Nice.

Once again if you make these collectable, you loose me. If you include these as part of the core then that's awesome. Even if you make a complete monster deck for $20, that's fine as well. Collectable? Nope.

The problem with your suggestion is that to make every boxed set playable in its own right you need to have x amount of feat/spell cards. But theres no point putting exactly the same cards into each (differently themed) boxed set.

Only if it invalidates everything that was 3.5. I have a nice collection of 3 -3.5 books, that I've spent hundreds if not thousands on and that's including PDF's.

Me too. If 4th Edition is not changed enough to invalidate 3/3.5 then there is nothing for WotC to sell beyond the core 4th Ed. rulebooks. So you are back to square one.

If it is changed enough to invalidate 3/3.5 then it alienates those gamers, who have no cause to repurchase the same material.

So the pen & paper idea is a Catch 22.

Long winded, but stll better than Dungeons & Pirates or Dungeons & Dinosaurs.

Aw c'mon Dungeons & Dinosaurs is great! Its even got the alliteration and everything.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Ranger REG!

You're missing the point. We don't want dumb sports jock to be playing our game. We want to give them brain fart and repel them from our geek-only hobby.

...and how does that create more gamers and by extension translate into more revenue for WotC?

You want to market D&D to 10-year-olds? It only works with the prepubescent geeks in the 80's.

I want to market D&D to as many people as possible, including existing gamers, casual gamers, new gamers, kids and families.

Darn. *puts away knives and poisons* :\

It deters dumb jocks. That's strength enough for me.

I'd rather try and convert people than alienate or discriminate against certain sectors of the market.

Oh, you're going to make a pink dinosaur sing it.

I know how to make elitist roleplayers scream and feel sick to their ass apparently.

Of course. So why stoop to the rules-lite brand labels when they can't profit as much as D&D?

If D&D can penetrate the mainstream market then it will sell better. The only way to do that is simplify the rules and dress it up like a boardgame.

Well, if I have children, I'll make sure they don't become one of them dumb sports jocks.

Keep perpetuating those stereotypes!