Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[Wiseblood]

WotC could make most people happy, but those are some very long odds.

I wonder if their design principles and their plans actually hurt them. Are they being creative inside a box? A box created by branding and by corporate strategy. 3e and MtG were concieved by the ambitious small company. Much like D&D was by TSR.


I'm not so sure WotC has what it takes to deliver. One thing I am sure of is that someone out there does have what it takes.

 

[gamerprinter]

True. But, a game that is simple at its core but allows additional complexity via add-ons is more universally appealing than one that's complex at the core, since those can't easily be simplified on the fly.

I'm not proposing a version of D&D that only caters to the "simpler is better" style--just one that starts with that assumption, and then allows designers/gamers to add additional layers to their heart's content.

(Plus, the more complex the game--at least initially--the higher the barrier of entry to new players.)

That reasoning is sound and I wouldn't oppose that view. However, as stated it's not necessarily a goal for all gamers - it's certainly not my goal.

I was just suggesting that the assumption that 3x/PF is complicated so it is a doomed system, 'since everyone wants a simpler game' is just not a given. Many people want a simpler game, but that doesn't describe all people - this was my only point.

I also agree that for new people coming into the game simpler is easier. But then I am not a beginner, I was only speaking from my point of view as a 30+ year experienced gamer, that I don't want nor need a simpler game. I'd rather hand-hold a new gamer into the 'complex game' so to make it easier to get involved by playing first hand in whatever game is in front of them, rather than guide them into a simpler game instead.

Edit: my very first game of D&D, the DM forced me to play a 12th level wizard having never played an RPG before. It was tough, but with plenty of hand-holding, I learned (or was forced to learn) quickly. I found it very complicated, but also a thrilling experience. So for the beginner going baby steps isn't necessarily the only nor best tact in getting them into a game. I wouldn't do this to new players in my game. I am just saying that pulling an inexperienced gamer into a complex situation is a doable concept. And this would be the complete opposite to a simpler game to learn the process.

 

[Argyle King]

The gap between D&D and Pathfinder is small, but GURPS (just to name one example) hasn't been doing well at all.

Might just be a local oddity then, but I've seen it (as well as Rogue Trader) become very popular in this area.

I've also noticed that SJG is starting to release a few things in physical form. I'm aware that Munchkin is their flagship game right now, but SJG still supports GURPS, and the company is still in business -which is quite a feat considering how long they've been around.


Either way, I still think my point stands. D&D used to blow pretty much every other game out of the water. While it is still the industry leader, I do not believe the gap between D&D and other games is anywhere near what it used to be. There are even some people who claim at certain points in the year that Pathfinder edges ahead.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think that is an over stated simplification.

And I really don't believe that there is any evidence that it works out that way.

Certainly not at the "editions of D&D" level. I think it just underestimates the fans and leads to giving them less than what they want.

Yes, it's a simplification. I should have said "To an extent."

I only have anecdote and gut instinct to go with, same as anyone else. But I can only say that, IME, I've seen far more people turned off by the complexity of D&D (any edition) than have been attracted by it. I've seen far more people not want to get into the game because of the perceived necessity of multiple books and hours of "study" than have been attracted by it.

Add that to the fact that, as I said above, it's always easier to increase a system's complexity through supplements than to decrease it, and I still firmly believe that the way to go forward is a simple core game with a large amount of optional complexity.

In point of fact, I personally would love to see the game return to the BECMI model of advancement and expansion. I'm not suggesting it should--I lack the data to make a marketing decision like that--only that, as I perceive it, that would be the best option.

 

[gamerprinter]

Might just be a local oddity then, but I've seen it (as well as Rogue Trader) become very popular in this area.

Even a game that is failing or falling in the larger market might have success in localities, here and there. If the money spent to develop and market a game cost's more than the varying successes in some localities, its still a fail.

I know people who play and love GURPs. If those people are part of a minority of gamers, then SJG is still suffering, despite that fact of some local successes.

I think that's the point that Prosfilaes is making (don't know for sure).

 

[Mouseferatu]

To clarify, D&D has (almost) always been a game where you get more out of it if you put more thought and effort into it. I'm not suggesting we lose that.

I'm suggesting we lose the necessity of that.

The character creation "mini-game," if you will, should be possible, absolutely, but not required. At its most basic form, D&D should be playable by newcomers in a matter of minutes, not hours. Those who want to spend hours on characters and optimization should absolutely have that capability, but I feel it should come in the form of add-ons, not the basic, core, out-of-the-box experience. Because that--again, IME--is where you lose people, both newcomers to the game and experienced gamers who just want a more streamlined experience.

In other words, and using prior versions as an example, if one group wants to play with just Basic, and another wants to play with Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master, that should be entirely possible.

 

[Argyle King]

Even a game that is failing or falling in the larger market might have success in localities, here and there. If the money spent to develop and market a game cost's more than the varying successes in some localities, its still a fail.

I know people who play and love GURPs. If those people are part of a minority of gamers, then SJG is still suffering, despite that fact of some local successes.

I think that's the point that Prosfilaes is making (don't know for sure).

My point really doesn't hinge upon the validity of his point though. Part of my point is considering the fact that within the past two years, I've seen D&D go from being the only game being played in this area to being one of many games being played -and by far not being the most common game played.

If I look at myself and my own anecdotal experience, I went from barely being aware there even were games other than D&D to it becoming my secondary choice of game. At first I thought this might have just been personal preference, and that I was the oddball in the area, but then I starting paying more attention to what was going on around me; the games being advertised at the local gaming store, and the games in the area recruiting.

On a larger scale that extends beyond this area, it might not be GURPS nor Rogue Trader nor any of the other games I mention, but it's my point that it is (IMO) more common to find other games openly played and referenced by actual name now. D&D used to be synonymous with RPG much in the same way that 'Coke' is synonymous with soda in some areas of the South, Xerox is occasionally synonymous with copy, and Frigidaire was at one time synonymous with refrigerator.

Naturally, as was the case with those brands, other brands would make names of their own and stand on their own feet. It is naturally for that to happen. However, I believe the other gaming companies have more rapidly closed the game and garnered more interest in the past 2-3 years than they have in the 30+ years prior.

The point growing out of that point is that I believe WoTC (going forward) needs to be more aware of how some of their choices are received and perceived by their fanbase. The reason being that their product is no longer viewed by many to be the only way to play. Where they may have faltered, others have been consistently getting better, and people have noticed.

Now, I would never suggest people only play one game. Even looking at myself, I do not. However, even if you are someone who plays multiple games, that still means there might be times when you choose one product over another. Again, if I look at myself; even though I still do play D&D, I realize that I have not purchased a D&D product since Manual of The Planes for 4th Edition.

Instead, when I drive to the local gaming store, I actually look at other options. I would have never done that before; D&D had a monopoly on my rpg book budget. As it stands -and I believe by talking to other gamers that I am not the only one- D&D/WoTC now have to work to convince me to buy their product instead of a product made by someone else.

 

[gamerprinter]

Ah, I see what you mean, 'anecdotally for you'. For me, that was the 80's. I was playing Traveler, Space Opera, Aftermath, Twilight 2000, Elfquest, Paranoia and many other games in addition to D&D from say 1983 until 1989 - being primarily a D&Der from 1977 up to that point.

In the 1990's I dabbled with WoD, and for a short time played HOL.

So I've never considered D&D the only game in town, except in the 70's (and it wasn't true even then.)

When looking at the whole industry (a difficult thing to do at any time), I generally don't refer to personal anecdotes, as that can always vary when regarding the market as a whole.

Until your last post, I didn't understand that you were speaking anecdotally only.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'm suggesting we lose the necessity of that.

The character creation "mini-game," if you will, should be possible, absolutely, but not required. At its most basic form, D&D should be playable by newcomers in a matter of minutes, not hours. Those who want to spend hours on characters and optimization should absolutely have that capability, but I feel it should come in the form of add-ons, not the basic, core, out-of-the-box experience. Because that--again, IME--is where you lose people, both newcomers to the game and experienced gamers who just want a more streamlined experience.

When D&D was at its most popular, it was a game that:

(1) Was sold alongside other games in a form that looked like a game.

(2) Could be introduced to a new player in about 10 minutes (including the creation of a full character).

(3) By default supported an open table that made it as easy to pick-up and play as any board or card game.

(4) Featured easy prep and relatively easy running for the DM.

(5) Penetrated the mainstream through marketing, tie-in products, and the like.

Since 1985, these elements have been stripped from the game one by one.

I don't think these things are the be-all or end-all of success. But they'd certainly be the first things I'd be looking to implement if I was in charge of the D&D brand.

 

[Argyle King]

Ah, I see what you mean, 'anecdotally for you'. For me, that was the 80's. I was playing Traveler, Space Opera, Aftermath, Twilight 2000, Elfquest, Paranoia and many other games in addition to D&D from say 1983 until 1989 - being primarily a D&Der from 1977 up to that point.

In the 1990's I dabbled with WoD, and for a short time played HOL.

So I've never considered D&D the only game in town, except in the 70's (and it wasn't true even then.)

When looking at the whole industry (a difficult thing to do at any time), I generally don't refer to personal anecdotes, as that can always vary when regarding the market as a whole.

Until your last post, I didn't understand that you were speaking anecdotally only.

It was a view that started as being based on anecdotal experience, but, in the past few years, I have seen what is around me start to reflect my own personal experience as well. There seem to be more people having a similar experience at the same time than there were previously. While there may have been pockets of people who played other games before, and there still are pockets of people who play alternative games, I believe -overall- that alternative games have grown larger than the pockets they were contained in before. Simultaneously, there have been a few times in which D&D has (from what I can tell when I look at the community as a whole; not just here locally) stumbled. I believe this has lead to the gap between the industry leader and alternatives being less than it previously was.

As such, I believe this is something WoTC needs to be aware of going forward if they want to perform better as a company. I would never suggest WoTC is hurting; I am sure they still do quite well. However, I do not believe they are doing nearly as well as they expected they would be with their current products. Meanwhile, other companies are doing better than they were before. Even some of the companies which people might claim are 'doing terrible' are showing signs of improvement.

I used personal experience to illustrate my point mainly because -as someone who is not an employee of Hasbro- I do not have concrete figures to present along with my posts.


edit: I wanted to clarify something I said. 'What is around me' also started with just here at my home table. Then, it became what I noticed here in the local area. Other games were being brought to the forefront. Still, that's somewhat anecdotal and localized. Then, I went to a few cons and noticed what I felt was more prominent presentation of other games than I had seen in years past. Still, I admit it is based on personal experience and things I have seen. It just seems (from my point of view) that there are more people willing to play other games at this point in time than I have experience before, and the change seems to have happened rather rapidly.