D&D is now in (exceedingly awesome) commercial form

[Nifft]

1) Get distracted by something else you also like;

5) Temporarily not have the time or space for the game;

8) Date someone who doesn't approve of the game, or who takes all your attention from the game;

In my case these three were pretty much one big reason why I dropped out of RPGs between 1e and 3e.

It was the Baldur's Gate series of video games that got me back into thinking about D&D, and then 3e came along & suddenly there were other people playing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think Hussar's claim is not true some of the time, and not not true some of the time.

Well, the point is that an absence of evidence is neither evidence pro or con. Really, we can say nothing about how many people play Holmes Basic, AD&D 1e, etc., now, and the WotC "lapsed player" data is of no help in this regard.

I can speculate that there is life on a planet circling a distant star, but without any evidence upon which to base that opinion, the most we can be about it (rationally) is agnostic. We simply do not know.

Any argument that comes from a position that assumes knowledge, such as "C'mon, life must exist on planet X, therefore extraterrestrial life exists" is a non-starter. Extraterrestrial life may exist, but the argument itself has no evidenciary value.

So I think the real question would be: Would the original red box effectively generate interest in WoTC's current market?

I don't have any studies saying yes or no, but I presume WoTC has done their homework on who their target audience is, and what they want.

I would hope that WotC did their research, and the trade dress of their product, as well as the ad (if it is a WotC ad), would seem to indicate that WotC does believe that the earlier D&D would generate interest, even if it is not what they want to sell, or if they believe that it will not sustain interest.

Moreover, even if WotC now thinks that the initial 4e release was a mistake, it is fairly obvious (to me at least) that pulling back now would be an even bigger mistake.

The 4e roll-out sucked. The recent damage control has been excellent. IMHO, anyway. Essentials comes across as very reasonably priced. Again, IMHO.

WotC should stay the course with 4e/Essentials for the next few years at least, and then produce a 5e that has greater backwards compatability. IOW, someone's vision of what is best from all previous editions (OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e). Again, IMHO.

What they should do immediately, if not sooner, is dump the delve format for adventures. They could do so without seeming to be back-treading, and it would make it easier to create adventures with more reuse potential. Again, IMHO. YMMV.



RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

Yeah I agree it wasn't designed for your consumption. It's designed for a completely new unexperienced person who has never even played D&D.

It's a great deal especially for say, a parent who's kid hears about D&D and just : "Has to has to has to have it I want it more then any thing its the only thing I'll ask for ever I sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!"

This, coincidentally, is exactly the kind of customer the Starter Set can lose you forever. The people on a limited budget who save their pennies, buy the product you tell them to buy... And then discover you sold them a demo of the real game that they're selling separately.

I had this happen when I was a kid. Mayfair never got another penny of my money.

 

[Scribble]

Moreover, even if WotC now thinks that the initial 4e release was a mistake, it is fairly obvious (to me at least) that pulling back now would be an even bigger mistake.

The 4e roll-out sucked. The recent damage control has been excellent. IMHO, anyway. Essentials comes across as very reasonably priced. Again, IMHO.

I agree... Even though whether it was deserved or not, it's obvious the roll out wasn't all happy unicorns and lollipops!

WotC should stay the course with 4e/Essentials for the next few years at least, and then produce a 5e that has greater backwards compatability. IOW, someone's vision of what is best from all previous editions (OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e). Again, IMHO.

While I agree they should stay the course, I get the feeling if you're looking for 5e you're out of luck.

Seems they want to take D&D into the same territory as MTG and give it a somewhat small set of "core" rules with the other stuff layered on top.

I don't think the Core will change for a long time. (At least not n large increments.) Most of the changes we've seen (especially in essentials) have been to the top layer, not the base rules.

What they should do immediately, if not sooner, is dump the delve format for adventures. They could do so without seeming to be back-treading, and it would make it easier to create adventures with more reuse potential. Again, IMHO. YMMV.

This I don't disagree with.

I don't really think it has as much an effect on re-use as you seem to... But I do find it kind of annoying.

 

[Hussar]

The 4e roll-out sucked. The recent damage control has been excellent. IMHO, anyway. Essentials comes across as very reasonably priced. Again, IMHO.

Speaking of talking with no proof. Why would you claim this? Three printings of the core books in under two years? Selling out your print run, not once, but twice equals a "sucked" roll out?

What criteria are you using for sucking?

Now, as far as older versions bringing back gamers, well, you are absolutely right, I have no proof. But, I can point to the fact that after six years of OSRIC and various other OSR products, we haven't seen this massive upswing in people returning to the hobby.

I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along. It took a completely reworked game that slaughtered all sorts of sacred cows to get people back into the hobby. Skills and Powers didn't get it done. Red Box D&D didn't get it done.

Unless there is this massive population of gamers playing older versions of D&D hidden away somewhere, to me, lapsed gamer means someone who dropped out of the hobby. Twenty million by WOTC's estimates. RC, are you claiming that there are significant numbers of those who are still gaming? Where are they?

 

[billd91]

I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along. It took a completely reworked game that slaughtered all sorts of sacred cows to get people back into the hobby. Skills and Powers didn't get it done. Red Box D&D didn't get it done.

Of course, TSR being unable to even get stuff to market for a while didn't exactly help D&D's numbers.
But exactly how many sacred cows do you count being killed in the 3e release? Frankly, I'm not seeing "all sorts".
And Red Box D&D didn't get it done? How do you think so many people got into the hobby in the first place? How do you think the D&D family of games had so many players to bleed 15 years later?

 

[Beginning of the End]

Speaking of talking with no proof. Why would you claim this? Three printings of the core books in under two years? Selling out your print run, not once, but twice equals a "sucked" roll out?

We've sold out our print run on City Supplement 1: Dweredell 192 times! It's incredible!

(It's also POD, so every print run consists of 1 copy. But there ya go. We're clearly 60x more successful than 4th Edition, right?)

I would also point to the fact that D&D was bleeding players until 3e came along. It took a completely reworked game that slaughtered all sorts of sacred cows to get people back into the hobby. Skills and Powers didn't get it done. Red Box D&D didn't get it done.

BECMI's red box went out of print in 1990. Trying to blame the fact that the game was bleeding players (citation needed) a decade later seems like a wee bit of a stretch to me. It's an even bigger stretch when you consider that the decline in D&D's sales began shortly after D&D stopped being available in a boxed set that wasn't a pay-to-preview product. IOW, it started immediately after BECMI's red box went away.

That may be correlation and not causation. But there's not even a correlation between BECMI's red box being available on the market and the player base for D&D declining. There's actually an anti-correlation.

I'm not even really sure what the point is you're trying to make. But at the moment you appear to be operating in a fact-free zone.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I love the idea that WotC purposefully sent as few copies of their stuff as possible to ensure they'd have bragging rights, which is far more important then, you know, making actual money.

Why?

So that they could shove it in the faces at nerds on the internet! What could be more important, after all?!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I love the idea that WotC purposefully sent as few copies of their stuff as possible to ensure they'd have bragging rights, which is far more important then, you know, making actual money.

Why?

So that they could shove it in the faces at nerds on the internet! What could be more important, after all?!

Also an interesting idea is that for some reason OD&D or the original Red Box would sell better and be more succesful in getting new players then the new game. Wizards of the Coast is producing a new game just because they can, not because it is a financially sound move.

But exactly how many sacred cows do you count being killed in the 3e release?

It seems to me it was a freaking lot, but people forget all this because they have played 3e for so long and many have set it to their new baseline.
Monsters and players use the exact same rule and get the same stat blocks?
THAC0 to "always roll high"?
d20 for every resolution mechanic now, no more d% for special skilsl.
Skills for everyone?
4d6 drop lowest and 25 point buy added to the game?
Unified XP tables for everyone?
Base Attack Bonus (and standardized at that?)
3 Saves.
9th level spells for Clerics?
Max HD at 1st level?
Damage vs large opponents?
... (to be continued by someone that doesn't just get the sacred cows from third parties)

Sure, you have adapted to 3.x and enjoyed what it did. You think all of these as good moves. But if someone was coming from the original Red Box and between kids, work and wife didn't play for 20 years, if he had come to 3.x he would have seen a lot of changes.

And I dare claim that most people that had 20 years or so not playing any type of D&D or RPG wouldn't care that it was different. It still evokes all the same feelings. You still fight Goblins and Kobolds with swords and magic missiles. The Rogue is still the stealthy guy dealing with traps and pick-pocketing.

 

[AllisterH]

PErsonally...I thought 3e slaughtered a LOT of sacred cows...

Big one being the effect of magic on the setting...Things like the ove to 3 saves I just consider a small shift that didn't affect much but the changes to magic? Hoo-boy...those were a doozy

We've done this before, but a 1e/2e setting is going to be VASTLY different than a 3e setting due to all the changes of magic...from limits on how much magic gets tossed around, to how much magic the PCs use etc...

People tend to equate the spells as being the same but frankly, that's a bad way of viewing...the entire underlying rules for magic got changed and there's no way a 3e setting would look like a 1e/2e setting.

Quite frankly, the 4e version of Knock "EFFCTS" on a setting is closer to what the 1e/2e version of "Knock" had on a setting than the 3e version even though the "TEXT" for the 3e version is closer to the 1e/2e spell.