D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[adamc]

That's a nice thought, but I would bet the vast majority of new players come in to the game through friends, not by picking up a beginners boxed set or a player's handbook and starting from scratch. New players come in through established, successful products, not through marketing.

To get the new players, you gotta have the old.

Our core group started from scratch about 2.5 years ago, although we've dragged several others in since. Not saying it's common (no idea), but I do think new people start all the time.

 

[Obryn]

Would that be so bad if WotC decided to give up on it? I don't think that would kill Dungeons & Dragons, after all it has lasted over thirty years now despite the mishandling on the business side. The fact that WotC decided to start selling the older edition stuff on RPGNow.com as well as Premium hard covers should indicate that there is a marketing for this game in pretty much any edition. So even if D&D Next itself is a horrible dissappointment for Hasbro, I don't think it will impact the fan base behind it or discourage new players from discovering it for the first time (regardless of the edition they learn from it). Not to mention the clones out on the market that will continue to crank out materials more for the love of the game than anything else.

Actually, yeah, I think it would be bad... While smaller publishers are doing some excellent things right now, and Kickstarter has spurred something of a revolution among smaller companies, I think it's important to have a market figurehead, so to speak. A company which can be counted on for high production qualities, if nothing else.

D&D is the gateway for the hobby as a whole, and if it's not being actively sold or marketed, I'm not entirely sure any other game could fill that void.

-O

 

[Iosue]

Actually, yeah, I think it would be bad... While smaller publishers are doing some excellent things right now, and Kickstarter has spurred something of a revolution among smaller companies, I think it's important to have a market figurehead, so to speak. A company which can be counted on for high production qualities, if nothing else.

D&D is the gateway for the hobby as a whole, and if it's not being actively sold or marketed, I'm not entirely sure any other game could fill that void.

-O

There's another aspect to this, which is D&D being largely successful and backed by corporate money allows it to try some things that smaller companies can't. And even if these aren't 100% successful, they clear a path for others to follow, and improve on, showing what to do and what not to do. DDI is a good example of this. It reached for the stars, and though it didn't reach its ultimate goals, I think the effort was ultimately beneficial in providing a new model for product delivery and commercialized electronic tools. The 5e playtest is another example. To be sure, there are things that can be criticized about it. OTOH, no one's ever done something like this before. There are going to be missteps. The OGL is another example.

 

[adembroski]

Our core group started from scratch about 2.5 years ago, although we've dragged several others in since. Not saying it's common (no idea), but I do think new people start all the time.

Yeah, it's possible, but I'm personally doubting it's a huge chunk. Anybody have any actual data on it?

 

[delericho]

Core books sell. Everything else doesn't.

That used to be the case. But as you yourself said, WotC have been to that well four times in quick succession now.

Fortunately, both they and Paizo now have a new, and better, revenue stream: subscriptions, whether it's to the DDI or to the various series of Pathfinder books. It would be a mistake to simply assume that Dancey's conclusions from the TSR buyout remains true.

Yeah, it's possible, but I'm personally doubting it's a huge chunk. Anybody have any actual data on it?

No figures, but Mike Meals mentioned in a recent L&L column that the new Red Box had sold pretty well, but hadn't translated into many additional sales of other books. The conclusion they came to from that was that lots of people were trying the game, but very few then advanced on to the 'real' game from there.

It does seem to be a key plank in their strategy to ease that transition path as far as possible, by making their "Starter Set" and the "Simple Game" the same thing, so people are playing the 'real' game from the outset.

 

[Hussar]

Don't forget, while D&D the roleplaying game may be the most important part of the brand, it does not have to be the most profitable arm of it. It sounds very much like they want the RPG to serve as the reference point for a wide range of board games, video games, and more.

I honestly wonder if that hasn't been true for much of D&D's history. I mean, R. A. Salvatore and Weiss and Hickman have probably sold more books between them than the core D&D books of all editions combined. You don't hit the NYT Best Seller List numerous times without selling a metric crapload of books.

All of which are putting a few coppers into whoever owns D&D at the time.

 

[El Mahdi]

Oh, yeah, D&D will remain a cult classic for another 20 years, before perhaps fading as even the most pervasive things do eventually into a historical footnote. We can fondly imagine that in 100 years it will be revived again in some new form.

Holodeck D&D!

 

[adamc]

No figures, but Mike Meals mentioned in a recent L&L column that the new Red Box had sold pretty well, but hadn't translated into many additional sales of other books. The conclusion they came to from that was that lots of people were trying the game, but very few then advanced on to the 'real' game from there.

Just a personal anecdote (again), but we bought the redbox when starting out. It wasn't all that good, and while I did buy a bunch more books, I bought most of them used -- in part to guard against risks of disappointment, and in part because there is a huge price disparity on D&D books more than a year old.

Similarly, I have a DDI account, but just barely -- I don't regard it as a particularly good deal, in part because it doesn't provide online access to the books. If they want more subscribers, they need to either reduce the price or make it more appealing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just a personal anecdote (again), but we bought the redbox when starting out. It wasn't all that good, and while I did buy a bunch more books, I bought most of them used -- in part to guard against risks of disappointment, and in part because there is a huge price disparity on D&D books more than a year old.

Similarly, I have a DDI account, but just barely -- I don't regard it as a particularly good deal, in part because it doesn't provide online access to the books. If they want more subscribers, they need to either reduce the price or make it more appealing.

Yeah, I think it is hard to generalize on how people get started. I think these days a lot of kids may start playing with parents, but its still new young people getting into it and doing things with the game on their own and having fun that will ultimately grow more gamers.

I thought the Red Box was pretty ham-handed. I mean, it is somewhat in the tradition of previous intro boxes that TSR did, but those were BETTER. I bought Holmes Basic in 1976, which was the very first 'starter'. It had a book that had FULL rules, and play up through level 3 (though it was sadly a few years before TSR published the Expert book that had the higher levels). It had maps and a book full of treasures, plus the dice and a few other goodies. Some copies had the module "B1: In Search of the Unknown". Overall you could play with that set for weeks or months and not wish for anything more.

The 4e Red Box seemed a lot more limited. You could perhaps play for a couple weeks with it, but the adventure was much less substantial, the rules didn't match up with the regular 4e rules exactly, and there were only a couple classes, etc. It was kind of a weekend one-shot wrapped in a box really. Not a terrible deal at $20, but I think they'd have been better off to up it a few $ and had a better rule book, maybe some tiles, and a few stand up character cutouts, a few pogs for monsters, and a better adventure. As usual Paizo's starter box seems to have garnered more praise, though it is hard to tell if it succeeded in bringing in more gamers or not.

As to DDI, I guess if you are playing with only the HotF* books and an RC/DMK/MV you may not find the Compendium so much use. OTOH with all the 4e books in use I couldn't possibly live without that thing. I suspect there's no chance WotC will ever put the actual books on DDI, at least as long as physical books are an option. I could see a game that was ALL digital materials where you just subbed up and played, but I'm thinking it isn't likely cost much less than DDI does now. It just isn't cheap to generate all that material.

 

[darjr]

Our core group started from scratch about 2.5 years ago, although we've dragged several others in since. Not saying it's common (no idea), but I do think new people start all the time.

Not only is this wonderful! I'd appreciate it if you went into a bit more detail about how you all got started.

As said further down in the thread I think Mearls want's to capture that real original red box lighting in a bottle. Even if most of the people who buy the new basic set don't buy anything else, if they keep playing, it's a win, and will grow the hobby. Potentially selling more basic sets and seeking out those folks who will seek out more info and detail.