Does D&D Need to Appeal to the Mainstream?

[Reynard]

First off, I am referring to the actual Game of D&D, not the brand, its settings or other properties. Also, I understand that for WotC, a division of Hasbro, the answer is "It'd better!" with an axe raised. But I am not talking about that either.

What I mean, does D&D -- the way it is packaged and designed -- need to take "normal people" or even "normal geeks" into account? If D&D, whatever edition, were packaged and designed for D&D-players (and their friends and kid brothers/sisters) -- rather than for a nebulous pool of potential players that may or may not exist-- would it be any worse for it?

I don't think so. I think a D&D designed for D&D players -- with an eye toward keeping the business afloat obviously, but not toward making bigger profits every quarter -- would be a better game, and certainly a better D&D. When it first appeared, D&D proved that it was quite capable on its own terms of attracting masses of interested parties. many came and went and a core remained ever present, but it is the nature of people, not the game, to have a shufting player base.

If the designers of the game went back to the roots of what makes D&D D&D, and what made it popular with and beloved by the people who would be D&D players, I think they'd find some measure of success and a whole lot of satisfaction. And we, poeple that care enough about D&D to post here instead of watching a sit com, would have the best, most D&D-ish version of the game possible, instead of one intended to draw fans of other kidsn of entertainment and games into the consumer base.

And I guess that last bit is the biggest part -- we've gone from being D&D players to D&D consumers.

(NOTE: this is in General because I believe it is as applicable to Skills & Powers 2E as it i to 3E and it appears to be to 4E).

 

[Doug McCrae]

If D&D, whatever edition, were packaged and designed for D&D-players

It already is.

 

[Zoycitenega]

Ah, good ol' nerd elitism. I would agree withDoug McCrae in that D&D is indeed packaged and designed for D&D players. If it is also marketed towards drawing in new gamers, I don't see the problem. Yes, it makes me unique, but I think that those who normally wouldn't go to a con or game shop might also enjoy it. I'm not troubled about sharing my game with others.

To the second point - that we are becoming consumers rather than players - I would somewhat agree with you, though I wouldn't exactly call it a bad thing. Yes, we spend a lot on books and dice(and some people, miniatures), but is this a bad thing? Too much in excess is bad, of course, as is spending the rent money. But if a book makes you happy and you spend many an hour with it, it is money well spent.

 

[Reynard]

Ah, good ol' nerd elitism.

Name calling: last resort in real life, first on the internet.

I would agree withDoug McCrae in that D&D is indeed packaged and designed for D&D players.

That's probably true, with an emphasis on players, and a particular sort at that.

If it is also marketed towards drawing in new gamers, I don't see the problem.[/QUOTE[

Whether a 350 page book is marketed at "new gamers" is up to debate. That WotC/Hasbro forwent a reasonable "Basic D&D" for the minis game is also telling.

To the second point - that we are becoming consumers rather than players - I would somewhat agree with you, though I wouldn't exactly call it a bad thing. Yes, we spend a lot on books and dice(and some people, miniatures), but is this a bad thing? Too much in excess is bad, of course, as is spending the rent money. But if a book makes you happy and you spend many an hour with it, it is money well spent.

You don't see the difference between "I have a great idea for a new class/race/PrC/feat/spell/whatever" and "We need X classes/races/PrCs/feats/spells/whatevers for the Complete Stuff book. get designing!"?

 

[Zoycitenega]

Name calling: last resort in real life, first on the internet.

Not name calling. Commentary. I would say this in real life, and it would probably loose me a potential friend. I'm ok with that.

In your original post, you made it apear as if you think that all D&D products should be only for D&D players, and not for the mainstream or potential players. This would generally mean you think that only a few people should give it a try. I, at least, consider this elitism.

That's probably true, with an emphasis on players, and a particular sort at that.

What sort of player, if you don't mind me asking. This is not meant to be snide, as I'm sure it sounds, I'm just not sure I understand you.

Whether a 350 page book is marketed at "new gamers" is up to debate. That WotC/Hasbro forwent a reasonable "Basic D&D" for the minis game is also telling.

I don't play the minis game, so I have no real response to this.

You don't see the difference between "I have a great idea for a new class/race/PrC/feat/spell/whatever" and "We need X classes/races/PrCs/feats/spells/whatevers for the Complete Stuff book. get designing!"?

Yes, that is the difference of running WoTC like a company rather than a fan club. WotC is a buissness, and it is out to earn money. There are a few of the complete books I don't care for. I don't own them. However, I've found that most of the non-module books published by WotC are pretty good. Whether they are brought about by deadline-geared workers or people who only publish their very best, I am happy to hand over my money for a truly spectacular book.

 

[Oryan77]

No! The mainstream needs to appeal to D&D by golly!

 

[Keefe the Thief]

First off, I am referring to the actual Game of D&D, not the brand, its settings or other properties. Also, I understand that for WotC, a division of Hasbro, the answer is "It'd better!" with an axe raised. But I am not talking about that either.

What I mean, does D&D -- the way it is packaged and designed -- need to take "normal people" or even "normal geeks" into account? If D&D, whatever edition, were packaged and designed for D&D-players (and their friends and kid brothers/sisters) -- rather than for a nebulous pool of potential players that may or may not exist-- would it be any worse for it?

I don't think so. I think a D&D designed for D&D players -- with an eye toward keeping the business afloat obviously, but not toward making bigger profits every quarter -- would be a better game, and certainly a better D&D. When it first appeared, D&D proved that it was quite capable on its own terms of attracting masses of interested parties. many came and went and a core remained ever present, but it is the nature of people, not the game, to have a shufting player base.

If the designers of the game went back to the roots of what makes D&D D&D, and what made it popular with and beloved by the people who would be D&D players, I think they'd find some measure of success and a whole lot of satisfaction. And we, poeple that care enough about D&D to post here instead of watching a sit com, would have the best, most D&D-ish version of the game possible, instead of one intended to draw fans of other kidsn of entertainment and games into the consumer base.

And I guess that last bit is the biggest part -- we've gone from being D&D players to D&D consumers.

(NOTE: this is in General because I believe it is as applicable to Skills & Powers 2E as it i to 3E and it appears to be to 4E).

No. D&D needs to appeal to those people we were back then when we started to BECOME D&D players. That is, mainstream kids. Not the D&D experts today.

And i admit, these "back then, D&D peeled oranges! Today, it cannot even drive a car!" threads become old pretty fast.

 

[Odhanan]

No. D&D needs to appeal to those people we were back then when we started to BECOME D&D players. That is, mainstream kids. Not the D&D experts today.

Correct. It's overlooked. Over. And over.

When are we going to wake up?

 

[Reynard]

No. D&D needs to appeal to those people we were back then when we started to BECOME D&D players. That is, mainstream kids.

I wonder how many of us actually qualified as "mainstream kids". I know I and my friends were the "poor kids" and the "wierd kids" and our love of fantasy and pretend were set long before we ever discovered D&D.

Not the D&D experts today.

This I will agree with. One of the things I think 3E did right was to provide a fairly simple system at the surface with a lot of potential complexity beneath.

And i admit, these "back then, D&D peeled oranges! Today, it cannot even drive a car!" threads become old pretty fast.

You'll have to forgive me if I come to a D&D forum to discuss D&D -- a little bitterly and despondantly, even -- because it just so happens that the game I have loved for 22 years is about to become something that is no longer D&D. So I am sighing whistfully on the internet -- sue me. better yet, put me on your ignore list and you won't have to suffer through it.

And as far as "In my day, D&D did this..." -- it actually did, by virtue of what rules and options were left unsaid as much as those that were explicit.

 

[delericho]

What I mean, does D&D -- the way it is packaged and designed -- need to take "normal people" or even "normal geeks" into account? If D&D, whatever edition, were packaged and designed for D&D-players (and their friends and kid brothers/sisters) -- rather than for a nebulous pool of potential players that may or may not exist-- would it be any worse for it?

I think it would be a huge mistake for WotC to try to package D&D to appeal to the mainstream. The D&D experience is strong enough to attract people on its own. It would certainly be strengthened with a good new D&D cartoon, a good movie or two, and some good computer games and/or MMORPG.

However, there are a number of things in the current edition (and, it looks like, in the next edition as well) that actively turn off potential new players. The minimum buy-in is $90 dollars (for the group). Then, someone has to read through almost 1,000 pages of core rulebooks. There are huge numbers of complex and interconnecting options. To even create a character you basically have to read 100 pages of dense text.

Now, this is all okay if you've got an experienced player or two on hand to walk you through it all, but for the majority of people that is not the case. Plus, let's be honest - how many gamers are dismissive or unwelcoming towards newbies?

Even once you get playing, there's an awful lot in the system that appeals greatly to a particular mindset, yet doesn't really have much to do with the core experience of D&D (which I define as "go on adventures, kill things, take their stuff). The mechanics are extremely mathematical, with particular builds being more powerful than others (and obviously so), corner cases upon corner cases, and so on.

Here's the thing: my extended family contains many lapsed gamers. Several of the others might be inclined to give the game a try. However, the very idea of getting a game together on family reunions is laughable - it would require me to do lots of legwork beforehand prepping characters (that they might not want to play), and then there would be a significant period of working through rules. By the time we're even ready to roll some dice, half the table will have lost interest. And these are people who by all rights should be an ideal target for the game, so surely something's wrong there?

I'm starting to think that the 'ideal' form of the game would look something like the old "Rules Cyclopedia", with the whole game in a single book of about 250 pages. The rules should be re-examined with a view to deciding what adds to the core experience and what doesn't.

In terms of rules, I'd probably start by dropping encumberance, multiclassing and alignment. I'd eliminate all but five races, all but six to eight classes, and a huge number of the feat, equipment, spell and magic item choices. I'd switch skills to the SWSE model, and compress monster stat-blocks to work as monsters as-is, with advancement options limited to low-level humanoid types. (I would then publish an "Advanced Rulebook" containing lots more options, for those who want them and are ready for them.)