Does D&D Need to Appeal to the Mainstream?

[DragonLancer]

I think that D&D already does appeal to people. It appealed to me long before I ever found other players to start roleplaying with. The issue is that D&D doesn't get promoted to the non-gamers out there. I see ads all the time for D&D but its in magazines or on sites that are frequented by people who already play D&D. WotC needs to start putting ads in other media to draw non-gamers to the game. Thats my opinion anyway.

 

[wedgeski]

It's no surprise this thread has turned sour with the aspersions you were throwing around in your post, Reynard. Apparently you think that D&D players do not include 'fans of other kinds of entertainment and games' or those who watch sitcoms. Well, shock announcement: I've played D&D since the early 80's and yet I also watch sitcoms and play other games!

At the end of the day, D&D must *survive*, while not losing sight of itself. I've said in many threads that there are certain elements of the game that I think must continue for it to still call itself 'D&D' with a straight face, but beyond that, I'm open-minded about any change and will try just about anything out. I'm excited about the DI, for example, not because I think it's going to revolutionize or change the game (it won't), but because it shows Wizards' commitment to the game and their willingness to dump money into new projects. 4e the same... the time is about right for a new iteration and I can't wait to see how all these new ideas pan out.

If no new blood is attracted to the game, it will exist solely because of die-hard fans who refuse to let it go. That's not a hobby, that's life-support. It almost happened at the end of TSR's tenure and I thank my d20's that Wizards came along when they did.

 

[WayneLigon]

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?

How is it not designed for it's current base? I don't understand that one. How do you think 'D&D Players' are different from 'Other Potential Players'?

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.

Actually, the thing that made D&D The Big Thing it was in the early 80's was Eggbert's disappearance and subsequent suicide. Before that you could find it on college campuses, mainly among the computer and math nerds, and that was it. It took that spate of free advertising to expand D&D's sales by 1000% and it's ridden that every since.

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

How so? I don't understand most of your post, but that one really just flies over my head.

'Does D&D Need to appeal to the Mainstream?'

In some ways it does. There are many people out there who are, I am convinced, tabletop roleplayers. They'd be good at it and enjoy the activity. D&D and other RPG's could really use them, and they'd get a good time out of the bargain. But there are some significant barriers to their entry into the hobby (mainly the needless complexity of the rules and the still-ongoing attraction it has for the socially retarded - those two points are strongly linked, by the way). And there doesn't need to be.

 

[Reynard]

It's no surprise this thread has turned sour with the aspersions you were throwing around in your post, Reynard. Apparently you think that D&D players do not include 'fans of other kinds of entertainment and games' or those who watch sitcoms. Well, shock announcement: I've played D&D since the early 80's and yet I also watch sitcoms and play other games!

I was trying to make a point that we, as gamers, prefer to spend (at least some of) our time doing something that most people don't -- therefore, we are in fact different than the mainstream, at least in our entertainment preferences. I wasn't suggesting that "pure" gamers don't like sitcoms and video games -- I love me some The Office and you can have my X-Box360 when you pry it from my cold, dead hands , but I still spend one evening a week pretending to be an elf with my friends (among other things -- I usually DM).

At the end of the day, D&D must *survive*, while not losing sight of itself. I've said in many threads that there are certain elements of the game that I think must continue for it to still call itself 'D&D' with a straight face, but beyond that, I'm open-minded about any change and will try just about anything out. I'm excited about the DI, for example, not because I think it's going to revolutionize or change the game (it won't), but because it shows Wizards' commitment to the game and their willingness to dump money into new projects. 4e the same... the time is about right for a new iteration and I can't wait to see how all these new ideas pan out.

I realize that my experience or opinions are not universal and I assume most of the time that anyone reading my posts will know "IMO" is intended. I think D&D has already changed beyond the point of being the D&D I played 10 or 20 years ago, and the future don't look great either. And it has nothing to do with DI -- except perhaps the need to design things that can work on the electronic table top. It has to do with the "point" of the game -- or rather the experience of sitting down and playing it.

If no new blood is attracted to the game, it will exist solely because of die-hard fans who refuse to let it go. That's not a hobby, that's life-support. It almost happened at the end of TSR's tenure and I thank my d20's that Wizards came along when they did.

What I am suggesting, though, is that D&D doesn't need to try and lull the MMORPGers or anyone else -- OD&D and AD&D1 did a fantastic job of attracting huge numbers of gamers. D&D can change and develope, but it doesn't need to be something different to attract players. Nor does it need to reach out to "normal" people. Note that when I say gamers, I mean potential gamers as well, like we all were before we discovered D&D. I realize people are complex and unique, but role-playing is such a specific kind of hobby/entertainment that it is reasonable, I think, to apply a specific label to us as a group, even if we are all totally different from one another otherwise.

 

[Reynard]

How so? I don't understand most of your post, but that one really just flies over my head.

I mean from the perspective of WotC/Hasbro -- it isn't the player base that matters (those couple million people who play D&D monthly they keep talking about), it is the consumer base (those x-thousands that buy every book that coems out) that matters, determining what gets made and what form it takes. This drives game design in the direction of sales, and mechanics become marketting. By asking first "what would people buy" instead of "what would people like", D&D stops being punch rock and starts being pop, if you get my meaning.

 

[Hussar]

OD&D and AD&D1 did a fantastic job of attracting huge numbers of gamers.

Actually, they managed to attract huge numbers of people who played a few times and then chucked the books on the shelf and never looked at them again. Let's not forget that, other than a few years in the early 80's, D&D didn't have any particularly large numbers until 3e hit the street again. The early (premature?) release of the Unearthed Arcana was specifically done to try to make back some of the money that TSR was hemorrhaging.

The 80's boom and bust cycle is precisely what we don't want to emulate. Far and away better to have a stable cycle for everyone.

And, if you think that AD&D was somehow easier to grok than 3e, I'd point you in the direction of the initiative rules.

 

[Doug McCrae]

By asking first "what would people buy" instead of "what would people like", D&D stops being punch rock and starts being pop, if you get my meaning.

Aren't they one and the same? People will obviously buy products they like.

And I'd hardly describe the driving force behind punk as being "produce what people like".

 

[Umbran]

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.

You mention that when D&D appeared, it was capable of attracting masses of interested parties. As I understand the history, that's not exactly true. D&D didn't really attract "masses" until the 1980s - something like 5 to 10 years after its initial release, with revisions happening in that time (OD&D, 1e, 2e). There was a significant "ramp up" as they learned who D&D players actually were, and what made a good game for them.

Why, then, should we deny that they should continue to adjust the game for changing tastes? As an economic reality, WotC must continue to draw in new players - even if we ignore the desire for growth, new players must be drawn in to replace those lost to attrition (kids, changing lives, other hobbies, and all). Thus, the game must have some draw to the folks who are out there, not currently playing. Without that draw, the player base will only shrink. That will make production of further products an economic loser. And then you and I won't have cool new material to buy, and the game would quietly dwindle and die.

Even if we ignore all that - The players of D&D change over time - I was drawn to the game when I was in junior high school, over half a lifetime ago. I'm now a professional adult. My tastes have changed, and I am not attracted to the same facets of games as I was then. If the game does not change, I will be less interested in it.

Simply put - even if they design "for D&D players", the game should change over time. Because those kids of the 1970s and 1980s who started buying the original game don't exist anymore. You can't sell to them. They have been replaced by kids with different sensibilities, and adults with different sensibilities.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Aren't they one and the same? People will obviously buy products they like.

And I'd hardly describe the driving force behind punk as being "produce what people like".

OK, I think I see where Reynard is trying to go with this - maybe. The reference to music is making me think Reynard missed his intent a little by saying "produce what people like."

A majority of musicians and other artists concern themselves less with what will sell or what people like. They instead creatively express themselves through their medium. Some people will like the way the artist expressed themselves and will seek out their material.

I think Reynard is suggesting that D&D would be better served by passionate creative artists who produce game material following their passions and creative drive, rather than a corporate plan based upon marketing research as to what might sell well. A better analogy might be live improvisational jazz, versus an album that is produced and engineered.

My answer to this idea is, sure it would be great if D&D was done purely out of passion and creativity, rather than business concerns. The reality is that there are a lot of starving artists out there, some produce junk, others produce amazing works, and two people might disagree about which is which. I would like to think that D&D actually blends the two sides - the creative and the business aspects: new ideas for releases come from inspriation, not corporate directive, but the creative process is balanced by the business sense so that the chances are good the product will have a market.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think D&D has already changed beyond the point of being the D&D I played 10 or 20 years ago,

I'd say that's a good thing. I've been into RPGs since the '80s (starting with the old D&D Basic Set, of course), and 3.0 was the first version of D&D that I'd really call an actual good game. Previously, I'd come to think of it as little more than an effective gateway drug to RPGs in general, surviving on name recognition in spite of its clunky and outdated mechanics. And I rolled my eyes when I heard that "those Magic: The Gathering" guys bought good old TSR, but they turned D&D into something that was not only tolerable, but good, good enough to get me back into roleplaying games after several years away.

Make games just for the players you've already got? Hell, not only will you fail to attrach new players; you'll fail to keep the ones you've got. I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it here: Do you know how well Palladium is doing, these days?