Explain the State of the RPG Industry and 3.5... Please!

[JasonT]

First off, I think I should introduce myself by saying that I'm a low-level RPG fanatic; I've always wished that tabletop RPGs would become insanely popular, surpass their boom in the early '80s, and become as common as... well, if not video games, at least book-reading. I try to run games for the uninitiated, buy "Everquest" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" RPGs for non-gamers, and generally present myself as the most charming, well-groomed, "don't you want to play RPGs too" RPGer possible. Whether I actually accomplish any of this is another matter, but that's the kind of gamer I try to be (a missionary).

I know that the industry has been really dismal for the last several years and that one of the few bright spots has been the release of D&D 3rd Edition. I've been playing D&D 3rd edition since it came out (our DM had an unofficial copy of the playtest version, actually) and I really enjoyed it. Frankly, when Wizards bought TSR and released 3rd edition, it was the first time since I was a little kid that I actually RESPECTED the makers of D&D! When the whole Open Gaming License/d20 thing started, and I got to know 3rd edition, for the first time I felt that D&D was in the hands of people who were TRYING to bring RPGs to a wider audience, and doing a good job! So I bought a bunch of 3rd edition stuff and ran D&D games whenever possible.

You can probably tell where this is going... I'm depressed because of 3.5. As a "fanatic role-player" (see above), I am really irritated with the way they have claimed that miniatures are necessary to play. I'm not irritated at the new D&D miniatures themselves -- in fact, I think they look good, and they're cheap, and I never had time to paint miniatures anyway, and it's a great idea. I'm also not irritated in a rules sense, because it works well, and this was the direction they were going with 3rd edition anyway. And in a business sense, I can understand the desire to sell more miniatures. I'm irritated in a PHILOSOPHICAL sense, because, of course, the 3.5 Player's Handbook now states "Miniatures and a battle grid are required for play"! To me, this predictably lame business scheme is a subtle but completely aggravating change, totally misrepresenting the point of role-playing games for newbies. (I said I was a fanatic, right? Okay. Just checking) D&D 3.5 is still a good game, but I'm just ticked off because the "attitude" of 3rd Edition was so PERFECT, and now the scale has been tipped in the direction of collectible miniatures gaming.

Not that the miniatures themselves aren't nice.

The entire new introduction at the beginning of the player's handbook lowers the bar. Compare 3 r d edition's nice intro ("When you play the Dungeons & Dragons game, you create a unique fictional character... you and your friends face the dangers and explore the mysteries that your Dungeon Master sets before you... Each character's imaginary life is different") to 3.5's. (To paraphrase 3.5) "you explore ruins and dungeons in search of treasure." Hoody hoo! Don't want to confuse people!

The "decency standards" clause which was recently added to the d20 license also strikes me as a bad sign. Although I'd never have bought the Book of Erotic Fantasy (give me a break), I think the president of the Valar Project defended his motives well when he wrote (to paraphrase an "interview" in some handout passed out at GenCon Indy 2003) that one way to stimulate interest in role-playing might be to release a game "so shocking that it attracts mainstream media attention." Sounds good to me! I'd gladly have people on TV claiming RPGs are satanic, or for perverts, or cause people to wander around sewer tunnels, instead of people not being aware they exist. Any publicity is good publicity!

Unfortunately, I work at a big media company myself and if Hasbro is anything like my employers, if there's one thing they fear, it's lawsuits from angry parents and -- even more so -- "family" stores not carrying their products.

In a general depressing sense, 3.5 edition seems to be one of several ways in which Wizards seems to be withdrawing from their brave attempt to capture the mass market and circling the wagons to sell more stuff to existing fans instead. I don't have any plans to buy the 3.5 rulebooks -- I'd have spent more money on them if they'd continued putting out the 3rd edition books, because then at least I'd feel confident enough in the product to buy extra copies as gifts for friends. I have heard that the release of D&D 3.5 was in response to slower than expected sales of D&D. This is depressing, since if D&D can't be successful in a time when "Lord of the Rings" is the top-grossing movie and "Everquest" is the most popular online game, then can it ever be successful? "What can save the RPGing world now?" (This operates from the assumption that it needs saving.)

Basically, now I feel that I'm back where I was before Wizards acquired TSR -- I don't have any faith in the direction of the "industry leader". I'm still playing D&D, but I haven't bought any of Wizards' books in awhile. I half expect "demons" to turn back into "tanar'ri" any day now, the way that the words "demon", "devil" and "gun" don't appear on any Yu-Gi-Oh cards. When the D&D GAME disappears into the D&D BRAND, all hope will truly be lost.

If anyone can cheer me up, tell me RPGs are doomed, or tell me I'm a whiner, I'd be glad to hear from them.

 

[Umbran]

Hr. I don't think you're a whiner, but I do think you're a bit off in a number of places.

First and foremost - It doesn't seem to me that 3e was a "brave attempt to capture the mass market". The target was always existing gamers. Tabletop RPGs simply aren't a big enough seller to justify the large-scale advertising required to stretch the customer base. Instead, 3e was a bit of an attempt at unification - bring more of the gamers under the D&D/d20 banner. And at that I expect it has rather succeeded.

If you look at it, the changes in 3.5e you mention (changes in phrasing and decency standards) are likely an attempt to make the product more acceptable to the mass market, rather than less. The gamer market doesn't need the phrasing changes, and with most of us in our 20s and 30s, we don't need decency standards. Those are all there to keep the thing sellable to teens who dont play yet.

Also - you completley ignore the advent of the OGL and d20 licences. Nothing has opened up the gaming industry like those to WotC innovations.

 

[Cergorach]

I personally never looked at the introduction of v.3.5, i'm just happy about the rule improvements (except of course the pokemount of the paladin ;-)

We've used miniatures for improving complex combat situations, formations, etc. When you've got some good looking minis on the table in a combat situation it actually improves the reaction of newbies (combat becomes something they can actually see, call it an imagination helper). When there's no combat the minis just stand there in the middle of the table, the attention is now focused on the DM instead of the minis in the middle of the table.

I can see why you are pissed, hack 'n slash have it's place, but to promote D&D as a hack 'n slash game ticks me off as well. But i see the core D&D books as eye candy and rules references, if you want a good rpg introduction use a campaignbook (such as the FRCS book)...

 

[Scarbonac]

First off, I think I should introduce myself by saying that I'm a low-level RPG fanatic; I've always wished that tabletop RPGs would become insanely popular, surpass their boom in the early '80s, and become as common as... well, if not video games, at least book-reading.

You want tabletop RPGs to go down in popularity...?

 

[Aaron L]

So, playing videogames is less popular than reading books?

 

[Nightfall]

Aaron,

Well you certainly have a lot people in today's entertainment industry playing video games.

Btw I agree with Umbran that you, Mr JasonT, completely over look OGL and d20 licencing has saved a lot of the campaign settings of old from disrepair.

 

[D+1]

I know that the industry has been really dismal for the last several years and that one of the few bright spots has been the release of D&D 3rd Edition.

I assume that since 3E was RELEASED several years ago that you're actually referring to the state of affairs prior to that, and NOT, in fact, the last several years?

You can probably tell where this is going... I'm depressed because of 3.5. As a "fanatic role-player" (see above), I am really irritated with the way they have claimed that miniatures are necessary to play.

You have misread and misunderstood. It says nothing of the kind. It suggests that miniatures are the best means to visualize the action, that the game assumes their use and is written from that standpoint. It does NOT say that they are NECESSARY in order to even play.

irritated in a PHILOSOPHICAL sense, because, of course, the 3.5 Player's Handbook now states "Miniatures and a battle grid are required for play"!

Show me where. The rules are "inclusive" of the use of miniatures, not "exclusive". If they are necessary why is there not an official line of miniatures for every d20 campaign setting (since clearly you would not be able to play those settings without miniatures if they are REQUIRED by the rules)?

To me, this predictably lame business scheme is a subtle but completely aggravating change, totally misrepresenting the point of role-playing games for newbies. (I said I was a fanatic, right? Okay. Just checking)

And like most fanatics you're blinded to realities because of your fanaticism. You state that the minis orientation doesn't cause a problem for you, that the minis themselves are okay, yet you misread the reasoning behind their inclusion (and are apparantly unaware that MOST gamers used miniatures for D&D even before WotC started selling them), and you're bent out of shape that they are there at all while providing no substantive reason why that IS a bad thing.

The entire new introduction at the beginning of the player's handbook lowers the bar. Compare 3 r d edition's nice intro ("When you play the Dungeons & Dragons game, you create a unique fictional character... you and your friends face the dangers and explore the mysteries that your Dungeon Master sets before you... Each character's imaginary life is different") to 3.5's. (To paraphrase 3.5) "you explore ruins and dungeons in search of treasure." Hoody hoo! Don't want to confuse people!

And that is CRIMINAL in its incomplete and inaccurate "paraphrasing". It's one sentence entirely out of context. Perhaps if you read, quoted from, and paraphrased the WHOLE introduction? If you included the paragraphs on the same page, still under "Introduction", about Characters, and Adventures...?

The "decency standards" clause which was recently added to the d20 license also strikes me as a bad sign.

And doesn't apply to the players of the game in any way whatsoever. It applies to people who wish to publish under the RULES that were and are still set forth and controlled by the company that made the game Open Source. Open Source didn't just throw it all into public domain and make it a free-for-all. If you believe that there should be nothing standing in the way of publishers bringing the game down into an orgy of pornographic sex and violence and actually CONFIRMING the dribble of zealots who have made otherwise specious claims about the game for 20 years, I can only say you're again mistaken. Censorship is far from universally evil.

Unfortunately, I work at a big media company myself and if Hasbro is anything like my employers, if there's one thing they fear, it's lawsuits from angry parents and -- even more so -- "family" stores not carrying their products.

And yet it doesn't make sense to you that they want to avoid that? To head off such a problem before it arises?

In a general depressing sense, 3.5 edition seems to be one of several ways in which Wizards seems to be withdrawing from their brave attempt to capture the mass market and circling the wagons to sell more stuff to existing fans instead.

And again your baseless fanaticism against miniatures blinds you from considering that the closer inclusion of miniatures might in fact EXPAND the game's mass market appeal.

I don't have any plans to buy the 3.5 rulebooks -- I'd have spent more money on them if they'd continued putting out the 3rd edition books, because then at least I'd feel confident enough in the product to buy extra copies as gifts for friends.

Interesting. I just DID by a new set of the 3.5 core books for friends after Wizards marked them down 40% as they close their retail stores.

I have heard that the release of D&D 3.5 was in response to slower than expected sales of D&D. This is depressing,

But your fears are founded on inaccuracies. Monte Cook stated in his much discussed (at the time) rant/review of 3.5: "So, one has to surmise that the new business team determined that sales were slumping slightly earlier than predicted and needed 3.5 to come out earlier. One also has to surmise that someone -- at some level -- decided that it was to be a much, much more thorough revision than previously planned."

The game was not "dying". Sales were not plummeting. They were "slumping" - and it was only earlier than expected, not UNexpected. Now that's just Monte's view, and not being the guy with the numbers in his hands he wouldn't know for sure, but he was in a position to make educated assessments because he was there.

If anyone can cheer me up, tell me RPGs are doomed, or tell me I'm a whiner, I'd be glad to hear from them.

You've succumbed to the disease of pointless fatalism that has plagued D&D players since the days of TSR. The cure is a simple reality check because it's all in your head.

 

[Bards R Us]

First off, I think I should introduce myself by saying that I'm a low-level RPG fanatic; I've always wished that tabletop RPGs would become insanely popular, surpass their boom in the early '80s, and become as common as... well, if not video games, at least book-reading. I try to run games for the uninitiated, buy "Everquest" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" RPGs for non-gamers, and generally present myself as the most charming, well-groomed, "don't you want to play RPGs too" RPGer possible. Whether I actually accomplish any of this is another matter, but that's the kind of gamer I try to be (a missionary).

I know that the industry has been really dismal for the last several years and that one of the few bright spots has been the release of D&D 3rd Edition. I've been playing D&D 3rd edition since it came out (our DM had an unofficial copy of the playtest version, actually) and I really enjoyed it. Frankly, when Wizards bought TSR and released 3rd edition, it was the first time since I was a little kid that I actually RESPECTED the makers of D&D! When the whole Open Gaming License/d20 thing started, and I got to know 3rd edition, for the first time I felt that D&D was in the hands of people who were TRYING to bring RPGs to a wider audience, and doing a good job! So I bought a bunch of 3rd edition stuff and ran D&D games whenever possible.

You can probably tell where this is going... I'm depressed because of 3.5. As a "fanatic role-player" (see above), I am really irritated with the way they have claimed that miniatures are necessary to play. I'm not irritated at the new D&D miniatures themselves -- in fact, I think they look good, and they're cheap, and I never had time to paint miniatures anyway, and it's a great idea. I'm also not irritated in a rules sense, because it works well, and this was the direction they were going with 3rd edition anyway. And in a business sense, I can understand the desire to sell more miniatures. I'm irritated in a PHILOSOPHICAL sense, because, of course, the 3.5 Player's Handbook now states "Miniatures and a battle grid are required for play"! To me, this predictably lame business scheme is a subtle but completely aggravating change, totally misrepresenting the point of role-playing games for newbies. (I said I was a fanatic, right? Okay. Just checking) D&D 3.5 is still a good game, but I'm just ticked off because the "attitude" of 3rd Edition was so PERFECT, and now the scale has been tipped in the direction of collectible miniatures gaming.

Not that the miniatures themselves aren't nice.

The entire new introduction at the beginning of the player's handbook lowers the bar. Compare 3 r d edition's nice intro ("When you play the Dungeons & Dragons game, you create a unique fictional character... you and your friends face the dangers and explore the mysteries that your Dungeon Master sets before you... Each character's imaginary life is different") to 3.5's. (To paraphrase 3.5) "you explore ruins and dungeons in search of treasure." Hoody hoo! Don't want to confuse people!

The "decency standards" clause which was recently added to the d20 license also strikes me as a bad sign. Although I'd never have bought the Book of Erotic Fantasy (give me a break), I think the president of the Valar Project defended his motives well when he wrote (to paraphrase an "interview" in some handout passed out at GenCon Indy 2003) that one way to stimulate interest in role-playing might be to release a game "so shocking that it attracts mainstream media attention." Sounds good to me! I'd gladly have people on TV claiming RPGs are satanic, or for perverts, or cause people to wander around sewer tunnels, instead of people not being aware they exist. Any publicity is good publicity!

Unfortunately, I work at a big media company myself and if Hasbro is anything like my employers, if there's one thing they fear, it's lawsuits from angry parents and -- even more so -- "family" stores not carrying their products.

In a general depressing sense, 3.5 edition seems to be one of several ways in which Wizards seems to be withdrawing from their brave attempt to capture the mass market and circling the wagons to sell more stuff to existing fans instead. I don't have any plans to buy the 3.5 rulebooks -- I'd have spent more money on them if they'd continued putting out the 3rd edition books, because then at least I'd feel confident enough in the product to buy extra copies as gifts for friends. I have heard that the release of D&D 3.5 was in response to slower than expected sales of D&D. This is depressing, since if D&D can't be successful in a time when "Lord of the Rings" is the top-grossing movie and "Everquest" is the most popular online game, then can it ever be successful? "What can save the RPGing world now?" (This operates from the assumption that it needs saving.)

Basically, now I feel that I'm back where I was before Wizards acquired TSR -- I don't have any faith in the direction of the "industry leader". I'm still playing D&D, but I haven't bought any of Wizards' books in awhile. I half expect "demons" to turn back into "tanar'ri" any day now, the way that the words "demon", "devil" and "gun" don't appear on any Yu-Gi-Oh cards. When the D&D GAME disappears into the D&D BRAND, all hope will truly be lost.

If anyone can cheer me up, tell me RPGs are doomed, or tell me I'm a whiner, I'd be glad to hear from them.

Let me guess

You're probably from RPG.net, right?

Your "commentary" would certainly feel more at home over there than here, thats for sure.

 

[JasonT]

You have misread and misunderstood. It says nothing of the kind. It suggests that miniatures are the best means to visualize the action, that the game assumes their use and is written from that standpoint. It does NOT say that they are NECESSARY in order to even play.

I don't have a copy of 3.5 to check from, but if I recall, in the little list at the beginning of the new player's handbook, it actually does list "miniatures" and a "battle grid" as necessary items for playing, alongside dice and the rulebooks. Not "strongly recommended" but "necessary".

Obviously it's still possible to play the game without miniatures, I just find it annoying that the books claim that it's not. I've heard people who are only marginally aware of RPGs talking about how D&D has "changed into a miniatures game". To me this is bad P.R. Good for the price & availability of miniatures, bad for the overall image of "what role-playing is."

Of course, I can't deny it -- everyone has their own idea of "what role-playing is", and mine is just one opinion. There's vague, free-form rules systems which certainly don't require miniatures, and there's d20, which was always very miniatures-friendly and now, IMHO, has just crossed a little bit "over the line". Even people who come to D&D thinking "hey, this looks like a neat miniatures game" will end up absorbing some of the basics of role-playing.

And again your baseless fanaticism against miniatures blinds you from considering that the closer inclusion of miniatures might in fact EXPAND the game's mass market appeal.

"Come for the miniatures, stay for the role-playing"? I hope. Sure. Why not. Whatever gets people to play RPGs is good.

I just don't want the nature of RPGs to get lost behind a cloud of miniatures. I think the idea of "role-playing" can stand on its own merits. You don't need miniatures to explain to people what role-playing is.

Obviously this is extremely nit-picky but... (shrugs)

If you believe that there should be nothing standing in the way of publishers bringing the game down into an orgy of pornographic sex and violence and actually CONFIRMING the dribble of zealots who have made otherwise specious claims about the game for 20 years, I can only say you're again mistaken. Censorship is far from universally evil. And yet it doesn't make sense to you that they want to avoid that? To head off such a problem before it arises?

As they are currently written, I admit, the "decency standards" aren't that bad -- I'm more worried about a sign of a possible trend in the direction of watered-down, censored things like "Yu-Gi-Oh", where they don't even use the word "gun" (not that I have anything in particular against "Yu-Gi-Oh"). Frankly, I am very wary of self-censorship, in particular the kind of "market censorship" imposed by stores like Wal-Mart. Why not? Censorship is wrong. Yes, when I was 6-8 years old, one of the (many) reasons I liked D&D was because it was full of demons & monsters and blood & guts. Rock on. I'm sure there are kids today who feel the same.

I'm not suggesting that gore & scantily-clothed female characters (like those godawful Avalanche Press covers) is something Wizards should _encourage_. Frankly, when I play D&D, I like to play heroically with good-aligned PCs vs. evil NPCs, and I'd never have any cheesy pseudo-sexual content. But are RPGs really in such danger from negative publicity? Take the video game industry for example. Lo and behold that the most violent, messed-up games, the ones which get the most negative publicity from politicians (left- or right-wing) and parents' groups, are currently the MOST POPULAR! "Grand Theft Auto", "True Crime", "Counterstrike" -- yeah! I'd be SO HAPPY if politicians devoted as much air time to condemning tabletop RPGs as they do condemning violent video games. I mean this only half-sarcastically. Think of all the new players!

It's good of Wizards to release what they consider to be morally responsible products. If they don't want to do any more "Book of Vile Darkness" type products, that's their decision. Maybe they figure that they're already "edgy" (ot "at risk") enough with demons, gods, magic, etc. And since the "decency standards" are so loose in their current form, maybe Wizards is going to be a benevolent master and just stamp out the occasional game which they feel is dangerously sleazy, like the "Book of Erotic Fantasy".

But it is, frankly, short-sighted for them to clamp down on other d20 publishers in the process, for fear of negative publicity. Did "Vampire", the most popular game of the early-mid 1990s, suffer because it was full of sex & violence? No. It was a good game, and it attracted a whole new audience of new role-players. Is the market for D&D the same as the market for "Vampire"? No, but what I mean is, a RPG can be successful and still be "dark."

Of course, I realize that the whole existence of "open d20" and the "OGL" exists at Wizards' discretion (like the entire collectible-card game industry) and they CAN do whatever they want with it. I'm not disputing reality. "Can" and "should" are different things, though.

For the record, I think the open d20/OGL is the greatest thing Wizards did with 3rd edition. It's awesome and brilliant.

But the "decency standards" sets a bad precedent, a precedent that says (insert sarcastic stupid voice here) "D&D IS FOR KIDS."

Jason

 

[Umbran]

Of course, I realize that the whole existence of "open d20" and the "OGL" exists at Wizards' discretion (like the entire collectible-card game industry) and they CAN do whatever they want with it.

In respect to the OGL, that's not quite true, as I understand it. That which has been released under the OGL is so bound in perpetuity. They can choose to not release things under it, but once it's out there, it's out there. It cannot be retracted, so there's a lot of "anythings" that they cannot do.