Improving the gaming industry

[Incenjucar]

Some more issues to consider:

1) WotC, in their lack of respect for past edition flavor information, are upsetting many older edition players and creating a generation gap between gamers. For instance, probably the people most likely to try and push the PlHB are people who -hated- Planescape (there's some whackos out there that, for some reason or another, get some sadistic bit of pleasure everytime PS flavor gets tossed aside -- not just "I like the changes" but "Haha, they statted the Lady of Pain, take that!"). They've also stated that they don't feel a designer needs to know a large amount about a setting when writing material for it (a common issue with FR, as I understand it). This puts a dent in the 'family and friends' introduction to the game. Why would I, for instance, want to promote a game whose primary company is dissing my nostalgia? I'm heading for the dorms in a few days, and I have an easily-influenced cousin with a strong creative side who's doing the same. I could spread the word at my college (it's a very dull city, ripe for RPers), and try to get my cousin in to D&D, so he, too, could spread the word where he's going. But I have to actually be convinced that it would be a good thing.

2) Gamers game indoors. I think this is a huge problem in and of itself. We need "Park Games". We need to be directly visible to the public. They need to be able to see that we're not afraid of a little sunshine and fresh air. I feel that a properly-planned out door convention would do much to get the word OUT there, and not just within tiny circles. Maybe get some LARPers involved, or some Rennys. Conventions, like websites, are HIDDEN from the public. If we want them to join us, they have to be able to FIND us. Such an event should also include a "Dress for Success" rule; if you don't shower, you don't enter the tent, or at least not get some sort of mini-prize for putting on your best face for the public.

3) Expand the Brand: We need to make OTHER companies want to invest in D&D. Try to get companies to talk with other companies. Start writing to Cartoon Network and try to get them to nag WotC for a D&D cartoon and toy line in exchange for some of their cartoons being translated in to d20 (If BESM can get that many animes...). Heck, someone should try to sell their 3rd party setting off as an investment. I mean, cripes, they have PS2 -energy drinks- that they sell now. D&D should be able to get an ale out of some 'homebrewer'.

 

[buzz]

WotC, in their lack of respect for past edition flavor information, are upsetting many older edition players and creating a generation gap between gamers.

They're creating a gap because they're not catering exclusively to the tastes of older gamers who have a fondness for older, unprofitable settings? And focusing on older, unprofitable settings will somehow close this alleged gap? I don't understand.

For instance, probably the people most likely to try and push the PlHB are people who -hated- Planescape (there's some whackos out there that, for some reason or another, get some sadistic bit of pleasure everytime PS flavor gets tossed aside -- not just "I like the changes" but "Haha, they statted the Lady of Pain, take that!").

I'm not comprehending any of what you're saying here. Where is this stuff about people who hate Planescape coming from?

They've also stated that they don't feel a designer needs to know a large amount about a setting when writing material for it (a common issue with FR, as I understand it). This puts a dent in the 'family and friends' introduction to the game. Why would I, for instance, want to promote a game whose primary company is dissing my nostalgia?

Can you point me to where WotC stated this? Seeing that SKR and Ed Greenwood's names are on the lion's share of FR material that's been produced for 3e, I don't really buy this at all. I also don't see how FR getting some of the best authors, best art, and best production values in the D&D line is "dissing your nostalgia."

Which also continues to beg the question of how catering exclusively to nostalgia is supposed to draw in new players, i.e., people who have nothing to be nostalgic about.

I'm heading for the dorms in a few days, and I have an easily-influenced cousin with a strong creative side who's doing the same. I could spread the word at my college (it's a very dull city, ripe for RPers), and try to get my cousin in to D&D, so he, too, could spread the word where he's going. But I have to actually be convinced that it would be a good thing.

How is finding more people who are interested in playing D&D with you in any way not a good thing? And what does any of what you wrote above have to do with this? Is sitting alone in your dorm room somehow supposed to send a message to WotC?

And how is it you're so nostalgic if you're only in college? I was probably gaming before you were born and I don't agree with any of this.

We need to make OTHER companies want to invest in D&D. Try to get companies to talk with other companies. Start writing to Cartoon Network and try to get them to nag WotC for a D&D cartoon and toy line in exchange for some of their cartoons being translated in to d20 (If BESM can get that many animes...).

You want Cartoon Network to possibly spend millions developing a cartoon series and toy line in exchange for a d20 sourcebook that will, if they're lucky, sell a few thousand copies?

Heck, someone should try to sell their 3rd party setting off as an investment. I mean, cripes, they have PS2 -energy drinks- that they sell now. D&D should be able to get an ale out of some 'homebrewer'.

Well, the PS2 is part of a multi-billion dollar software and hardware insudstry that's a world-wide cultural phenomenon, whereas D&D is, at best, consdiered a cultural footnote by mainstream media that's good for the occasional one-liner on a sitcom.

And 3rd party settings? C'mon. These are niche within a niche products that have no brand bankability. Most of them can't even survive in the RPG market.

D&D-branded beer won't bring in anybody, particularly newer, younger gamers, considering that you need to be 21 to drink beer (in the US at least, which is the lion's share of the market).

What WotC has done with the brand, however, is license it for use with best-selling video games. A very good, very successful, and very profitable idea so far.

 

[buzz]

Ultimately, I think it all comes down to this:

• RPG companies, big and small, need to make make really good products.
• RPG companies, big and small, need to market them aggressively. There are plenty of methods to this that don't involve huge sums of cash.
• RPG companies, big and small, need to give players an incentive to recruit new players (player rewards, free product, free swag)
• RPG companies, big and small, need to hire people (if they're big) or encourage volunteers (if they're small) to run demos in all sorts of venues; ideally said people/volunteers will be personable, friendly, and hygiene-conscious.*
• WotC, specifically, needs to produce an entry-level D&D product that is made available in non-exclusive venues (toy stores, book shops, heck movie theaters when the new D&D film comes out). Thankfully, the new Basic Set is on the way, and the D&D minis (essentially a D&D entry product) seem to be very popular.

The only other idea I think worth pursuing, for WotC at least, is to look to the international market. Get the SRDs translated into as many languages as possible. Follow all of the guidelines above, but do it all over the world.

*As I found out, WotC won't donate prizes to "unofficial" cons like ENWorld Gamedays. I think this is a bad policy. Giving away a couple hundred copies of a new product a year (a pittance to a big company like WotC) as an encouragement to get people to organize more RPG-related events is something they should actively encourage. That, or at least make it easy to get an event "approved" for official WotC support (outside of the RPGA).

 

[Arnwyn]

Can you point me to where WotC stated this? Seeing that SKR and Ed Greenwood's names are on the lion's share of FR material that's been produced for 3e, I don't really buy this at all.

By putting those two names together, you've just explained it.

Which also continues to beg the question of how catering exclusively to nostalgia is supposed to draw in new players, i.e., people who have nothing to be nostalgic about.

Which begs the question of how does it not. It doesn't hurt the new players, and caters to those with a vested interest in the setting (who have proven that they'll spend the money, to boot).

 

[Incenjucar]

They're creating a gap because they're not catering exclusively to the tastes of older gamers who have a fondness for older, unprofitable settings? And focusing on older, unprofitable settings will somehow close this alleged gap? I don't understand.


I'm not comprehending any of what you're saying here. Where is this stuff about people who hate Planescape coming from?

WotC boards. They do exist. People actually say things along the lines of "Bwahaha, I'm glad they statted the Lady of Pain because I hated Planescape and its stupid Cant anyways!". I really wish I was exaggerating.

Can you point me to where WotC stated this? Seeing that SKR and Ed Greenwood's names are on the lion's share of FR material that's been produced for 3e, I don't really buy this at all. I also don't see how FR getting some of the best authors, best art, and best production values in the D&D line is "dissing your nostalgia."

It was stated in a chat that was quoted on the WotC boards. Seems WotC feels that you shouldn't bother actually reading the past edition information on a setting when writing for it.

Which also continues to beg the question of how catering exclusively to nostalgia is supposed to draw in new players, i.e., people who have nothing to be nostalgic about.

Exclusively? Nah. But you don't alienate people who've been buying your products for ten years are likely to try and draw more people in to the game.

How is finding more people who are interested in playing D&D with you in any way not a good thing?

Me encouraging other people to buy in to D&D when I'm not sure they're worth sticking with is just making it harder for me to get those same people in to a -different- system instead, in case I decide D&D just isn't for me anymore.

And what does any of what you wrote above have to do with this? Is sitting alone in your dorm room somehow supposed to send a message to WotC?

You may not have heard about this, but colleges now include these cute curvy things called 'women'. Now, I would like to have a more balanced set of activities in college than studying and dating, but I don't really mind having all that extra time to attend the opposite gender's interests.

And how is it you're so nostalgic if you're only in college? I was probably gaming before you were born and I don't agree with any of this.

I'm not nostalgic, I'm just more a fan of art than utility. I got heavily in to D&D -because- of Planescape. While lacking a group recently, I've still been using PS concepts and style in various MUCKs for my -entire- internet career.

You want Cartoon Network to possibly spend millions developing a cartoon series and toy line in exchange for a d20 sourcebook that will, if they're lucky, sell a few thousand copies?

Are you honestly suggesting that D&D is going to be significantly worse a choice than He-Man, Home Movies, or Code Lyoko? Are you suggesting that selling Power Puff Girl d20 Sourcebooks is significantly less brand-useful than selling stickers in quarter machines?

Well, the PS2 is part of a multi-billion dollar software and hardware insudstry that's a world-wide cultural phenomenon, whereas D&D is, at best, consdiered a cultural footnote by mainstream media that's good for the occasional one-liner on a sitcom.

And is also the basis of several anime and movies.

And 3rd party settings? C'mon. These are niche within a niche products that have no brand bankability. Most of them can't even survive in the RPG market.

The fact that Home Movies has existed on TV for more than two weeks proves that worthless things -can- get a place in media.

D&D-branded beer won't bring in anybody, particularly newer, younger gamers, considering that you need to be 21 to drink beer (in the US at least, which is the lion's share of the market).

If they call sell "Vampire Wine" in my piddly little Bible Belt town, and -sell out- of it, they can get that lable that says "Dungeons and Dragons Grognard Ale" in a few microbrew contests, and in to one of those beer magazines as a novelty statement, and possibly make people a tad more comfortable with the brand. Baby steps, as they say.

What WotC has done with the brand, however, is license it for use with best-selling video games. A very good, very successful, and very profitable idea so far.

And probably out-selling the actual books by scores, because only so many people go from video games to books rather than visa versa. D&D needs to be marketed towards group-oriented people, not 'sit in front of the TV alone' and maybe type at people thousands of miles away' sorts.

 

[buzz]

By putting those two names together, you've just explained it.

Is SKR not an experienced FR designer?

Which begs the question of how does it not. It doesn't hurt the new players, and caters to those with a vested interest in the setting (who have proven that they'll spend the money, to boot).

I'm still failing to see the logic of how "focusing entirely on existing players, particularly the older ones" somehow equates to "growing the hobby". You want WotC to become the next Chaosium, i.e., reprinting the same material over and over again until the cows come home?

 

[buzz]

WotC boards. They do exist. People actually say things along the lines of "Bwahaha, I'm glad they statted the Lady of Pain because I hated Planescape and its stupid Cant anyways!". I really wish I was exaggerating.

Some people on a message board griped about a product and that's supposed to dictate WotC marketing strategy? It's evidence that everyone who buys the PlHB hates Planescape?

It was stated in a chat that was quoted on the WotC boards. Seems WotC feels that you shouldn't bother actually reading the past edition information on a setting when writing for it.

I'd love to see the original quote in context.

Exclusively? Nah. But you don't alienate people who've been buying your products for ten years are likely to try and draw more people in to the game.

I'm still not seeing how WotC is alienating anybody by consistently producing high-quality books and even going out of their way to offer some support or license older settings that aren't profitable. Is everybody forgetting the TSR 2e years when the AD&D shelves were flooded with total crap? Jeebus.

Me encouraging other people to buy in to D&D when I'm not sure they're worth sticking with is just making it harder for me to get those same people in to a -different- system instead, in case I decide D&D just isn't for me anymore.

So, the fact that you have issues with WotC's handling of FR means you're never going to introduce people to the hobby in general, ever.

I'm not nostalgic, I'm just more a fan of art than utility. I got heavily in to D&D -because- of Planescape. While lacking a group recently, I've still been using PS concepts and style in various MUCKs for my -entire- internet career.

Great. Have you made use of all the 2e PS material already? Are you finding it unusuable with 3e? Are you dissatisfied with the planar material for 3e? Are you not interested in Beyond Countless Doorways?

Are you honestly suggesting that D&D is going to be significantly worse a choice than He-Man, Home Movies, or Code Lyoko? Are you suggesting that selling Power Puff Girl d20 Sourcebooks is significantly less brand-useful than selling stickers in quarter machines?

No, I'm pointing out that the deal you're trying to broker is basically: "In exchange for Cartoon Network spending millions to develop a TV show and a toy line, WotC will produce a d20 sourcebook for it without paying CN any license fee that will probably do virtually nothing for the network whasoever." There's nothing in this deal for CN. And, yes, Power Puff Girl d20 Sourcebooks are signficantly less brand-useful than stickers. RPG licenses generally don't make the licensor any money or add brand recognition. Licenses are only attractive to the licensees; thet's why they PAY MONEY for the license, i.e., "We could sell a lot more RPGs if they had a big Star Wars logo on them."

The fact that Home Movies has existed on TV for more than two weeks proves that worthless things -can- get a place in media.

But worthless licenses don't sell. The owner of a property like Midnight needs to demonstrate that the license is worth paying for. Seeing as most 3rd-party settings count their fans in the thousands, I don't see how any company is going to be jumping at the bit to license them. E.g., a keychain with a nazgul-looking baddie and the Midnight logo isn't going to sell any better than if it just had the baddie. There's no incentive.

Aside: I have no farking clue what "Home Movies" is, so maybe this sort of marginal branding thing you're talking about isn't as successful as you think. These ideas just strike me as myopic.

If they call sell "Vampire Wine" in my piddly little Bible Belt town, and -sell out- of it, they can get that lable that says "Dungeons and Dragons Grognard Ale" in a few microbrew contests, and in to one of those beer magazines as a novelty statement, and possibly make people a tad more comfortable with the brand. Baby steps, as they say.

Your small town sells a few hundred bottles of novelty wine and you want WotC to tarnish the D&D brand by putting it on beer? I dunno.

And probably out-selling the actual books by scores, because only so many people go from video games to books rather than visa versa. D&D needs to be marketed towards group-oriented people, not 'sit in front of the TV alone' and maybe type at people thousands of miles away' sorts.

These CRPGs get the brand recognized in a very big way, and they get it recognized by a demographic that has a lot of existing and potential crossover with the RPG crowd. While it should not be the only way WotC promotes the brand, it is a very, very, very, good way.

 

[Sir Elton]

These CRPGs get the brand recognized in a very big way, and they get it recognized by a demographic that has a lot of existing and potential crossover with the RPG crowd. While it should not be the only way WotC promotes the brand, it is a very, very, very, good way.

OH YEAH, baby!

 

[WizarDru]

Are you honestly suggesting that D&D is going to be significantly worse a choice than He-Man, Home Movies, or Code Lyoko? Are you suggesting that selling Power Puff Girl d20 Sourcebooks is significantly less brand-useful than selling stickers in quarter machines?

Don't underestimate how much money those machines generate, for one thing. Powerpuff Girls d20 Sourcebooks won't sell to my kids, one of whom reads at a 2nd-grade level (being in 2nd grade, and all) and currently finds Cariboo or Pop-up Pirate more to their liking. My son IS likely to want a He-man toy, however...possibly a bunch of 'em (if I were willing to buy them for him, which I am not). And I think you may underestimate exactly how many products bear the logos of He-man and the powerpuff girls. My daughter has playsets, umbrellas, clothes, bedsheets, towels, stationary, stickers, books and more. As a license, D&D is just not even close to commerically comparable.

Buzz, this is Home Movies, right there. Originally on UPN, it moved to Adult Swim on Cartoon Network. Incenjucar's opinion of it is not universally shared.

And is also the basis of several anime and movies.

That's sometimes a case of the tail wagging the dog, there. The Japanese are the masters of the multimedia cross-licensing campaign. Take dot.Hack (please), it's a series of novels, a card game, a series of video games and a series of anime. It's not a single entity, it's a brand and was conceived that way, namely at the same time.

I'd wager a lot of money that most of the D&D games would sell equally as well without the D&D moniker, purely because they are good games. D&D Heroes, for example, has only minor relations with actual D&D...more than some games, but there are plenty of inconsistincies. Consider Fallout...they decided to drop GURPS as their engine, but the game didn't suffer for it. They merely used their own homebrew. How many people played Baldur's Gate on the PS/2 who knew nothing about D&D, and weren't brought to the game purely because of its association?

The fact that Home Movies has existed on TV for more than two weeks proves that worthless things -can- get a place in media.

Well, it proves that shows that cost virtually no money can, in any case. Home movies was an expirment of UPN, who was chasing Fox's animated success. Along with its other animated shows, which all ended up on Cartoon Network, such as the Oblongs and Mission Hill. Some, like Home Movies, Family Guy and Futurama can find an audience that they were denied on their first run and actually generate new episodes.

 

[buzz]

Buzz, this is Home Movies, right there. Originally on UPN, it moved to Adult Swim on Cartoon Network. Incenjucar's opinion of it is not universally shared.

Ah, I've seen this. Cute show. Still not sure how it's relevant to the discussion.

How many people played Baldur's Gate on the PS/2 who knew nothing about D&D, and weren't brought to the game purely because of its association?

Side note: When I was looking for players a while back, I did get a few newbies who were looking to play D&D becasue they'd had so much fun with games like Baldur's Gate. (Also some who had read FR novels, and wanted to play the game that inspired them.)

OTOH, I have yet to meet anyone who bought a D&D beach towel back in the '80s and told me "I liked the beach towel so much, I wanted to try the game."