Interesting Post by Mearls on rpg.net

[ExploderWizard]

[Quote-Mearls on rpg.net]
"Here's something to consider when you look at WoW and RPGs.

Imagine it's 1979. You're a hex and counter wargamer. You buy every title SPI releases. You love them.

Now, keeping in mind how everything played out, let's imagine a bit of a twist in the eventual decay of the wargaming hobby.

There are these home computers, Apple ][s, IBMs, Tandy computers. As luck would have it, this new company called Snowdrift starts making computer versions of games that look a lot like SPI games. In a lot of ways, they're SPI titles taken almost hex for hex and put on a computer.

It turns out that these games are HUGE hits. They make Snowdrift one of the biggest, most profitable entertainment companies in the world.

Knowing what you know about how the wargame hobby went, what would you want SPI to do in that situation?" [End Quote]

Interesting observation.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Here's a link to the thread in question.

Could someone explain how hex/counter wargaming went? Is it safe to assume that it faded because it couldn't attract more people?

 

[Bluenose]

Here's a link to the thread in question.

Could someone explain how hex/counter wargaming went? Is it safe to assume that it faded because it couldn't attract more people?

That's the basic reason. There is a steady attrition of people in any hobby, and when you can't attract as many new members as you lose old ones, well... Bit there's one really major factor.

Computers do some of it better.

There were games, some of which I own, which required they be set up on a large table for hundreds of hours. Where a curious cat could wander over it and spread thirty or forty hours of play across the floor (or eat it). The investment in time and space was large. Then there's the fact that computers can handle the "sim" aspects better than people, can keep track of more variables, can enforce the rules without having to look them up. The computer wargame killed the complex tabletop wargame by doing it better and cheaper. And the internet meant you could play against other people rather than rely on a computer AI of doubtful quality.

Note that simpler games didn't die. Games like Settlers of Catan and Carcasonne survive and even thrive. Figure wargaming, which at one time seemed to be in terminal decline, is doing reasonably well. Some of this is down to face-to-face interaction and it's advantages, some is down to aesthetics. But I think it's fair to say that the type of detailed hex-based wargames that were SPIs main product can be done on a computer better than a tabletop.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, so leaving the anology (good as it might be) I have to say Wow is the way of tommorro for rpgs weather we like it or not (I choose not, since I hate the game with a passion).

The one thing to keep in mind is, that tommoro is not for some years still. Until they can generate enough of the world to keep the plot running without repet dungeons (What I call dumb) it will not replace a person. But as we see game tables to paper and dice rp over the web, as we see MMorpgs grow and expand, maybe one day I will run my D&D world online...or maybe my grandchildren will.

That day is comeing (Boy does that thought make me cringe just typeing it), but by then we will have to accept it.


For now I use Wow for onething and onething only...expanding my table of players (One old player plays, and has brought a total a 3 new people into D&D from there)

 

[MerricB]

Here's a link to the thread in question.

Could someone explain how hex/counter wargaming went? Is it safe to assume that it faded because it couldn't attract more people?

Greg Costikyan writes a rather good summary (per 1996) here: A Farewell to Hexes

Since then, hex & counter wargames have managed to stay alive, though no longer at the levels they once were. Incredibly, they have also managed to attract new blood. I'm a hex & counter wargamer, and I only started playing them in the last 2-3 years.

The last few years have been very good for introductory hex & counter wargames. GMT Games is the most influential publisher of wargames currently publishing, and their stand-out hit has been Combat Commander: Europe, which uses a deck of special cards to guide your actions: the cards have Fire, Move, Advance, Artillery and other actions on them, plus reactions as well. It's very approachable and a lot of fun. (Games take 90-120 minutes).

Even newer, and very well regarded, is Confict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear which is even better as an introductory hex & counter wargame.

Still being published is that massive game of Advanced Squad Leader (ASL). MMP (who have the rights to make it) have been struggling to keep the core sets in stock, so it's still selling pretty well and is still being played. It's been getting a lot of new players thanks to the line of Starter Kits. They're still more complicated than either of the previous games I've mentioned, but they've been helping new people (like me) enter the ASL fold.

If you follow the links, you'll find yourself on boardgamegeek.com; I have several session reports (with photos) there for each of the games mentioned if you'd like to see what they look like.

Cheers!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The thing is Mike is missing a few parts of the equation I think. Things are a lot more complex than "computers can replace board games". Yes, they can, but really its equally true to say that the genre itself has faded.

War games were time consuming and a pain to set up and play. The problem was they COULDN'T really be translated to the computer. At least not before the Internet. While you can sort of make a wargame that runs on an Amiga or old Macs it was kind of pointless. There was no reasonable way to play against another person and what passed for computer AI at the time (and to this day really) is not at all interesting to play against. Due to the practical limitations of the hardware and realistic budget limitations the early computer wargames were mostly pretty crude.

In the mean time what happened? The wargame hobby died. People don't have the time anymore, and there were other distractions like video games. The RPG gaming scene also stole a lot of people's time and energy since it was a largely overlapping crowd. People don't have the attention span anymore either. Eventually sim and war game programs came along that were good enough to really be start to be interesting, the Internet let people play each other, and the whole RTS genre developed, which again really appealed heavily to the same crowd as traditional wargames.

There was never a point in time when it was possible for the wargame hobby to save itself. To a limited extent it moved to computers, but the timing was just wrong. By the time we had good enough machines and a good enough Internet to do what a good AH game could do there really weren't that many people left around wanting to play that sort of game.

So Mike's "Snowdrift" IMHO couldn't really happen in the real world. Heck, there were companies around with the willingness to do it and good talent and they even made some pretty decent games. Honestly I think its more likely some kind of new genre which is a fusion of elements from wargaming, RP, virtual worlds, etc may come along that fills the same niche as the old games did.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The thing is Mike is missing a few parts of the equation I think. Things are a lot more complex than "computers can replace board games". Yes, they can, but really its equally true to say that the genre itself has faded.

War games were time consuming and a pain to set up and play. The problem was they COULDN'T really be translated to the computer. At least not before the Internet. While you can sort of make a wargame that runs on an Amiga or old Macs it was kind of pointless. There was no reasonable way to play against another person and what passed for computer AI at the time (and to this day really) is not at all interesting to play against. Due to the practical limitations of the hardware and realistic budget limitations the early computer wargames were mostly pretty crude.

In the mean time what happened? The wargame hobby died. People don't have the time anymore, and there were other distractions like video games. The RPG gaming scene also stole a lot of people's time and energy since it was a largely overlapping crowd. People don't have the attention span anymore either. Eventually sim and war game programs came along that were good enough to really be start to be interesting, the Internet let people play each other, and the whole RTS genre developed, which again really appealed heavily to the same crowd as traditional wargames.

There was never a point in time when it was possible for the wargame hobby to save itself. To a limited extent it moved to computers, but the timing was just wrong. By the time we had good enough machines and a good enough Internet to do what a good AH game could do there really weren't that many people left around wanting to play that sort of game.

So Mike's "Snowdrift" IMHO couldn't really happen in the real world. Heck, there were companies around with the willingness to do it and good talent and they even made some pretty decent games. Honestly I think its more likely some kind of new genre which is a fusion of elements from wargaming, RP, virtual worlds, etc may come along that fills the same niche as the old games did.

I think Mike's post is more of an analogy explaining some of the business rationale behind current WoTC decisions rather than an analysis of why wargaming collapsed in the eighties.

As far as I can tell the board wargame hobby is pretty healthy at this time because they have moved away from the monster games to games that can be played in 4 hours or under and that is from punching the counters and reading the rules for the first time.
Back when I was a regular wargamer a lot of games took 20 to 40 hours to play and some more. I remember spending 6 month playing Fire in the East (a Europa module) in real time. We were getting in a session a week and we would get a Russian or German turn in that session.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't think Mearls is missing anything, because I don't take the rhetorical question "what would you do" as implying the answer "give up and die," or "stop publishing hex games and start publishing computer games." I take it more like the guy in post 4. Ask why computer games are suddenly eating your market. Adapt. Recognize that you're not a "hex game company," you're a "wargame company," and it just so happens that up until now that's meant hexes, but it doesn't have to mean only hexes.

In the specific example of hex and counter wargames, a computer wargame has a number of significant advantages:

You don't have to memorize rules minutia if the program handles it for you. This not only helps your brain not hurt, it allows for different rules.
Ease of matching yourself with opponents, as opposed to the broad diversity of low sales volume wargames that made finding opponents difficult.
The computer can handle minutia of rules faster than you can, even after you memorize it.
If you can't find an opponent at all, you can play against the AI.
Graphic improvements.
Setting up a wargame can be very time consuming, starting a computer game is very fast.
Patches instead of errata.

Meanwhile, of course, the hex and counter industry was being attacked from another direction: miniature wargaming. Its advantages were,

Better appeal to the hobbyist fiddlers who like spending hours messing with their game components (true counter wargamers prep materials, sort them, trim their hexes with special tools, etc, but true miniature wargamers paint metal, which allows greater customization).
3d graphics.
Counter games are almost all historical, but some miniature games have special appeal for the fantasy and science fiction fans.
Better business model that encourages multiple repeat purchases instead of one single purchase of a set of rules and some sheets of perforated cardbaord.

Now, many years after these developments took place, the original companies didn't learn their lesson. In fact, there is good reason to think they doubled down on their player base, designing games to appeal to the most dedicated existing customers, earning themselves a very small, EXTREMELY committed fangroup that is unfortunately aging and even more unfortunately has, probably as a result of the encroachment of other games, become very insular and negative towards changes in their gaming culture.

They've not done so well for themselves sales wise. If their goal was to become an insular fan group of people who know each other and have a sense of community, then they're doing fine, and that may indeed be the goal of some small, one-man studios, to have fun, publish a little bit, and participate in a community.

But in spite of flagging sales for the big companies, wargaming has NOT died out. In fact, I'd argue that the lessons listed above have in fact been taken to heart by the larger (not just hex) wargaming community, and incorporated into game design.

Look at modern wargames like Memoir 44, or Battlelore. They address these problems almost categorically? Shorter? Done. Better visual appeal? Done. Paintable miniatures if people want to? Done. Instant set up for those who don't care about painting or fiddling with bits? Done. Fantasy themes available as well as historical? Done. Easier to teach to new players? Done. I could go on, but won't.

So... yeah. I lost track of the thesis in the historical interpretation. At this point, hex and counter wargames are a pretty small thing that functions as a sort of vestigial limb on the body of the boardgame community. But wargaming as a whole is doing really, really well. I think that recognizing the wave and deciding to ride it instead of fight it could have let them build their existing player base and reputation and maybe become something like Games Workshop or Fantasy Flight in scale and scope.

 

[Rechan]

So... yeah. I lost track of the thesis in the historical interpretation.

You're on the right track.

Namely it's this:

1) MMOs are eating a lot of D&D dollars/time.

2) Video games do SOME things well.

What should WotC do? Adapt.

They couldn't, however, say "Let's make a tabletop MMO". Because, just like video games do some things well, they also do some things BADLY. And some things they do well just would not translate well to the tabletop. For instance, Aggro. Aggro is a huge system where anything the character does is computed as a threat, and suddenly the monsters automatically attack the person with the most aggro. Not only is that A) very complicated, but B) ignores the fact there's a DM there making decisions for the monsters.

What the designers did was this: They looked at Video games and said, "What are some things they are doing WELL that D&D could also do?"

But they didn't stop there. I had lunch with Rodney Thompson, and he told me that guys at WotC play all kinds of games. Indie RPGs, boardgames, etc. So it's easy to see this influence their design: they looked at all other kinds of games - board games, indie RPGs, M:tG, etc, and said "What does this do well that could work for D&D? What can we learn from this?"

And the thing that many miss is this: WotC also asked themselves, "What does D&D do well?". They emphasized that, while casting off what the designers felt D&D didn't do well, or that that got in the way of what the designers felt D&D and other things did well.

So what you end up with is something that is very refined, very focused. Structurally, it looks like a Tower (instead of something that looks like a House, with its many subsystems and different features). Now, the designers are branching off, and hanging things off this core Tower. For instance, the AW/Encounter/Daily system and how it interacts with the multi-class system. Now they're playing with the power system (The Psion, the Mokn). Now they've started to play with the multi-class system (see the Spellscarred, or the Dhampyr, or the weapon focused multi-classes).

There's one last thing I want to point out.

About five years ago, Monte Cook said in a blog post that one of the mechanical things they hardwired into 3e was System Mastery. They took inspiration from M:tG, where you have some subpar cards, some better cards, and it was a Reward for the player to discover what those choices were and use them. So toughness was meant to be a subpar option from the get-go. Whirlwind attack was meant to be not as strong as other options. It was up to the player to figure this out.

This was the 3e designer's philosophy. Whether you agree with this or not, this is how they designed the system. But, if I were to say, "3e is just like M:TG", I do not think I would be right. Even though the designers explicitly looked at something that M:tG did (and did well) for inspiration.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do understand that rationale. It makes total sense. It's a good reason for becoming "WoW-like" in moderation. I've never seen many overt parallels with WoW even in 4e, and I'm never against taking good ideas from electronic gaming (I don't subscribe to any notion of it being an unimaginative taint on the hobby).

However, it is the rationale of a follower, an also-ran, not a market leader, an industry-maker.

It assumes other people are doing things you're not doing. So instead of capitalizing on your own unique contributions, you end up following along with the new big dogs, trying to play catch-up. Playing catch-up is always a losing proposition (doubly true when you're trying to play catch-up to a fluke like WoW).

What I do, is I run as fast as I can in the exact opposite direction. I capitalize on the things that I do that they cannot do. I make things exceptional and unique, things that help re-define the thing they got from me.

In the land of imagining to be a fancy elf with sparkles (where D&D and WoW do overlap), my reaction to something like that would be to take the good ideas (there's gotta be a few!) and run screaming to the other extreme. Be the Anti-WoW. The Non-WoW. Be brazenly social. Be fast-advancing. Be customizable, epically changeable. Emphasize interaction more than combat.

Someone made new rules on you? Great. Make new ones on them.

Perhaps it is good I am only an MBA, not an actual leader of a company. ;-)