Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs

[Turjan]

I think it would have sold just as well as D20, but it probably *would* have been catering to a different fanbase.

I don't think that's right. If it had been published as a d20 game, it would have probably sold in the range of other grim'n'gritty d20 settings, and the goal for this release was set much higher than that. Instead of competing with the multitude of d20 settings that are already available, a previously untapped target group was reached: the huge number of Warhammer fans. Given the fact that GW has cultivated anti-TSR and anti-WotC statements for ages, it would have been an unwise move to use d20 mechanics, the "instrument of evil" . Instead of alienating their fanbase, they went the way that made economical sense: using their own system. And if the initial sales numbers that are circulating are correct, this way was definitely right.

 

[The_Universe]

My impression is that most "Warhammer fans" would have bought any "Warhammer" game - they might have griped about it being D20, but the true blue fanboys that its been posited are driving the strong sales of the games are exactly that - fanboys, one imagines that it couldn't have alienated all that many to the point of non-purchase, especially if it preserved the setting's "feel."

Warhammer is a big name - big enough that it would have been head and shoulders above any D&D setting out there except perhaps WotC's three - and even then, I bet a D20 version would have sold extraordinarily high numbers.

My point is that you can't tell me that Warhammer's such a big name that X and Y are important, and then act like D&D RPGers (and D20 players) are strangely ignorant of this fantasy gaming behemoth. If there was a "D&D/D20 Warhammer," it would have a decent shot of surpassing even established popular campaign settings. It's that big, and that familiar. It would blow the competition *out of the water.*

What was gained in catering to the grognards was lost in people who are familiar with the WH universe but prefer the familiar D20 mechanic.

Does that mean I think doing a non-D20 version was a *bad* idea? No. I honestly don't think that Green Ronin could have failed with the license based on its history and popularity, short (maybe) of crapping in a box and putting a price tag on it. Even then, as long as the crap had the Warhammer brand, it might do decently well.

 

[Ourph]

I was a playtester for WFRP2. Looking at the system as a whole, there are already a lot of similarities to d20 (a not-uncommon complaint during the testing). Converting the remaining bits would be very simple and would keep the feel. E.g., careers already funciton so much like classes that it would be trivial to convert them (assuming you were using classes at all in the end product).

But how far can you morph the system set forth in the SRD and still call the resulting game "d20". If the end product has no equivalent of AC, the three Saving Throws, caster/spell levels, 3-18 abilities with bonus increases every two points, etc. (none of which are present in the WH system) is it still "d20". If you retain those things in a d20 Warhammer ruleset, is it still Warhammer? IMO, no.

Doing a d20 Warhammer setting book is possible, but doing a d20 Warhammer rulebook is an oxymoron AFAIC. It's either d20 or Warhammer. It can't be both.

 

[Ourph]

My impression is that most "Warhammer fans" would have bought any "Warhammer" game - they might have griped about it being D20, but the true blue fanboys that its been posited are driving the strong sales of the games are exactly that - fanboys, one imagines that it couldn't have alienated all that many to the point of non-purchase, especially if it preserved the setting's "feel."

I don't know if I qualify as a true blue fanboy, but I AM a big fan of Warhammer, both past and present and I would have had absolutely zero interest in a d20 Warhammer setting book. If such a thing had been published, I can almost guarantee I'd still be happily playing WHFRPv1 with no qualms about what I was missing with the "updated" version.

 

[Turjan]

My point is that you can't tell me that Warhammer's such a big name that X and Y are important, and then act like D&D RPGers (and D20 players) are strangely ignorant of this fantasy gaming behemoth. If there was a "D&D/D20 Warhammer," it would have a decent shot of surpassing even established popular campaign settings. It's that big, and that familiar. It would blow the competition *out of the water.*

Sorry, I'm not convinced. It doesn't make sense for one of the largest brands in fantasy gaming to tie its sales to the whims of the market leader in RPGs; it's like if Pepsi made its sales dependent on Coca Cola: this would damage brand recognition. And if you read all these threads on rpg.net about the vitriol coming from GW towards D&D (that might be a specifically British thing, though), this would have been a bit of a stretch.

 

[SWBaxter]

And if you read all these threads on rpg.net about the vitriol coming from GW towards D&D (that might be a specifically British thing, though), this would have been a bit of a stretch.

I think it's more a minis thing than a British thing - WOTC entered the minis market with the idea of becoming a major player, and that means trying to take some of GW's market share (I have no idea, and don't much care, if they actually have, the attempt is enough for a company to take notice). I agree that it's highly unlikely GW would want to sell PHBs by slapping a d20 logo on Warhammer, but I suspect their basic motivation has more to do with the corporate bottom line than anything else. At the end of the day, GW - like WOTC - has to provide financial statements to their ownership and justify the various business decisions they make, rules design issues are probably not a major issue at those meetings.

 

[JohnSnow]

Okay, I've spent the last few pages keeping my mouth shut and reading, but I need to chime in again. First off, to correct an analogy that I know a little something about...

Wizards of the Coast could, for a cut of the profits, allow other companies to add their "content feed" as a premium service: $19.99/month for the d20 feed, $4.99/month for Malhavoc, $4.99/month for Green Ronin, etc. In effect, WotC becomes the cable company and the d20 publishers become the individual channels thereon.

As someone who runs a cable company, I think this is a bad analogy. With a few exceptions (many large cable companies own a few channels of their own), cable companies buy content from those who make it, package it together, and sell it to customers. In effect, they are "distributors." Here's the kicker. A television channel is what marketing people call "an experience good" - people have to be able to try it to decide whether they like it. When you want to break into the cable industry, you offer your product for FREE or, in some cases, pay the distributor to carry it (that's how ESPN built its following). Only after you've built up brand identity can you charge for it. That's the same principle behind giving people "free trials" of premium channels like HBO and Showtime. That doesn't work in roleplaying because once people have "tried out the game" they know how to play it.

On another topic:

I was a playtester for WFRP2. Looking at the system as a whole, there are already a lot of similarities to d20 (a not-uncommon complaint during the testing). Converting the remaining bits would be very simple and would keep the feel. E.g., careers already funciton so much like classes that it would be trivial to convert them (assuming you were using classes at all in the end product).

So, could it have been d20 and kept the WFRP feel? Absolutely, IMO. Should it have? I don't know; I'm betting the fanbase would have been annoyed enough that it would be a bad move. The deciding factor here is that WFRP was an existing game with an exising fanbase. I'm in agreement with Ryan (and Mearls, likely) that any new RPG should take a long, hard look before they decide not to go d20.

After our first session of the new WFRP, I commented to my group that Warhammer was basically d20 played in its "sweet spot" with limited advancement. The careers are like really short classes. Each 5% increase is equivalent to +1 on a d20. The difference is that Warhammer allows for a lot less variability in the success between a beginning character and a more advanced one. Shadowrun is basically similar to this. Obviously, you could run d20 this way, but the much more limited and discrete advancement would be a fundamental change to the game's basic assumption about increasing power levels.

One of the concepts of Shadowrun, IIRC, was that a very advanced character could be easily done in by a total rookie. There just wasn't that much of a power discrepancy between the two. One of the central "genre assumptions" is deciding how much a character's power level is going to increase. There's a very interesting discussion of this very issue in the .pdf Four Color to Fantasy, which is, IMO, a fascinating toolkit for the d20 system.

Starting characters at the equivalent of 6th-level and capping advancement at 12th doesn't necessitate a new gaming system. However, you might want to break the advancement up into smaller discrete "chunks" than the level system allows. Otherwise, your character only "gets better" 6 times, which means either the campaign is short or you get bored using the same abilities for long periods, meaning you need something else (a great story maybe) to keep you entertained.

 

[The_Universe]

Pepsi's sales *are* dependent on how well Coca Cola does (both being sodas, and largely dependent on the same market trends), and fantasy gaming (of which D20 D&D and Warhammer are both a part) is similarly linked. I completely agree that many Warhammer *system* loyalists might not have purchased the game had it been something other than what it is. I merely suggest that what it lost in their lack of purchase, it likely would have gained from people like me.

We can go round and round all day saying "I would have bought it if it was D20" and "I wouldn't have bought it if it was D20" without reaching any meaningful conclusions. My position is that Warhammer is such a brand behemoth that it would have succeeded *no matter what.* If you can't accept that, then you really *aren't* a fanboy of the system *or* the setting.

 

[The_Universe]

I think it's more a minis thing than a British thing - WOTC entered the minis market with the idea of becoming a major player, and that means trying to take some of GW's market share (I have no idea, and don't much care, if they actually have, the attempt is enough for a company to take notice). I agree that it's highly unlikely GW would want to sell PHBs by slapping a d20 logo on Warhammer, but I suspect their basic motivation has more to do with the corporate bottom line than anything else. At the end of the day, GW - like WOTC - has to provide financial statements to their ownership and justify the various business decisions they make, rules design issues are probably not a major issue at those meetings.

That makes sense, and I'd buy it for a dollar.

 

[Turjan]

Pepsi's sales *are* dependent on how well Coca Cola does (both being sodas, and largely dependent on the same market trends), and fantasy gaming (of which D20 D&D and Warhammer are both a part) is similarly linked. I completely agree that many Warhammer *system* loyalists might not have purchased the game had it been something other than what it is. I merely suggest that what it lost in their lack of purchase, it likely would have gained from people like me.

I was talking specifically about brand recognition, not about the question how well the fantasy market does, and that's where your explanation doesn't hit the point. My soda example would go more like selling your Pepsi bottles in vendor machines with the Coca Cola logo on them, or serving it in Coca Cola cups. Both would be free advertising for your major competitor, and it would be mixing your brand logo with that of your competitor. That mixing is a boon for a very small company, but a definite 'no no' for a major competitor. That's basic economics.

We can go round and round all day saying "I would have bought it if it was D20" and "I wouldn't have bought it if it was D20" without reaching any meaningful conclusions. My position is that Warhammer is such a brand behemoth that it would have succeeded *no matter what.* If you can't accept that, then you really *aren't* a fanboy of the system *or* the setting.

I don't see any connection of your last sentence with the preceding one, like you want to construct it. No, I'm no Warhammer fanboy. I simply stated that it doesn't make economical sense to mix the 'Warhammer' trademark in any way with the 'D&D' or 'd20' trademark, because it erodes brand recognition in the long run. As simple as that.