Is it time to put the "A" back before D&D?

[Shade]

It seems that a schism has developed between folks who post on these boards. Numerous threads and posts have shown the following conflicts:

• "D&D is too complicated" vs. "give us more options"
• "I like sample NPCs, advanced monsters, etc." vs. "I can do this myself, use the space for something I can use"
• "I'd prefer more guidelines for using X in my campaign" vs. "I can figure out how to use it in my campaign, use the space for something I can use"

I wonder if it would be feasible at some point to once again offer two different versions of the game, one for the users who feel very comfortable (and have the time) to stat out everything on their own and use a multitude of rules, and another for those who'd prefer to have the work done for them so they can save time and focus on less mechanical details of the campaign.

Do you think this is a realistic possiblity?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Good lord no. We'll just fracture the market even more and end up with substandard support for both versions. IMO, D&D is pretty modular as is allowing for a range of play styles, and for those folks who really need a change in rules sets, there are lots of great alternatives out there (C&C, True20, etc, etc).

Deja vu -- this thread seems familiar.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If we're going to go down that dark path, let's also consider doing what WotC did with its Magic cards. They come in three levels: Basic, Intermediate, and Expert (or something like that). The three are fully compatible, but the Basic/Starter sets don't have the complicated rules that appear in the Expert sets.

A "basic" label D&D could signify products without complicated rules and with more hand-holding in terms of examples and sample NPCs. Of course a better name might be needed.

 

[Shade]

Good lord no. We'll just fracture the market even more and end up with substandard support for both versions. IMO, D&D is pretty modular as is allowing for a range of play styles, and for those folks who really need a change in rules sets, there are lots of great alternatives out there (C&C, True20, etc, etc).

I may be overreacting, but the threads in the past few months seems to indicate that the market is badly fractured. I see more and more "I'm skipping this product" or "I've had enough" posts to cause concern. I know I'm buying less books nowadays due to the shift in focus.

Deja vu -- this thread seems familiar.

It did to me too as I was typing it. Was there one lost in the crash?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Do you think this is a realistic possiblity?

No, I don't. I see your point, but I don't think such a differentiation would help with the schism you see. What would help, I feel, is if WotC would develop a truly comprehensive software package that did most of the heavy lifting for players. Not just a character generator. I mean a package that could do all the calculating, from character creation to running combat, requiring a minimum of effort on the part of the players, and would also contain all the rules to the game for easy reference (and could be upgraded with newer releases). It could be either program that one would run on a computer, or that would be part of a dedicated device that is sold on its own. This device could be connected to those of the other players, including the DM, so as to make combats run quickly and smoothly and keep track of all that stuff that often bedevils players and DMs. Those who like all the number crunching could simply use the books alone or with some of the less comprehensive programs available now.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Do you think this is a realistic possiblity?

From a marketing and financial perspective, I don't think we'll ever see Wizards go down that road like TSR did. They've learned from history that fragmenting the audience is a bad thing. It'll also lead to brand confusion and a sense that one product is for "superior" players. We've already got enough players applying that label to themselves without official support.

Even if they did what you've suggested, you'd find camps divided over something within each version of the game. You can't please all the people all the time. No matter what WotC publishes, there will be people who find various parts "worthless" to them, and those parts will vary person to person. A rules book with content seen as 100% useful to 100% of a large segment of the roleplaying community just isn't going to happen, no matter how "targeted" you make it.

I think the current books do a good job of trying to have something for everyone - if part of that isn't to your taste, ignore it.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I may be overreacting, but the threads in the past few months seems to indicate that the market is badly fractured. I see more and more "I'm skipping this product" or "I've had enough" posts to cause concern. I know I'm buying less books nowadays due to the shift in focus.

Shift in focus on who's part? I think the biggest problem is 3rd party publishers taking the OGL in directions it wasn't really intended, at least not on such a scale as we've seen lately, focusing on their own d20 derivatives rather than adding to the core D&D game. But even that isn't neccessarily a bad thing, if you agree with Monte Cook's take on it.

And, if the market is already fragmented, why would Wizards want to make it moreso? Especially if they still hold the biggest fragment now?

 

[delericho]

I see more and more "I'm skipping this product" or "I've had enough" posts to cause concern. I know I'm buying less books nowadays due to the shift in focus.

I think, as an edition goes on through the years, this is inevitable. The first few books can always cover the "big" subjects - the splatbooks for classes and races, the campaign setting core books, the planes, and so on. These are subjects that have fairly broad appeal.

Once the big topics are all done, the available options for new books are limited. They can retread the material, or do something new but more obscure. Either way, fewer people will be interested.

Then, add to that the fact that many people now own so much material that they can run games forever with what they've got, never repeat a monster, spell, feat or prestige class, and still never use everything they have. Of course people are going to see less need for new books.

I don't think this can be fixed, and I'm not sure it should be fixed. One day, 4e will come, and all that was old will be new again. But, until then, people will just continue cherry picking the books that they think they will most enjoy and/or get the most use from. Which, really, is as it should be.

 

[atom crash]

It seems that a schism has developed between folks who post on these boards.

Please bear in mind that the people who post on these boards are not your "typical" gamer that WotC is aiming most of their product toward. So any apparent "schism" on these boards doesn't necessarily reflect the consumer at large, so why should WotC alter their market strategy to address that?

It all boils down to this: WotC follows perceived trends in the market when they design new books, not discussions on a message board made by a minority of gamers that doesn't really reflect their target audience as a whole. If their approach wasn't working, they wouldn't be selling books, so they'd be forced to change their market strategy.

 

[sjmiller]

• "D&D is too complicated" vs. "give us more options"
• "I like sample NPCs, advanced monsters, etc." vs. "I can do this myself, use the space for something I can use"
• "I'd prefer more guidelines for using X in my campaign" vs. "I can figure out how to use it in my campaign, use the space for something I can use"

Looking at these three "conflict" groups, I don't belong to either of the first sides. I don't think it is too complicated, but I think they have more than enough options as it currently stands. Why muddy the water? So, I am in the middle there.

The second set, I am firmly in the first side. I like sample NPCs and the like. I can strip off any background I do not find appropriate and add my own, but I like having examples of how things can be done.

With the third set, I am firmly in the second side. I can grasp a concept and figure out how to use broad concepts in my game. Now, if you want to give me sample monsters, NPCs, etc., using that concept that is fine. I can figure out how to use things (psionics, planar travel, advanced technology, etc.) all on my own.

So, tallying the numbers, I fall right in the middle. Besides, as others will assuredly point out, dividing the hobby market is not a good thing.