Is it WotC’s responsibility to bring people to the hobby?

[GX.Sigma]

I don't deny that competition can do exactly that, but the situation is not the same.

In that situation you had two fairly equal sized entities competing against eachother.

With RPG's you have one behemoth entity (relatively), a few substantial entities, and a multitude of very small entities.

Isn't Pathfinder outselling D&D? I think they're in neck-and-neck competition. Paizo tried to make a better game than D&D4e, and now WotC is trying to make a better game than Pathfinder. When 5e comes out, Paizo will have to do something else to improve the quality of their product/service. I think the analogy is pretty good.

On-topic, I do believe WotC has a responsibility to bring people to the hobby, and it's a responsibility they have been neglecting for a very long time.

4e was my first RPG, and it did a terrible job introducing me to RPGs. I don't want to insult 4e here, but frankly when I was first tried to play it, I thought "why do I have to learn about defenses and healing surges and power cards and action points and second winds? I thought this was a game about imagination!" My little group of friends, who were slightly interested in pretending to be Elves, became very uninterested when the first event of the starter adventure ("you're on your way somewhere and kobolds attack") turned into a grueling ordeal that took way longer than anyone wanted, and didn't involve anyone pretending to be anything. I convinced them to play a few more times, but they never enjoyed it; it was supposed to be a game about imagination and adventure, but all that ever seemed to happen were excruciating tactical grinds.

There isn't anything wrong with an RPG that has hardcore tactical gameplay, but none of my group were hardcore tactical gamers (I don't think anyone is, outside a small niche within the niche of gaming), so the game just didn't work for us.

Thankfully 5e's goals include simplicity and accessibility, and they say they want to make a good intro product (and I'll do my part regardless). I'm optimistic for the future; I think they'll do alright. If I'd had 5e when I was a teenager, I'm sure I would have loved it. I was born 4 years too early! (or 34 years too late)

 

[Console Cowboy]

Me? Worry?!

Nothing. The players are, presumably, playing the game with their groups. About the only thing I'd expect players to do to promote the hobby, and even then only indirectly in the sense that they could be recruiting potential players if they don't have them. Other than keeping their own games going, I don't see that players have any community obligation to the hobby or some other abstract construct of any kind.

This is exactly the thing. Number ONE reason people leave the hobby? Lack of time. (2, lack of group.)

How to promote the hobby? Put more pressure on player time....
What benefits of an escapist hobby do I forget to make players work?

Slapping together a forum and calling it a "community" is not making a community. It is PR spin.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think the situation is similar to how 'professional wrestling' was in the 90s. There were two large companies - WCW and WWF (which is now WWE.) They did not cooperate, and -in fact- were actively trying to put each other out of business. In my humble opinion, that level of competition between the two companies caused both of them to up their game and provide a more compelling product. (Even if you're not a fan, you've probably heard of Stone Cold and The Rock.) Storylines became better; the in-ring product became better; everything was required to be better because one slip up could be the death knell for one company or the other. Today, only one of those two companies remain, and -again, in my humble opinion- the product has suffered because of the lack of competition.

(Though, as a fan, I would also say that this year has been fairly good so far. I've seen what I feel is an attempt to recover quality from a previous era.)


Personally, I feel that has a lot of parallels with what is going on in regards to rpgs now. I often feel as though WoTC comes across as WCW at times. They have loads of talent, but the corporate management is somewhat unskilled at knowing how to use it. While the creative team does a really good job at coming up with ideas, those ideas are not always well suited to the product they are trying to produce nor the fanbase they are trying to please.

It seems to be that WoTC is searching for an answer to these problems. Perhaps what I listed aren't even the actual problems, but my perception as a fan is there are some problems within the company in the product. I am glad they are searching for answers, but I am not currently convinced they are finding the right answers. I would compare that to WCW trying to hire Vince Russo (who was part of the WWF creative team.) They thought he would update their product and make it better, but -by most accounts- he ran it into the ground.

I do not have a desire for WoTC or D&D to fail. As a fan of rpgs, my only desire is that my wallet reward products for being (what I feel) are good products. To some minor extent, I understand the idea of brand loyalty. I buy a lot of SJ Games products because I have become a fan of the company's work, and I trust that the brand produces things I will enjoy. Likewise, I bought Elder Scrolls: Skyrim without much question. At one point in time, I had no qualms about buying D&D products based on name.

That being said, a company needs to earn loyalty from customers. I became loyal to the brands I mentioned because they produced products I wanted. Even the ones which were maybe a little under par were still enjoyable. If a company starts to repeatedly violate my trust, and I feel that I am spending money on things I do not want nor enjoy on a regular basis, my loyalty can be lost.

I do not feel it helps me as a customer wanting a product I enjoy nor do I feel it helps the hobby as a whole to get better if I continue to buy products based on name while ignoring quality. I feel it is far healthier to support brands which (I feel) are moving in a direction I generally feel is the right direction and brands which (I feel) are producing products of quality. I'm ok with buying the occasional lemon now and then, but it shouldn't be a regular thing.

Don't place a bunch of banana stickers on a pound of lemons and expect me to continue making banana splits with your product. Instead, I'll start buying my fruit somewhere else.

There is another side to this though. You see it all the time on TV, networks schedule two shows of the same type against each other this forces people to choose one or the other to watch live which is very important to the Nielsen ratings the end result is one show gets canceled it is rare to see both thrive. This happens because the viewing base is being diluted.

Competition can be good but cooperation can as well. Look at how having OGL allowed gaming to thrive. WOTC admitted they didn't do modules well but there were smaller companies that did. So game companies wrote modules and settings that used the 3E rules instead of diluting the market and making a different rule system for every setting.

Of course seeing Pazio success on the OGL may feel like it was a big mistake to to ever do.

 

[Console Cowboy]

Leviatham wrote:_____________________

Demand can only exist from existing customers, people who already know the hobby. I am not talking about those. I am talking about people who do not know the hobby, or have never been interested in it, giving it a go because the opportunity presents itself.

<gulp>

That would be a nail in their coffin. Haven't researched it, but I'd love to hear a similar situation in which a company promoting its market and not just its services has gone from rags to riches.
_______________________________________ [/quote]

Demand is created where it was not before. And sales (is what you’re referring to) only exists from existing consumers turned customers. Neither immediately addresses market size or potential.

Case Study:
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" – attributed to Thomas J. Watson Chairman, International Business Machines, 1943 but now in dispute.

versus

Apple the first Personal Computer, for which no market previously existed.


You mean apart from Gary Gygax at TSR...


In line skates, Roller Blades a company and a generic term for the industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollerblade
Great case study for WotC.

Any travel destination in tourism.

If you’re going to be a leader, and, moreover be perceived by others as The RPG hobby leader, you have to act like a leader. WotC believes it is in competition with everyone when really they should have the point of view that everyone is competing against them.

In the Pepsi Challenge, Paizo wins. Flawless Victory!

A marketing strategy of entrenchment for a mature or plateau market can be a self-fulfilling prophesy we are seeing with D&D.

I would like to throw out this idea for people to mull over. Tabletop role-playing games are in the publishing industry not the toy industry. Form not function. Hasbro industries and WotC are toy makers. Form not function.

 

[Hand of Evil]

To live or to let die - it is all of our responsbilites, from the industry to the players.

 

[Arcona]

Howdy...

Long time lurker, first time poster... was directed to this thread from RA (the guy with whom Leviathan had the original discussion.

Lets start with a few basic premises... some have been mentioned already but I am putting them down to have the concrete 'basis'.

A) "Is it WOTCs responsibility?".

WOTC (i.e. Hasbro) has one responsibility. To maximise shareholder revenue.

They are not doing this to promote good family values or give us gamers fun. Much like EA they try to make what sells and not what people might want.

Our genre in particular is pretty darn niche as it is... hence WOTC tries many different recipes to get those precious USD/EUR/PLN from our pockets. The end result is ALWAYS to go back to investors and present good results.

That might mean they are increasing costs on focusing on a minority of gamers or trying to expand their market (4E did just that by trying to get on the hype of MMORPG based games and their style).

Whatever the results its WOTC that decides if their recipe succeeded or failed and not us in our small closet communities.

b) The hobby is shrinking.

Not where I have been its not. When I started gaming (15 years ago) there were -2- RPG stores (the same chain) in Athens (Greece). Now there are 2 chains with more than a dozen stores in Athens and stores all over Greece. One of the chains sells primarily RPG (and DND at that) products while the other is focused on Wargames with half the store dedicated to RPGS (and again 1/2 of that for DnD).

Similarly when I started playing I could count the people I knew playing RPGs in my fingers and toes. Now I know maybe a hundred people (personally know them) playing and know that there hundreds more.

The hobby has increased very much. Same applies from my 4 years in the UK and some applies from my limited experience in Poland.

Generally... the hobby is niche and will always be niche. The comparison with video games is a mistake as many more were playing video games from when they first appeared and until now. Video games are more popular but also have their own share of controversy associated with them and are also considered a 'geeky' past time.

On the other hand depending on where I go I see recognition when I mention RPGs more and more. From WHFBRPG in Poland, to Pendragon in the UK and other more osbscure RPGs accross the world (Dogs in the Vinyard, My life with Master, Paranoia, Fiasco, Exalted and others).

Furthermore I now very often see tournaments, game days and the like and with 2-3 times a year frequency where those used to be a once a year event and not that great either.

So generally when I compare today with 15 or even 10 or 5 years ago the hobby is more widespread and more 'mainstream' than it used to be. From gaming into one's mothers basement we now have DEDICATED CAFFEES where people go to play RPGs.

c) Edition wars not seen elsewhere.

Already been accepted as a mistake from the OP but given that I lived through the WoD vs nWoD era and was an avid White Wolf fan I can indeed confirm that edition wars exist everywhere.

In the case of Old WoD and New WoD it went as far as to almost obliterate what White Wolf had created over the years. Overnight hundreds stopped playing and supporting WW and though to this day I prefer the d10 system I blame them for their error in finishing 'the metaplot' and restarting everything.

WOTC on the other hand at least advances the plot of their settings on an edition change. Whether that advancement is good or bad is up to the people to decide.

As a side note even in wargaming you have edition wars... There are large WH40k communities still stuck to 3rd edition despite the fact that there is 6th just out.

Same applies for WHFBRPG where the change in style of the current edition (to include markers and other doodas) meant significant amount of the player core stayed with the old groups.

d) DnD the Flagship

Sorry but no. Sure its a recognisable name but I do not consider DnD the Flagship of my Hobby.

When asked what I play I dont say DnD... I say RPGs... I actually AVOID saying DnD cause I do feel kinda lame to explain that I am playing Dwarves and Elves saving princesses and no you cant relay the epicness or the other things you do in a five minute discussion.

Preferably I explain RPGs as doing 'improvisation' combined with being the heroes of ones favorite movie and not stuck in a set script.

Whats more there are so many SIMPLER, BETTER and NICER systems and game worlds out there that to introduce new players to DnD just feels wrong.

A few years ago (and just this year my brother) we introduced new players via Warhammer Fantasy RPG since the rules are much easier to follow for someone completely new. Whats more with other systems you can focus on what a new guy/gal wants and not on DnD...

DnD has many positive characteristics but is at the same time followed by so many negatives and so much past that having it as a Flagship maybe even HURTS the hobby...

e) Is it our responsibility?

Well this is a tough one.

Personally I agree, though not due to lazyness, that I am happy to play with my group and dont really care to add new people. It causes frustration when I have to deal with 10 different players in 1 session meaning we have maybe 1 hour of progress in a 6-7 hour session.

One thing to consider is that you dont have to be friends with people to roleplay with them. As such you can meet and game and that is all... this means that when a community gets going it doesnt need to recruit or increase the size... once 1-2 games get going those who want to stay, stay and those who dont like it move on...

Not only is it time consuming to get new players in but given that they rarely stick to it (due to the time investment required or preferences) it actually frustrates your older, more experienced players that also have the time investment but end up having to babysit instead of playing. Sure teaching new people may mean that eventually you get some to stick but then you end up with a big unmanageble group until someone starts another game...

(By the way I realise this last part (the whole e section) is a bit all over the place but what can you do, its a complex point)

But, I hear you say, this means that companies will stop producing games for us to play if you dont ensure they get people playing and buying their stuff.

Really? I thought imagination was the number 1 thing of RPGs. I honestly believe that if TODAY all RPG companies closed, I would still have enough material to roleplay for the rest of my life...

We have so much material already and so little time that even if I were in 3 sessions a week I wouldnt have the pleasure to explore all the GOOD games out there, all the GOOD pre-written plots and all the AMAZING plots and campaigns people made up!

Seriously there are so many things out there already that I WANT to play and I cant that with my old group we cant wait (so to speak) to be pensioners...

We reason that our parents generation had 1 vital problem... they are pensioners now and all they can do is watch sports, play cards and maybe critisize young people...

When we are old we will be able to play from morning to evening ALL these things we cant play now! It will be magic... well until we start dieing off that is but what can you do!

PS>

I do think online communities are great as opposed to Console Cowboy. I am currently in a couple of RPG online communities and I am actively DMing 4-5 Play by Posts and playing in another 3... sure the pace is slow and they are not 'face to face' but they are still fun and interesting.

Same applies for the good old White Wolf chatrooms (Bremen and New Bremen) I still recall moments from my roleplaying there that will never leave me although they were done via a computer... wish they were still running.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Responsability? *shrug* Maybe a bit, but as others have said, they should focus on their game first.

Their biggest downfall? Thinking that more options/rulebooks will give them new players. IMHO, one of the *biggest* things that rocketed AD&D 1e into popularity was the amount of modules produced and a dedicated magazine to RPGs (with AD&D an 'obvious focus'; re: Dragon Magazine).

Adventure modules gave the DM something to buy and run. It allowed players to collectively talk to other players about their characters exploits in those 'same' situations. Non-RPGers would hear these and become interested because it sounds like a story or movie and ask questions; possibly asking to give it a shot. Two or three players talking about rules minutia has onlookers thinking O-o-o-kaaay....I have no idea what those geeks are talking about... as it doesn't sound like a story or movie, or interesting in any non-rpg'er way. Also, each DM ran it differently because the modules in those days focused on a basic story to roughly outline the premiss for the module locations...random encounter tables, some maps with *lots* of simply-detailed rooms/area. The last few pages may see a couple of new monsters, magic items and perhaps a spell or two. Due to that widely-roughed-out scope, an adventure could take up anywhere from 10 to 20 hours, all the way up to 30, 50, or 100 hours of actual play time...and all in the space of 28 to 34 pages.

But I digress. The bottom line...WotC needs to get away from trying to make money based on selling "hardcover rules supplements" and get back to shooting to "break even or make a couple bucks with adventures".

Alas, I don't think they *can* do that now that they are owned by Hasbro. Thus...they're screwed. Paizo's Pathfinder has, IMHO, started to suck by seemingly focusing on the WotC model of "splatbooks first, modules second".

*How* can WotC possibly succeed with the module/adventurs? Get back to basics...writing a few plots and a background for an adventure takes little time for most DM's in my experience (and is typically revised or mangled to fit into individual campaigns anyway). However, drawing 3 dungeon levels with 20 rooms each, filling them with interesting stuff, and figuring out a couple fun wandering monster/encounter charts...*that* takes time. *That* is where DM's need help...not in plot/story. The DM can do plot/story additions on his own in order to suit his campaign needs. Oh, and get the hell away from "expert cartography artists" spending days and days making a map all colorful, 3d-ish and pretty. Seriously. I don't care how pretty the colors are. When I describe a "30' x 40' room with a 10' diameter fountain in the middle", what the players draw is four connecting lines and a circle in the middle on their graph paper. "Pro" cartographers are, IMHO, a total waste of time and money (sorry to all the pro cartographers out there...really...). Same goes for inside color-art. Stop the madness! Greyscale or b/w interior art is all you need. Next. Black and white, non-glossy pages. In other words...go look at 1e/BECMI modules. Do it that way.

Anyway...I'm rambling now. So...adventure modules, adventur modules and adventure modules. A 'splat book' that covers multiple things maybe once per year. Reduce the $$$ spent on art and cartography. Hell, if they really want to try it, start a seperate line for 5e modules called "Bare-Bones Adventures" that are done in basically the same way 1e modules were done...along with their 'fancy schmancy' full-color-glossy-page ones and see which sell better. I dare 'em...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Herschel]

But I digress. The bottom line...WotC needs to get away from trying to make money based on selling "hardcover rules supplements" and get back to shooting to "break even or make a couple bucks with adventures".

So committing business suicide is the solution?

 

[Nytmare]

I still think that one of the best answers I had heard, prior to the 5e announcement was some kind of collaborative effort where WOTC basically gave the D&D license to Paizo.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So committing business suicide is the solution?

If they only aim to break even through modules and similar support.

I can only comment from my limited point of view, but our modules make about 50-65% of what our core books do, but they are also much cheaper to produce (as well as less time consuming). I think a robust line of good modules, mixed with setting material and the occassional light supp, could be a winning angle for WOTC. Also because they are ging modular, they can release a ton of rules variations in ard cover without busting the core game. For example they could release a cinematic D&D book, a gritty old school book, a tactical war rule book, etc. I am sure there are endless varieties. What is great about this approach is the rules supplements they release intrude lesss into the core game. What is bad about it is the books are tailored to segments of the player base.

As a customer i am just not interested in the kind of spat line they had for 3E (not familiar enough with 4E to know if they went in that same direction). To attract me as a customer I will need more of a focus on setting, modules, etc. And any support books (say the complete book of elves) would need to be much more like the 2e books which did have mechanics but were primarily of interest because they provided info on elven culture and characters. So they were in my mind very much setting oriented books. The easiest way for them to lose me after the core is released is to churn out must-have splats loaded with prestige classes, powers/feats, spells and sprinkles of incidental flavor text. I want more substance in terms of setting and flavor.