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

[Console Cowboy]

No. Its worst in AD&D because the rules are obscured through flowery ornate language that shouldn't be there in the first place. In order to first be able to tinker with something one really must have a clear understanding of the rules which of course the way Gygax wrote wasn't entirely clear at all.

Admittedly, for you.

I would point out that after TSR, Gygax had the ever present threat of legal lawsuits pressuring and compromising his writing unlike any other game writer before or after.

 

[technoextreme]

Admittedly, for you.

No for pretty much anyone who is an avid reader will probably agree. RPGs are the only area where I have seen Gygax's writing style get praise instead of being slammed as being ostentatious drivel.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah but generally florid has negative connotations because it generally means overly ornate.

Yes, I know. I don't believe Gary Gygax to be a good writer.

 

[Desdichado]

The difference being that it’s considerably easier to “tinker” with AD+D. Taking out the “weapon vs. Armour” rules wholesale doesn’t substansially change anything, while taking something out of 4E inevitably leads to conflicts since everything it largely “linked together” by the rules. (Though not nearly as bad as 3.5, I will concede.)

If I'm understanding you correctly, I have to absolutely disagree. I know from a great deal of personal experience that the myth of the interlinkages in 3.5 making it hard to houserule is just that: a myth, with no basis whatsoever in fact.

 

[S'mon]

Ironically if you want to replicate Appendix N, the game that works best is 4e.

I definitely agree with that; IME 4e is a great game for creating an experience reminiscent of fantasy fiction; whether literary or cinematic. It's not so good for world-simulation-oriented play I find; arguably this makes it a more limited game than 0e-3e, but it's great at what it does.

 

[S'mon]

Also Justin Alexander is a regular edition warrior - he writes interesting things on the way he plays, but outside that should probably be ignored - especially on the subject of 4e.

This is a place where 4e blows anything D&D has produced since Lorraine Williams took over out of the water. It has combat scene structures, non-combat scene structures (the skill challenge, and yes the guidance could use work), and quest structures (as for an Adventure Path) complete with guidance on how much treasure to give and the sort of quests to write. (Gygaxian D&D had the dungeon of course). Yes, the dungeon structure is a tight one and the quest is a loose one - but it's there. And dealt with in great detail in the 4e DMGs.

Hopefully even Justin Alexander would accept that 4e D&D is still a 'complete structure' game, although it lacks some of the content-generation tools of earlier editions. I do think it's amazing how many RPGs are put out incomplete-structure, expecting the GM to basically create his own game with just some PC-side rules to get him started.

 

[thewok]

WotC does have a responsibility, yes. I think, though, that WotC is actually stepping up and taking care of it. The problem is us, the players, as a whole.

WotC has a special program designed to attract new gamers: Encounters. Its entire purpose is to draw new players to the hobby, while at the same time introducing them to a source for the game materials. The problem comes when the grognards show up and start disparaging the game. "Fourth Edition isn't D&D." "Fourth Edition sucks." "You should be playing Pathfinder." "Play a real RPG."

For some reason, it's not enough that people are in the hobby enjoying themselves, but they must also play the right game, even if they, for whatever reason, don't like it. And if they don't like it, they're worthless people, their opinions don't matter, and whatever other denigrating thing these people believe.

It doesn't matter if people play Fourth Edition, Second edition, Third edition, Pathfinder, Vampire the Masquerade, Vampire the Requiem, Champions, Mutants and Masterminds, Gamma World, Shadowrun, Traveler, Star Wars D6, Star Wars D20, Star Wars Revised, Star Wars Saga, whatever the FFG Star Wars game will be called, or whatever. The important thing is to get people playing. Then, we can introduce them to other things.

"You like elves and stuff? Ever think about what the world might be like if elves, dwarves, orks and trolls were real? What if magic was real? And what if this all happened in a near-future world where large corporations are run like their own countries, the Internet has evolved into an all-encompassing Matrix, and people enhance themselves with cybernetics? Sounds awesome, right? Let me tell you about this game I like. I think you'll enjoy it, too ...."

 

[S'mon]

If I'm understanding you correctly, I have to absolutely disagree. I know from a great deal of personal experience that the myth of the interlinkages in 3.5 making it hard to houserule is just that: a myth, with no basis whatsoever in fact.

I found the opposite - I had such a terrible time house-ruling 3.0 D&D that I started referring to it as a 'house of cards' game - change one thing and it all comes tumbling down. I still think it's a very brittle system. Obviously YMMV.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, I know. I don't believe Gary Gygax to be a good writer.

Gygax was, in his way, a colorful writer. Whether colorful is good depends upon the reader.

 

[WizarDru]

The issue I see with most (if not all) marketing schemes that games companies put into place is that they're terribly inneficient. I am also talking from the point of view of the UK, btw. I don't have enough information about what marketing happens in the USA (and I am not including mentions in series like A Town Called Eureka and the like. Although they're handy, they're far from sufficient).

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Effective marketing has always been the problem. The D&D brand, in North America at the very least, is well established and a household name. But far fewer people have ever actually played the game than are aware of it. Mentions in stuff like Warehouse 13 or Eureka unfortunately are preaching to the converted. I would be very surprised if anyone watching those shows (and similar material) wouldn't be at least tangentially aware of what D&D is and what it is vaguely like.

The problem for WotC is the same one faced by many brands and items...getting individuals aware of their brand to actually purchase their product. And the problem here is that we don't really any good dependable way to do that. Selling an RPG to a person who is only vaguely interested is far, far harder than selling a specific brand of food or drink to someone who was already inclined to try that type of food or drink. Selling Jameson's Whiskey to a beer drinker is like selling tabletop D&D to someone who enjoys Wow. It's possible, but not easy. One could argue that 4E was exactly how WotC was attempting to enact that strategy (their success in that endeavour is another discussion entirely).

I think the shambles that was DDO hurt the tabletop game quite a lot. Alas, when a brand loses credibility (like D&D lost with DDO) the loss spreads around and people who went from tabletop to videogame for convenience, didn't have the slightest incentive to go back to tabletop (they still probably don't in their majority).

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'the shambles that was DDO'. Are you discussing that it was unsuccessful as a game or unsuccessful financially? If the former, that's a valid opinion. For myself and my friends, we enjoyed the game...but not enough to spend $15/month with it. When it went Free-to-Play, however, it was a substantial financial success. They were the first MMO to adopt that model and tripled their membership virtually overnight. It wasn't just a success, it was a smash hit for Turbine, with revenue increasing by 5 times. Regardless, I don't think there's a lot of evidence that DDO's execution helped or hindered the success of D&D as a tabletop game. The actual subscriber numbers have only ever reached about 2 million (and we don't know how many are duplicate accounts, gold farmers or what have you). When you consider WoW has had over 12 million active subscribers at it's peak, it's clear the DDO probably has hurt the tabletop game far less than Blizzard, IMHO.

If there were another Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate (and I don't mean the relaunch) or Planescape: Torment, we'd probably see an increase in tabletop sales. At least that'd be my prediction.

I tend to doubt that, honestly. Follow-on sales like that rarely actually materialize. Ask most comic book shop owners how much of a bump a superhero movie gives to the actual comics upon the movie is based, for example. You'll find that other than a mild bump for one issue (with the exception of the Watchmen graphic novel, which has been in print for 25 years), most comics see no carry-on effects or new readers. It's likely, for example, that more people watched the D&D cartoon as kids (or now on syndication on basic cable) than have ever played the game.

I think that RPGs in general need to emphasize their strengths against their various competitors...the things that make tabletop RPGs a superior experience to other forms of entertainment to their fans. WotC has tried marketing like this in the past but often failed (I recall a print-ad campaign that appeared to disparage MMORPGs that ended up irritating more than enticing...when a large number of your customers enjoy BOTH things, insulting them about one of them is not a great idea, IMHO).