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

[Desdichado]

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.

I'm sure it's beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm curious nonetheless wwhat you changed and what that in turn broke.

 

[Gryph]

With that I agree. And again, I feel WotC makes an appalling job of promoting D&D, at a small, large or worldwide level.

And so do an appalling job most of the publishing companies I know.

And I think this is the heart of the marketing disconnect at WoTC. I don't believe that Wizards considers themselves to be a publishing company. I believe they consider themselves to be a toy and game manufacturer and as such a lot closer to their parent company in business model than not.

I don't expect to see Bruce Cordell and Rob Schwalb on a national book tour after Next is released.

More to the point of the OP. I don't think WoTC has a responsibility to promote the hobby. I think they have a very pragmatic business incentive (more sales) to do so. This is a good thing, a business is much more likely to respond to the profit motive than to an ill-defined expectation from the customer base.

 

[S'mon]

I'm sure it's beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm curious nonetheless wwhat you changed and what that in turn broke.

I mostly don't even remember now - it was over ten years ago, ca 2000-2001. I do recall issues with Mongoose's Quintessential Fighter - feats, equipment et al. Changing a Quint feat 'Reckless Attack' from AC penalty/damage bonus to AC penalty/attack bonus interacted with Power Atack to work fine at 6th level but broke combat pretty decisively by ca 12th.

I think over the past few years I have learned how to tinker with 3e/Pathfinder without breaking it - level caps, E6, the Pathfinder Beginner Box, for instance. But back in 2000 I had no frame of reference for what worked.

Edit: By contrast I've recently been giving AD&D Fighters a damage bonus = to Level, replacing their attacks = level vs 0th-levellers power, and there have been no problems.

 

[Virel]

Marketing WotC product is 150% WotC's problem.

Pathfinder is the Premier RPG thanks to WotC.

WotC created the current mess & it is irrelevant because...

I still play AD&D, I have no problems finding players.

The best thing WotC could do is sell the brand name D&D to Pazio, then get out of RPG business and focus on WotC's card game.

 

[Gryph]

I don't think Gygax's writing really qualifies as rhetoric, but it's awfully hard to not call it florid.

His writing style was as much influenced by the works in appendix N as the rules of the game. The, largely, pulp writing in that bibliography was pretty florid as most of the writers were paid by the word and they tended to write as many words as they could get paid for.

 

[Ulrick]

How many ways is this false?

It isn't.

1: Rule Zero is in 3.X just as much as it is in any other edition. Although there is a slight difference. The difference is that the rules supplements in 3.X are marketed towards players rather than DMs. This is further disguised by the apparent ease of tinkering, especially with 4e. The AD&D rules out of the box need fiddling with (does anyone ever use the weapon vs armour type table?) whereas 3e and especially 4e can be run straight out of the box.

Then I'll just play any other edition besides 3.5e or 4e where I don't have to Rule Zero as much.

2: Calling D&D 4e bloated is strictly false. The engine running 4e is smoother, smaller, and cleaner than the one running 2e. Compare the skill system for one - 2e NWPs and Rogue Skills vs 4e skills. This is concealed by the power structure - only the powers people choose impact the game, but the 4e presentation of them is intimidating. And 4e very definitely does have option bloat but this is a different issue from rules bloat.

It is unstrictly true. It takes an hour to finish an average encounter. They planned it that way. Both rules and options have lengthened the average encounter--which is usually combat.

This is again strictly not true. The 4e power structure is AEDU - with the utility powers often but not always being used for combat; you might as well say that NWPs are about combat because they include blind fighting and fletching. Even if you have no non-combat utilities, a 4e character has more competence outside combat and more relationship to the rules than either a 3.X or AD&D character (a rogue with NWPs might come close in 2e). 3.X has one emergent significant problem outside combat - the nature of the skill point system makes you effectively incompetent. But other than for the rogue, AD&D is almost all combat and spell.

4e actually has non-rogues who can have specialties that others can't match outside combat without casting spells.

Most of the "U"s in 4e PHB, from what I've seen, are geared for combat or they're not effective outside of combat.

This is not only not true, it's also actively insulting.

Then that's not a problem with my argument.

Ironically if you want to replicate Appendix N, the game that works best is 4e. The Grey Mouser simply doesn't work in AD&D (he started out as a mage but doesn't cast spells) and the Gygaxo-Vancian casting on a daily cycle doesn't even work anything like Jack Vance - whereas the 4e AEDU fits quite a lot of fiction.

Like what fiction? Are you simulating fiction? or emulating fiction?

In which case you are not comparing like with like. You don't get to write a 2e caster on an index card. You get to write a 2e caster on an index card plus all the books actually containing the spells that you have to lug to the table. 4e pre-essentials makes everyone about as complex as a third level caster, then the "flow chart" nature is equivalent to having the spells all printed out for you so you don't actually have to lug the PHB, the Spell Compendium, and whatever else around with you. Post essentials I can and have written fighters out on an index card. (And if a character can be written out on an index card IME it works better to do that than go with the unnecessarily bloated sheet).

The problem isn't the character sheets - it's that they are badly presented, take up a vast amount of unnecessary space, and that you don't know how to read them.

I hope some of the above helps correct a few misconceptions.

It didn't. Because I didn't state any misconceptions. Nor was I speaking in absolutes.

But you're right, the problem isn't the 4e character sheets. But they are badly presented. And I do know how to read them, I just don't want to because stopped playing 4e in 2009.

Yes. Mostly because WotC have brought out three books so far this year (unless Mezzobarranan's out - and that's fluff only). Paizo have routinely brought out three books in a month.

Okay.

No they didn't. They tried to keep 3.5 in print. Now it's possible that they considered 3.5 to be a better game than 4e but Paizo were explicitely motivated by the GSL and keeping a version close to WotC's old game in print. 3.5 was, of course made by WotC and the differences with Pathfinder are only some very minor house rules.

Interesting.

And there was with 3.5. It had been falling apart for some time. But the release of 4e was botched in oh so many ways including throwing Orcus out, the Gleemax tragedy, the marketers who should be ashamed of themselves (especially Gamer Zero).

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.

He certainly is an Eternal Champion.

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.

Well, Lorraine took over around 1986. So I guess that means anything before that year still surpasses 4e. This includes iterations of D&D where characters could be written on index cards.

Which is fine by me.

 

[Leviatham]

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).

Can't agree more with you. Yet, the efforts I am seeing from WotC regarding DnD 5th feel more geared towards getting Pathfinder players back than to get new players.

Of course it is very early days and I am fairly cynical of WotC marketing, though I'll concede they're getting better at it. At least their PR company is now approaching podcasts to promote books, like RA Salvatore's latest one and they send some boardgames for review from time to time. Not sure how much that helps the RPG, but it's a step in the right direction.

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.

I have no idea how much money it made, to be honest. For me it was a shambles because the game wasn't good enough to justify $15 a month. IMO, if you launch a game at a price, it should be because you believe the game is worth $15 a month. When players consider it isn't and wait until the game is free to play, the game has failed. It might make more money now that's free, but that's not the benchmark I am measuring its success by.

True that there is little evidence to substantiate my claim. I am only claiming it on the basis of brand association. For example, if you like WoW and see the WoW boardgame, you're more likely to buy it than if you didn't like WoW in the first place.

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.

Well, a mild bump would be a lot better than nothing. Also it would help contribute to the general financial health of WotC and, hopefully, give them some incentive to promote the brand cross-products.

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).

I agree with that. And again it highlights that there is no marketing maturity in the industry. When a company that could actually afford to pay a good marketing director to bring it back onto the map doesn't bother, what are the odds of much smaller bands investing on it?

 

[jasper]

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.

Plus the need for editor. It was bad enough that spells from different casters had differ effects, but why some rules System shock were in one chapter, and other rules half way into the DMG.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It isn't.

Oh yes it is. /Panto

Then I'll just play any other edition besides 3.5e or 4e where I don't have to Rule Zero as much.

An ironic assessment given the original argument was about houserules and that it was indicated that you could houserule earlier games and that this advice was there. You've just reversed the goalposts, first saying that only TSR D&D encouraged you to make the game your own and now saying that you shouldn't use Rule Zero.

It is unstrictly true. It takes an hour to finish an average encounter. They planned it that way. Both rules and options have lengthened the average encounter--which is usually combat.

If by "rules" you mean "hit points", yes. A combat in 4e takes longer because in AD&D a standard goblin has IIRC 2 hit points - a level 1 non-minion 4e goblin has IIRC 27.

Hit point bloat is not the same as rules bloat - in terms of core rules, 4e is closer to oD&D than AD&D. It then adds options, but the rules remain simple and exception based.

Most of the "U"s in 4e PHB, from what I've seen, are geared for combat or they're not effective outside of combat.

Many are in the PHB - this proportion decreased over time. Without any non-combat utilities, you're still as competent as any non-casting AD&D character - utilities allow you to go above and beyond (which to be fair the thief is meant to be able to in 1e even if he took a stealth nerf in 2e with e.g. the downgrading of scale sheer surface to climb wall).

Like what fiction? Are you simulating fiction? or emulating fiction?

Emulating. In 4e the game ends up like a novel - in previous editions the game doesn't even resemble a D&D novel that closely.

But you're right, the problem isn't the 4e character sheets. But they are badly presented. And I do know how to read them, I just don't want to because stopped playing 4e in 2009.

I started playing 4e in 2009, and the game has improved massively since then.

Well, Lorraine took over around 1986. So I guess that means anything before that year still surpasses 4e. This includes iterations of D&D where characters could be written on index cards.

Which is fine by me.

You mean iterations like 4e?

The only characters in AD&D that could be written on index cards were non-casters. Fighters or thieves. If you wanted to be a caster, all you actually could fit on the index card beyond first level was the names of your spells and the page references. This is not your character - merely pointers.

In 4e you can write an Essentials fighter or Elementalist Sorceror on one side of an index card. A thief might take both sides - and I could probably manage most characters on that (most powers take about half a line each). (And it's one hell of a more usable format than the official character sheets for these classes).

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and Gents,

The title of this thread is not, "Which Edition is the Bestest of All!" Get it back to the topic, and away from edition warring.

Please take questions to e-mail or PM with one of the mods. Thanks, all.