Mike Mearls Talks (er, Tweets) About the Industry

I think history has proven Mike wrong. The problem is that D&D isn't a game. D&D is a framework that allows 5 players to make a game.

So if you like boardgames, you got lots of different games to choose from. If you like RPGs, you got lots of games to choose from. But those games are the things GMs do with D&D. My campaign is my own game I've developed. Your campaign is yours.

I think there's a market for lots of different RPGs in that sense. Because each gaming group playing D&D is running its own unique game, in their own homebrew setting with their own house rules.

But I don't think there's a market for different *frameworks*. I think there's demand for *a* framework, that players use to develop lots of different games.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am REALLY thinking Mearls and co are trying to tell us "don't expect more than APs" in terms of RPG books. Despite cries for supplements, additional rulesets, campaign settings, and the like, I am really thinking we aren't getting more than Two Forgotten Realms APs per year" as TTRPG support.

Mike's been telling us this very exact thing for the last nine months. You just haven't wanted to believe him.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think one of the market issues is that RPGs don't have the same short play loop that a board game has.

A board game lasts a few hours. A really long board game might last all day. Then the loop starts over. Every time the loop starts over, you have an opportunity to sell folks stuff: "On this loop, play with Expansion X!" is an easy way to add some variety and excitement, and you have enough loops that people who are hardcore about your game are interested in new stuff pretty early on. Even if your game's been out for a year, you could've had a dedicated table with MANY loops through that play experience.

A tabletop RPG doesn't have a short loop. Its loop runs on the order of years. Even a regular D&D group doesn't run 1-20 in one session. Heck, we're lucky if any group gets through 1-20 before breaking apart due to real life constraints. XP and character advancement are highly dependent on DM whims, and DMs tend to be conservative when awarding XP due to perceived "sweet spots" or trepidation for high-level play (which experience with pre-4e games would bear out).

This makes it difficult to restart the loop. New classes, new races, these things don't get used. If you've been playing in an ongoing game since the game's launch and WotC came out with 9 new classes tomorrow, you wouldn't be able to use any of them until 2016. The number of players playing a race from PotA is probably vanishingly small. You're still on the same game loop you started late last year. You aren't likely to start a new one any time soon. You're not finished with your current story.

Adventure modules have a slightly smaller game loop, though WotC's preference for mega-adventures hurts that. When you make a module that runs levels 3-20 or whatever, that's still going to take years to play through, especially given digressions and the like. Something that's more like a one-level adventure or a one-tier adventure might turn around slightly faster, but it's a smaller book, too, and still doesn't give you the sexy new character options that the fans seem to be demanding.

In the middle of a loop, you're not going to sell much (unless it is directly relevant to that loop).

Were I pondering what to release, I think I would focus on smaller adventures, with a higher turn-around time, and give free "support material" (like PotA) linked to them that focused on one or two unique things that the adventure highlights. Like, publish a boxed set that is a level 1-4 kobold cave, complete with creature cards and pogs and mapping aids and handouts. Publish a player's guide like with PotA that maybe gives a narrowly focused enhancement that features in the adventure - say, a kobold character race and a trapsmith rogue subclass. That's all we need for probably like 6 months. Then do another adventure, maybe a 5-10 orc encampment, similar idea. Make the loops smaller, and you can sell more stuff. Make the stuff super tactile - let me see the blood-stained letter from the dwarf, give me chips that represent treasure, all that stuff sounds juicy for in-person play.

It's more board-game-like, then, but still slower, and with an eye toward making the in-person play experience something really unique.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wonder if FATE and Savage Worlds are the start of the "Settlers" movement they referenced. GURPS games always had the GURPS name first, followed by whatever the subtitle was. The Dresden Files game runs on FATE, but it's first and foremost a Dresden Files game.

Personally, I'd love to see how that worked out for the D&D "brand management" they keep talking about. Release a "Forgotten Realms" game that's completely self-contained, but also complete and unique. Don't bother with the base elves, but go right to sun elves. If it works, try it with Eberron. If people are intent on including the shifter race in their game, they can pull it from Eberron just like a FATE Core group could yoink the Dresden magic system.

In light of the other "Mearls Said..." thread about psionics, I wonder if this approach might even help, there. Eberron includes psionics, but isn't deeply invested in them. Maybe the Eberron game (not setting, game) includes a Sorcerer sub-class or something similar that fills the low-end niche for psionics. Psionics is integral to Dark Sun, though. That game would have a fully developed psionics system that could easily replace magic.

That model would provide a potential "evergreen" product for each setting. If one of them (Forgotten Realms) proves to be more popular, then it can have expansions for just it. Core D&D could also see some expansions or adventures, but those would only guarantee compatibility with the core. It would be a bit like Risk, where you can play vanilla Risk, or you can pull out Star Wars, Halo, or Godstorm. Hasbro could (though I don't think they have) release an expansion for, say, Godstorm. Actually, even if they massively revamped the base rules for Risk, it wouldn't impact the playability of Star Wars Risk one bit or beg for a conversion.

Just make sure you have the right thing above the fold, so to speak.

The "multiple lines" thing was what TSR did back in the '80s and contributed to their downfall. It won't work. It takes too much time and manpower to design ,write, and produce multiple lines of "individual" games for all the different settings, all to grab an audience that is barely big enough to sustain itself. That's exactly why they produce the one core game with the "expansions" being the products for each setting (if and when they get around to producing them.)

As far as FATE or Savage Worlds starting the "Settlers" movement for RPGs, I'd disagree with that. Mainly because the Settlers et. al. style of "strategy-centric" board games completely supplanted that which came before them. "Gamers" started playing the Euro-games almost exclusively, and all the previous "populist" board games (like Monopoly, Clue, Stratego, Risk etc.) completely fell by the wayside for them. Those were still popular with families and the general population, but the hardercore "gamer" made a complete switch. Whereas we haven't seen a similar evolution of roleplaying gamers over to the FATE/Savage World style of RPG. That is still very much a niche. Now yes, the mechanics they (and other indie games) introduced involving things like "aspects" and the like, have been incorporated into other games... but the games themselves haven't supplanted the ones that came before. You'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the hardcore "gamers" of the RPG set have made the full transition over to FATE, Savage Worlds, or the other indie-style games. And in fact, I'd say that more hardcore roleplayers still play D&D and/or Pathfinder moreso than most other RPGs combined.

 

[Remathilis]

Mike's been telling us this very exact thing for the last nine months. You just haven't wanted to believe him.

Yes and no. While the publishing/merchandising arm has pretty much said "two APs, plus all the electronic variants you want" Mearls himself seems to muddy the water. On the one hand, the Eberron UA + feedback insinuates we're getting Eberron stuff at some point (otherwise, they are wasting their time on new warforged and artificers) which certainly goes against the "two FR AP" notion. Similar things with psionics.

All I can gather is WotC has NO idea how to go forward with D&D anymore, save biannual modules. They have lots of ideas (psionics, other settings, etc) but no clear vision on how to get said things to us.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You'd be hard-pressed to make the case that the hardcore "gamers" of the RPG set have made the full transition over to FATE, Savage Worlds, or the other indie-style games. And in fact, I'd say that more hardcore roleplayers still play D&D and/or Pathfinder moreso than most other RPGs combined.

I guess it depends on what you consider the 'hardcore' roleplayers. I think of them as the devoted hobbyists who are familiar with and try out many systems, are deep into game theory (both real and psuedo), and are always on top of the latest or most innovative RPGs.
While D&D is certainly the most-played of RPGs, I think that has more to do with it's status as first RPG, and RPG with mainstream name-recognition: most of us in the hobby start with D&D, many never move on from it, we often cycle back to it because it's comparatively available.

 

[Anselyn]

To me, the pachyderm squatting in the corner, is:

"yeah, current RPG fans have a script that plays out badly for publishers".

Is that the gamer identity trend to see oneself as a XXX-player rather than more globally as an RPGer. Boardgame clubs may meet weekly but the games will cycle round week-by-week with new games being tried and becoming favourites, or having a spell of popularity before waning with the old favourites appearing regularly. Not many clubs - I suggest - would be a Settlers BG club.

 

[Anselyn]

I think one of the market issues is that RPGs don't have the same short play loop that a board game has.
[...]
Were I pondering what to release, I think I would focus on smaller adventures, with a higher turn-around time, and give free "support material" (like PotA) linked to them that focused on one or two unique things that the adventure highlights. Like, publish a boxed set that is a level 1-4 kobold cave, complete with creature cards and pogs and mapping aids and handouts. Publish a player's guide like with PotA that maybe gives a narrowly focused enhancement that features in the adventure - say, a kobold character race and a trapsmith rogue subclass.

I think it needs to be even more of a mini-game than that. Something like:

THE KOBOLD KING

• This minigame uses the D&D /5e system
• Tag: Help Draco become the Kobold King by defeating the Bonecrunchers and their boss Boris.
• Characters: Eight pre-gens decide which four/five/... to play
• Playtime: ~ 10 hours. (2 -4 sessions depending on your gaming norms.)

No rules, no classes defined, play the character as written - or tweak it within certain parameters.

Next minigame, The Holy Hit Squad - when Archduke Alphonse called for help to save his kingdom the powers of good brought together an assorted collection of heroes from across the multiverse - now you have three days to ...

 

[TwoSix]

A tabletop RPG doesn't have a short loop. Its loop runs on the order of years. Even a regular D&D group doesn't run 1-20 in one session. Heck, we're lucky if any group gets through 1-20 before breaking apart due to real life constraints. XP and character advancement are highly dependent on DM whims, and DMs tend to be conservative when awarding XP due to perceived "sweet spots" or trepidation for high-level play (which experience with pre-4e games would bear out).

I think there's, while not exactly a catch-22, a bit of a contradiction between what people say what they want and what experience has borne out in terms of what they purchase. There's a certain cachet to long term games, and to playing games that take place over years, and I don't think the market is necessarily ready for a game that doesn't promote that as an explicit goal. But at the same time, people's actual campaigns rarely last longer than a year, according to most of the marketing surveys we've seen, and books that sell new crunch, new options for play, are always the best sellers.

I'm wondering if there's an issue with the current D&D setup where new powers and abilities are almost automatically presented as learned, integral to the character, and persistent with the character. Maybe a better model is a system where picking a class is merely a starting template, which gives you a few background abilities and a few combat options. Then the rest of the character's progression is tied to the acquistion of magic items, primarily consumable, and other boons earned through play. With enough experience, you might also earn stronger uses of your primary abilities.

I think the idea of selling adventures as almost like expansion packs makes a ton of sense. The closest example I can think of is actually 4e's Neverwinter campaign setting. While it still had races and classes, most of the heavy lifting of tying the characters to the adventure was done by the choice of the theme, which all had a story tied into the adventure, and the adventure was meant to be a limited sandbox, only going up to level 10. I could totally see an adventure for 5e being released every year that was pre-packaged with 8-10 new subclasses specifically designed for the adventure, and with 1 or 2 new races as well, and a whole slew of new magic items. This provides new crunch for people who want it, gives a starting point for new players every year, while not overwhelming people who want to play the traditional long-term campaign model.

This also reminds me of some conceptual space that TTRPGs would be wise to borrow from: MOBAs. I've been playing Heroes of the Storm recently, and I was thinking how many similarities to D&D it had. You play in a group of 5 people, all with radically different abilities, who are expected to work together to gain experience and learn new abilities by doing so. I can't help thinking MOBA style D&D would work very well with the idea of limited space adventures. The adventure gives you a bunch of different character types, all of whom have 2-3 unique abilities. You can customize them in appearance and backstory, and maybe with some mechanics borrowed from earlier releases. The characters obtain lots of different potions, wands, and scrolls during the adventure, and occasionally gain a powerful permanent item that's fairly character defining. Leveling gets you more hit points, and sometimes one of your character based abilities becomes more powerful, but that's pretty much it in terms of personal power advancement.

So yea, pretty much some sort of unholy love child of Talisman and League of Legends, where you retire your character after you finish the adventure pack and go to the new one. If you really like the characters, the DMG has guidelines to keep the game going.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I am REALLY thinking Mearls and co are trying to tell us "don't expect more than APs" in terms of RPG books. Despite cries for supplements, additional rulesets, campaign settings, and the like, I am really thinking we aren't getting more than Two Forgotten Realms APs per year" as TTRPG support.

And this is where I would have to say good-bye to this edition of D&D and move on to something else.

My time, what little I have of it, is precious to me when it comes to entertainment. I actually have to choose between playing video games and playing table top RPGs. Since I do have to choose both I have chosen table top, so I want to support a system that will support my needs and if 5th edition isn't going to do that then I know there are other systems that will and who will gladly take my money.

I just don't understand why one section of the brand has to suffer in order to feed the others. I figured a company like Hasbro/Wizards would be going all out in all aspects of the brand. You don't have to curve back to the point of going into a whole new direction on your product releases to satisfy this longevity goal. Stagnation can kill a product just as much as over bloating it.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

In the middle of a loop, you're not going to sell much (unless it is directly relevant to that loop).

Were I pondering what to release, I think I would focus on smaller adventures, with a higher turn-around time, and give free "support material" (like PotA) linked to them that focused on one or two unique things that the adventure highlights. Like, publish a boxed set that is a level 1-4 kobold cave, complete with creature cards and pogs and mapping aids and handouts. Publish a player's guide like with PotA that maybe gives a narrowly focused enhancement that features in the adventure - say, a kobold character race and a trapsmith rogue subclass. That's all we need for probably like 6 months. Then do another adventure, maybe a 5-10 orc encampment, similar idea. Make the loops smaller, and you can sell more stuff. Make the stuff super tactile - let me see the blood-stained letter from the dwarf, give me chips that represent treasure, all that stuff sounds juicy for in-person play.

It's more board-game-like, then, but still slower, and with an eye toward making the in-person play experience something really unique.

This is a pretty solid description. The big stories do work like this, in some regard. Each is its own loop, and has supplemental products. Some directly for the game, such as the miniatures, plus others such as MMO updates, comics, novels, etc.

Paizo does even more of this, offering all sorts of products in support of each adventure path, plus making each path six separate volumes. Each path is an entry point and an opportunity to spend money.

This aspect of the 5E model is solid. But, there are people who use material more quickly. Perhaps they mostly play a few levels at at time. Or they play in a lot of games. Something about their playstyle causes them to be able to consume content far more quickly.

As a DM who creates their own adventures, the loops are far smaller. Each session, in a way, is its own loop. I can consume lots of small adventures, plot ideas, monsters, magic items, and other tools used in adventure design.

There is still a gap that the big stories don't fill which isn't being addressed. At least, not by WotC. To some extent that's okay. And I do believe we'll see occasional products outside of the big stories. But he's right. It's in years 2 and 3 that a majority of players will be really interested in new material. Which would be a really good time for a published Unearthed Arcana.