Not Reading Ryan Dancy

[RyanD]

Oh, and D&D isn't the most powerful brand in fantasy adventure gaming, that's "Warcraft", as in "world of", as in "you can't beat it at it's own game, don't even try".

If they take no action, WotC will let the above become truth. Today, it is not truth. WoW has a lot of players, but there's very little brand equity in it; it mostly means "a MMORPG". D&D, over 35 years, has a vastly wider audience, across a wide demographic, a diverse psychographic, and it has been successfully leveraged into movies, video games, and novels, as well as its original application as a tabletop RPG.

Give them 10 more years, and Blizzard will solidify their brand and D&D will lose that race forever. But the race is still running as we debate, and it is far from lost.

Ryan

 

[DaveMage]

I honestly don't think WotC's R&D group believed the changes in 3.5 were as big as they actually were. Part of the problem with R&D is and was that they for the most part are not into min/maxing PCs. (They spend most of their days working on monsters and NPCs, after all).

Interesting.

When you were there, did WotC market research indicate what percentage of gamers play with a min/max style?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

First things first, he'd actually have to work for the company that's going to eventually be releasing a new version of the main game.

Secondly, you'd have to promise to buy enough extra copies of the game to make up for the new players of the game that WOTC would lose by NOT building in some sort of MMO tie-in.

An MMO tie-in, if done well, would be a huge opportunity for WOTC to vastly increase the number of people that actually play the game. And, as much as grognards would hate it, that would probably be good for the hobbie in the long run.

So the best thing for tabletop gaming would be to take it off the tabletop?

 

[RyanD]

what was it that happened with GAMA?

I made a really bad decision. I discovered that the GAMA board of directors was using email list management software that published their correspondence to a public website, and after making that discovery, I monitored that list (i.e., I read their private email) without telling them that it was possible to do so. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable tactic in a heated political battle; the Board was actively engaged in a variety of actions I felt had the immediate potential to destroy the organization if they were not held accountable and were actively engaged in efforts to conceal information from the public and from GAMA's own members. In retrospect, the information gained proved trivial, and was far outweighed by the unethical act which provided that information. One of the first things I did following the election in which I was named GAMA Treasurer was to notify the Board about the security leaks, the Board disclosed that information to the GAMA Members and the previous Board members, and after substantial debate, I tendered my resignation so as to limit the fallout of my actions. I hoped that my resignation would firewall the matter and let the rest of the Board get on with the work they had been elected to perform. Unfortunately, they never recovered their momentum and the potential for good was lost.

What sort of shape is GAMA in now?

It's in worse shape than it could be, but it is not as bad off as it might have become. They have a lot of challenges to overcome due to changes in the marketplace, and they have had a hard time communicating to the publishers the value of GAMA membership. I certainly share part of the blame for that condition.

Do you have any connection with Games Quarterly that is now so vigorously competing with GAMA to be the primary national convention for game manufacturers (Games Expo 2007)?

I occasionally write for GC, and I'll be attending the Expo in a non-official capacity (although I may be moderating a panel or two). I don't see what Mark Simmons is doing with his show as being necessarily bad for GAMA, or GAMA's Trade Show; GAMA is focsed on "the hobby gaming industry" and Games Expo has a wider focus - anyone who makes or sells games of any kind. I see the two as complimentary in many respects.

Ryan

 

[Glyfair]

So the best thing for tabletop gaming would be to take it off the tabletop?

I'm not sure exactly what Ryan is looking for here. However, I do think it could be a good idea would be to design it so that the ability to use these things is part of the game. I shouldn't be required, but it should be there (sort of like the TVs that started being designed "cable ready" before cable was in almost every home).

 

[RyanD]

When you were there, did WotC market research indicate what percentage of gamers play with a min/max style?

Roughly 20%. You can read all about it at:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Ryan

 

[DaveMage]

Roughly 20%. You can read all about it at:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

Ryan

Thanks!

 

[RyanD]

So the best thing for tabletop gaming would be to take it off the tabletop?

I'd like to see a game that you can play either on the tabletop, or on the computer. Ideally, you could move characters back and forth between the tabletop and the digital realm, but that might be impossible. You should certainly be able to use one unified toolset to create adventure content that would work both on the tabletop and in the digital realm.

I'd move the game to a subscription service, with a marketplace for adventure content that 3rd party developers could tap into, and an open development model for the rules of the game and for game components, to maximize the value of everyone who would be interested in participating in that process.

I could see people playing with nothing more complex than some dice and some books, and other people playing a 100% digital game with no real-world component of any kind; and both groups would be playing basically the same game -- as well as several hybridized points along that continuum.

I think that the depth and quality of the rules, the value of the various worlds, and the strength of the community of people who would be interested in developing content would let D&D kick any competitive game system in the nuts, hard.

 

[Mark CMG]

I made a really bad decision.

Fair enough for me. Thanks for being so forthcoming.

It's in worse shape than it could be, but it is not as bad off as it might have become. They have a lot of challenges to overcome due to changes in the marketplace, and they have had a hard time communicating to the publishers the value of GAMA membership.

Would you outline their course much differently than you did while you were trying to affect those changes from within?

I occasionally write for GC, and I'll be attending the Expo in a non-official capacity (although I may be moderating a panel or two). I don't see what Mark Simmons is doing with his show as being necessarily bad for GAMA, or GAMA's Trade Show; GAMA is focsed on "the hobby gaming industry" and Games Expo has a wider focus - anyone who makes or sells games of any kind. I see the two as complimentary in many respects.

It seemed to me that the Expo was attempting to envelop "the hobby gaming industry" focus as part of its larger focus, eliminating a need for GAMA's trade show. Have you heard anyone mention that they would have to be choosing between the two, as funds are too limited to do both? The Expo certainly has walked into the attention of the industry and sat right down on GAMA's yearly time slot and location, no?

 

[Banshee16]

Not to pick nits, but this depends on how you define "investment". From a business perspective, an "investment" is not something that necessarily increases in value (or is expected to increase in value) over time. When a business invests in a machine (and "invest" is the proper term), it does not expect to sell it in 10 years at a profit. An investment in this sense is something that makes you money, or provides some benefit, over a long period of time.

So an RPG collection is an investment - sure you may "lose money" if you resell it, but between the time you bought it and the time you sold it, you *used* it, and had fun with it. And that has value. Value that's hard to attach a number to, but value nonetheless.

In my mind, that's why it's an entertainment purchase, and not an investment. Maybe it's because I have so many accountants in the family that I'm just looking at it a little more critically.

And I don't say any of this to disparage those who buy the books....because I've got tonnes of them as well. However, edition changes lead to older stuff becoming fairly useless, hence I prefer them to be stretched out as long as possible.

Banshee