Pathfinder 1E Question for the Paizo folks regarding D&D's state of today

[Solvarn]

Point taken, and I agree; there will always (or for several decades, at least) be a niche for old-fashioned tabletop. But in the age of digital D&D, it may not be a niche that can support more than a handful of shoestring producers. Paizo, for instance, would likely be unable to continue at anything like its present scale.

If WotC is trying to create a new market for tabletop simulation their best bet would be to give it as much exposure as possible. This would be accomplished by creating an "online gaming store."

People would ideally be able to go in and play any number of tabletop games, from Pathfinder to Traveller to 4E.

There would be third party publishers and artists that could create intellectual property in this closed market, like virtual miniatures, voice sampling, and adventure creation. WotC could position themselves to take a small percentage off of each of these transactions, in addition to a modest subscription fee. They could sell their own products and offerings next to others in the industry, as they do now. In fact, they could leverage Hasbro's intellectual property board games and cut out the middleman and turn a decent profit as well.

A system like this would enrich the hobby and increase the success of the venture overall.

The problem with WotC is that at a fundamental level, decision makers do not understand gamers. In my experience gamers seldom have intrinsic loyalty to a particular brand. They are looking for an experience. Their loyalty is to gaming, and they most often have tried several types of systems in their time spent gaming. In addition, even the most diehard brand loyalist gets tired of their brand. I'm ready for something different than 4E D&D myself right now, I think I might try a post apoc sci-fi game if I can get the players. I think the 3.0 OGL taught us that; I think that the hobby would have been much better off had 4E been more inclusive to other influences. Unless you are a diehard anti-capitalist you understand competition increases value for the customer.

Imagine that you have all of your retirement income right now sitting in a bank account. Based on the previous electronic offerings WotC has put out and the fact that they will be the only show in town with their tools, how much of your retirement income are you going to invest in that venture?

Tabletop gaming would be much better served in an environment where profits for shareholders aren't such a pressing concern, but in today's marketplace the consumer expects products and polish that are difficult to deliver without outside investment and stakeholder expectations for profit.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Imagine that you have all of your retirement income right now sitting in a bank account. Based on the previous electronic offerings WotC has put out and the fact that they will be the only show in town with their tools, how much of your retirement income are you going to invest in that venture?...

Not true. The tools on WotC's DDI are not the only tools in town, they're just the only "official" tools. Also, 4E isn't even the only game in town - and when compared to all gamers combined, probably not even the majority.* There are lots of other virtual table-tops - though I'll grant that none are coupled to the official character builder and rules compendium - but they are out there. And when it comes right down to it, you can pretty much play any game or edition that has miniatures combat rules on just about any virtual table-top program. A virtual table-top with official 4E support is far from a necessity. The only exclusivity that DDI has is in the character builder and compendium, and unless one is playing 4E, these aren't even a factor.

*Compared to any other individual game, 4E may have the most players, but compared to players of all RPG's, I'd highly doubt it's even close to a majority.

 

[BryonD]

Prove it. You have a gut feeling of how long online groups last but you have no more hard information than I do. I don't actually think online groups break up any more often than tabletop ones do. Looking at sites like Obsidian Portal and Myth Weavers, there do seem to be an awful lot of groups that last about a year or two, same as tabletop.

Typical, your claims about the life expectancy of table top proves that there is an advantage to online. But, since there were reasonable rebuttals, those were offered to you rather than hollow demands of "prove it". Now the shoe is on the other foot and you don't have anything better to offer.

So, no, I wouldn't agree that the best of tabletop will be better than the best of online, nor do I think the average will necessarily be better.

Now it is just down to your perception. And, by your own admission your experience with tabletop has been problematic.

You started a whole other thread based on your recognition that online is widely perceived as inferior to tabletop. So you can't begin to claim that your position is the standard. So if we do nothing more than count noses, it is hard to conclude that you have the full assessment. Now, if we move on and consider that you have established that not all things are equal then we are left with the conclusion that more people have an opposing view to yours AND many of those people have a better basis of comparing both sides of the equation. So it seems a slam dunk that taking the opinion of a lot of well informed people is a better bet then taking the opinion of a few people with skewed data.

I certainly know that I have participated in some great online games. I also know that I have participated in great tabletop games. And without in any way taking away from the online experience, tabletop is a whole different tier.

If it is about nothing but your opinion, that's fine. I've got no dispute there. But the conversation seems to be much more about overall perception. The experiences of other people will not change just because you would like to have your personal opinion validated.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The problem with WotC is that at a fundamental level, decision makers do not understand gamers. In my experience gamers seldom have intrinsic loyalty to a particular brand. They are looking for an experience. Their loyalty is to gaming, and they most often have tried several types of systems in their time spent gaming. In addition, even the most diehard brand loyalist gets tired of their brand. I'm ready for something different than 4E D&D myself right now, I think I might try a post apoc sci-fi game if I can get the players. I think the 3.0 OGL taught us that; I think that the hobby would have been much better off had 4E been more inclusive to other influences. Unless you are a diehard anti-capitalist you understand competition increases value for the customer.
/snip

I think you are mistaken there. I think that the majority of gamers do have intrinsic loyalty to particular brands. They might try a new game, but, by and large, will stick to one game above all others.

Heck, try selling a new system to your current group and see the reaction. I've met a lot of players who are simply not interested in learning new systems. Granted, that's anecdotal, but, I think there's far more groups and players out there that stick to one (or maybe two) games for most of their games.

 

[Hussar]

Typical, your claims about the life expectancy of table top proves that there is an advantage to online. But, since there were reasonable rebuttals, those were offered to you rather than hollow demands of "prove it". Now the shoe is on the other foot and you don't have anything better to offer.

Umm what? No, I said that it is easier to get a group together online than in real life. I never said anything about the life expectancies until you brought it up. You have no more hard numbers about that than I do, so, anything we say is pure speculation. You flat out stated that online games have a shorter half life than face to face ones.

I never stated anything one way or another.

You are the one making assertions, and, as usual, refusing to back it up with anything resembling a fact.

Now it is just down to your perception. And, by your own admission your experience with tabletop has been problematic.

Actually, I've again done nothing of the sort. For someone who is so hardcore about people understanding their point, you seem to be going out of your way to misinterpret what I'm saying. I wonder why?

I have had issues with various DM's, sure, but, I never stated whether those DM's were face to face or online. In actual truth, it would be both. But, no, my experiences with face to face gaming have been largely positive. And, I've been pretty open about the issues I've had with online (flakey players being a big one).

You keep trying to paint this as if I'm saying that online is the single best way of gaming. I have no idea where this is coming from, other than your own personal biases about the poster, rather than the post.

You started a whole other thread based on your recognition that online is widely perceived as inferior to tabletop. So you can't begin to claim that your position is the standard. So if we do nothing more than count noses, it is hard to conclude that you have the full assessment. Now, if we move on and consider that you have established that not all things are equal then we are left with the conclusion that more people have an opposing view to yours AND many of those people have a better basis of comparing both sides of the equation. So it seems a slam dunk that taking the opinion of a lot of well informed people is a better bet then taking the opinion of a few people with skewed data.

Did you actually read that thread? Yes, there are some people who consider online play to be inferior, but, most actually don't. They consider it different, but, not inferior. That's a gross distortion of what's being said. Again, what are you trying to gain by such blatant misreading of what's being said.

I certainly know that I have participated in some great online games. I also know that I have participated in great tabletop games. And without in any way taking away from the online experience, tabletop is a whole different tier.

If it is about nothing but your opinion, that's fine. I've got no dispute there. But the conversation seems to be much more about overall perception. The experiences of other people will not change just because you would like to have your personal opinion validated.

Again, for someone who complains so bitterly about being misread, I really have to wonder why you would so obviously deliberately misinterpret everything I've posted. What motivates you so much as to actively spend this much time rebutting straw men that I never said.

Again, just so we're absolutely clear, I am NOT SAYING THE FOLLOWING

• Online gaming is superior to tabletop.
• Online game have better half lives than tabletop.
• Online groups have better half lives than tabletop
• There are no differences between online games and tabletop.
• Online games are superior to tabletop.
• I am better looking than Brad Pitt

On the other hand, I am SAYING THE FOLLOWING

• It is easier to gather a group for VTT play than tabletop.
• RPG's need to embrace tabletop play in order to find new markets.
• VTT's make it easier to find groups that share your playstyle.
• Scheduling a game is easier with a VTT

Now, I've made that about as crystal clear as I possibly can. Can we please, please, stop with your constant pissing and moaning about the poster and actually get to the bloody point, BryonD?

 

[pawsplay]

I have been in online games that were awesome. In fact they offer some advantages: no time wasted driving, big male dudes playing lithe female elves with more believability, and being able to use images and space in cool new ways. But overall, face to face gaming is half a scoop MORE awesome. Most people find face to face contact more intrinsically satisfying in the first place. If you want to create a product for 2020 to blow me away, create a computerized erase mat that allows me to display graphics on my kitchen table. Heck, we'll videoconference anyone in who lives too far away, although their experience is likely to be the less exciting one. I reject the notion that The Future means a bunch of mouse potatoes Skypeing; did we come this far as a civilization in order to be satisfied with isolation and laziness?

If I were WotC, I would view D&D as a specialty product, one that is not likely to generate huge margins on its own. However, it would act as an incubator for IPs I would spin off into other areas. D&D could support and probably really could benefit from a D&D miniatures game again; they couldn't quite make it work before, but that doesn't mean the idea itself isn't doable. I think they came close. Definitely, a solid MMO ... or three! Frankly, DDO is doing well as a freebie because it didn't quite stand up as a paying game. Plus, Eberron... that seemed like it was going to be important at one time, but in the long run, it's just one flavor of 3e, and one whose enthusiasm probably hasn't carried over into 4e the way some people thought it would. So you make several MMOs, each with a slightly different nature. The D&D brand is big. You could have one where people quested and decorated their houses and such. You could have another, maybe a Dark Sun game, with a more action RPG feel to it and big, WoW-style landscapes. Greyhawk is a nostalgia setting, so why not marry it to a nostalgia MMO experience? Classic MMO style, lots of grinding and rare loots and end-game raids against Iuz and the like.

Why is there no modern D&D cartoon on cable? What about, oh, D&D action figures? These ideas take money but I'm having trouble imagining Hasbro had some other purpose in acquiring WotC; if all they wanted was the card business, I bet they could have bought that.