Re-booting D&D with a new edition - how necessary is it?

[Lanefan]

They tried this already back in the 1990's, with the proliferation of settings during the 2E AD&D era.

Look where it got them in 1997. They're not likely to try it again.

Why not? There are two significant differences between 1997 and now: the market today is bigger, and the people at the company's helm today are at least somewhat competent.

Lanefan

 

[ggroy]

Why not? There are two significant differences between 1997 and now: the market today is bigger

Are you sure? Which market specifically?

Is there an objective measure which shows this is indeed the case?

and the people at the company's helm today are at least somewhat competent.

If they were to do that today, first they would have to convince their superiors that they can do a better job than their predecessors back in the mid-1990's. Today, something like this would most likely have to be approved by Bill Slavicsek and his superiors at WotC and Hasbro.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Necessary... for what? Before we can say if it is necessary, we need to be clear about the goal. What we think is a reasonable goal may not make business sense for a company WotC's size.

I thought that was clear in context of the thread as a whole: given that the core rules for any given RPG tend to be the biggest sellers in the line (because they're the books most needed for play), re-invention is a simple and effective way of refreshing an RPG's income stream because it creates a whole new set of core rulebooks.

Now, if your game is the 800lb gorilla in the market, a reboot may not be strictly necessary (IMHO, exhibit #1 would be 3.5Ed), but may still make business sense if market share is eroding in a significantly identifiable way. (Was there any real competition for 3.5Ed?- I don't know.)

OTOH, simple revisions may be sufficient to keep a market leader in position, generating a steady stream of revenue. (See M:tG, most video game or movie series.)

As I said, though, I'm sure there are other ways to keep a RPG company afloat, such as having a diverse product line of settings or even other RPGs to offer. WotC has tried diversification before, such as having both Primal Order and Everway in print at the same time as M:tG...but at the time, WotC was a small (but growing) company which probably had a cash-flow problem, so both PO and Everway were discontinued in favor of M:tG. They then added Pokemon, and ultimately gobbled up D&D...and got gobbled up by Hasbro in turn.

With their current financial health, they probably could diversify their RPG line. However, they probably still remember the lessons of WotC's early days when diversification could have sunk the company...and may be gunshy about trying that again without the kind of built-in market you get from licensed settings (Star Wars, Dragonlance, etc.). As such, they've stuck to D&D with multiple settings + a reboot schedule.

Its a solid business model. It works for D&D, HERO, GURPS and others, I'm sure. Its just not the only possible business model.

 

[brainstorm]

I think one of the biggest flaws in the business model is the lack of training material or support for growing the base of dungeon masters. After all, you can have all kinds of people wanting to play a game, but without a DM, there is no game. Unless WotC changes the game so that a DM is unnecessary (another possible avenue they may eventually explore), they need more DMs out there williing to run games. So, how do they do that? Sure the DMGs have good information for beginner and experienced DMs, however if someone has the desire to DM, but is too intimidated or nervous to start up a game, the information in the DMGs does little to help. Instructional videos would go a long way to showing how DMs run games. These could and should be available on the WotC website's DM page (the Robot Chicken video podcasts with DM commentary was a step in that direction). Set up DM workshops at conventions, offer incentives to FLGS to have DM workshops. Have DM training webcasts streaming live with interactive Q&A. Have a mentoring program, where an experienced DM works with an aspiring DM to run their first game. Have contests where DMs submit audio or video recordings of their sessions and the best are recognized or rewarded in some way, maybe allowed to participate in one of the Penny Arcade or other Celebrity D&D podcasts, or get an opportunity to contribute to Dragon or Dungeon magazines.

Not sure how feasible any of this is, but the bottom line is that if get more people out there willing to run games, you'll get more players.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

brainstorm
Unless WotC changes the game so that a DM is unnecessary (another possible avenue they may eventually explore), they need more DMs out there williing to run games. So, how do they do that?

I think online is probably the way to go, possibly through DDI, and fully utilizing the potential of the tools they merely thought they perfected.

Just as a frex, I could envision WotC setting up certain players they vet as online DMs, running games online in real time for groups that have no DM. This would be a service that would be paid for via subscription, and ideally, should make full use of all those computer generated thingies they demonstrated during the 4Ed rollout.

There would be an additional service offered in conjunction with this in which tutorials are offered based on those same sessions, in a kind of "over the DM's shoulder" POV, possibly with additional commentary.

 

[Stormonu]

After all, you can have all kinds of people wanting to play a game, but without a DM, there is no game.

I think this, though it may be one of the greatest strengths of an RPG, is also its greatest weakness. A DMless version of D&D (somewhat like we are seeing with the D&D boardgames) would help some groups get rid of that most tedious chore of the DM - game preparation. On the nonplus side, a DMless game is always in some ways more restrictive than a normal game.

For simple adventures, "one-shots" where the DM is too tired or frazzled or for groups that just want a quick'n'easy game, this might be a handy tool.

Imagine for example an "electronic DM" - log into the DDI, select an adventure and it displays/plays some introductory text and a room map and initial creature placement. As the characters explore the adventure, it doles out any surprises that occur in later rounds and after battles it moves you to the next decision point. Or perhaps packaged on a DVD/Blu-Ray that presents the adventure's "boxed" text, displays a room map and then loops some music until you are ready to move to the next decision point.

The adventures could be a simple dungeon crawl or more story-like, like Scourge of Worlds. Perhaps a few of the ol' classics could be done up this way; I could certainly see this being done with, say, Tomb of Horrors, maybe even as complex as Ravenloft (complete with "Strahd's Opportunities" and the placement of items based on a Tarrakota draw). Heck, pulling off Red Hand of Doom might be possible.

If the production qualities are not as atrocious as say, Dragonstrike, this might also double as a teaching tool. Some may wonder why you wouldn't just make this into a full-fledged video game, but it's strength could be in fomenting group play and may even appeal to some of the video game crowd/TTRPG crowd as a hybrid sort of game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, what Stormonu describes is entirely feasible...isn't that called a CRPG or MMORPG?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Of course, what Stormonu describes is entirely feasible...isn't that called a CRPG or MMORPG?

Not really, I believe he is describing a hybrid. A computer platform desgined for mostly tabletop style play with a DM but can be run with a DMbot.

 

[DragonLancer]

The last thing we want to do is put the game further online. We need to get players sitting together around a table interacting in person and being social. This applies to new players and old.

 

[Mercurius]

And I think this is why WotC went ahead and created 4E... because they screwed themselves longterm by creating the OGL for 3E.

Yes, true. It is really too bad - it was a bold experiment but it ended up creating its own end. The release date of 4E was likely directly caused by the existence of the OGL itself; it may be that if there had been no OGL, or a more limited form of the OGL, 4E would have been delayed by a couple years.

However... now that they've fixed the problem and created a whole new game with new game engine that isn't open to be used by everybody else... they now have the possibilities to create product all to themselves. And we're seeing them use it to create offshoots of 4E like the Castle Ravenloft boardgame and Gamma World. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to eventually see a 4E Modern rpg... a 4E Superheroes rpg... a 4E space rpg and/or board game etc. etc.

I hope you are right. WotC has not been forthcoming as to what its plans are, or what we might see for 4E after Essentials comes out. Are we going back to the one-hardcover-a-month cycle? Or are they playing wait and see with Essentials and maybe expanding the line with digest softcovers and box sets? I honestly have no idea, and maybe they don't either, but just have a few possible courses depending how well Essentials sell.

Necessary... for what? Before we can say if it is necessary, we need to be clear about the goal. What we think is a reasonable goal may not make business sense for a company WotC's size.

I know you aren't asking me, but I originally used the term in reference to company size, viability, and sustainability. In other words, is a new edition necessary to keep WotC at a similar size, profitable, and from going into steep decline.

It is my view that some kind of new edition is necessary. Some have said that just revised versions every few years with possible expansions in other directions - card games and other "gimmicks," DDI, board games, further adventures and campaign settings, etc. I honestly wonder how long that works until a company like WotC "needs" a re-boot. I mean, as I said elsewhere, how many face lifts could Roger Moore possibly have had before a new Bond was necessary to revive the franchise?

If and when 5E comes out we probably won't see the same kind of radical change that we saw with 4E, for at least two reasons: 1) Public Relations and damage control, and 2) 4E has a more modular core to build from, so it could easily be ported over into 5E while changing some of the tangentials.

So I think we'll still see some kind of 5E in 2014 or 2015, because it is the most lucrative thing for WotC to do, but they'll find some way to minimize the controversy; e.g. "Fully Backwards Compatible with 4E!" They seem to have done a pretty good job with Essentials, which is generally being embraced and probably will sell quite well.

Another option would be for WotC to add a tool to DDI that allows quick and easy conversion of monsters and characters across editions. That would certainly please fans.

OTOH, simple revisions may be sufficient to keep a market leader in position, generating a steady stream of revenue. (See M:tG, most video game or movie series.)

Do you think that a company the size of WotC, let alone Hasbro, is content with simply remaining "in position, generating a steady stream of revenue?" The game designers themselves are probably fine with this, but not the bigwigs, and certainlly not Hasbro. I am not a business type, but I imagine that most medium to large businesses want to find new ways to make profit; in the case of a company like WotC, this is in fits and starts. You come out with a new edition and you make tons of money, then the profits start dwindling until you come out with a new idea like Essentials. But in order to get those big spikes in money you either have to come out with a new edition or a major innovation; I'm sure WotC is trying to come up with innovations, probably in relation to DDI, but the clock is ticking and at some point they have to show their hand to Hasbro and if they don't have anything, a new edition will probably be called for.

That's the business side. In terms of the game itself, of "game evolution," you are probably right that revisions every five years or so would be enough considering that RPGs aren't changing substantially in terms of game mechanics. Most of the innovations happened in the 90s; until someone comes out with a clever new mechanic that revolutionizes the game, the core of D&D will remain unchanged and as I and others have said, 4E's core is simple and modular enough that no major changes are necessary for the foreseeable future.

As I said, though, I'm sure there are other ways to keep a RPG company afloat, such as having a diverse product line of settings or even other RPGs to offer.

But is WotC and Hasbro content to merely remain "afloat"? Smaller, more gamer-run companies might be, but I doubt WotC is. Mike Mearls probably is, but what about the CEO of Hasbro?

With their current financial health, they probably could diversify their RPG line.

Well one thing that still remains a kind of Holy Grail of RPGs is a science fiction equivalent of D&D. I know, you've got Traveller, Star Wars, GURPs, etc, but none of them come close to D&D in terms of popularity. Why is this? SF is as popular as fantasy, so why not a SF RPG? I honestly don't know, but it may relate to the question of why D&D is far and away the most popular RPG with no one even close, and the answer is probably simply name-brand recognition and the fact that most of us grew up with it and were imprinted in those crucial age 10-14 "Golden Age" of blossoming imagination.

Of course, what Stormonu describes is entirely feasible...isn't that called a CRPG or MMORPG?

That's what I was thinking. As soon as you take out real, living DMs and replace them with computer programs you move away from what separates tabletop RPGs from CRPGs and MMORPGs. I think WotC has to be very careful about this; the idea should be to get people over from WoW, not to make D&D more WoW-like so that tabletop RPGs start moving in that direction. I would even say that if WotC takes this route it will eventually usher in the death of the TTRPG, or at least on the scale it is now. Maybe that is inevitable?

The last thing we want to do is put the game further online. We need to get players sitting together around a table interacting in person and being social. This applies to new players and old.

Here, here!