Sequels to Successes

[I'm A Banana]

Hey, this is a bit long, and an extended kind of analogy, so prepare yourself.

The one thing that they say about people at the top is that they've got nowhere left to go but down.

Call it the Sophomore Slump like music does. Call it the Sequel Problem like movies do. The fact is that after something wildly successful has run it's course, the company in control of that successful thing wants to get people to embrace the next iteration of that successful thing. The next album by a platinum-record seller. The next movie starring a character audiences loved the first time around.

From what I can tell, 3e was the best selling edition of D&D to date. It was a rousing success in many areas. It has its flaws, but despite those, it dragged D&D out of the slump it was in at the end of 2e, shepherded it to a new company, and sold books, and kept selling books. Sure, I bet the sales fell off there in '07 or maybe at the end of '06, but even a slight fall-off still was successful for WotC.

Wizards is now in the rather unenviable position of avoiding the problem of the Sequel. Thousands of people (at least!) grabbed 3e and loved it. I'm sure Wizards would love for all of those people to grab 4e and love it, too.

But the thing that sequels and sophomore efforts face isn't just the regular competition from the others in the industry. They also face competition from their own successes. From the movies people still remember fondly, to the albums that people still listen to, to the games that people still play.

WotC's first effort, they've claimed, is to keep the D&D fans on board with 4e as much as possible. They won't start really concentrating on new blood until the fall. Like with any sequel, there will be those who loved the first thing so much, they'll buy the next thing. There's those who saw some flaws in the first thing that are being addressed in the second thing, so they'll eat it up, too ("The first ablum was good, but had a bit of a commercial taste. This next album promises to be a bit grittier, so it'll fix my problems!").

But what about those people who liked the original, and who are comfortable with the original? Maybe the first movie lacked some polish, but they find it charming, or they can ignore it because the plot was so thick. Maybe the first album had a few disposable songs, but they can ignore it because the good songs were so good. What about those people for whom 3e has been "good enough?"

What incentive can you give them to change?

By and large, people don't need perfection. Everyone reaches a point of diminishing returns -- when any further enhancement isn't that big of an enhancement for them. Once you have something wildly successful, it's difficult to one-up it, to provide an enhancement that's worth as much as the original was.

Telling them the first thing they liked wasn't so good isn't a winning strategy, whether it comes from the company themselves or from the joiners and trufans who leap in early. If a fan of the new movie tells you "The CG effects are so much better than those old stunts!", and you *liked* the old stunts, that makes you less likely to see the next movie. If the record company says that on this new album, the band has better recording material and a professional producer, and you *enjoyed* the last album, you're going to wonder why you should care.

In effect, when you try to one-up something that was tremendously successful, it's going to be very difficult to convince people that it's BETTER. You can convince people who weren't big fans in the first place that it's better, and you can convince people who had issues with the initial thing that it's better, but that's just bringing in people from the outside.

An appeal to quality, in the case of 4e, might not be the way to convince 3e fans that 4e is for them. For every point of "We're fixing X!" you'll get "But I liked X!" or "But X wasn't really a problem!" or "Then why aren't you fixing Y?"

What sells a sequel isn't going to be "It's better than what you already like!" Diminishing returns apply especially harshly to sequels to successes, and it can actually work against you when you get people who embrace that idea. A trufan going on and on about "simulationism is dumb!" is just going to alienate people, just as if you changed the actor for a character in the sequel and some people LIKED the other actor, saying "The first actor was dumb!" is just going to alienate people.

So what DOES convince people to buy into the sequel? How do bands who make top-selling sophomore albums pull it off?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like instead of telling you this is going to be EVEN BETTER, they tell you this is going to be the same kind of thing, but NEW and DIFFERENT. It's going to take a few new turns, but it's going to stay grounded in what you already enjoy.

What does this mean in terms of 4e?

Instead of trying to persuade people to go to 4e by way of saying "We've fixed our mistakes!", it might be more useful to persuade people to go to 4e by way of saying "Check out this cool new thing you can do!" Without saying "...you couldn't do it before."

If someone thinks 3e is "good enough" already, telling them how their game sucked isn't going to win them over. Telling someone who was either neutral or a fan of the acoustic riff in the first album that you're TOTALLY PUMPED that the second album has none of those obnoxious acoustic riffs isn't going to win them over.

You've gotta sell them on the new stuff.

Say "In the new movie, our heroes are facing a new villain!" or "In the new album, this new song has a frickin' wicked harmonica solo!" or "In the new edition, this new healing surge mechanic will keep you in fighting shape all day long!"

People can still say "I liked the old villain." or "I don't like harmonica solos." or "I prefer grittier hp." But because you haven't made their love of the first thing seem silly, they're much more likely to say "But I'll give it a shot." Their affection hasn't been insulted, they're not defensive, you're not telling them that 4e is BETTER, you're telling them that 4e is NEW, which lets them decide for themselves if they think 4e is better or not. And people like new stuff, especially when it's realated to stuff they ALREADY enjoy.

So this is my point: all this talk about 4e being "better" is just making those who think that 3e is probably "good enough for them" defensive. You're only winning over those who had deep problems with 3e, which means you've stopped your losses and you've perhaps converted some outsiders, but you haven't recruited any of the old fans, and you've made some of them outright enemies, because of the focus on the flaws of 3e.

Perhaps a better angle to take is to talk about 4e being "new." This doesn't criticize what so many people already love, it just says "If you love X, you'll love Y, which is the hottest new thing about X!" It appeals to peoples' love of the new without shaking their love of the old. People can still not like the new thing, but at least you stay "on their side."

Now, I think that the "D&D" brand name has enough trufans that even a worst-case scenario is still going to rake in the bucks for Wizards. This isn't about making a profit or the failure or success of D&D as a game. This is about making 4e a successful sequel to a successful game, and how difficult it is in any situation where you're trying to repeat success. D&D could still do flying colors in sales and not be a very successful sequel. And I think the more the message of "We're fixing 3e's problems!" is promoted, both by Wizards and by the people who are totally into 4e, the worse off it'll be as a sequel, because the more the already-existing fans who aren't married to the D&D brand name will go elsewhere, rather than to 4e.

I think the D&D brand name has a very strong pull, definately enough to pull off an edition change, even with a few hiccups. But they are at risk for a Sophomore Slump kind of scenario, where more people just keep listening to the old album without hearing much about the new one.

Eh, maybe the problem is completely obliviated by D&D's brand pull.

Either way, I just thought I'd lay that little theory out there.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Often slumps after notable successes come about because of selection effects. In order of something to become "notable", a number of factors must come into play, many of them not in the control of the primary agents involved in the event that reached the attention of the public. The balance of probabilities imply that the the future performance of the agents involved will not benefit from the same coincidence that lead to notice in the first case.

That being said, I don't think that the same probabilistic reasoning applies to cases like the development of existing products with long histories.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Good post, very interesting.
But I am not sure your way is that much better...

And as an example, I already read sometimes:
"But I could do that in 3E!". And the poster is not saying it in the way "but I'll give it a try, maybe their implementation has its own merits! So I can still do that, but with better rules support? That sounds like a great thing, thanks for the info", but more in "4E doesn't offer anything new! I don't need it! Why bother? Go away, filthy f4nboy!"

Maybe the latter only happens because the marketing did sometimes seem to "attack" 3E (I am not sure how true this is, but it's enough that the impression was there). Or it's just because some people just thing that way.

A lot of 3E aspects, on an individual base, had their fans. If 4E promises to change some things, this invariably means it changes things some people liked. How could marketing achieve that you in the end sum up the positive and the negative changes and come to the conclusion "4E changes more things I disliked to things I liked than it changed things I liked to something I dislike". Can you even come to that conclusion yourself, considering that each individual piece also carries its own importance for you?

 

[Spatula]

An interesting view of some of the difficulties in promoting 4e successfully, KM. I don't have much to add except to say that the negativity directed at 3e, a system with many flaws that I've grappled with myself time and again, hasn't done much to endear me to the new edition. Especially since many of the deficiencies in 3e that get brought up are either without merit, or weren't flaws in my experience.

Strangely enough, I saw a list penned by Mike Mearls of the most common problems that players had with 3e (which the designers had set out to address in 4e), and I agreed with basically the entire list. But instead of showcasing how they were resolving those issues, they instead spent a few months telling us that 3e was awful and showcasing how they were invalidating existing gameworlds.

 

[Cadfan]

Telling them the first thing they liked wasn't so good isn't a winning strategy, whether it comes from the company themselves or from the joiners and trufans who leap in early. If a fan of the new movie tells you "The CG effects are so much better than those old stunts!", and you *liked* the old stunts, that makes you less likely to see the next movie. If the record company says that on this new album, the band has better recording material and a professional producer, and you *enjoyed* the last album, you're going to wonder why you should care.

Not necessarily true. If I like something, and someone tells me that they've got a new version of it that's like the old one except that now they've improved some stuff, I don't automatically start whinging about how the old one was good enough. I may very well be enthused for a new, improved version of something I liked before.

The danger for WOTC is that, frankly, a lot of its critics aren't behaving in good faith. So they take comments like "we've streamlined grappling rules, because they were cludgy in 3e" and respond with things like "But I never had a problem with grappling rules! Are you telling me that I really did but didn't know about it? Are you telling me that I wasn't having fun in 3e? Are you saying that my earlier games sucked? Are you insulting me? You are, aren't you! You are!"

The real challenge for WOTC is to create a positive atmosphere in an internet environment where only a few people like that can poison a large swath of internet territory. And yeah, "selling the new stuff" is a part of that. But its just as vulnerable to bad faith defensiveness from critics, because by definition selling the new stuff requires that the stuff be new. And if its "new" and "good" then people will conclude (in bad faith) that you must be saying that the "old" game, which lacked those things, was "bad." And in fact we've seen exactly that reaction, many times over. I'm sure you remember conversations like "Look at the new, cool, martial maneuvers! You can engage in tactically complex martial combat!" and responses like "So you're saying that 3e martial combat was lame and boring, and that my 3e fighter sucks and isn't fun??? I hate you!"

From my perspective, the only real failing has been in not clarifying the rules regarding 3rd party publishers. Not because I care about 3rd party publishers (I don't), and not because I think that the presence of 3rd party publishers will have a large effect on the game's sales. Instead, this was a failing because 3rd party publishers are a sacred cow to a small but very vocal group that happens to be highly represented on the internet. Angering this group could have been avoided, which in turn would increase the positivity of the internet community as a whole.

Because the general positivity of the internet community is the ONLY way that WOTC can handle issues like some of the debates and fights we've seen on this forum. We have people here who constantly claim that 4e allows you to do things like pick locks with a History check, or that 4e allows players to conjure allies or NPCs from nothing with a skill check, or that 4e doesn't have any method for NPCs to ever heal an injury, ever. These arguments are not advanced with sincerity- you can tell just by reading them and seeing how bizarre they are. Responding rationally won't help, because short of providing the entire ruleset, someone with no sincerity can find a way to exploit a hypothetical hole and screech about it. The only possible response is to encourage an internet community where someone who claims one of these things is laughed at for being a silly, silly person.

In the age of marketing through internet forums, troll management is a significant part of it. And that's where WOTC has fallen down. They've created trolls by kicking sacred cows that didn't need kicked, and they've failed to nip some of the trolling in the bud quickly and effectively.

 

[Sonny]

It's interesting from a music and movie point of view, BUT and here's the key - the closest thing to compare D&D to out of entertainment is electronic gaming. And in the case of games, well they don't have the same problem pulling off great sequels as other mediums. In fact, a good franchise often becomes more and more successful with each new game.

Still, it was a good post.

 

[abeattie]

I think the D&D brand name has a very strong pull, definately enough to pull off an edition change, even with a few hiccups. But they are at risk for a Sophomore Slump kind of scenario, where more people just keep listening to the old album without hearing much about the new one.

Eh, maybe the problem is completely obliviated by D&D's brand pull.

I think that it's both the "brand pull" and the sad fact that in a limited market the big fish wins. We will switch to 4e because our friends play 4e, because when we look for new groups, those groups will play 4e, because every time it comes time to start a new campaign someone will say "4e?"

Sure -- there are some groups that will stay with 3.5. Heck, I still run into people at gen-con playing in organized play that haven't moved up from 3rd ed. Money is a problem, and attitude is a big problem -- but 4e has a huge built in advantage.

The only way I see 4e stumbling, is if it truly sucks. If it is no fun to play, the OGL will kill 4e (because new supplements and revisions will be provided by 3rd parties enough to keep a core market happy if WotC has really screwed up). Personally, I don't see it. I've played demos, even my "I hate 4e" player ended the game going -- well, basically all that changed is what happens in combat.

It's such a minimal area of the game -- it is easily brushed over. (and it did run faster on encounter 2 on).

 

[The_Gneech]

Strangely enough, I saw a list penned by Mike Mearls of the most common problems that players had with 3e (which the designers had set out to address in 4e), and I agreed with basically the entire list. But instead of showcasing how they were resolving those issues, they instead spent a few months telling us that 3e was awful and showcasing how they were invalidating existing gameworlds.

Heh. Yeah, that. Well put!

"But trust us, it'll be awesome."

-The Gneech

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't automatically start whinging about how the old one was good enough. I may very well be enthused for a new, improved version of something I liked before.

Most people don't really complain about the new thing, they just don't buy as much of it. You'll only hear complaints on bastions of obsession like message boards.

If you're automatically enthused for the new improved version, than you're the trufan: you'll be interested in the next thing because you liked the last thing. It's not "no matter what," but your tolerance for fiddling with what worked is high because you're attached to the name, rather than the exact experience. Most people in the world don't fall into that camp (though, arguably, most people who buy D&D do). Just because people like ketchup doesn't mean they'll like green ketchup. If people are fans of Coke, they won't necessarily give New Coke a whirl. I think both of those are pretty good examples of trying to make a "sequel" that failed pretty catastrophically.

In fact, I think New Coke is *especially* relevant.

Again, I don't think D&D could ever fall into that trap, because I think most of the people who like D&D like it because of the brand name and will follow it as long as it does broadly the same thing.

The danger for WOTC is that, frankly, a lot of its critics aren't behaving in good faith. So they take comments like "we've streamlined grappling rules, because they were cludgy in 3e" and respond with things like "But I never had a problem with grappling rules! Are you telling me that I really did but didn't know about it? Are you telling me that I wasn't having fun in 3e? Are you saying that my earlier games sucked? Are you insulting me? You are, aren't you! You are!"

Only on the message boards. In the store, with the book in his hand, the guy who liked 3e is just going to say "Weird. Grappling doesn't stop you from swinging a sword around? I might have to house rule that..."

Or he might say: "WTF? No druid? Screw that noise."

I'm pretty sure most purchases don't have anything to do with what some goofballs on the internet say, or else the sales of Nyambe would've been higher.

The real challenge for WOTC is to create a positive atmosphere in an internet environment where only a few people like that can poison a large swath of internet territory.

I think you may overinflate the importance of the Interwebs on D&D.

Because the general positivity of the internet community is the ONLY way that WOTC can handle issues like some of the debates and fights we've seen on this forum.

....actually, I think WotC has handled it REALLY well by only really getting involved to correct misconceptions. Debates on the internet aren't going to harsh or buzz most people for 4e.

Forcing any kind of "tone" on a community would be an expressly LOUSY way to artificially try to control something that really doesn't have much of an effect to begin with.

In the age of marketing through internet forums, troll management is a significant part of it.

WotC isn't marketing through forums, as far as I can tell. Some of WotC's employees, being big D&D fans, like to participate in discussions that the online community is having about D&D.

Really, this is about the decision made in every consumer's mind when they're browsing through the 4e PH at the FLGS. If they like 3e already (a pretty good assumption) and they're not a trufan (perhaps a debatable assumption) they're going to ask themselves what they're shelling out $90 for. Most people don't want to pay to be told that they're doing it wrong, and a message focused on "4e is BETTER!" tells people they're doing it wrong. Most people like new things, and a message focused on "In 4e, your paladin can be evil!" might be a new thing they could talk about.

What some goober says on the internet doesn't matter, but what some goober says in the FLGS might, and what WotC says in their marketing for 4e DEFINATELY does.

 

[Spatula]

The danger for WOTC is that, frankly, a lot of its critics aren't behaving in good faith. So they take comments like "we've streamlined grappling rules, because they were cludgy in 3e" and respond with things like "But I never had a problem with grappling rules! Are you telling me that I really did but didn't know about it? Are you telling me that I wasn't having fun in 3e? Are you saying that my earlier games sucked? Are you insulting me? You are, aren't you! You are!"

Really. I'd like to see a link to such an argument, because frankly I don't think that anyone has said that in seriousness.

And WotC can tell me they fixed stuff and it's super-awesome all day and all night. Until they (or the playtesters - remove the NDA already!) actually spell out what they did so I can judge for myself, it's all meaningless.

The real challenge for WOTC is to create a positive atmosphere in an internet environment where only a few people like that can poison a large swath of internet territory. And yeah, "selling the new stuff" is a part of that. But its just as vulnerable to bad faith defensiveness from critics, because by definition selling the new stuff requires that the stuff be new. And if its "new" and "good" then people will conclude (in bad faith) that you must be saying that the "old" game, which lacked those things, was "bad."

No, the WotC preview articles have repeatedly criticized 3e for not being good, not being fun, and so on. The old encounter design preview (wherein Mearls entertainingly misrepresents how EL works) and the "4e has mine carts!" preview leap to mind.