D&D 5E Should D&D be marketed like Coke, Ketchup, or Spaghetti Sauce?

[Sword of Spirit]

I'm still reading the reference material material before I place my vote. I just wanted to say that you're unlikely to get accurate results, because the majority of responders are not going to read this amount of homework, and will just click whichever option sounds best to them based on not really knowing what they are supposed to mean.

 

[Sadrik]

Here is the original 2009 thread.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?269298-Spaghetti-Sauce

I think these concepts did have an impact on how 5e was designed.

 

[Sunseeker]

Spaghetti sauce.

There are at least two primary streams of thought when it comes to D&D. Red, and white. But how those taste specifically only has guidelines of flavors that are usually anticipated, but no hard and fast rule of how they must​ taste.

 

[Incenjucar]

None of these really have any relation to how selling instruction manuals with little stories in them works. RPGs are a time-consuming activity that requires that you educate yourself to various degrees and reread parts of the text.

It's a complex story-telling game which picks up a large number of expansions, not a disposable food item that uses sugar and salt to cover the poor quality of its ingredients (Unless you count the art...).

 

[Hussar]

I'd posit that 4e itself came from the uncontrolled 'test group' of the 'internet'. Many of the problems and solutions came from the forums (toss in a little "distance from the OGL" mandate per the higher ups). But until the research (i.e. sales) data comes back you don't really know how big that group really is.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...Coke-Ketchup-or-Spaghetti-Sauce#ixzz2wqvLXzTM

Swimming upthread from the first page, but, I'd like to comment on this.

I think this really is spot on, but, I'd say that the test group wasn't the Internet, but the RPGA. Almost all the issues that 4e sought to fix are issues that you see in Organized Play. This, IMO, is why 4e rubbed a lot of people very, very wrong since they likely don't have highly fluid groups. People who have fairly stable groups certainly don't need or even want, rules based solutions to issues. They fix the issue on their own and move on.

So, when the 4e Devs said, "This is a problem" a lot of people looked at them and said, "What? No it isn't."

 

[pemerton]

I'd say that the test group wasn't the Internet, but the RPGA. Almost all the issues that 4e sought to fix are issues that you see in Organized Play. This, IMO, is why 4e rubbed a lot of people very, very wrong since they likely don't have highly fluid groups. People who have fairly stable groups certainly don't need or even want, rules based solutions to issues. They fix the issue on their own and move on.

So, when the 4e Devs said, "This is a problem" a lot of people looked at them and said, "What? No it isn't."

I don't have any basis for questioning your historical explanation.

I just wanted to note that for the past 15 or so years I have had very stable groups, but 4e still fixed a lot of problems that I/we had encountered with mainstream fantasy RPG systems. For me, it's not that 4e is "rules based" but that its rules are less like (say) Traveller and more like (say) HeroWars/Quest or Marvel Heroic RP.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Almost all the issues that 4e sought to fix are issues that you see in Organized Play. This, IMO, is why 4e rubbed a lot of people very, very wrong since they likely don't have highly fluid groups. People who have fairly stable groups certainly don't need or even want, rules based solutions to issues. They fix the issue on their own and move on.

Even if that were true, it would also reflect that organized games aren't being played by the rules of D&D so much as the rules of the RPGA. There are a lot of limitations in play and the characters and campaigns are standardized in a way that normal play is not. That type of play could hardly be considered representative of what happens outside that setting.

 

[Hussar]

Even if that were true, it would also reflect that organized games aren't being played by the rules of D&D so much as the rules of the RPGA. There are a lot of limitations in play and the characters and campaigns are standardized in a way that normal play is not. That type of play could hardly be considered representative of what happens outside that setting.

Oh, I don't disagree with this at all. And I think that's why 4e had such an uphill battle. You're right that Organized Play games are a beast unto themselves. But, since almost all the play testing for 4e was done through the RPGA, I hazard a guess that that had a huge impact. Also, if you look at how 4e resolves a number of issues - removing a lot of the problematic elements that require DM intervention for example, like removing long term charm effects, illusion effects, summoning and polymorph - these are all big issues in Organized Play that can be resolved at a table many times simply through gentlemen's agreement.

Heck, the whole LFQW issue was a much bigger thing in Organized Play, where you don't have the option of limiting wizards in the way that is often suggested - either through stringent limitations on what spells are in play, or interpretations of spell effects that would never pass muster in organised play.

And I think there was a thought that with 4e, they could push Organized Play style games onto home games - get everyone playing a very similar game. Which, of course, a lot of people pushed back hard against. And since the new gamers never really materialised, which would have drowned out those pushing back, 4e stalled badly.

It was a calculated risk. I can see why they might try to go this way. But, I do think that it ultimately failed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And I think there was a thought that with 4e, they could push Organized Play style games onto home games - get everyone playing a very similar game. Which, of course, a lot of people pushed back hard against. And since the new gamers never really materialised, which would have drowned out those pushing back, 4e stalled badly.

The existence of D&D Encounters and the other increased organized play options that came with 4e -- and that were pushed in a Big Way -- lends some credence to the idea that this was the RPGA Edition.

And yeah, color me shocked that what worked for Organized Play didn't work for Jimbo's Home Game, and that things that were issues in Organized Play weren't even issues for Jimbo and his table.

But a lot of folks who aren't RPGA members also embraced the changes in 4e, so sometimes it seems that what's good for one is good for another. Maybe just not good for enough folks, in the long run....hmm...

 

[Ahnehnois]

And I think there was a thought that with 4e, they could push Organized Play style games onto home games - get everyone playing a very similar game.

You may be right that this was the intent.

Certainly a philosophy that I would never accept.