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

[innerdude]

I don't know what WotC should do because I think it is out of options, but I'll tell you what I think it will do which is the same thing I said it would do 2 years ago now. Hasbro is going to shop the brand in part or in whole to see if it can find a buyer for it. If it can't find a buyer at the price point it wants, it is going to shutter the brand or at least the PnP line. The reason I think that is that honestly, it's what I would do as the CEO. It makes no sense to keep the brand going in the present circumstances and too much damage has been done to the brand to recover. There is no path I can see from A => B anymore, at least not through the traditional PnP route. The only likely buyer of the brand at this point is Paizo, but if I was Paizo I'm not sure I'd want to buy the brand unless someone just shoved it on me and said take it. Paizo's on Pathfinder brand is increasingly valuable in and of itself. It doesn't need its historical parent anymore.

Honestly, the only way to reform the brand might be to move almost entirely in to some other product line - something like Skylanders although obviously not Skylanders but something equally innovative - that would create interest in the brand and renew it for a new set of customers. The problem with that is that there is no market for the brand to make that sort of move due to the severe damage that the brand took during the '80's occult scare. D&D as a brand has negative value in the kids market. D&D lost most chance to appeal to a larger audience outside of geekdom decades ago, and it doesn't help that D&D has (as a consequence) become synonymous with neck bearded basement dwellers in most people's minds. In short, D&D is dead, 5e is either vaporware or a rasping death rattle, and this is more interesting as a discussion of how to mismanage a brand than anything else.

There's a lot here that resonates with me here. Even among the geek niche-within-a-niche that plays RPGs, D&D as a "brand" is hardly universally liked. WotC has taken reputation hit after reputation hit the last five years. Maybe it's just my own personal inferences and observations talking, but it feels to me that "defenders" of D&D have become fewer and more far between, simply because 1) there's less need to "defend" D&D anymore, since "D&D" can be so many different things now, and 2) the D&D product itself has been increasingly less worthy of being "defensed."

It's interesting, because I bought the Pathfinder Beginner's Box for 3 of my nephews two years ago, but to my knowledge it has gone mostly unplayed. My sister asked me, "What is this you're buying them?"

And I paused for a minute, because the easiest answer was, "It's basically D&D." But I didn't want to say that to her, because of all of the negative stigma attached to "D&D" culturally. But in the end, it was just easiest to say, "It's like D&D."

 

[pemerton]

Even among the geek niche-within-a-niche that plays RPGs, D&D as a "brand" is hardly universally liked.

<snip>

it feels to me that "defenders" of D&D have become fewer and more far between, simply because 1) there's less need to "defend" D&D anymore, since "D&D" can be so many different things now, and 2) the D&D product itself has been increasingly less worthy of being "defensed."

Your number (2) seems to just be a fancy restatement of the fact that you (and others) don't like the current iterations of D&D.

I mean, from my point of view 4e is the first really playable version of D&D for over 20 years, and so D&D has become more worthy of being defended.

 

[billd91]

There's a lot here that resonates with me here. Even among the geek niche-within-a-niche that plays RPGs, D&D as a "brand" is hardly universally liked. WotC has taken reputation hit after reputation hit the last five years. Maybe it's just my own personal inferences and observations talking, but it feels to me that "defenders" of D&D have become fewer and more far between, simply because 1) there's less need to "defend" D&D anymore, since "D&D" can be so many different things now, and 2) the D&D product itself has been increasingly less worthy of being "defensed."

I'm not sure being "defensed" makes sense. But it has hardly ever been the case that D&D has been universally liked. If you think WotC is under fire, you haven't seen the vitriol TSR was subject to back when they were harassing fan stuff off the internet.

 

[Hussar]

Not saying that it isn't a pain to introduce new people, but I find that it's really important to be clear and talking about how you run the rules really helps get everyone's expectations on the same level. To me, a DM's houserule package is the first way I have of evaluating that DM. If he just says "I run D&D, the way it is in the books" that is not helpful. All of us do that. And none of us do.

Nor would I want to try and kill off the diversity in gaming styles that makes this necessary.

I always thought that what kept players coming back was the sense of autonomy and self-determination that one not only rarely gets in life, we rarely even get in our entertainment. If I want the best story or the most tactical gameplay, tabletop rpgs are pretty much always going to lose to novels and films or wargames and FPS's. What makes D&D special is precisely that it isn't standardized.

On your first point, again, totally agree. But, we've got a bit of gaming experience under our belts. Imagine you're a totally new gamer sitting down. Would you even think to ask, "Hey, this is a cool game, how have you changed it?"

On your second point, I would say that one thing that drives players away is piss poor games that go nowhere and then end with a whimper. Imagine that your first D&D game was run by the most railroading, boring, force you to spell out every single niggling detail DM. IOW, a DM who is largely ignoring all the good DMing advice that's out there, but, until 4e, wasn't actually IN the DMG.

Do you really think that guy will come back? How many poor games do you think someone will stomach before giving it up?

Conversely, telling a new DM that he should be effectively taking on a part time job to run a decent game isn't exactly conducive either. There's a reason modules got so popular in 3e - yes a lot of modules were good, but, also, it was a heck of a lot easier to pick up an Adventure Path or whatever and just play.

Diversity in gaming styles is a two edged sword. On one hand it's great because it includes everyone. OTOH it leads to a LOT of bad gaming. Which, I think, is what WOTC was trying to reduce. Again, remember, a lot of 4e was supposed to be pick up games over something like X Box live. I remember when 4e was coming out that this was one of the big things that was supposed to happen.

And, as was mentioned, looking at how the 4e Organized play got so heavily pushed in the stores, I think they were really banking on bringing in a lot of new gamers. With the hope that the new gamers were going to have a good enough experience their first time out that they would stay with it. After all, if you're on X Box live and competing with video games, you have to make sure that your produce is at least as enjoyable as what is already out there. Otherwise, no one will play.

 

[variant]

Your number (2) seems to just be a fancy restatement of the fact that you (and others) don't like the current iterations of D&D.

I mean, from my point of view 4e is the first really playable version of D&D for over 20 years, and so D&D has become more worthy of being defended.

D&D has been on a decline regardless of whether an individual likes the current iteration of the game or not. The videogame market is a good reflection of its diminished status. There are only two 4e games we have seen released and neither are exactly good.

 

[Ahnehnois]

On your first point, again, totally agree. But, we've got a bit of gaming experience under our belts. Imagine you're a totally new gamer sitting down. Would you even think to ask, "Hey, this is a cool game, how have you changed it?"

No. But I'd want to know how it worked, and I'd be getting a lot of that information from the DM and the players (as opposed to the books) anyway. In that context, it's probably about equally easy to learn some radical mod as it is to learn the core game, because the new player has no expectations. That's assuming it's a mixed group with some experienced players; if everyone's new then it is different, but it seems to me that everyone fumbles through together.

On your second point, I would say that one thing that drives players away is piss poor games that go nowhere and then end with a whimper. Imagine that your first D&D game was run by the most railroading, boring, force you to spell out every single niggling detail DM. IOW, a DM who is largely ignoring all the good DMing advice that's out there, but, until 4e, wasn't actually IN the DMG.

Do you really think that guy will come back? How many poor games do you think someone will stomach before giving it up?

As rational as I admit that sounds, it doesn't match my experience at all. I played with some pretty lousy DMs as a beginner, and it didn't dissuade me (or any of the others). It just made us want to run a better game.

To me, because it's a game that is played with your imagination, there's a naturally aspirational quality to it. People have an image of the character they want to play or the story they want to tell, and they'll fight through a lot of BS to reach that vision. Just my opinion.

Then again, I don't really agree that 4e invented good DMing advice. I saw some good stuff in the 3e DMG (not that there isn't plenty of bad). I saw plenty wrong with the 4e DMG. It's obvious that whatever books there are should provide good advice, but what that constitutes is hardly above debate.

Conversely, telling a new DM that he should be effectively taking on a part time job to run a decent game isn't exactly conducive either.

I don't know. I think it's unrealistic to expect that you can be good at something without trying. I can go into a big box store and buy a baseball bat, but that doesn't mean I'll be able to play on a team without putting in quite a bit of work in several different domains (learning the rules and strategy, fitness training, and live play). There are many hobbies that require a lot of work, but which are nonetheless very popular.

I think it's important to be realistic about these things. Realistically, how good your game is and how rewarding of an experience it is will depend to a significant extent on how much you personally invest in it. How much time you invest in it will depend to a significant extent on how much you enjoy the game (and also on many other things like what else you may want to do with your spare time). There's a back and forth relationship there.

I come at this as someone who had specialized education in the dramatic arts at a young age and has a variety of talents that lend themselves to rpgs. Which has always lead me to two questions: could someone less advantaged than me DM as well as I do? And should the game be tailored to a broad group of fairly average people, or a specialized group of hobbyists whose interests and skills are better suited to the game than the average commoner (so to speak)?

I prefer the game to be built by and for advanced operators, leaving the not-so-advanced ones to either strive to catch up or simply letting them go off to another hobby that better suits their talents. Reasonable people may differ.

Diversity in gaming styles is a two edged sword. On one hand it's great because it includes everyone. OTOH it leads to a LOT of bad gaming. Which, I think, is what WOTC was trying to reduce.

I suspect that having a group using a set of rules that is not suited to their predilections also produces a lot of bad gaming. There are plenty of people who tried those rules and had bad experiences and left (of course, most people who are still on board now are the ones who had good initial experiences). The smaller the box is drawn, the more people will be outside it, and if those people wanted to be included or thought that they were, they're not going to be happy.

In a perverse way, I wonder if the rules problems that do exist in D&D aren't helpful in developing the culture. After all, if everyone has to houserule and hack away to get what they want, the process of doing so helps them articulate what they want, and they learn to trust in their own common sense rather than pulling out the rulebook for everything. Which sounds a lot like the virtues of so called "old-school" gaming.

 

[n00bdragon]

D&D isn't like any of those three food products or like any other RPG in general. There are three distinct kinds of customers for D&D:
- The Newbie: He probably hasn't played an RPG before or less likely he only has experience with another RPG. He might have some preconceived notions of what D&D is supposed to be from cultural osmosis and second hand experiences but he will generally play whatever you hand to him first and may or may not like it. The big goal of selling D&D to this customer is getting him to enjoy the experience and stick with it.
- The Player: He shows up for a weekly session and that's about it. As there are many Players they also compared to Hardcore customers they tend to be the largest source of recruitment for The Newbie. They don't tend to buy much product and they don't tend to care much about the product that they buy, though if you aren't selling the edition they are playing then you just miss out and there is little you can do to sell to them. When their game dries up they are unlikely to continue it on their own.
- The Hardcore: The care deeply about the differences between products and can be extremely discerning. They purchase a truly absurd amount of material per person compared to the other two groups, though they are vastly outnumbered by both. Selling to these people requires meeting their needs and while some can be swayed one way or the other a good number cannot. They know what they like and they demand it. It's not something like mustard where if you only show them a better version they will leap for it and it's not like spaghetti sauce where there are a number of established acceptable flavors. Anything and everything goes here. No matter what you do someone will love it and others will revile it. Finally, it is absolutely in no way like ketchup. There is no monolithic identity or taste which everyone has and desires no alternative to. Selling to a Hardcore is 100% about meeting their needs and even though they are small in number they cannot be ignored since they do mass recruiting. The Player will usually not play without a Hardcore driving the game and The Newbie is often recruited by them as well.

Unlike food gaming is a social activity very much driven by social groups. It has a few leaders and many many followers who will follow the leaders regardless of what they do, and then a large contingent of new people jumping and out of the hobby who may become leaders or followers with the right incentives.

 

[innerdude]

Your number (2) seems to just be a fancy restatement of the fact that you (and others) don't like the current iterations of D&D.

I mean, from my point of view 4e is the first really playable version of D&D for over 20 years, and so D&D has become more worthy of being defended.

Well, it's certainly no mystery by now that 4e was not my cup of tea. But I'm also including 3.5 / Pathfinder in that statement as well. The longer I'm away from the D&D family tree, more and more I find that I don't want to go back. Once you've seen what a truly coherent 3.x ruleset looks like (Fantasy Craft), 3.x / Pathfinder just feels clunky.

 

[Hussar]

D&D has been on a decline regardless of whether an individual likes the current iteration of the game or not. The videogame market is a good reflection of its diminished status. There are only two 4e games we have seen released and neither are exactly good.

Let's not forget context though. WOTC has been having it out with Atari over video games for most of 4e's run. There aren't good 4e Dnd games because they can't actually produce them.

That and the fact that 4e mechanics make really, really bad translations to video games. Too many interrupt and "do-over" type powers. Works well in a turn based game, but anything approaching real time is going to be an absolute bear.

 

[Bleys Icefalcon]

Advertising

Dungeons and Dragons: The Official Role playing game of the NFL