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

[Savage Wombat]

I'd maybe go a step further. 4e wasn't really modelled on MMO play. It was modelled on MtG Online play.

I think that had Wotc's plans panned out, we'd see a healthy online presence similar to Magic's.

I don't think this is really fair, but maybe I just disagree with phrasing.

I'd be willing to say that the design techniques and aesthetics that WotC uses for M:tG are highly visible in 4e.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think this is really fair, but maybe I just disagree with phrasing.

I'd be willing to say that the design techniques and aesthetics that WotC uses for M:tG are highly visible in 4e.

Fair enough. I wasn't meaning it to be negative. I just think that if your goal is to nearly double the DnD market then looking at Magic's successes would be pretty tempting.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I voted Coke/New Coke. There are plenty of RPGs out there. I like some of them more than I like D&D. So if I'm playing D&D, it's not because I want just an RPG experience, there are games that do that better; it's because I want a D&D experience. So if the the rules drift far enough from what I think of as a D&D experience, I've got no reason to play it at all.

 

[Emerikol]

I would be on board with the spaghetti sauce analogy (mom always made homemade by the way if it matters) if they realized that the 1e/2e market would like a rules upgrade. Capture the identical playstyle but upgrade the rules to cleaner easier usage.

I would like the components of each game to be very much drop anywhere. So if I wanted to add 3e skills to 1e I could. Or feats. Or whatever. If I wanted some 1e deadly added to 3e I could take that and use it. So I believe they have to sell games. They can't sell individual pieces, they can fasciliate cannibalization of their existing games by establishing clear interfaces between the subsystems.

5e is actually trying to do that. The developers just don't realize what people care about well enough to build it perfect. They are trying though.

 

[innerdude]

I think there's basically two scenarios that I could see playing out with the 5e release.

1. IF THE RULESET IS GOOD TO VERY GOOD --

5e has a solid, if unspectacular product release, followed by a solid, if unspectacular run of approximately 5-6 years of active support. Wizards of the Coast makes a mild-to-moderate profit on the RPG product line. 5e finds a solid middle ground between the 3e / Pathfinder and 4e crowds, getting players to actively play the ruleset, even if wholesale "adoption" of 5e as the "preferred" edition is somewhat rare.

It sort of becomes the standard bearer of the conversation of,

"Well, what should we play for our next campaign?"

"Well, there's always D&D 5e."

Old 4e Player: "Hmmm, I guess I'm okay with that."

Old Pathfinder Player: "Yeah, I think I'm good with that."

1e / OSR Player: "Well, it still ain't Gygax, but it ain't half bad. I'm down."

A lot of groups that formerly split coming back together for at least a little while to enjoy a more "communal" atmosphere with 5e. Third-party publishers lend their support to it, and a healthy, if still marginally fragmented community builds around it.

At that point, it's then just a question of how long WotC lets the ball roll until they decide to start making 6e.


2. IF 5E IS SUB-PAR, OR INCOHERENT ---

Then I could definitely see 5e being a "death knell." After the initial "rush" to "check out the new shiny," all three major player-base contingencies simply shrug their shoulders and go back to what they've been playing.

4e player: "Hmmmm, they tried to do something interesting, I guess, but still too unbalanced, and not enough interesting things for fighters to do."

3e player: "The character choices aren't robust enough, and there's still too much '4e' going on for me to really like it.

1e / OSR: "It seems to emulate 1e reasonably well . . . but by golly, I've just barely picked up my 1e and OD&D deluxe reprints, so why don't I just play those instead?"

At that point, 5e becomes the "forgotten" edition. As sales for it stagnate, 3PPs ditch it to go back to the still-widely supported Pathfinder and OGL. The 4th Edition players double-down on the eBay resale market, and hang on to their DDI subscriptions for dear life. The Grognards keep doing what they've always done---playing whatever edition of D&D suits their fancy.

In 3-4 years, Hasbro sees the writing on the wall, and doesn't want to commit to fronting the R&D costs for creating a new edition. The "Core 3" books stay in print in minimal runs, though Hasbro makes no major push for distribution. Other than the occasional board game or video game, the Dungeons and Dragons brand remains quiet for the next decade, possibly two.

 

[Sunseeker]

Fair enough. I wasn't meaning it to be negative. I just think that if your goal is to nearly double the DnD market then looking at Magic's successes would be pretty tempting.

As a long time MTG player, I have to agree that there is much in 4e that is modeled after the way MTG works, at least in terms of style and design sense. "Attacking" against "Defenses" is certainly straight from the MTG Power/Toughness playbook, as opposed to reacting to attacks with defensive rolls. I really like both options and I feel they each have a place in D&D depending on the attack and the method of defense. I incorporate both in my games.

It's not unknown that while the D&D market is shrinking, MTG maintains a strong playerbase, and this is most certainly in part to the fact that there have been few major changes to the rules over the years. New "editions" aren't whole new games, they're new settings. With some irony, Wizards uses the same model with MTG as Paizo does with Pathfinder. Fixed core, and strong adventure support and adding new rules and systems to the game, which only apply when players choose to play a card with the associated rules.

I think 4e was trying to be that core on to which the game could expand in non-splat, non-crunch ways. This is an admirable goal. Unfortunately it already had 3+ editions trying to be the same thing to compete with.

But D&D isn't a CCG and it can't be sold like one. There's no incentive to buy the latest books like there is to buy the latest cards. You don't even need the official books to play in organized play, while you do need to have the official cards for sanctioned MTG play. The minis tried to fill that "you need to buy it in order to play" gap, but really they simply weren't the same thing. Even if you wanted to play with Minis, there's absolutely no incentive to have the "official" ones, even for sanctioned play.

I think there are cues to be taken from MTG. At it's core MTG uses a very simple and streamlined rules system of basic math (it is extremely rare to find multiplication or division in MTG, or any math of a more complicated sort) and a system of "can't trumps can", which as again, a long time MTG player, I find is very easy to comprehend, especially for people new to the game, it is the sort of system that can be laid in place as a foundation for a lot of new rules and systems down the road.

 

[Sadrik]

In 3-4 years, Hasbro sees the writing on the wall, and doesn't want to commit to fronting the R&D costs for creating a new edition. The "Core 3" books stay in print in minimal runs, though Hasbro makes no major push for distribution. Other than the occasional board game or video game, the Dungeons and Dragons brand remains quiet for the next decade, possibly two.

I think in this case they would lease out their brand to a developer to publish. Perhaps Pazio.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd like to see what Ryan Dancey might think. He basically called the arc of 4e (WotC goes non-OGL, OGL system becomes more popular, WotC edition struggles, WotC makes a new edition), so he's got some cred with me.

 

[jasper]

All I want to know is do you prefer 2 tablespoons of Progresso or Ragu to be poured over you mini when your pc is dead? And do you want 3d4 or 2d20 in tossed into the pot of boiling water with your gluten free noodles?

 

[2die10games]

I agree with the Spaghetti Sauce analogy