Spaghetti Sauce

[Sadrik]

To be financially viable, I think that the games would have to be different enough to warrant a wholly separate book but similar enough that they are interchangeable between the different versions. I am not saying this would be an easy way to go, but it would be a good way. If a module were written with simply, "(6) level 3 goblins" and that had a very clean meaning in each version, I think you have something. With an online tool to print out the version of the stat blocks you want, blam.

I really see the benefit for allowing D&D to be played to different official rules sets. This not the same as the various 2e setting that were available. Instead this would take the d20 core mechanic and have three complimentary rules sets that are really an expression of the three most valid ways to play an RPG and D&D.

 

[Sadrik]

Of course none one here is conducting the kind of experiments that went into working out how many flavours of sauce or coffee were required to cover the market. Doing that alone would be a formidable piece of work and pretty expensive.

I think we know the various playing styles, that is not the issue. I think the issue would be achieving that style of play in the desired area, all while feeling like D&D and being component of the larger scheme. Not an impossible task but certainly not an easy one.

 

[WizarDru]

I cannot comment on M&M or True20 since I never played either not read the rules. I don't get a lot of opportunities to play in a given year and the people I play with want D&D and often I run the game. I was never happy with DM'ing 3.5 and none of of the variant I got to look at seemed to me to be simpler than 3.5.

I didn't mean to suggest that they were simpler...only different. If 3.5 is standard spaghetti sauce, then perhaps M&M is d20 'robusto', while Blue Rose is 'extra chunky' and Midnight is 'garden variety'. This isn't to say that D&D couldn't be simpler or that simpler version would not be successful...just that it isn't the only factor that influences decisions. Just like Gladwell mentions in the video: they had a breakthrough when they shifted focus from an individual style to what factors of that style appealed to consumers (and then found a third of the market was virtually unserved).

D&D was simpler than AD&D...but I don't think that was the sole reason that it was so popular, even while AD&D was at the peak of its popularity. I think that 'Basic' D&D took an approach that appealed to some folks differently than AD&D did.

The problem, as I mentioned and you illustrated, is that collecting such data would likely too expensive and too difficult to do for an industry this small. Do you just analyze con-goers? Do you pool at random? Most people have had spaghetti sauce...far fewer have ever actually played D&D. We don't even know how many people actually play, for that matter. Unlike spaghetti sauce, where sales can tell us something about our customer base's size, D&D could sell one set and service one person or potentially dozens. If someone could overcome that hurdle and do the research for very little money...then maybe they could determine the answer.

Certainly, the success (relatively) of several different settings both under TSR and WotC suggest that such a thing might be viable. But making it a financially sound move is another thing entirely.

 

[Sadrik]

Through the rear view mirror WoTC has done this to a certain degree in the past with 3e. First they had D&D 3.x and then they had d20 modern and finally d20 star wars saga edition. I suppose really you could consider those all 3e "vaiants of themselves. What I propose would be better synergized so that conversion is very smooth and nearly effortless. Again hard but not impossible.

As to how expensive it would be to figure out what people want at their game table. I don't really think it would be all that hard to determine it. I don't see hundereds of spaghetti sauce forums where users give their in-depth analysis on what each ingrediant does for the sauce. Here, we do have that and it is not difficult to see where the camps break down. Provide the customer to have nearly the game that they dream "their" D&D should be and you have it. Multiple D&Ds and more happy customers.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So no, there can only be one version of WoTC "sauce".

You think it would be in WOTC's best interest to attempt to accommodate more groups by "stretching out" the brand. For whatever reason, WOTC has decided not to. It's either a smart move or a dumb move, but that's not the point to me.

Why does WOTC have to be the one who does it? They obviously don't want to. If you aren't getting what you want out of RPGs by going with WOTC, why go with them in the first place? There are dozens and dozens and dozens of RPG companies/projects out there who would love to have your money/attention. If you're willing to look, there's plenty of good material that would match your taste/preferences perfectly.

Yet that doesn't stop people from wanting WOTC to do it anyway. It seems to me some people rather complain about WOTC instead of simply going to another company. It's basic free market theory that people will go to the places that serves them best. So what's up with some people not doing that?

The reason people want to lobby WOTC instead of defect is because of D&D's name brand power. What people really want is the power of D&D brand name to attract people to their game table. If WOTC puts out a game that disagrees with a person, they have few good choices. Either they have to put up with a game they don't like or they must assemble/convince a group to play an RPG they never heard of before.

Of course I might be wrong.

 

[Desdichado]

Of course I'd also have a highly genericized version also compatible called d20 Fantasy...

Maybe they'll call it "Roadlocator."

 

[Sadrik]

You think it would be in WOTC's best interest to attempt to accommodate more groups by "stretching out" the brand. For whatever reason, WOTC has decided not to. It's either a smart move or a dumb move, but that's not the point to me.

I think that the brand was quite broad and has significantly narrowed in scope. I don't think 2e rules method of offering a myriad of disjointed rules that basically forced DMs to run their own game in their own style via households worked either. It was too much then, but spreading out to encompass more than a single style of play is a no-brainier from my perspective. Make more people happy with your brand?

Why does WOTC have to be the one who does it? They obviously don't want to. If you aren't getting what you want out of RPGs by going with WOTC, why go with them in the first place? There are dozens and dozens and dozens of RPG companies/projects out there who would love to have your money/attention. If you're willing to look, there's plenty of good material that would match your taste/preferences perfectly.

Not all groups are willing to try other games or other companies versions of the game and would rather just deal with the current version, even if they are unhappy with it. Often times things like brand loyalty are not as objective and rational as the hypothetical person you are talking about above. Remember it is a group dynamic at work here often it is not simply the game master saying, "I want to run game Y in lieu of game X" and the players saying, "Wow, thanks for running game Y". If good old game X is questions and the group all of a sudden wants to try game Y, Z, A, B, C they might simply say, "Screw it, too many choices, lets just go back to game X!"

Yet that doesn't stop people from wanting WOTC to do it anyway. It seems to me some people rather complain about WOTC instead of simply going to another company. It's basic free market theory that people will go to the places that serves them best. So what's up with some people not doing that?

It is also, market theory that informs us that tastes and preferences is only part of the equation.

The reason people want to lobby WOTC instead of defect is because of D&D's name brand power. What people really want is the power of D&D brand name to attract people to their game table. If WOTC puts out a game that disagrees with a person, they have few good choices. Either they have to put up with a game they don't like or they must assemble/convince a group to play an RPG they never heard of before.

Of course I might be wrong.

This is precisely the the point. With their market majority they could very easily put out several rule sets in a line and not railroad their customers down a single play style - some begrudgingly so and others lovingly so. It is not like WoTC does not publish other games in their d20 line. Call them all D&D and make them easily convertible and you have something. Something special.

Oh and what is the advantage of having three games rather than one game with a myriad of "campaign option"? I think it is pretty clear:
support (official materials addressing each style)
ease of use (with only three options, its not like learning infinite options)
universal use of system ( go to a convention and play what you expect to play)

 

[jodyjohnson]

Choice, happiness and Dungeons & Dragons

Necro:

Firstly the TED talk was in 2004 which would have been after 3.5 came out. But I think it may have informed 4e (providing an unmet flavor for the 20-35% that didn't know what they wanted) and certainly informs some of the decisions we're seeing now.

1. No edition warring
2. Keep 4e in print
3. Don't badmouth Pathfinder
4. Reprint White Box, 1e, 2e, and 3.5
5. DDN as Core plus dials, modules, and options
6. DnDClassics.com - "Every Edition Available Again"

I originally watched the video because Mike Mearls referred it in one of his posts (I couldn't find it again - likely between 2004 and 2008).

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.

Certainly 250,000 downloading the rules and a sizable but unconfirmed survey response would let them generate some sort of grouping for preferences.

I believe it did and they know what the groupings are (given the customization of an RPG each grouping can be flexible).

I think WotC can do the multiple editions from their end (essentially they are already doing it - premium reprints, DnDClassics, DDN, keeping DDI & 4e in print).

The problem will rest in individual Retailers where of 6 tables for RPG: 2 5e, 1 4e, 2 Pathfinder and 1 OSR is seen as a problem. Or trying to stock the Premiums, 4e, and Next will be too much.

Amazon and the other e-Commerce sites won't care.

And the bigger problem from the players themselves going tribal on the other groups to validate their own preferences. Edition warring on the forums and in the stores.


Moderators: could this be flagged D&D and moved to the other forum?

 

[Argyle King]

Two thoughts come to mind after the video and this thread:


1) If there are multiple D&Ds with different focuses, what do I do if I am someone who likes different parts of the different styles, but not any of the different tastes as a whole individually? Let's say there's D&D Marinara, D&D Old World Style, and D&D Chunky Style. If I like the taste of marinara, but vastly prefer the product packaging of Old World Style; while also vastly preferring the consistency of Chunky Style, can I mix the various pieces? In the beginning, when the whole idea of a modular game for D&D was proposed, I thought yes, but it turns out that I was wrong; what the design team for D&D meant by modular isn't what I had in mind for what I consider to be a modular approach to D&D design.


2) How do the multiple tastes of D&D 'sauce' compete with other companies who teach me how to make my own sauce? (GURPS, Champions, BRP, and other such things for example.) While the D&D brand pretty obviously has the bigger market share right now, and I'd assume they can rely on brand recognition to continue to dominate the market in some fashion, I have to wonder if the sauce approach would lead to gaining more customers or if it would help rivals (Paizo) who have a better mix compete. For me personally; because I do use (what I consider to be) a modular system as my primary rpg (GURPS,) I still buy adventures from Paizo, (occasionally) WoTC, and various other companies because I am capable of converting them into the recipe book I choose to use. I'm not sure how many people outside myself do that though.

 

[Sadrik]

I originally watched the video because Mike Mearls referred it in one of his posts (I couldn't find it again - likely between 2004 and 2008).

He posted after me on this. Proves he does read these forums.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110419

I think WotC can do the multiple editions from their end (essentially they are already doing it - premium reprints, DnDClassics, DDN, keeping DDI & 4e in print).

The problem will rest in individual Retailers where of 6 tables for RPG: 2 5e, 1 4e, 2 Pathfinder and 1 OSR is seen as a problem. Or trying to stock the Premiums, 4e, and Next will be too much.

Amazon and the other e-Commerce sites won't care.

And the bigger problem from the players themselves going tribal on the other groups to validate their own preferences. Edition warring on the forums and in the stores.

I think you are looking at it wrong here. Yes there are different flavors of games but they are essentially all in different brands. If the company that makes prego also made classico for instance. I think where wotc would want to position themselves is a single brand with 3 clearly defined options that are all possible from the base game and same brand. I will cite another TED talks that illustrate why on this. The dials and levers idea is something a master game designer likes because they can weigh all of the options and determine what is best for them. However an average person or worse a group think will often default stuff. Because (1) it is hard to agree on stuff as a group and (2) dials and levers increase expectation that you will have the perfect game for you and (3) each option is a complex decision that has impact and ripples throughout the game and this can create buyers remorse, thus pushing toward RAW.

So I would say not RAW + myriad of options. Three RAWs.

Thanks for resurrecting this! Nice to read what I was thinking back in 2009.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions