What D&D can learn from spaghetti sauce

[hectorse]

I don't really like what I see in 4E, but I still plan on buying the books to get a better look at the game. If I don't buy another 4E book after that is 4E still doing tremendously in comparison to me previously purchasing multiple 3E splatbooks? I think I am not alone.

If you think about it as pure stats, then yes...

Even if 1% of 4e players buy a splatbook, it's still more than 1% of 3e if more people bought the core books.

That the DDi compendium (if it works) allows you to have all the rules separated nice and filtered only helps it more.

 

[Doug McCrae]

notable subsets of the population feel that it does not appeal to what they find fun.

They're not notable.

notable adj. worthy of note, striking, remarkable, eminent.

This is the internet. Nothing that happens here is worthy of note. A couple hundred posters on ENWorld amount to basically zilch compared to the sales figures we already know about.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

With the number of rpgs out there, I'd imagine every cluster group is catered for - there's all flavours of sauce already.

Do you think that this wasn't the case with sauce? I'm quite sure that it was. The difference was that this was a major brand who could demand shelf-space and advertise, and who people already knew they quite liked.

The analogy/parable seems extremely relevant.

Olgar - You don't salt or pepper your spaghetti sauce? Or otherwise adulterate it? Americans are weird.

 

[resistor]

To the OP: can you tell us the name of the company? Tales with a heavy moral like this (be it in business or otherwise) tend to be apocryphal.

You can, of course, watch the video that I linked to in my first post, which is also a better recounting of the story. But, for reference, it was the Prego brand, manufactured by Campbell's.

 

[resistor]

They're not notable.

notable adj. worthy of note, striking, remarkable, eminent.

This is the internet. Nothing that happens here is worthy of note. A couple hundred posters on ENWorld amount to basically zilch compared to the sales figures we already know about.

It's notable enough to at least a few game companies (Paizo, Green Ronin) who are making their own products to target that market.

 

[resistor]

Second, there is no proof that forum posters compose a majority of the consumer market and, in fact, there is much strong anecdotal to suggest the opposite (incidentally, this is why RPG companies rarely make business decisions based solely on this subset of fandom). Also, I don't see any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to suggest that a majority of forum posters hate D&D 4e, either.

I didn't mean to imply that it was a majority of the population, but I am not alone in thinking that it's a noticeable chunk either. See companies like Paizo and Green Ronin who are willing to bet on being able to capture the non-4e-likers with their own systems.

I think that the more likely explantion for some people not liking D&D 4e despite record sales is much more simple than what you posit. Namely, I think it's about probability -- you simply can't satisfy everybody all of the time. I posit that you're overthinking things in an attempt to rationalize the behavior of radical pro-4e and radical anti-4e fandom, both of which are completely irrational by nature.

I don't see how your posit and mine are mutually exclusive. I certainly agree that you can't please everyone. The question is why are they not pleased. Without having actual data to prove or disprove my hypothesis, it certainly seems reasonable to me on the surface. It's, of course, also possible that there were "preference clusters" that were not addressed well by 3e that now are by 4e, which could account for its high sales numbers.

As an anecdotal example, in the "what I don't like about 4e" thread, there is a long string of posters agreeing with each other about how they dislike the fact that PCs and monsters use different rulesets, because they feel that it interferes with their ability to create realistic worlds. Based on this trend, I might posit the existence of a "simulationist worldbuilder" preference cluster that is not well addressed in 4e.

 

[Agamon]

He broke the data down to find out that spaghetti-sauce eaters fall into roughly three categories of preference: regular, spicy, and extra chunky. And, while the company had always produced a spicy variation on their sauce, not a single brand on the market offered an extra chunky variety. They put it into production, and went on to make $600 million in the following years.

I'd like to buy that man a beer. Chunky sauce rules!

 

[xechnao]

This is the internet. Nothing that happens here is worthy of note.

Not true. Internet is a major promotion environment. One of the most important ones for the consumer market.

 

[Doug McCrae]

As an anecdotal example, in the "what I don't like about 4e" thread, there is a long string of posters agreeing with each other about how they dislike the fact that PCs and monsters use different rulesets, because they feel that it interferes with their ability to create realistic worlds. Based on this trend, I might posit the existence of a "simulationist worldbuilder" preference cluster that is not well addressed in 4e.

This is your mistake. You're making an assumption about large numbers of D&Ders based on a handful of opinions expressed on an ENWorld thread. ENWorlders are highly atypical.

WotC surveys show that most gamers don't care about system. They stick with D&D because it's what they know. There are plenty of players around and they don't have to learn a new set of rules. In fact I think the surveys showed a lot of them didn't even know other rpgs existed, which is unthinkable to an ENWorlder.

That also answers the point about Paizo and Green Ronin. They're not catering to a worldbuilder sim preference. They're catering to inertia.

 

[howandwhy99]

The OP makes a lot of sense to me. And Wizards has attempted to keep a degree of variation by designing the game with "siloed" mechanics. Meaning we can take out a lot of what we don't like and add in different systems we prefer.

The challenge in the future will be answering the question, "How many options will Wizards publish in coming versions?" Not editions of the game, but the new annual core books and supplements. What segments of the game will have new, swappable parts for groups to commercially customize their game?

And further, what qualifies for Wizards as not removable? Personally, I'd prefer a different combat system and a different character system. Will these be offered?

I think much of the animosity Wizards is now hearing is not backlash from fear of change. I think it's the bitter pill of hearing that "the way you play D&D sucks and we're leaving it out". Belittling previous editions isn't going to win them friends in the community they are attempting to sell to.