What is good for D&D as a game vs. what is good for the company that makes it

[Mallus]

WOTC dug their own grave here...

I'm not sure how WotC's revival of the moribund D&D franchise with the release of 3e --a fairly radical departure from the AD&D/2e framework-- can rightly be seen as "digging their own grave".

As for the release of 4e... well, it was a failure only in the sense it wasn't as big a success as 3e. I believe it still made money, it certainly has its fans, and it represented a bold, and IMHO interesting take on the game. But I don't want to get into edition-war sniping... and I don't certainly agree with all of WotC's choices, but I think think overall they've done well, and their biggest problems are related to their size, costs, and market expectations, not to the design choices/product lines.

The original poster wrote a healthy gaming community promotes a stable rule base and a unified player base.

Yes, and I disagree with that. A healthy gaming community plays the games that meet it's needs, with people playing what they want to play. At present, that means the D&D community is effectively playing several different, though related games. Equating "health" with a lack of choice seems, I don't know... old-school Soviet, perhaps?

Being able to radically house-rule your game doesn't contradict either of these goals.

I brought up the prevalence of house-rules and game hybridization to stress the point the D&D community was never all that unified when you looked at what was really happening at the table.

In comparison to edition fatigue, I haven't heard of house rules invalidating the investment in time or money someone spent learning a core rulebook, causing players to quit campaigns and gaming groups, discouraging players from joining new campaigns, or causing anything like an edition war/divided community we see now.

One: I have. And it's fine. People have been arguing over taste since the invention of hobbies (which I believe dates back to the move away from the reliance on subsistence agriculture ).

Two: I think the "divided community" thing is grossly exaggerated. And fandom/hobby community will have its factions. You could see it as a sign of the communities health that it has such, ahem, involved participants wanting to engage in, ahem, spirited disagreements.

Three: I think the whole "my investment in time and money being invalidated" argument is, well, crap. Most gamers I know like new rules, new games, new gaming experiences in general. They enjoy new product lines. It gives them something to buy . And the ones who don't simply stick to the systems/experiences they like, without any attendant feeling of invalidation.

Now people online... well, like they say, the Internet was created for pornography, cat photos, and vitriolic arguments.

Four: I'm afraid, in the end, this all boils down to "I want the community to like the things I like, and play the I want to play". I understand the sentiment, especially for people who don't live in areas rich in gaming opportunities, but at the same time I don't have much sympathy.

I've got an extremely... idiosyncratic take on D&D, as anyone who read the Story Hour based on my old 3e campaign, or listened to me describe our 4e game and its PCs, can attest to. This gives me a certain perspective. I can't expect the rest of the community to share my tastes. I can only be happy (and thankful) when I find people who do, at least enough so we can get together every few weeks.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not sure how WotC's revival of the moribund D&D franchise with the release of 3e --a fairly radical departure from the AD&D/2e framework-- can rightly be seen as "digging their own grave".

I think it is fair to say that WOTC saved D&D with the release of 3E. Most of us just disagree on where 4E should have gone.

Yes, and I disagree with that. A healthy gaming community plays the games that meet it's needs, with people playing what they want to play. At present, that means the D&D community is effectively playing several different, though related games. Equating "health" with a lack of choice seems, I don't know... old-school Soviet, perhaps?
.

Since I was one of the people making this point I should clarify. I think a robust gaming community occurs when you have a widespread stable system. But to be clear, I love the options available to me as a gamer today. And I don't think having a stable system that most people use, would preclude that. Back in the 80s and 90s I had a ton of options even though most people were playing AD&D. It was really during the 3E era (and I am a 3E fan) where my options narrowed because the open license encouraged d20 products. There just seemed to be fewer people making anything not d20.

However I do think one benefit of the d20 era is it was easier to bring new players to the game. All you had to do was learn d20 and you were set.

It is a little like when you have too many leagues in a sport and it fractures the fanbase. On the one hand you have more options for entertainment, but on the other the lack of unity can hurt the sport's popularity (though I think it is important to point out this is hardly always the case).

 

[Umbran]

Your presumption of an Evergreen D&D presumes that people's tastes don't change. I think they do. I don't play the way I played when I was 14 years old. The game that appeals to that 14 year old version of me is not the same as what appeals to me at 39.

And, what appeals to today's 14 year-old probably wouldn't appeal to today's 39-year-old, or yesteryear's 14-year-old.

The entire market today doesn't even agree on what's to their taste, and you want one game to hold everyone for a long period of time? Whether or not we might want it, it is reasonable to expect it?

 

[Mallus]

Since I was one of the people making this point I should clarify. I think a robust gaming community occurs when you have a widespread stable system.

Okay. On the other hand, I think you can have a robust gaming community when you have multiple systems (even ones which share the same name), or a single system played in many, divergent ways. And as evidence, I'd use the current state of the hobby, including the current state of D&D.

But to be clear, I love the options available to me as a gamer today.

Me too!

And I don't think having a stable system that most people use, would preclude that.

I don't think a single... hegemonic system would preclude that. But I don't think that's what the D&D community actually wants, and I believe the communities current buying/playing habits back me up on this.

I'd be happy to check out an attempt at an "evergreen" edition that unifies the D&D player base. But given the behavior of the D&D community over the past decade, I have no reason to believe it would achieve that goal (even if they're a crackerjack set of rules).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay. I think you can have a robust gaming community when you have multiple systems (even ones which share the same name), or a single system played in many, divergent ways. And as evidence, I'd use the current state of the hobby, including the current state of D&D.

I want to be careful in qualifying this, because I think you are right. You can have a robust gaming community and fragmented systems. But I would dispute that the hobby is presently healthy. I don't think it is dying or anything like that. But I do think (at least from where I am standing) things have dropped since the d20 boom.

Don't get me wrong, it is a great time to be a gamer. People are experimenting with systems and putting out all kinds of new material. I just don't see the hobby growing right now (but I could be wrong). I wouldn't want to go back to the d20 boom right now. I see people putting a lot more thought into their gaming than ever before. I see lots of great products being released. I feel like I have tons of options.

Me too!

I am glad we agree

I don't think a single... hegemonic system would preclude that. But I don't think that's what the D&D community actually wants, and I believe the communities current buying/playing habits back me up on this.

I think this is a valid point and I tend to agree (though I might not agree with the term "hegemonic" in this case simply because of its connotations). You are probably correct. I think the split that happened under 3E clarified things for many people. Many realized what aspects of the hobby it is they really want to focus on. And that is great. But it also does make it harder to bring multiple people to the table. I think if the next edition didn't thrill me like 3E did, but didn't bother me as much as 4E, I'd make the switch if it meant getting more of my players to use the same system.

There is another point here though. Since I stopped playing D&D, I've largely realized I don't need it. I mean it would be great if there was an edition of D&D out there right now that appealed to me. But I am perfectly happy playing my own games and games like Savage Worlds, Cthulu, etc. It is kind of liberating not having to do medieval fantasy all the time.

I'd be happy to check out an attempt at an "evergreen" edition that unifies the D&D player base. But given the behavior of the D&D community over the past decade, I have no reason to believe it would achieve that goal (even if they're a crackerjack set of rules).

Like I said, I do think it is tricky, and I don't envy Cook. But I do think it is possible if the planets align, the marketing is right, and the system hits the right spot on the spectrum (but I'd be lying if I said I had any idea where that point is).

 

[Hussar]

I want to be careful in qualifying this, because I think you are right. You can have a robust gaming community and fragmented systems. But I would dispute that the hobby is presently healthy. I don't think it is dying or anything like that. But I do think (at least from where I am standing) things have dropped since the d20 boom.

Just an additional clarification if you don't mind. When you say "things" have dropped since the d20 boom, are you speaking from an industry standpoint or a player standpoint.

After all, there's no evidence that the number of D&D players was significantly dropping throughout 2e, despite the obvious issues with the industry. And, going beyond D&D, I don't think that the number of gamers in the 90's was significantly dropping after the original boom/bust cycle of the early 80's.

IOW, I think there was a spike between 80 and 83 (ish) where you had the whole D&D fad thing going on and lots of poeple picking up the game, playing it for a very short time and then sticking it in their closet, never to play again. However, after that spike, you have a fairly stable, and slowly growing gamer population that I think is still growing today.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just an additional clarification if you don't mind. When you say "things" have dropped since the d20 boom, are you speaking from an industry standpoint or a player standpoint.

Both.

After all, there's no evidence that the number of D&D players was significantly dropping throughout 2e, despite the obvious issues with the industry. And, going beyond D&D, I don't think that the number of gamers in the 90's was significantly dropping after the original boom/bust cycle of the early 80's.

This is all just opinion at this stage. There isn't a lot of data to go on. But from where I was standing in the mid/late-90s players were definitely dropping (there were even some KNODT strips about the problem if I remember correctly). In my gaming area, I saw lots of people leave for magic, larping, and board games (I think people saw the writing on the wall at TSR and that effected their enthusiasm for the game). When 3E came out, huge boom in players around here. I had so many new players as a direct result of 3E.

IOW, I think there was a spike between 80 and 83 (ish) where you had the whole D&D fad thing going on and lots of poeple picking up the game, playing it for a very short time and then sticking it in their closet, never to play again. However, after that spike, you have a fairly stable, and slowly growing gamer population that I think is still growing today.

Personally I think it has been up and down. But this is just my take from being part of the gaming community in the Salem-Boston area. Like I said there is no data really. It is kind of a subjective call.

I think the early 80s spike was unique (though I was a kid at the time and didn't roll a d20 till 1986. But I think you had a pretty big boom in the early 2000s with 3E and all the fantasy stuff coming out like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

So to me it looks like we've had plenty of peaks and valleys (which I think is normal for any hobby); with a huge boom in the early 80s and a second big boom with 3E.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

I'm not sure how WotC's revival of the moribund D&D franchise with the release of 3e --a fairly radical departure from the AD&D/2e framework-- can rightly be seen as "digging their own grave".

WOTC is rapidly dividing the player base and burning bridges with customers. I'm not sure if it was avoidable or their was a more profitable option, but I suspect it isn't sustainable for them to maintain their previous success. They sort of remind me of IBM's fall from power in the eighties. They aren't necessary anymore. I do respect their innovations but you have to understand they come with drawbacks.

At present, that means the D&D community is effectively playing several different, though related games. Equating "health" with a lack of choice seems, I don't know... old-school Soviet, perhaps?

Well that's the most polite comparison I've ever seen of an idea to soviet communism . It's still utterly ridiculous

Editions are like operating systems. The worldwide market for PCs is only big enough to support three big ones - and that's amongst a very very large user base (all computer users worldwide). I'm not deeply passionate about operating systems so I tend to think all operating systems are essentially the same - they are platforms for having an experience. You can have the same experience on all the operating systems if the resources (programs) are available - but if they're not then it's just an inconvenience. And that's how I think of editions of D&D. If I want to play Temple of Elemental Evil by Atari (you see what I did there?) and I have a Mac, well shucks, it was made for Windows. A small number of users have strong preferences between the the operating systems - but most just use the one that's compatible with the most programs.

For such a small hobby we have a lot of operating systems. Very rarely are their programs compatible with other operating systems.

Three: I think the whole "my investment in time and money being invalidated" argument is, well, crap. Most gamers I know like new rules, new games, new gaming experiences in general. They enjoy new product lines. It gives them something to buy .

In your words that's crap. Step back and look at the big picture. We're talking about the potential size of the community rather than the current community. You can always find some random person who will try 2E, who may bug the crap out of you. I'm talking about getting my old best friend the reluctant gamer to play.

I've talked to plenty of people in their teens and twenties, many former gamers, who are reluctant to get into D&D because they don't have the time or money. Learning a game, any game, takes commitment. If people don't know a game they're less likely to play the game their friend is bugging them to learn. This is especially true of D&D where people are more likely than not to have played a game that is different mechanically than what they played.

The thing this insulated forum seems to fail to grasp is that the barrier in terms of time and money to playing in and especially running role playing games is remarkably high. The point of entry product, a 300-page rulebook, becomes obsolete every five years or so. A 40 year old who played AD&D would rightfully be terrified to pick up where they left off and start DMing with a 30 year old friend and a 20 year old nephew based on their different points of entry into the hobby and available resources.

The small portion of the population that sticks with RPGs is remarkably tolerant of new product lines and planned obsolescence. You could not instantaneously discontinue and recreate any game or sport and sell it under the same brand and not expect customers to revolt. You couldn't rewrite an operating system like Windows and discontinue support for all existing Windows products and not expect an uproar.

Four: I'm afraid, in the end, this all boils down to "I want the community to like the things I like, and play the I want to play". I understand the sentiment, especially for people who don't live in areas rich in gaming opportunities, but at the same time I don't have much sympathy.

Way off. Have you read anything I've said? I'm not sure how you invented that.

Playing the edition I like the least with people I want to play with is far superior to playing my preferred edition with random people I met on the internet. All the editions of D&D get you to the same place. I do have certain preferences, we all do, but the 1% of differences cause so many more problems than they solve.

 

[Pentius]

I've talked to plenty of people in their teens and twenties, many former gamers, who are reluctant to get into D&D because they don't have the time or money. Learning a game, any game, takes commitment. If people don't know a game they're less likely to play the game their friend is bugging them to learn. This is especially true of D&D where people are more likely than not to have played a game that is different mechanically than what they played.

The thing this insulated forum seems to fail to grasp is that the barrier in terms of time and money to playing in and especially running role playing games is remarkably high. The point of entry product, a 300-page rulebook, becomes obsolete every five years or so. A 40 year old who played AD&D would rightfully be terrified to pick up where they left off and start DMing with a 30 year old friend and a 20 year old nephew based on their different points of entry into the hobby and available resources.

I don't know the social mores in your area, but everywhere I've ever lived, the entry point to playing the game if you have some friends who are into it is zero dollars.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Quite honestly? No. None. There have been divisions in D&D since I started playing in 1980.

Impressive? You're quite deep in the rabbit hole.
I don't recall any strong divisions from 1998 until the 3.5/PF/4E split besides the very occaisonal 1E/2E holdout and Vampire game. Maybe that was just the people I knew.

When 3e came out, I didn't make the switch immediately because I didn't see the need to. I had people who wanted to play in my 2e game and, after 10 years of playing 2e, I could run a pretty decent 2e game. Then I played in a 3e game and never went back. I thought it was a better game. It took all my house rules, made them ten times better and then gave me more stuff.
...
Your presumption of an Evergreen D&D presumes that people's tastes don't change. I think they do. I don't play the way I played when I was 14 years old. The game that appeals to that 14 year old version of me is not the same as what appeals to me at 39.

I definitely don't want to play the game I played when I was 14, although I don't see any reason why 2E would stop me from playing that game, albeit in a slightly clunky manner. I suspect what you said about gamers tastes changing may be true about the people on this forum and the core gamers (who are probably the most profitable customers), but distinctly untrue of lapsed gamers.

Here's the thing. You are talking about gamers that play D&D for years and decades. For these people the rules are really easy and become stale. I don't think for most gamers any edition has ever become stale.

While your mileage may vary, I have never had the luxury of playing with a group in which every player owned a PHB for the game they were playing. I've never seen a game where more than half of the gamers understood cleric domains, flanking rules and grabbing rules (and that includes many 4E games). Every game we have to pause and explain rules to a player who comes from a slightly different gaming background how the backstabbing or death rules or whatever are different in this game than the game he plays. I've only played past level 10 once (which is fairly typical when gaming in a college town). Even when DMing I've never felt like I had much more than an elementary grasp of any gaming system, what my players could handle or how they should be rewarded. And in the last year as I've been gaming more and switching between 4E, 3.5, PF, and C&C to accommodate various players and situations I feel like mastering any system just feels more and more unlikely.

Rules innovations do streamline the game but you have to balance players the speed in which players integrate new rules with how much value they provide.

That all being said though, I do agree that D&D needs a solid gateway game. But, IMO, an RPG is not it. I'd go with a Euro-style board game with roleplaying elements. Think Diplomacy with a few more rules and more dragons. I always thought that the D&D Minis was an excellent gateway game to D&D. The gateway game to RPG's should not be a straight up RPG. Your Monopoly model actually would have better legs if the gateway game was an actual boardgame with RP elements.

I haven't played those games but I think on an elementary level players can grasp any edition of D&D with a proper introduction. The problem is that most folks are unable to accept radical changes to their game as they get older. D&D is never too complex when you're 14 if you have a friend to walk you through it

The board game with RPing elements is still an interesting idea for different reasons