What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[doctorhook]

Having not read the entire thread - as these threads start to sound the same eventually. Only one thing could improve things and it will never happen. That WotC becomes bought out by someone other than Hasbro, someone with a love of the game, more so than the bottom line. Then products that fit the need of the audience not in the need of shareholders becomes the superior issue. Since bottom line books make more money than adventures, books are produced not adventure - etc., etc.

Not gonna happen, but if WotC was owned by any non-corporate entity, it would serve its customer base better. That's the only solution I see.

GP

I've seen this argument many times, and it still rings hollow (read: sounds like BS) to me. WotC "doesn't love the game enough" since they got bought out? So, the golden age of D&D was from what, 1997-1999? :rollseyes:

"Oh noes, Hasbro is Teh Evil Empire!" they cry, as if Lorraine Williams was the patron saint of gamers.

EDIT: This sounds unnecessarily harsh, upon reflection. That said, I don't want you to take this personally; I'm trying to address your argument, not you yourself. I have very strong feelings about your argument, and I think it's got more holes than a spaghetti strainer, and I think my response adequately entails my feelings about it. I just wanted to explain myself, lest you think me a common troll.

 

[BryonD]

For me:

Take this quote and reverse it:

Question: So you want to bring back a lot of iconic elements – but what about team work?

Andy Collins: […Well, what changed is] how we approached class design. In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience. A lot of the classes designed in the last 30 years are not interesting, are not compelling either in a fight or maybe out of a fight, but just pale compared to other characters on the table top. Who really wants to play a monk when you can play a rogue or a fighter, who can do all these things - ok, the monk gets to jump and run around a lot but what does he really get to contribute at the table that other characters don’t do better than him. The wizard can fly – so why do you need someone who jumps well?

So whenever we were approaching a new class we had to home in on what makes this guy special and unique within in the game - not just in the world of D&D but, since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming.

I play RPGs because it is appealing to create the simulation of being Gimli, or Milamber, or Conan.

And supporting that simulation must be a key priority for a game that will appeal to me.

Andy's comments compare the monk to the fighter and wizard as if they are chess pieces. He concludes that the monk is less appealing than the wizard in way that is not far different than concluding that the knight is less appealing than the rook.

But the appeal for playing a monk does not reside within the game mechanics. If I want to play a monk within a pseudo-fantasy environment, it is because that is the character type that is calling to me at that time. I want to be the guy who jumps and kicks. But, far more than that, I want to be the guy who masters his body and contemplates his place in the multiverse and through all of this achieves a supernatural ability to jump and kick, amongst other things. But the details of the jumping and kicking and everything else is simply a secondary effect of the character.

Andy calls this :"not necessarily a compelling game play experience."

And I know that people are going to try to spin this as me just saying that I have no imagination and I don't need rules for this. blah blah blah

If you think that, then you are missing the point. I agree 100% that I can roleplay a monk using the 4E ruleset. No doubt about it. But, my ability to roleplay is not impacted by the ruleset I choose. And, as Andy states, other editions of the game put imagining the character first. Given the choice between a ruleset that is built with fostering my playstyle in mind, and a ruleset that puts "being the character" as a secondary tier subservient to tabletop miniature equity, why in the world would I choose the latter?

The philosophy that Andy describes for 4E can make good games. And they have achieved that.
The philosophy that Andy describes for prior games can make outstanding RPG experiences, or maybe even better stated, can take the imaginations of quality players and provide synergy for a highly rewarding experience that really doesn't have anything to do with math working.

Make the game about BEING the character first again.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Honestly I think this is the heart of the issue. The brand that is D&D long ago transcended the companies that publish its material and became the identity of a sub-culture. I believe this where the sense of self-entitlement comes from. People who play D&D feel as responsible for the brand as any other entity. And in a lot of ways they are right.

But, I am puzzled by gamers making demands of WotC when other companies have already heard their pleas and are delivering solutions. Is the brand that important? Do you feel ripped off because its D&D you want to play, because well its D&D.

I used to drive nothing but Hondas. I loved them. They were everything I wanted in a car. Small, reliable, peppy and stylish. Recently Honda has made some turns that I don't agree with (primarily in the category of style). I don't hang out at the dealership lamenting about how things used to be or how hard it is to find parts to my old civic. I haven't written any letters to Honda, demanding they manufacture the older cars I love. I bought a Subaru and I really like it.

Think about what you are asking of WotC... to provide all things to all people. I cannot think of a single company in any industry that operates on this kind of model. The few that even come close (Comcast, Verizon, Walmart, Best Buy) do such an awful job of it and are generally reviled by the public they serve.

But rather than lapse further into a rant, I have a question. What is it about PDFs that make them so desirable?

Your right the brand has transcended itself. Some play Paizo D&D, some play Gygax D&D, etc, etc.
Most of us who have been playing since the red box, can honestly say we have helped shape D&D to what it has become today.
Everyone of us that every attended a Con, wrote into Dragon's Sage Advice, or had an interaction with a TSR/WotC employee has had some affect upon the game itself. From the games we have DM'd to the ones we have played in. Each shapes the game and our prespections of the game. So I can understand where the self-entitlement mentality comes from.

In my case, I'm not sure if there is much to "win" back in their eyes.

WotC is targeting younger gamers. Simply put. After 4e coming out I realized I was no longer the "target market" demographic. I'm not sure how successful 4e has been in drawing in newer, younger, players. I can only observed what it happening in my local area and comments online. From what I'm seeing is 3.5e and Pathfinder being played. 4e seems to not be as popular.

Even if sales are down, I doubt WotC would re-release stuff from older editions on PDF or whatever format. Older editions are competition for the newer edition. I'd like to see PDFs of older stuff, but I doubt its going to happen--after all, requests like that seem to come from the older demographic in WotC's eyes.

WotC already got my money. I purchased the first three core books, DDI, Adventurers Vault, and Open Grave. I played the game, liked it at first. But then I wasted about three months running a campaign with it. 4e goes against my gaming philosophy of being creative, giving players many options both for character building and ingame, and the threat that your character could die. But then again, WotC is targeting people who don't have time to be creative, who want limited options to get on playing in one hour encounter blocks, and who expect their characters to not die. No. I am not part of that demographic at all.

My only regret with 4e is buying all those books and wasting three months running a 4e campaign before realizing that 4e is just not for me.

You are both right and wrong in your assumptions.
Your right in that they are catering to that demographic, but you are definitely wrong in that 4E isn't made for those that have time for creativity. I'd wager that there are at least 5 posters in this thread alone that play in a homebrew 4E world.

I should have stated that a bit more clearly.
--------------------------------------
2] WotC should ditch 4th edition and its design goals to create a 5th edition that strongly resembles the D&D that I've played for the past 30 years. There is room for innovation and streamlining (I'm thinking of d20/OGL games like Star Wars: Saga Edition and Castles & Crusades) while still keeping the classic D&D tropes.
--------------------------------------

I don't want to go back to AD&D at all. I'd like to see 5th edition D&D use the best bits from AD&D, 3.X and 4th edition, plus some new innovation to fill in the cracks.

That does make a little more sense now, thanks for clearing it up.
I think a better winner for WotC might be a few heavy fluff books, that are fairly edition neutral. That might be another way to bring a few more back into the fold.
How many here would buy a fluff campaign setting book. Where the only edition related information would be DM notes of something like:

Lord Yeti - Ruler of YetiBSland
Recommended levels:
1E - 13th Level Fighter
2E - 15th Level Fighter
3E - 10th Level Fighter / 5th Level Aristocrat / 3rd Level Noble
4E - 12th Level xxxxxx (I don't know enough 4E to fake it right)
Followed by a small history of Lord Yeti and YetiBSland.

You don't need their specific character builds, DM's around here I know could easily work up the above levels. Even more so with the DDI Character Builders (makes another case for older editions in the Builders).

 

[pawsplay]

What is it about PDFs that make them so desirable?

They never go out of print.

 

[pawsplay]

The only people that say Wizards has bad customer service or public relations are people who aren't customers in the first place.

I have a whole small bookcase of 3e materials. Then 4e rolled out, and in short order I was told I was a nerd for liking gnomes and Paizo was ordered to stop selling me PDFs of old D&D products. In what way that was good customer service and PR I am waiting to understand.

 

[Imaro]

You are both right and wrong in your assumptions.
Your right in that they are catering to that demographic, but you are definitely wrong in that 4E isn't made for those that have time for creativity. I'd wager that there are at least 5 posters in this thread alone that play in a homebrew 4E world.

couldn't help but find your example a little ironic, since the 4e corebooks have little to no information on actually creating your own campaign world.

 

[pawsplay]

Just because you don't understand someone, doesn't mean they are not making logical sense. No need to be an ass about it.

Hey, I was trying to be polite. I allowed for the possibility maybe I was just tripping over some concept, and someone would be able to illuminate it. However,

Besides, he was making perfect sense, you just didn't get it. Which is fine, no fault on you.

... the fact the he nor you nor anyone else has been able to make it make sense strengthens my opinion the original ideas were simply illogical and unformed.

Mutants & Masterminds (both 1e and 2e) were clearly OGL games. Heavily modified, of course, but also designed with the intent to stay within OGL bounds. Not for licensing reasons, but because GR felt at the time that keeping the game close to D&D 3e (or the d20 system) was an important design goal.

DC Adventures (and M&M 3e) is still an OGL game. It's derived from M&M 1e and 2e of course! But the designers have actually stated in their design journals that with the demise of the d20 system as a driving force in the RPG market, they are more comfortable dropping tropes of d20 and moving away from the system.

The "demise of the d20 system" has little to do with the health of the OGL.

What would have happened if 4e had gone the way we all thought it would a year before it released, with a new d20 license and new OGL as open as 3e? Would the eventual DC Adventures and M&M 3e be 4e D&D based? Would it stick closer to the original 3e OGL than it is currently? We will never know, of course, but there's a good chance things would have played out differently.

You are right. We will never know.

Also, Pathfinder would not likely exist. Pathfinder is essentially D&D 3.75e and is clearly an OGL game . . . but Paizo was seriously considering going 4e and (new) d20 before they got a hold of the more restrictive GSL. Again, if WotC had from the start given the industry an open 4e, things would have played out differently.

Almost certainly. I don't know who would have continued the 3e lineage instead of Paizo in such circumstances. It is also fairly likely that 4e-based work would be done by 3pp that might have made 4e more palatable, but it would have meant a shift not only in the WotC's legal position but their marketing strategy.

Edit: The (D&D 3e) d20/OGL boom is not "dead", but it is mostly over and waning. The boom has come and gone. The success of Pathfinder is a unique case and DCA is only OGL because M&M 1e & 2e were. GR has dropped all other d20/OGL product lines.

The OGL "boom" is dead. The OGL is just beginning. If you aren't on the train, you will be left at the station. There is no question in my mind that the gaming community as a whole can out-write and out-design the output of any one commercial, profit-based company in the long run. WotC made a serious strategic error, one which has count them immeasurable good will, long term brand strength, and the loyalty of fans and game designers. According to the doomsayers a while back, something like Pathfinder should have been impossible, and yet Pathfinder 3PP products are equalling or exceeding the sales of 3pp 4e products. Maybe that works just fine for WotC, but my feeling is that WotC's grab for the mass market succeeded much better than their attempts to win the hearts and minds of hobbyists.

 

[UniversalMonster]

I have a whole small bookcase of 3e materials. Then 4e rolled out, and in short order I was told I was a nerd for liking gnomes and Paizo was ordered to stop selling me PDFs of old D&D products. In what way that was good customer service and PR I am waiting to understand.

Well, I guess you need to link to the exact quote where Wizards told you that you were "a nerd for liking gnomes". My guess is it never happened. You may have interpreted it that way, but that was your issue to deal with.

This is probably even more controversial: Buying old D&D PDFs didn't make you a customer of Wizards, it made you a customer of Paizo. Or RPGNow. Or whoever else was selling old PDFs. Wizards merely owned the original property and was allowing these 2nd parties to sell it. And then, just as arbitrarily, they disallowed it. But it doesn't matter because "Selling old PDFs of things from previous decades" does not in any way describe what Wizards of the Coast does for their business.

Again, does this seem hurtful? Because it shouldn't be taken that way.

 

[Crothian]

They never go out of print.

A PDF only product is not "in print"

 

[pawsplay]

Well, I guess you need to link to the exact quote where Wizards told you that you were "a nerd for liking gnomes". My guess is it never happened. You may have interpreted it that way, but that was your issue to deal with.

This is probably even more controversial: Buying old D&D PDFs didn't make you a customer of Wizards, it made you a customer of Paizo. Or RPGNow. Or whoever else was selling old PDFs. Wizards merely owned the original property and was allowing these 2nd parties to sell it. And then, just as arbitrarily, they disallowed it. But it doesn't matter because "Selling old PDFs of things from previous decades" does not in any way describe what Wizards of the Coast does for their business.

Again, does this seem hurtful? Because it shouldn't be taken that way.

How should it be taken? To me you're sounding frivalous, glib, and deliberately obtuse.