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

[Bluenose]

True, but this assumes that they all wanted a different game with totally different fluff(and I'm almost positive that this isn't 100% true)...as opposed to the same game and fluff with fixes... or perhaps tweaks along the lines of Star Wars SE.

Those two concepts need splitting.

A different game; well, 3rd edition was a different game to earlier versions of D&D. Apparently some people don't have a problem with it still being D&D. Yet there are, quite clearly, people who don't think it's the same game. And having experimented with it and found that if you play 3e the way you played BECM/1e/2e then the results of your actions would not be the same, then I've plenty of sympathy for that view.

Totally different fluff; well, which fluff makes a game D&D? Because if there's one thing that's absolutely certain it is that different GMs run their homebrew campaigns with different ideas behind their setting, and that even official published settings didn't all use the same fluff. I'm perfectly happy for you to tell the Dark Sun fans, to take one example, that their game isn't D&D because the fluff is different. I just don't think they'd agree, and neither would I.

Actually, I hope most people wouldn't agree. Changing things is what GMs do, or at least did when I started playing.

 

[Kobold Boots]

As with almost anything, the way to make serious money isn't about working harder, its about working smarter.

Your music- assuming you're not also the writer getting royalties through that channel as well- is just the tip of the iceberg. Your music gets you the tour and other exposure.

The next step is touring & other exposure- getting on a movie soundtrack, being the featured artist in a TV show or doing a soundtrack to a video game, etc. This gets you more money- your take-home will be higher, and it will reinforce sales of your music, even your back catalog. More importantly, if you do it right, this makes your band into a brand.

And the Brand is where the REAL money is- merch, merch merch. Gene Simmons didn't become as wealthy as he is by selling KISS albums or going on tour, he got it by putting the brand's name on EVERYTHING. That helped get him a TV deal.

David Bowie? He sold stock in future releases, which, at one point, made him the second richest musician in the world (I believe Sir Paul edged him out).

Points noted and thank you for adding detail to the discussion.

In your opinion, what bands that have gone from unknowns to known quantities during the late 80s to 90s have actually done this well? I acknowledge KISS and Bowie, both of whom took advantage of the rapid rise of commercial media in the 70s. I'd even argue that Metallica may have ridden the crest of this, but they rose in the 80s.

Reason I'm asking is because the nature of brand marketing and media has changed over the years within the music industry. Most of the success stories I'm aware of were generated at a time when the suits weren't fully aware of the power of merch marketing. (The business cases that led the way to enlightenment for them were KISS in the music industry and STAR WARS - in the film segment where Lucas negotiated full control of the merchandising rights and shafted MGM).

Sorry to be off topic with the post but this is something that legitimately interests me to chat about.

 

[ggroy]

In your opinion, what bands that have gone from unknowns to known quantities during the late 80s to 90s have actually done this well? I acknowledge KISS and Bowie, both of whom took advantage of the rapid rise of commercial media in the 70s. I'd even argue that Metallica may have ridden the crest of this, but they rose in the 80s.

Nickelback?

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm with MerricB on this one.

For better or worse, there's a movement in the contemporary RPG scene which takes the view that RPGs are games, and that playing the game by the rules should deliver the promised experience. That's fundamentally at odds with some more traditional ways of designing RPGs, which are all about having the rules of the game model the ingame world, and then relying on the GM to judiciously suspend the rules in order to deliver the desired play experience (fudging death results against low-level PCs being the most notorious example of this).

If the contemporary RPG scene truly held the view that rpg's are games then there wouldn't be so much focus on storytelling going on.

Traditional rpg design does indeed have the rules of the game model the ingame world. Where you are making the huge assumption is in your assertion of some universal 'desired play experience'. In traditional rpg gameplay the rules are used and for those playing a game, the desired play experience will come from using the rules, playing, and seeing what outcome happens to be the result.

Assuming a desired outcome and fudging mechanics, or designing mechanics to achieve that specific outcome throws out the game part of rpg.

What exactly is meant by 'the promised experience' anyway?

 

[Imaro]

Unfortunately, "robust" doesn't describe for me the monster customisation rules in 3e. It worked very well for some (simple) monsters, then fell apart dreadfully when faced with other challenges, such as a grappling monster.

There were a lot of traps in 3e for the newer player: elements that looked fine but didn't work as advertised.

If a system requires you to fudge the rules as a matter of course, then I'm not such a big fan of the system.

Fair enough if your opinion is that the 3e monster and NPC customization rules weren't robust... I feel the same way about 4e's customization rules... different strokes for different folks and all.

Yes there were good and bad choices in 3e, sometimes good and bad even depended on your purpose in playing the game as opposed to optimization (and sometimes it took actual experience to decipher which was which)... personally I find games with consequences for my choices more rewarding than a game where I can make almost any choice and the system protects me from myself (I find this causes me to become bored and less interested in a system)... again, different strokes and all.

The system didn't require you to fudge... I think you're being a little disingenuous here. It's like saying 4e requires you to run combat heavy adventures.

Not really. The assumptions were correct, but they took it further than strictly necessary, and perhaps further than they should have gone. I think the new Forgotten Realms was a mistake, although I fully understand what they were trying to do. Meanwhile, the new cosmology is not really that different to what Planescape inflicted on us over a decade ago. Because I like the new cosmology greatly, I think it's fantastic and one of the best things Wizards have done. .

Again, this is all wrapped up in your personal opinion, and I can certainly respect that. But IMO, if I wanted a different cosmology and different background, and... well you get the point. There are a ton of fantasy rpg's out there with different fluff... I bought D&D for D&D's default fluff. On top of this the system is also changed and people wonder why some have a very big disconnect with this edition and they're concept of what D&D is.

Problem is, I don't think that Wizards can do a game for *only* people who run levels 1-8, which is what you seem to be suggesting. 4E is intended to retain DMs longer (and have better handling of high-level play), but with one exception it does this by making the play experience good at all levels, so I can't see how it discriminates against groups: you should be able to play any type of D&D campaign you like and have the 4E rules back you up

Merric, that's not at all what I'm suggesting, please go back and read my posts... I didn't at any point and time suggest WotC make a game for only people who run levels 1-8. What I suggested is that it's "improvement" here isn't an improvement for those who don't run super long continuous campaigns. Some of the drawbacks in drawing out the supposed sweet spot are longer low level combats, more front end complexity for characters and so on. That is my point, it wasn't an objective improvement for all DM's and may have even driven these types of DM's to other systems.

The one major exception is this: 1st level characters don't die at the drop of a hat any more. You don't have the clueless newbie so much any more. I know there are people who miss this, but I don't. I will say that even if the 1st level character is no longer so fragile, when you compare him to his higher level incarnations, he's certainly still a newbie. I've run one 4e campaign so far from 1st to 20th level (and we should continue next year into Epic levels), and there is definitely a difference in how characters feel between Heroic and Paragon tiers.

Cheers!

In Pathfinder characters don't die at the drop of a hat anymore...and low-level combat is still substantially quicker than 4e combat. I also find the absence of simple classes for someone who just wants to try the game or play casually or even someone not very interested in tactics is a total failure on 4e's part in drawing in new gamers. Well my players got up to level 5 and the game just felt sor of monotonous to us and combat took up way too much of our alloted game time. Right now my brother has started running Pathfinder and it's a breath of fresh air, where we actually progress through the story at a reasonable pace. But again this is all subjectively my feelings.

 

[Raven Crowking]

To steal a line from Raven Crowking, time will tell . . . it always does!

I stole that line from Doctor Who.....And have been a Sad Panda that no one noted its source.

 

[Imaro]

I'm with MerricB on this one.

For better or worse, there's a movement in the contemporary RPG scene which takes the view that RPGs are games, and that playing the game by the rules should deliver the promised experience. That's fundamentally at odds with some more traditional ways of designing RPGs, which are all about having the rules of the game model the ingame world, and then relying on the GM to judiciously suspend the rules in order to deliver the desired play experience (fudging death results against low-level PCs being the most notorious example of this).

Thus, I agree with BryonD when he says:



WotC have decided that the best way to secure the future of D&D is to move from the traditional to the contemporary paradigm of RPG design. Now maybe that's a mistake for all sorts of reasons - it puts heavy demands on the integrity of design and development, it produces a steady flow of errata/updates, and it produces a game which at least some fans of the traditional approach don't like. At least some of those fans see it as changing the game from an RPG to a real (video, board, whatever) game.

But I think it's a big call to say for sure that it's a mistake. The contemporary approach is not without fans. And it's not without success - some non-traditional games are pretty highly regarded: Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life With Master, Burning Wheel, Sorcerer, HeroWars/Quest.

Maybe WotC will turn out to be wrong. Maybe it will turn out that most people interested in buying RPG books like the traditional approach, and that the much larger number of people who like games of some sort or other really aren't interested in the RPG variant of games. That's certainly conceivable, because immersion in the gameworld is a big part of an RPG, and there seems to be a non-arbitrary connection between immersion in a gameworld and having mechanics that model that world.

But maybe WotC will turn out to be right. Because there also seems to be a non-arbitrary connection between wanting to have fun playing a game, and designing the rules of the game so that they (more or less, within the limits of what a small number of people on what I assume are fairly modest salaries can do) do deliver the promised fun.

I've said before that I see 4e as a bet by WotC that Ron Edwards is right in his view that the way to significantly increase the popularity of RPGs is to design them as games from the ground up, dropping whatever elements of world-simulating mechanics are necessary to achieve this. Presumably WotC have some market research to support their bet, but some aspects of what's coming out about Essentials and other downstream developments make me (as a 4e fan) worry that the bet may not have gone as well as they hope.

To steal a line from Raven Crowking, time will tell . . . it always does!

Yet all the best sellers under D&D are still simulationist systems, with gamist systems being outliers in sales and recognition... so I'm a little confused on how big this "movement" could possibly be.

D&D has an advantage here in that it's the big dog, but I honestly think they messed up by going extrememly gamist in system (along with changing the fluff at the same time). I mean yeah, you got me to buy the corebooks and even a couple of sourcebooks to give it a try... but now that I know what type of play experience you offer, I and many other players have found the mechanics don't provide the play experience we want and even the default D&D world is unfamiliar to us. I have to assume WotC has at least felt some kind of drop off in sales, as it's basic re-release of the core rules (with xtra stuff!!) is, at least partially, a common tactic in the rpg industry to boost sales. Of course without data this is all conjecture on my part... but then again what in this thread isn't?

 

[Bluenose]

Yet all the best sellers under D&D are still simulationist systems, with gamist systems being outliers in sales and recognition... so I'm a little confused on how big this "movement" could possibly be.

White Wolf games are highly simulationist? Really? I mean, it might be truer in the science fiction end of the RPG market that simulationism is strongly favoured, but elsewhere it's hardly apparent.

 

[MerricB]

I stole that line from Doctor Who.....And have been a Sad Panda that no one noted its source.

I always knew. It's the real McCoy, that one.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, most of what you're posting in this thread I've found pretty interesting - especially the back-and-forth with Umbran and others about piracy.

Flattery will get you everywhere, sexy.

But the passage I've quoted struck me as a little odd.

You refer to "people who want to give WotC money for things they enjoy playing and reading, but some of WotC's practices (namely, not selling books from older editions) lead to them not wanting to spend money on WotC products." But isn't this just a slightly convoluted way of describing "people who are in the market for RPG stuff but aren't interested in buying WotC's RPG stuff"? And that's a pretty unremarkable state of affairs in any commercial market.

Sure. But the thread is largely about how WotC could theoretically avoid some of that situation, if it was inclined to respond to the demands here. Maybe they're cool with it, and the thread is mostly just wishful thinking.

It's the dressing up of this unremarkable state of affairs in the language of "practices", "suspicions" and "disenchantment" that I don't get. It would be different if WotC's ink and paper were grossly polluting, and these were the practices that produced disenchantment. That would be a bit like the Shell boycott in the 1980s for investing in South Africa, or more recent Nike boycotts. But as far as I can see nothing like that is going on. All we have is a company offering stuff for sale that some people don't want to buy. Fair enough. Don't buy it. Why isn't that the end of the story?

Really, any time in sales will tell you that customers are generally grumpy two-year-olds about their purchases. Stereotypically, this only gets worse as they get older. It's not like WotC is doing anything immoral or wrong, but D&D is such a part of some people's lives that they have brand loyalty to the name even as they get old, have kids of their own, and start remembering their childhood with fuzzy colors. Not all of those people are interested in adopting an entirely new edition. A lot of 'em just want to buy that old 1e MM with the weird high school notebook cover art and page through it, or maybe teach it to their kids (who can then go on to buy the newest, kewlest, still-supported stuff, or not).

People just want to remember and share their D&D.

It's not the end of the story because innerdude wanted to make a bit of a manifesto about his own gripes (totally on-topic on an RPG message board), and a lot of people have things that WotC could do to win some gaming dollars from them (some realistic, some not so much).

If you'd prefer not to hear about what the disenchanted would want from D&D, I'd recommend not clicking on the thread whose title would lead you explicitly down that path.

And every company gets this. Because all customers are precious unique snowflakes. And they should be. If they weren't demanding, you'd get companies shoveling cheap crap at you and calling it good enough. McDonald's would never have sold salads, if they didn't hear the equivalent of threads like this.