DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
I was still waiting for the Hydronomicon, Races of Water, Complete Aquan, Waterscape, and Tome of Magic II: Hag Magics.
If that's as creative as they can get - that explains 4e.
What would you have had them do?
- Thread starter Negflar2099
- Start date
If that's as creative as they can get - that explains 4e.
Wormwood
Adventurer
You're probably right on that last point. Speaking only for my groups, we wanted a new version of D&D.
The first thing that I need to be say on this topic is that as a gamer I do not feel obliged to judge the game on its commercial success for the company concerned - merely on how it suits my gaming needs. Yes, I take an interest in the general RPG industry and market, but I am not going to begin liking a game just because it is the "best commercial decision" or "what the market wants" - I will like it or dislike it completely independent of those commercial issues.
With that caveat out of the way:
My solution presented to the Hasbro overseers would be to indeed produce a new edition of the game. The design parameters of the new edition, however, would have been rather different than those of the current 4E. I would have explained to Hasbro, that D&D has a uniquely dominant position in the market that exists based on historical path dependence (D&D was first) and on the positive externality of a large network of players making it relatively easy to find games or groups when compared to other roleplaying games.
These strengths are inherent in the D&D brand, but they must be supported and protected by making the game appropriate to a wide range of gaming styles to accomodate a diverse gaming audience and ensure that D&D remains the RPG that most default to. Growing the hobby is commercially important, but at the same time, the existing network of players is a massive strength of D&D compared to all competing RPGs and the new edition should strive to build on it, rather than throw it away or split the base.
Retaining most of the flavor conceits of the previous editions is a harmless way to appeal to the existing user base. Massive changes of flavor (ranging from Cosmology through Dragons) are likely to needlessly leave a large chunk of the existing user-base disenchanted thus diminishing not only sales, but also the network effect that is, among other things, also important for acquiring new players. New flavor can still be introduced in new campaign settings for those who want some novelty (after all, if they want novelty, they probably don't particularly want to use legacy campaign setting anyway) and if many new flavor features are desired for the purposes of marketing to expand the user-base.
The design plan for the rules would stress supporting multiple game styles - at the very least an honest effort would be made to accomodate gamism, narrativism and simulationism, rather than choosing one or two of those and tossing the third (or even two of them) completely out of the window. We don't know the precise split of the user-base (no good data on this), but all of these are numerically important play-styles and need to be supported.
The above is the basic idea of what I would recommend. The extent of the changes between editions (and it can easily be greater than between 3E and 3.5E yet smaller than between 3.5E and 4E - there is a LOT of space in between these two extremes) is something I won't go into. I think, commercially-speaking, the appeal to existing user-base would have been greater overall, if the changes have not been quite as extensive as they were and the direction of the changes could also have been somewhat different.
Final Caveat: I am not a fan of 4E at all and dislike the direction the system has taken, so read the above with that in mind. Commercially, though, I think 4E is probably very successful - we don't really have any data, but I think there were some indications from WotC of 'record sales' and so on (though I did hear some negative rumors about follow-on sales, so I am not completely sure which rumors are closer to the truth - I merely suspect that the good sales rumors are from closer to the source and thus more credible) - so commercially they may well have made the right decision with 4E. That won't change my mind about it, though, since as I said at the beginning, I judge a game based on its suitability to my gaming needs rather than by commercial success or lack thereof.
With that caveat out of the way:
My solution presented to the Hasbro overseers would be to indeed produce a new edition of the game. The design parameters of the new edition, however, would have been rather different than those of the current 4E. I would have explained to Hasbro, that D&D has a uniquely dominant position in the market that exists based on historical path dependence (D&D was first) and on the positive externality of a large network of players making it relatively easy to find games or groups when compared to other roleplaying games.
These strengths are inherent in the D&D brand, but they must be supported and protected by making the game appropriate to a wide range of gaming styles to accomodate a diverse gaming audience and ensure that D&D remains the RPG that most default to. Growing the hobby is commercially important, but at the same time, the existing network of players is a massive strength of D&D compared to all competing RPGs and the new edition should strive to build on it, rather than throw it away or split the base.
Retaining most of the flavor conceits of the previous editions is a harmless way to appeal to the existing user base. Massive changes of flavor (ranging from Cosmology through Dragons) are likely to needlessly leave a large chunk of the existing user-base disenchanted thus diminishing not only sales, but also the network effect that is, among other things, also important for acquiring new players. New flavor can still be introduced in new campaign settings for those who want some novelty (after all, if they want novelty, they probably don't particularly want to use legacy campaign setting anyway) and if many new flavor features are desired for the purposes of marketing to expand the user-base.
The design plan for the rules would stress supporting multiple game styles - at the very least an honest effort would be made to accomodate gamism, narrativism and simulationism, rather than choosing one or two of those and tossing the third (or even two of them) completely out of the window. We don't know the precise split of the user-base (no good data on this), but all of these are numerically important play-styles and need to be supported.
The above is the basic idea of what I would recommend. The extent of the changes between editions (and it can easily be greater than between 3E and 3.5E yet smaller than between 3.5E and 4E - there is a LOT of space in between these two extremes) is something I won't go into. I think, commercially-speaking, the appeal to existing user-base would have been greater overall, if the changes have not been quite as extensive as they were and the direction of the changes could also have been somewhat different.
Final Caveat: I am not a fan of 4E at all and dislike the direction the system has taken, so read the above with that in mind. Commercially, though, I think 4E is probably very successful - we don't really have any data, but I think there were some indications from WotC of 'record sales' and so on (though I did hear some negative rumors about follow-on sales, so I am not completely sure which rumors are closer to the truth - I merely suspect that the good sales rumors are from closer to the source and thus more credible) - so commercially they may well have made the right decision with 4E. That won't change my mind about it, though, since as I said at the beginning, I judge a game based on its suitability to my gaming needs rather than by commercial success or lack thereof.
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
Interesting idea - maybe you've hit on it.
Woas
First Post
I'd of had them go ape nuts with the Open Gaming theme and maybe even give other games some spotlight. "Hey everyone. We know you love D&D but there are other RPGs out there. Check this one out <insert plug and cross over deal for a RPG from another company>." Although I realize it's not financially sound this is a dream answer to a dream question.
Basically lay some RPG foundation work... like that Go Play movement or what Gleemax was supposed to be. Getting people actually playing; anything!
Basically lay some RPG foundation work... like that Go Play movement or what Gleemax was supposed to be. Getting people actually playing; anything!
I'm solidly in the C, D or E range, personally.
Personally, I had very few issues with 3.5, and would have been content with continuing the game's production.
However, I understand the RPG business model pretty well, so I can understand the financial need for a new edition. Options D & E are pretty interchangeable in my eye- I don't think 3.75Ed vs 4Ed as a name only makes much of a difference. Even "3.5 Revised" would have worked.
So, yeah- I would have stuck with the solid foundations of the 3.5 edition, and tweaked what really needed tweaking. While there are many opinions of what those things were, certain topics kept cropping up more than others- polymorph rules, clunky rules and unclear/contradictory wordings on things like grapple or natural weapons, or even some of the mechanical refinements made by 3PP like Green Ronin, Malhavoc and so forth.
I'll echo your caveat- I have no love for 4Ed- but I think its a good FRPG. Its just not my flavor of D&D.
My interpretation of what I've seen and read leads me to believe WotC's claims that 4Ed is selling like gangbusters. I see it flying off the shelves at my LGSs all the time.
However, I also have no reason to doubt the data from a variety of polls I've seen here and elsewhere- namely that 4Ed does much better with those who are new to D&D or RPGs in general than with the game's installed base.
For example, a recent poll here showed that among those who disliked the game, slightly less than half of those responding changed their opinions from positive to negative after experiencing the game in some way, while less than 6% of those who like 4Ed changed their opinions from negative to positive. http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/251283-d-d-4th-edition-change-mind-5.html
This could be indicative that those big sales numbers are in no small part due to new blood as opposed to converting the D&D vets.
Personally, I had very few issues with 3.5, and would have been content with continuing the game's production.
However, I understand the RPG business model pretty well, so I can understand the financial need for a new edition. Options D & E are pretty interchangeable in my eye- I don't think 3.75Ed vs 4Ed as a name only makes much of a difference. Even "3.5 Revised" would have worked.
So, yeah- I would have stuck with the solid foundations of the 3.5 edition, and tweaked what really needed tweaking. While there are many opinions of what those things were, certain topics kept cropping up more than others- polymorph rules, clunky rules and unclear/contradictory wordings on things like grapple or natural weapons, or even some of the mechanical refinements made by 3PP like Green Ronin, Malhavoc and so forth.
I'll echo your caveat- I have no love for 4Ed- but I think its a good FRPG. Its just not my flavor of D&D.
My interpretation of what I've seen and read leads me to believe WotC's claims that 4Ed is selling like gangbusters. I see it flying off the shelves at my LGSs all the time.
However, I also have no reason to doubt the data from a variety of polls I've seen here and elsewhere- namely that 4Ed does much better with those who are new to D&D or RPGs in general than with the game's installed base.
For example, a recent poll here showed that among those who disliked the game, slightly less than half of those responding changed their opinions from positive to negative after experiencing the game in some way, while less than 6% of those who like 4Ed changed their opinions from negative to positive. http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/251283-d-d-4th-edition-change-mind-5.html
This could be indicative that those big sales numbers are in no small part due to new blood as opposed to converting the D&D vets.
JiffyPopTart
Bree-Yark
I'm a fairly intelligent bloke. I usually pick up on things fairly quickly. I started "playing" DnD in 3rd grade when my brother gave me his Basic and Expert boxed sets (the ones with the cool dragon drawings on the fronts) that he had gotten for christmas years ago and never opened.
I also at some point right around this time was given a Christmas gift by a friends family that had four modules bound together in a package (3 of the 4 Slavers series and the Ghost Tower of Inverness...curse you TSR for not just giving me the whole Slavers series!).
It took me upwards of 5 or 6 years of dabbling with those items to realize they weren't "compatible" with each other because they had different rulesets.
Splitting the market is bad for drawing in people unfamiliar with the product already. Now if you have a base game and simultanously come out with "advanced rules for expert gamers" that piggyback on them (like Squad Leader) then you might have a winner.
DS
Samurai
Adventurer
I'd go with F, but the actual game I'd design would be fairly different from the 4e we got. It would offer much more flexibility of character choices (at the expense of some niche protection and guaranteeing that you'll always be good at your assigned "role") and it would focus just as much (if not more) on character development and creating unique and interesting PCs as it would on "kewl combat powerz". I would add character advantages/disadvantages or Aspects (like in FATE3), more flexible use of powers, etc. So yeah, a brand new 4e, but not like the one we got.
