Why can't WotC break the mass market barrier?
- Thread starter Grimstaff
- Start date
Gentlegamer said:
At the moment, I'm not sure I'd agree that TSR was releasing modules more regularly than WotC is. WotC's been putting out some manner of module every couple of months for the past year or two. I'm not at all sure that TSR was doing so more frequently. (Of course, that's a fairly recent phenomenon; WotC spent most of the 3.x era avoiding publishing modules.)
I still think if we're comparing "raw annual output of stuff", WotC 3.5 is going to far outstrip TSR of the early 1980s.
Last edited:
JamesM
First Post
This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, it does little to help D&D itself and indeed counts as a strike against the tabletop game, since there's really no way to compete with CRPGs when it comes to prep time, rules complexity, and beautiful graphics. My feeling remains that traditional RPGs would do better if they didn't try to compete with CRPGs/MMORPGs and instead emphasized their differences, focusing on the things that they did better than their electronic competitors. There could certainly be a useful synergy between the two "flavors" of roleplaying, each feeding off and inspiring the other, but I don't think tabletop RPGs can beat CRPGs at those things at which that medium excels.Doug McCrae said:
(As an aside, years ago, I asked a friend of mine if he wanted to play in a new D&D campaign. He declined, saying, "Why would I play D&D when I can play Diablo, which is the exact same thing but has better graphics than my imagination?" He eventually came around, because the game that we played wasn't a dungeon crawl and in fact did things no CRPG could do, but we've never let him forget that comment.)
Hussar
Legend
Just a side note about people reading less these days.
Ballocks.
All one has to do is look at the number of novels hitting the shelves to know that Americans (and people in general) are reading in huge numbers. Take genre novels as an example. There have been more SF novels produced since 2000 than were produced in the ENTIRE 20th century. While periodicals are taking a massive hit, novels are going strong.
People keep talking about how people read less these days, but, it's usually because they're trying to sell you something.
Ballocks.
All one has to do is look at the number of novels hitting the shelves to know that Americans (and people in general) are reading in huge numbers. Take genre novels as an example. There have been more SF novels produced since 2000 than were produced in the ENTIRE 20th century. While periodicals are taking a massive hit, novels are going strong.
People keep talking about how people read less these days, but, it's usually because they're trying to sell you something.
Wombat
First Post
Hussar said:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/09/news/bookreading/index.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/books/181442_reading09.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E0DD153BF93BA35754C0A9629C8B63
http://seattlemysteryblog.typepad.com/seattle_mystery/2007/08/americans-readi.html
http://mleddy.blogspot.com/2006/07/american-reading-habits.html
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6451663.html?nid=2286&source=title&rid=1912459986
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-3446179_ITM
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/notebook/123/1.html
Sorry, but both reading habits and book sales are both in a long-term trend of decline. Ask anyone in the publishing industry.
Yes, more titles are coming out, yet each one gets a small print run, barring anomalies such as the Harry Potter series.
I'm reminded of the old conflict between free and rigid Kriegspiel:JamesM said:
Very briefly, the original Prussian Army wargame was designed to test staff procedures and tactical understanding, and was introduced in 1824. It used maps or even detailed terrain models, and lead, or wooden blocks to represent troops. Red and Blue teams were housed in separate rooms, with an umpire who used complex rules to decide which course of action argued by the players would prevail. The umpires would move from room to room collecting orders, and would then retire to a third room to pour over the numerous tables and charts that constituted the rules.
This system, however, proved cumbersome and time-consuming, and tended to reduce the umpires, often senior officers to the level of clerks, so by the time of the Franco-Prussian War, the complex rule book was replaced by an umpire who was free to use his own knowledge, experience, and intuition to make rulings, hence the appellation, free kriegspiel. This innovation is credited to General von verdy du Vernois, and reduced time delays considerably. It also allowed the umpire to take a more didactic role as very often the outcomes of engagements were moderated by the umpire to teach particular lessons.
[...]
However, it seems to me that the most powerful idea is that of an umpire whose rulings replace a rule book. Many gamers may feel this an unwelcome idea, in that it introduces an unwanted subjectivity to any wargame, however, an umpire is no more, nor no less subjective than a set of rules, itself an expression of the subjectivity of the rules designer. In fact, in two important respects, an umpire rather than a rule-book might benefit a tabletop game.
Firstly, the players need not study a rulebook before they can play a game. This is especially important for minority periods where players might not be prepared to invest in the time and expense of learning a new set of rules. In the Old Eds game, for example, none of us had even read the rules before the game. It was also, I think, my first WW2 game ever. Players can rather devote time to picking up some of the historical background or militray research. I certainly needed this. While able to tell a javelin from a ravelin, the different types of WW2 hardware were quite new to me, and my team was faced with a senior commander constantly asking questions such as, "Is this any good against armour?"
Secondly, an umpire can free players up from the hypnotic bonds of detail, and allow a concentration on orders and planning instead. Games can thus become orders-based, reflecting the concerns of command, rather than tactical affairs in which minute manouevering and measurement count more than planning and orders.
This system, however, proved cumbersome and time-consuming, and tended to reduce the umpires, often senior officers to the level of clerks, so by the time of the Franco-Prussian War, the complex rule book was replaced by an umpire who was free to use his own knowledge, experience, and intuition to make rulings, hence the appellation, free kriegspiel. This innovation is credited to General von verdy du Vernois, and reduced time delays considerably. It also allowed the umpire to take a more didactic role as very often the outcomes of engagements were moderated by the umpire to teach particular lessons.
[...]
However, it seems to me that the most powerful idea is that of an umpire whose rulings replace a rule book. Many gamers may feel this an unwelcome idea, in that it introduces an unwanted subjectivity to any wargame, however, an umpire is no more, nor no less subjective than a set of rules, itself an expression of the subjectivity of the rules designer. In fact, in two important respects, an umpire rather than a rule-book might benefit a tabletop game.
Firstly, the players need not study a rulebook before they can play a game. This is especially important for minority periods where players might not be prepared to invest in the time and expense of learning a new set of rules. In the Old Eds game, for example, none of us had even read the rules before the game. It was also, I think, my first WW2 game ever. Players can rather devote time to picking up some of the historical background or militray research. I certainly needed this. While able to tell a javelin from a ravelin, the different types of WW2 hardware were quite new to me, and my team was faced with a senior commander constantly asking questions such as, "Is this any good against armour?"
Secondly, an umpire can free players up from the hypnotic bonds of detail, and allow a concentration on orders and planning instead. Games can thus become orders-based, reflecting the concerns of command, rather than tactical affairs in which minute manouevering and measurement count more than planning and orders.
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
I meant adventure modules were released more regularly than hardcover books compared to the publishing schedule of WotC. That is, comparing the publishing of hardcover books between eras doesn't tell the whole story.kenobi65 said:
Gentlegamer said:
Fair enough. I still believe that WotC is publishing a lot more than TSR was in that era. And, that's not even counting what the third-party publishers are putting out, in the way of D&D-compatible products. There were third parties back then, too (e.g., Judges Guild), but, again, the quantity today is tremendously larger.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
More fuel for discussion:
D&D for sale at Wal-Mart
Only five of those forty-three products are "online order only". The rest are available in-store.
D&D for sale at Toys-R-Us.
Miniatures starter game, new D&D "basic" game, miniatures booster packs.
Similar Threads
