Why I think D&D is losing market share...

[Jackelope King]

The issue has already been identified: a D&D game involves interaction between several people who have school, jobs, lives, family, friends, television, and other entertainment all competing for their time. I've read and been astounded by tales of gamers trekking 200+ miles for a game of D&D.

That's not going to cut it anymore.

And there's definitely an untapped market for gamers out there. Go browse around on random message boards aimed at teenagers and tweens and you'll see people playing all sorts of little roleplaying games sans rules, taking turns posting on message boards what they're doing. My younger sisters played these sorts of things on message boards for games like NeoPets and Gaia Online.

D&D cannot and will not ever compete with the bells and whistles of WoW or the successors to WoW. Similarly, WoW cannot and will not ever be able to compete with the openness of D&D or other pen and paper RPGs.

Where D&D can compete is accessibility, which is what WotC is trying to do with Gleemax. Currently, finding a group and a DM is the bottleneck in getting into the game. D&D spreads very slowly, with an existing group occasionally welcoming newbies. The viral method of spreading the game from person to person has sustained the game for decades, but the group nature has also tended to shut out people already on the outside (often for very practical reasons: a group of 30-somethings is treading on thin ice if they invite a 14 year-old girl into their weekly game).

The goal of any such online access model should be to provide anyone anywhere a table and a chance to play at any time. If I've got insomnia, I currently can't go drive to my friend's house, pound on the door, and ask if he wants to finish up the adventure in D&D. But I can hop on WoW or a similar game and go do something there. So far, their success in creating this accessibility is debatable at best (since we're told this version of Gleemax is "pre-Alpha"). WotC should be aiming at replicating something like the old "BattleNet" system, where a player can log on, check to see what games at what levels are open and looking for players, pick one, and jump right in. And then a community needs to be built around those virtual tables to support them, with elements that encourage gamers to be, well, gamers. Host wikis and blogs for campaign management. Get the RPGA together and have them set up "Living Campaigns", and possibly even provide adventure paths for players to join in. The Living Campaigns in particular provide an excellent opportunity to develop a new setting (probably very points-of-light-esque) which caters to a large volume of characters constantly moving around from one area to another, one adventure to the next. Provide a good way to store characters online so that the player can provide a portfolio of his or her characters easily to any DM whose table he or she sits down at.

In short, the hobby needs to look at how they can create not a virtual kitchen table that they and their friends will gather around, but a virtual table in the Friendly Local Gaming Store, that interested potential players might wander by and ask about joining in. And then it needs to figure out how to build a community around that virtual table to support gamers, new and old alike. This community needs to emphasize the openness and freedom that traditional RPGs have over games like WoW, and of course, help gamers find gamers.

The kitchen table games are never going away (and thank goodness), but until the hobby makes the leap into a digital format which allows for accessibility and plays to its strengths, growth is going to remain stagnant.

 

[Ulrick]

We all know how fun D&D is (no matter what edition you play), so why do you think its market share is shrinking?

Well, I have come to my own conclusion, and it is as follows:

It is essentially the "start up time". How long does it take a DM to be prepared to be the DM? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months?

How long does it take to install a new game into the computer or disc into the PS or X-box? Minutes?


In todays life of limited leisure time (maybe if short attentions spans, or both) which one are you more likely to do if your looking for something to play?

Well, unless you have a good buddy saying, "Learn this RPG, I know it looks like a lot, but the fun and social time makes it so worth learning!", I am betting the Xbox and PS will win 999 times out of 1,000. Not to mention WoW, etc...

So I think if D&D, and RPG's in general, want to compete and expand in the leisure time games market, they need to make the game simple and quick to learn.

So that is going to require some radical changes. Very simple and concise beginning rules. Handouts and step by step instructions. All to be mastered by the DM, not the player, but the DM, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Players need to learn it in about 10 minutes.

Can this be done? I think so, but it is going to require a radical rewrite and restructuring of how RPG's are initially presented.

The initial exposure should just focus on the absolute basics. Writing up a character, providing a selection of races, weapons, and equipment, but be very limited lists. Then have a written mini adventure explaining step by step to the DM how to adjudicate each encounter area. Then have a couple of paragraphs explain how these basic rules can allow the DM, and their social group, to create this story as "co-operative storytelling". Once they complete this introductory scenario they can be told they can go one of three paths.

1. Make up more adventures for their social group to play through on their own completely from their own imagination.

2. Buy more "introductory adventures" that will give the group more experience co-operatively playing through a story.

3. If they wish to "do more" they can buy rules expansions as well as "advanced" adventure packs that utilize these new rules.


Now hopefully this repackaging would draw in many of the people who want "quick and fun", who are obviously a HUGE portion of society, and by exposing them to the basic system they will get drawn into using the more advanced rules.

Now I have seen a lot of the "Quick Start Rules", but they do not do the job. Not even close. The presentation I am talking about is absolutely crucial to hook them, and then let them decide if they want to be reeled into the RPG boat.

So what do you think?

Edit: Yes, my marketing idea is for sale!

Ironically, the original OD&D booklets were packaged in this quick-start format...particularly with the Mentzer edition. I think that's one reason why D&D exploded so fast. That early ruleset was simple and fairly easy to learn for both players & DMs. It may have only described levels 1-3, but you could then go on to AD&D or purchase additional supplements for D&D itself.


The difference between the OD&D rules and the Quick Start rules, is that the Quick start rules isn't marketed as a "main product line." Both however, enable some one to role up a character and be playing within 15min. The DM, of course, has to do a little more prep work.

The latest boxed set, IMO, have it right. They have quick start rules, some miniatures, and some dungeon tiles (i.e. a box of cool toys!). They remind me of Heroquest--which had the charm of being able to sit down and play a game in an hour or two.

If the Quick Start rules were marketed at places like Wal-Mart or Toys R' Us, I think there would be slight boom in the number of P&P players.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

A common perception is that games come in boxes. So put them in boxes to get new players in? Interestingly the new Dr. Who game will be a boxed set release this Summer.

As people have said, there's much competiton for 'entertainment time' and so many easier avenues than the requirements for tabletop roleplay, the "Good Enough" syndrome described by Mike Mearls, as such without a sufficent population density of tabletop players in your area it's difficult to get games going or recruit new players (often recruiting friends was the traditional method).

I was sucked in by Basic D&D - if I'd encountered AD&D first I would have probably left it - too many rules for the newbie to deal with to begin playing. Currently (as far as I know) there's no equivalent to the old introductory system on the shop shelves (as opposed to introductory one-off that leads straight into the full system) for D&D.

I think the new Dr. Who game could make a difference - it's in a box, it features a very widely recognised and long established franchise, and from playtesting, is aimed at the new roleplayer in particular. Get that in 'ToysRUs' or equivalent, and see what happens?

 

[GVDammerung]

Read the OP. I'm in the maybe camp.

Somewhere fairly recently I read the opinion, can't recall where, that D&D is a "hobby-game," not just a game. The distinction that was made was that the hobby aspect meant that there was more to D&D than just the actual play of the game involved. There was the world/adventure creation, any miniatures set up, any reading of game novels, any prep by the player outside the session etc. all of which allegedly took D&D as much toward hobby as pure game. Not sure I agree with all this but I think there is a point to be made at least to the extent that D&D is not a "quick-in, quick-out" experience like monopoly or checkers. If it were to become so, might it be lessened in the process?

 

[Lanefan]

Somewhere fairly recently I read the opinion, can't recall where, that D&D is a "hobby-game," not just a game. The distinction that was made was that the hobby aspect meant that there was more to D&D than just the actual play of the game involved. There was the world/adventure creation, any miniatures set up, any reading of game novels, any prep by the player outside the session etc. all of which allegedly took D&D as much toward hobby as pure game. Not sure I agree with all this but I think there is a point to be made at least to the extent that D&D is not a "quick-in, quick-out" experience like monopoly or checkers. If it were to become so, might it be lessened in the process?

Agreed.

That said, there's a very valid point to be made that there needs to be something - an introductory basic boxed set - for people who merely want to try the game out. However, it has to include information for those who *do* want to dive in deeper and make it more of a hobby, on what to do, what to buy (and what not to buy), the RPGA, and so on.

And, every effort needs to be taken to ensure the introductory set's overlap with the main product is as little as possible, so people don't feel like they're in effect buying the same thing twice.

Lanefan

 

[JoeGKushner]

No.

I'm not saying that easier rules with some advanced options might not have an audience but it's still not going to compare to a computer game that is willing to walk you as a single indvidual through all the instructions. There are thousands of video games that don't rely on the user actually reading his manual but rather learning through doing. There is nothing like that in RPGs and no matter how simple it's made, without numerous electronic aids and more board game like play, never will be.

I think that WoTC is aware of the prep time issue and that is why they've tried to simplify the DM's job.

I think they've failed if the player's section is still so advanced in all the fiddly bits they get simply because the GM must know all those bits as well as his own and making them completely different fiddy bits seems at cross ends. "Your drow PC can't do that? But all drow can... oh right, only monstrous drow.... my bad."

Without seeing the rules though, I could be completely wrong on that, but that's how I recall numerous bits of 2nd edition working even with several books decidated to monstrous PCs.

 

[Ranger REG]

Where D&D can compete is accessibility, which is what WotC is trying to do with Gleemax.

So, is Gleemax the 21-century replacement to RPGA? Or will they complement each other?

If RPGA and Gleemax collaborate then that would be enticing even for a curmudgeon like me who have absolutely nothing to do with MMORPG. If they offer an annual membership subscription (that includes Dragon and/or Dungeon subscription as well as DDi) that I can pay via snail mail, even better.

 

[hong]

I don't get this "D&D takes too much time and so MMOs are winning out" thing. Yes, you have to organise for 5-6 people to get together and play the game, which runs into real-life issues of time management and whatnot. You also have to do the same with boardgames. Is there any evidence that boardgames are a shrinking market?

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I'm reminded of the transformation of painting and portraiture in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

For a long time, painting was about making a scene as realistic as possible. The elements might be fanciful, but the most acclaimed works looked real. Then photography came along and suddenly, painting couldn't compete. There was no way that a painting could be as realistic as a photograph, and some people thought that this would be the end of the painting.

Of course, it wasn't. With Impressionism, Expressionism, Surrealism, Cubism, et al., painting broke free of verisimilitude. The other aspect of painting is that it creates something emotional, and post-photography, painting started exploring all the ways it could do that, regardless of how realistic the painting was anymore. The understanding that a brush stroke carries a different emotional value than a photo has become such a given that even in the age of Photoshop, now that a photo can be just as fanciful as any painting--paintings still hold a particular quality the photos do not.

In much the same way, tabletop RPGs are at a crossroads. In my opinion, increasing the verisimilitude of tabletop RPGs is not a good solution. Things can remain far more easily consistent in any MMORPG than is worthwile to pursue in a tabletop. However, tabletop allows for a far more personal, emotional connection than any MMORPG can muster. In fact, by giving a graphical representation, MMORPGs can never achieve the same level of connection that tabletops can. The graphical representation is by necessity the vision of the programmer, while the visual image in the player of tabletops is solely what the player wants to see. As a result, it will hold more personal meaning to the player. Certainly, a player programmer could, in some worlds, design a new character that allows for the personal vision to be formed graphically. Yet an artist can just as easily--indeed, probably more easily--create a garphical representation of the player's vision as well. And in both cases, programmer or artist, the player needs to have a level of advanced skill that cannot be assumed. The unskilled player can still create a visual image of the character's surroundings without prompting.

Thus, for tabletop to have a future, it must rely on creativity, immersion, and personal connections to the shared world. MMORPGs are a better solution for pulling together multiple, far-flung players, creating stock graphical representations, and maintaining consistency of the world's physics.

A final addition on a secondary point: There should be a way that allows these personal campaigns to cross over into other media. It happens already in a piecemeal fashion--Record of Lodoss War, D&D Online, and the old TSR/SSI modules are examples of this. However, there should be a mechanism by which a good campaign can be found, identified, and turned into intellectual property. This will greatly increase the profitability of tabletop as a breeding ground for new stories, games, and worlds that can be shared outside of the original participants. Are there any thoughts on how this should be done?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Regarding market share: I think this is an extremely difficult thing to figure out. Is there any data on the combined sales of D&D, M&M, CoC, WoD, all all the various games out there? There are so many more choices in the market these days, it is possible it isn't really shrinking as a whole, but no one publisher is able to expand the way that D&D did in the 1970s and 80s. Like it or not RPGs are now a "mature market." There is room for growth, but I don't think you will ever be able to tap that explosive energy of something entirely new.

As for quick start style rules, I think it might be able to help, but ultimately D&D in order to maintain itself in comparison to CRPGs has to focus upon what they cannot do: tell unique and individualized stories. Quick start rules with lots of pre-written adventures don't really encourage that as much. It is too similar to waiting for the next development in your online world. You are playing a story written by someone else. D&D needs to encourage individual creativity in order to take the game places that CPRGs cannot.