|
I just read Bastions rallying cry on 4e, and WotC need to win this fight. I want to say that that thing is Quoted for the Effing Truth. He hit the nail square on the head with a huge hammer. This hobby is on the brink, and the table top RPG is at a crossroads that will determine if D&D will even exist for our kids and their kids. He said it best, but to reiterate it, the kids that are the same age as we were when we first started playing D&D have grown up on video games and the MMORPG. They are the ones that represent the vast amount of money in the gaming industry. If a game is to succeed, it has to reach that core audience.
When we were kids, playing D&D was great because there weren't gags of digital alternatives to take our attention and money and gaming as a whole was largely a group experience. Now, it has become an individual experience played alone in your room with a computer, with an online community being the social component. The simple truth is that the average 13 year old interested in fantasy gaming is more likely to spend the $15 a month on a WoW or EQ game than they are to buy the 3 core books and try to start a D&D group. So WotC has to bridge the gap between the game and those players. If they don't succeed, there won't be a D&D except as a game played by a bunch of 40 and 50 year olds with books that were written 20 years prior. The OGL will always exist, but if we want a living vibrant and supported game, we have to reach that audience. I think 4e is a solid effort to make that reach.
I for one look forward to what it will bring.
Sebastian's sentiments are all well and good ...
But when is WotC gonna start acting like a grown-up company and start SELLING what it owns in a smart, customer-friendly, customer-enticing way?
This "We're here, we're the big boy, we know what's coming but we won't tell you" attitude is KILLLING them.
I want to see my hobby grow and prosper too. But I'm tired of their failures to be responsive in a meaningful way.
The entire toy business is taking a big hit in credibility right now. If WotC wants to distinguish itself, there is no better opportunity. It's time for WotC to step up and say what they do is innovative and different and FUN -- and then DEMONSTRATE it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
No
It is as simple as that. If the 4th Edition sucks, i will neither buy nor play it. There is no "Great Cause" here. There is nothing to be gained or lost. If the 4th Edition sucks, it is a bad game and as such, nothing i would spend my money on.
Do you really want the typical Everquest / WoW kid at your gaming table? Are you willing to make sacrifices for that? I sure as hell don't. Roleplaying has lived through the religious zealotry of the 80s, boomed with the publication of 3.0, and it will also live on as long as people have fun playing it.
If you want to not have fun for some "greater good", i am not stopping you. But i for one have always played for fun, and the large picture worked itself out somehow.
Sorry. I am not going to invest in an inferior product simply to support a mis-guided cause. Table top gaming can not compete with video games. The more it tries, the more it will loose. RPGs should focus on what sets them apart instead of trying to catch up to an industry that has a huge head start.
|
|
No
It is as simple as that. If the 4th Edition sucks, i will neither buy nor play it. There is no "Great Cause" here. There is nothing to be gained or lost. If the 4th Edition sucks, it is a bad game and as such, nothing i would spend my money on.
Do you really want the typical Everquest / WoW kid at your gaming table? Are you willing to make sacrifices for that? I sure as hell don't. Roleplaying has lived through the religious zealotry of the 80s, boomed with the publication of 3.0, and it will also live on as long as people have fun playing it.
If you want to not have fun for some "greater good", i am not stopping you. But i for one have always played for fun, and the large picture worked itself out somehow.
I do play for fun. What is it about 4ed that implys it will be inherently not fun? The only argument I have heard against 4ed thus far is of the "I spent thousands of dollars on 3ed, and by God I won't switch to 4ed even if it is fun" variety.
As for the "greater good", you have to be naive if you think that economic viability isn't an important part of the success of any game. D&D 3.5 is a lot of fun, but that doesn't change the fact that the average teenager will spend their money on the entertainment that is easiest to access. Tabletop D&D is not easy to get started in. You have to have a group of 4 or 5 friends who all want to play. You have to learn a rule set that can be complicated if you aren't familiar with it. You have to schedule time to play, because you can't just go to your computer, turn it on, and play when you want. 4ed sounds like it is trying to address all those problems with a 24 hour online gaming network, online tools to help with the more complicated aspects of game play, and streamlining of the core rule set.
As for your condescending attitude about the "typical EQ" player and not wanting them at your table, it is incredibly short sighted and narrow minded. MMORPG's have become such a large part of mainstream gaming culture, that any young person who considers playing D&D now has likely at least tried if not utterly committed to playing an MMORPG or other online fantasy game. It's the effect technology has had. It's easier to go online where there are thousands of people at any one time who want to play the game you want to than it is to try to get 4 or 5 friends together at the same time to play a table top game. Are you trying to imply that if someone plays an MMORPG, then we don't want them playing "our" game anyway? If you want to be stuck with the same books you have now 30 years from now, playing the game with only people your age or older, then by all means feel that way. Fortunately the people who actually make these decisions aren't that short sighted.
The goal of WotC is to make the game as fun as possible for the largest possible audience. That is how they will make profits. I don't understand the mentality that says "if WotC is making money, they clearly aren't interested in making the game better or more fun, those money grabbing bastiges". WotC stands to gain the most if the game is the most fun to the largest number of people. That said, I don't think they are sacrificing the fun of the game at all in making changes to better appeal to a changing group of customers.
I don't want tabletop D&D to become an unsupported game only played by old farts like me who will be forced to use rulebooks we have now, because the lack of viability for the product forced the companies that make it to go in different directions. You can believe there is no great cause to fight for here, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists anyway. It's like jumping off a building and saying you don't care because there is no such thing as gravity. If you jump you will splat. If D&D doesn't adapt, it won't survive except as a game played by an aging group, and then it will die out completely once that group is gone.
Finally, I am tired of all the insinuations that WotC is some sort of evil coporate monster only interested in money. They are a business. In order to exist and make the games we all love, they have to make a profit. That means getting new customers, not just pandering to their old ones. Is their model perfect? Of course not, but the game is in far better hands today than it was when the game almost disappeared completely at the hands of TSR. Making money and making a great game are not mutually exclusive goals. You can achieve both, and I think WotC is doing their dead level best to achieve exactly that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I do play for fun. What is it about 4ed that implys it will be inherently not fun? The only argument I have heard against 4ed thus far is of the "I spent thousands of dollars on 3ed, and by God I won't switch to 4ed even if it is fun" variety.No
It is as simple as that. If the 4th Edition sucks, i will neither buy nor play it. There is no "Great Cause" here. There is nothing to be gained or lost. If the 4th Edition sucks, it is a bad game and as such, nothing i would spend my money on.
Do you really want the typical Everquest / WoW kid at your gaming table? Are you willing to make sacrifices for that? I sure as hell don't. Roleplaying has lived through the religious zealotry of the 80s, boomed with the publication of 3.0, and it will also live on as long as people have fun playing it.
If you want to not have fun for some "greater good", i am not stopping you. But i for one have always played for fun, and the large picture worked itself out somehow.
Nice try twisting my words. You have, of course, noted the conditional? I will withhold judgement until i see the finished product, just as i have done with WoD 2.
My biggest gripe currently is the tight integration of the "online" option into the core, and the tighter involvement of the minis line. Both make it necessary to buy more, not just once but, in the case of the online offering, on an ongoing basis.
Additionally, i just often game off the cuffs, sometime in the middle of a moving train. I know the rules well enough to get away with it, but if everything is computer-aided and dependent, you can not do that any longer.
As for the "greater good", you have to be naive if you think that economic viability isn't an important part of the success of any game. D&D 3.5 is a lot of fun, but that doesn't change the fact that the average teenager will spend their money on the entertainment that is easiest to access.
So, if they bungle the 4th edition, and it turns out to be a flop, D&D as a brand might die.
So what?
If they manage to run the most recognized, popular and established RPG into the ground to the point of no longer being able to bring in a profit, then the game deserves that gentle repose. Others will do better in their place.
Tabletop D&D is not easy to get started in. You have to have a group of 4 or 5 friends who all want to play. You have to learn a rule set that can be complicated if you aren't familiar with it. You have to schedule time to play, because you can't just go to your computer, turn it on, and play when you want. 4ed sounds like it is trying to address all those problems with a 24 hour online gaming network, online tools to help with the more complicated aspects of game play, and streamlining of the core rule set.
Well, fat lot of fun that promises to be. So you essentially look forward to gaming with total strangers, in a storyline that does in no way involve your character personally? I personally, even with pre-written modules enjoy the fact that my character is important, and the story is presented with that character in mind.
Really, if i want to do "quests" that do not affect the world in the slightest way, with people i do not know, using a system i only partially understand, i will stick with WoW. It has better graphics, and upgrades for only the subscription fee, instead of a subscription fee [u]and[/u] book buys, minis, ...
As for your condescending attitude about the "typical EQ" player and not wanting them at your table, it is incredibly short sighted and narrow minded. MMORPG's have become such a large part of mainstream gaming...
I've played EQ, EQ2, and WoW, and i stand by my words. I would not want to meet 95% of the people in these games in person, much less invite them over to my house. You are, of course, free to do otherwise.
Y'know, model railroading is still out there and still has its devotees.
When I was a kid, gaming was an even more obscure and nerds-only activity than it is now.
These days, model railroading is considerably more obscure than roleplaying games. But somehow, model railroading still has print magazines.
-The Gneech
|
|
See my profile.
I read it and to a large extent I agree with it. My unfounded fear is that the evolution of the game is to move more toward a trivialized videogame-esque shell of the game.
I'm old school. I like high fantasy. I like elves and gnomes. I like the Vancian approach to magic...
That said 4e is no different than 3.5e - the game is what I make it.
So why is there a vast negative vibe floating through the ether? I believe it is the way WotC is going about it. I am totally turned off by everything they say and do. It appears a lot of people are. My irrational hope is that enough people stick to their guns long enough for the corporation to realize they have hurt the game, not by their efforts, but by their approach. Until I am made to feel better about WotC it is hard for me to feel good about 4e.
"Bla bla bla, they dont have any obligation to make you feel better." sigh...
But somehow, model railroading still has print magazines.
-The Gneech
Sweet.
|
Y'know, model railroading is still out there and still has its devotees.
When I was a kid, gaming was an even more obscure and nerds-only activity than it is now.
These days, model railroading is considerably more obscure than roleplaying games. But somehow, model railroading still has print magazines.
-The Gneech
hmm....you could do model railroads real good on the internet.
Have lil dudes walking around and everything.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
You really wreck your argument with generalised attacks on people like this. As someone who plays WoW as well as D&D, I suspect my feelings about you are veering in the same direction. Would you tell James Jacobs to f%&* off from your gaming table because he plays WoW? Or does he conveniently fall into that 5% would would deign talk to?
Actually, i pretty much suspect he would, though i have not met him in the game, so its not a given ;). It may be hard to swallow, and i know behind every avatar there is a human person with a story, feelings and all that...
But i am just not to motivated to take someone seriously in any way if he (or she) runs up to me, and tells me "5g or i t1cket", or keeps demanding favors such as me running him through some dungeon.
I am an elitist bastard, yes. Does that invalidate the points i raised, or just make you like me less as a person?
EDIT: Made a statement somewhat clearer
|
|
I'm with TerraNova and CourtFool.
Moreover, I'm not buying the whole "the new generations aren't involved with pen&paper RPG, let's give them always new and reworked flashy, eye-candy things to keep the cash flow, 'cause the gaming industry has become such a mastodon that it needs huge resources just to sustain itself".
I know a huge lot of young players, I did myself introduce some new players to the game, and I don't really see the legacy of old gamers vanishing before the onslaught of computer games and whatnot.
I hope that the game companies that put out quality stuff have commercial success, that the market keeps healthy and creative for a long, long time. That said, I also don't like the latest trend of WotC 3.5 products, nor what I see at the horizon regarding 4th edition rules - at the moment being, I don't see any improvement big or good enough to have me re-haul it all.
Having stockpiled enough resources to keep my hobby going for years on, I'm jumping off the new version train. I stop at the 3.5 station, thank you all and goodbye. That means that I'll keep buying the current rules stuff such as Pathfinder and Gamemastery modules and other products until they are done with the 3.5 ruleset, and I won't switch - obviously unless future details prove me wrong and make me change my mind about the 4th edition of rules (which seems quite unlikely).
I do not blame WotC for trying to make money. We all have to get ours. I just do not think turning a table top game into a video game is the best way to go about it. If you want to make video games, then by all means, go make video games. That can certainly be economically viable. If you want to make table top games, then focus on what sets them apart from video games.
I would not want to play with the 'typical EQ player' because killing things and taking their stuff is not my idea of a good table top game. I like a little more depth at the table…you know…when I have a living, breathing person with an imagination to share the story with.
I do not know that 4E will suck. I think it will if WotC tries to make it more like a video game. I do think there are some contradictions between what they say it will be and the examples they have provided. If it rocks then I will eat crow and buy the books. However, with their past tract history and the little information they have provided thus far lead me to believe they are making a huge error. One, which, may provide more players for me and other RPGs (yes, there are non-D20 games out there that are better).
|
|
@ TerraNova
No of course I don't look forward to playing with total strangers in a story that doesn't involve me. That won't be a problem though because I have a group to game with. The point of that is to try to get the person who isn't already playing the game to try it. If the only people who support D&D are the ones presently playing it, then the game will die. I want new players to come to the game, and candidly there needs to be a better vehicle for doing that than just having all the present gamers try to find some young person and invite them to the game. The game itself needs to have a built in mechanism for the kid who maybe sees the PHB in a store and says "that looks cool, I want to try it", and then realizes that he needs to find a group to play with, and all his friends are playing EQ or WoW. So what does he do? With the 4ed initiative, he can go ahead and buy that PHB, and go online to find a group to play with. If he has fun, he will tell his friends, "hey, you should try this game I bought. They have a place online you can join a group, since I know you have soccer practice after school and I have to work on my paper, you can try it and maybe we can play later if you like it". Now the second player trys it when he has the chance, and because it is similar to his MMORPG experience it is easy for him to learn and he has a ton of fun. So now maybe they pick up the MM and DMG and try to schedule time to play with their friends.
The whole point is you have to get that first person to try it, and to do it, you have to offer something that will make them take a chance on it instead of playing EQ that day. In todays high tech gaming world, it's the best way to try to bring new players to the game, who don't already have friends or family that play it. I would think that is something all D&D players should want. A growing player base is the surest sign of a healthy game.
|
You really wreck your argument with generalised attacks on people like this. As someone who plays WoW as well as D&D, I suspect my feelings about you are veering in the same direction. Would you tell James Jacobs to f%&* off from your gaming table because he plays WoW? Or does he conveniently fall into that 5% would would deign talk to?Actually, i pretty much suspect he would, though i have not met him in the game, so its not a given ;). It may be hard to swallow, and i know behind every avatar there is a human person with a story, feelings and all that...
But i am just not to motivated to take someone seriously in any way if he (or she) runs up to me, and tells me "5g or i t1cket", or keeps demanding favors such as me running him through some dungeon.
I am an elitist bastard, yes. Does that invalidate the points i raised, or just make you like me less as a person?
EDIT: Made a statement somewhat clearer
True, that can be annoying - but they are probably 5-10% of the people on there rather than 95%. (It's the guys begging for gold that wind me up.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
The whole point is you have to get that first person to try it, and to do it, you have to offer something that will make them take a chance on it instead of playing EQ that day. In todays high tech gaming world, it's the best way to try to bring new players to the game, who don't already have friends or family that play it. I would think that is something all D&D players should want. A growing player base is the surest sign of a healthy game.
Well, so you claim that a service for which you have to sign up (and which will cost money to do so), where you still need to shell out >30$ for just the ability to get a glimpse into it will attract many new players? I doubt it, frankly.
I've had several incidents of "recruitment" in my play experience. Usually it was someone vaguely interested in the hobby expressing an interest to sit in on a gaming session, and deciding she liked it enough to pay for the necessary books. It just never happened the other way around in my experience, and hence, i am somewhat critical of your scenario.
It may have something to do with me being an old fart way up in Old Europe. Maybe it will all be good in New Europe ;)
So 4E should be half-table top, half-video game making it a half-(censored) product for both markets?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
True, that can be annoying - but they are probably 5-10% of the people on there rather than 95%. (It's the guys begging for gold that wind me up.)
Well, i have a somewhat worse estimate of the number of such annoyances, plus players who are in it not for some kind of group experience, but strictly for their own benefit (I wonder if they would actually pick the ninja class...)
The 95% where high, yes, but i do consider "adequate grasp of the game servers primary language" a major criterion - which serves to kill off a lot of otherwise decent candidates. Its not that i don't think these people might be nice and decent human beings - i just don't want to have to guess at what they are trying to say.
But lets not derail the thread further by going about the general state of MMO(RP)G populations, i guess its very much a matter of where you look, where you put your cutoffs, and personal taste.
|
|
The whole point is you have to get that first person to try it, and to do it, you have to offer something that will make them take a chance on it instead of playing EQ that day. In todays high tech gaming world, it's the best way to try to bring new players to the game, who don't already have friends or family that play it. I would think that is something all D&D players should want. A growing player base is the surest sign of a healthy game.Well, so you claim that a service for which you have to sign up (and which will cost money to do so), where you still need to shell out >30$ for just the ability to get a glimpse into it will attract many new players? I doubt it, frankly.
I've had several incidents of "recruitment" in my play experience. Usually it was someone vaguely interested in the hobby expressing an interest to sit in on a gaming session, and deciding she liked it enough to pay for the necessary books. It just never happened the other way around in my experience, and hence, i am somewhat critical of your scenario.
It may have something to do with me being an old fart way up in Old Europe. Maybe it will all be good in New Europe ;)
I think it could be viable. The average EQ player buys what 2 expansions a year? Those will cost $30 or so. On top of that they are paying $10-$15 per month for the right to play. So if our hypothetical kid buys a PHB for $30 and then $15 per month for the Digital Initiative, he isn't really spending anymore than he would on the MMORPG anyway. All he needs to play with the Digital Initiative is a PHB because all the tools to make characters, role dice, and find a group to play with are available online. People play in PBP games all the time now a days, and the DI doesn't sound very different from that except it is in real time as opposed to one post at a time, and all the tools are right there on the sight, along with expanded content.
I could be wrong, but I think the game as consructed under it's current model is very hard for a new player to try. My cousin has a son and he has experessed an interest in playing D&D, but he lives in Oklahoma, I live in Kansas. He bought a PHB, but didn't bother with anything else because he couldn't find a group of friends to play with. Ultimately he ended up just getting on LotR online and does that. I think the 4ed rules and digital components will make it easier for a kid like my cousins son to play D&D. That as much as anything excites me about 4ed.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I think it could be viable. The average EQ player buys what 2 expansions a year? Those will cost $30 or so. On top of that they are paying $10-$15 per month for the right to play. So if our hypothetical kid buys a PHB for $30 and then $15 per month for the Digital Initiative, he isn't really spending anymore than he would on the MMORPG anyway. All he needs to play with the Digital Initiative is a PHB because all the tools to make characters, role dice, and find a group to play with are available online. People play in PBP games all the time now a days, and the DI doesn't sound very different from that except it is in real time as opposed to one post at a time, and all the tools are right there on the sight, along with expanded content.
That would require the kid to stop paying for the MMOG on a whim, and that's not going to happen. They are pretty addictive, you change your brand occasionally, but rarely really kick the habit ;)
Real time a lot different from PBP games, and i have played and DM quite a few of both. For one thing, "online is not real" to most people. Missing a session in an online game rarely causes more than a shrug and a "yeah, whatever" from the player, while they will apologize profoundly for doing the same to you in person. To once again call back the MMOG analogy: Why do you believe most raiding guilds have a full "bench" of players to replace those which do not appear on their raids in time / at all?
Also, as far as i understood things, DI is not included in the players handbook, you have to pay for it seperately. This is actually one of the points i think are most critical in this hybrid approach, depending on implementation. It might be (and it would, as scary as it may be, make business sense) coupled so tightly into the print products that using one without the other is next to, if not totally impossible.
So 4E should be half-table top, half-video game making it a half-(censored) product for both markets?
Judging from what is known now - which is not much - I think that it will work perfectly as a traditional tabletop RPG, without any computers involved. The online stuff they seem to offer is meant to provide a place for online RPGing, for those folks who either want it that way or cannot find other gamers - and it is aimed at younger folks, who are otherwise inclined to play WoW or something similar. If you don´t want it, don´t buy it. Have a look at the preview videos, some things are explained there. If they are realized that way in the end, nobody knows now.
Stefan
|
Yes D&D needs to hit the younger generation but is now the time to do it? some might say the sooner the better but others will likely disagree - its what makes us human.
D&D is a specialist market, always has been, always will be. 4th edition has provided us with a few effects that depend on your stance.
for the younger generation...
A doorway into D&D that can be placed alongside your favourate games console.
A way to endulge in your thirst for fantasy without the restraints of a pregenerated, story driven computer game.
for the older generation...
The way to experience the D&D game in new ways.
The knowledge that your money is better off spent elsewhere instead of on the next D&D supplement. with subscriptions you can now manage your budget more effectively - you can either afford to purchase all the supplements or stick with core and whats available on the D&D Insider. Only your wallet will answer that.
For wizards...
The possibility for increased future revenue from new fans.
A fixed income from subscription charges instead of book sales.
The almost complete obliteration of book sales for the D&D game.
for shops...
The longevity of your business with new fans of a younger generation.
The loss of book sales resulting in the need to expand into ditigal media or conversion to an internet cafe.
for publishers...
The increase in revenue and business from future fans.
The need to supply compatable products that span more editions of the same game.
The extra cost in manpower and licences to produce those compatable products.
to summerise...
for the younger generation...
The situation is a win win. but be warned, in 6-7 years you could be buying a 5th edition.
for the older generation...
Be smart and start saving your money because the subscriptions your going to have to pay to play D&D will likely skyrocket when/if wizards try to claw back their set up losses.
For wizards...
This may sound calus but if they can eliminate the need for a printed media at the gaming table it will only mean more money for them. And with a subscription based revenue they could simply sit back and release small 30 page modules for the same price as 200+ rules supplements. as long as they release something each month.
for shops...
Convert or die! It may sound harsh but its the way the market it going these days. Just look at what major supermarket chains are doing to the smaller corner shops (at least here in the UK). Sure wizards wants you to remain in business but only in their image. If you want to survive in business start looking at providing your customers with the premises and utilities to run games 24/7 without having to rely on the internet or decending on your friends house once a week.
and for publishers...
I have no answer for publishers... All I can envision is that existing companys such as Paizo will remain the industry leaders and will likely absorb the smaller ones into their fold. for newer publishers and the smaller more obscure ones approaching the D&D market is likely to be a very bad business decision.
Also, as far as i understood things, DI is not included in the players handbook, you have to pay for it seperately. This is actually one of the points i think are most critical in this hybrid approach, depending on implementation. It might be (and it would, as scary as it may be, make business sense) coupled so tightly into the print products that using one without the other is next to, if not totally impossible.
Well, they say that this is not the case. They say that the printed rules are fine by themselves, and all that DI is extra and not needed. To do otherwise would be tantamount to suicide for a company producing printed stuff mainly.
Stefan
Sorry I was not clear. I am not talking about the online content. I am suggesting they are trying to make the table top game more like a video game.
|
|
Well, they say that this is not the case. They say that the printed rules are fine by themselves, and all that DI is extra and not needed. To do otherwise would be tantamount to suicide for a company producing printed stuff mainly.Stefan
Unless they wanted to gradually phaze it out. Make it easier for those buying books to embrase the digital media and sooner or later the book buyers will be in the minority.
Sure the assumption is that they want to retain both and thats a good thing, but as the younger generation come into D&D they will now be able to do so in a digital way making the majority digitally orientated. once that happens from a business stance removing the cost of producing books is now a viable option (queue 6th or 7th edition?)
The title of this thread is simply too long to bother reading. Couldn't we "streamline" or "simplify" it in some way?
The title of this thread is simply too long to bother reading. Couldn't we "streamline" or "simplify" it in some way?
Yes, but it will take us 30 levels to fully realize.
|
|
I just read Bastions rallying cry on 4e, and WotC need to win this fight. I want to say that that thing is Quoted for the Effing Truth. He hit the nail square on the head with a huge hammer. This hobby is on the brink, and the table top RPG is at a crossroads that will determine if D&D will even exist for our kids and their kids. He said it best, but to reiterate it, the kids that are the same age as we were when we first started playing D&D have grown up on video games and the MMORPG. They are the ones that represent the vast amount of money in the gaming industry. If a game is to succeed, it has to reach that core audience.
When we were kids, playing D&D was great because there weren't gags of digital alternatives to take our attention and money and gaming as a whole was largely a group experience. Now, it has become an individual experience played alone in your room with a computer, with an online community being the social component. The simple truth is that the average 13 year old interested in fantasy gaming is more likely to spend the $15 a month on a WoW or EQ game than they are to buy the 3 core books and try to start a D&D group. So WotC has to bridge the gap between the game and those players. If they don't succeed, there won't be a D&D except as a game played by a bunch of 40 and 50 year olds with books that were written 20 years prior. The OGL will always exist, but if we want a living vibrant and supported game, we have to reach that audience. I think 4e is a solid effort to make that reach.
I for one look forward to what it will bring.
All those kids will be my age before Wizards get the D&D site back up and running!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I feel like I should chime in and say something important or refute the nonesense posted above, but it seems like it is in capable hands with Brent. I'm not going to debate the economics of WotC yet again. They need to sell products to stay in business, they they need to make enough money on those products to support keeping D&D as a brand they offer, and if they don't, there will either be no more D&D or it will receive insufficient resources and not be very good.
End. of. Story.
I must say though, that I always find it particularly ironic that the people most vehemently against 4e usually lead off with "and I haven't bought anything from WotC for x years because it's all crap." Huh. I wonder why WotC isn't interested in continuing down the route of publishing 3e products when you're not even buying them.
Alternately, perhaps the products are selling well because they do appeal to a wide base of customers. That base just doesn't include you.
Y'know, model railroading is still out there and still has its devotees.
How many people does it take to enjoy model railroading? Last I checked, it was a pursuit that could be sustained individually. It's not as if to enjoy model railroading you need to get together with 3-4 of your model railroading buddies to run the tracks or what have you. Thus, a correct analogy is not coin collecting, stamp collecting, or any other hobby that can be pursued individually, it is those hobbies that require multiple participants (games, if you will). Such as war games. Or bridge (maybe bridge needs a 2nd edition with super trump cards. hmmm....) To the extent that fewer people play such games, it is harder for all persons to play such games because they cannot find enough players.
|
They need to sell products to stay in business, they they need to make enough money on those products to support keeping D&D as a brand they offer, and if they don't, there will either be no more D&D or it will receive insufficient resources and not be very good.
So much of what you say, I agree with. But I don't think that it is quite as black and white as you are making it.
If WotC can't make enough money with the D&D license, Hasbro will (most likely) sell off the license to the highest bidder. The name of "Dungeons and Dragons" will still have value long after Hasbro stops making money with the license.
At which point, it could be better or it could be worse. But in either case, I think that we are still quite a ways from that.
Basically, it has to make sense for Hasbro to keep the license. If it makes sense then they will continue to utilize it. If it doesn't then they will (probably) get rid of it. Regardless who holds the license, I really feel like we are many, many years from going the way of the 8-track.
and if they don't, there will either be no more D&D or it will receive insufficient resources and not be very good.
End. of. Story.
I find that statement patently ridiculous. By releasing 3.5 as OGL, WoTC did one great thing: they forked D&D development. Even if the entire division died off, there will always be someone to breathe new life into D&D now. They can use the framework to hang their ideas off, and give back to the rest of the community, instead of trying to force garbage on the loyal player base like the M.I. Compendium (which personally, wouldn't have been worth stealing (I bought it and then gifted it); I don't just want a refund, I want my memory erased).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If WotC can't make enough money with the D&D license, Hasbro will (most likely) sell off the license to the highest bidder. The name of "Dungeons and Dragons" will still have value long after Hasbro stops making money with the license.At which point, it could be better or it could be worse. But in either case, I think that we are still quite a ways from that.
I'm really trying not to get into the debate, but because it's you Moff, I want to respond. I agree, this is a possible result. The problem is, what happens prior to it reaching this point? This is the hail mary strategy. It did work in the past when WotC swooped in to rescue D&D from the death of TSR. It could work in the future; Paizo could swoop in to rescude D&D from its death if 4e fails.
However, there are a lot of potential problems with this result. The most important is that 4e would need to fail enough to make WotC want to ditch the tabletop brand (make no mistake though, they will retain the videogame brand). What are the consequences of failure? Will all the existing players try to come up with their own version of D&D 4e? Will we have Paizo D&D, White Wolf D&D, Mongoose D&D? During that interim period, will the fan base fragment so much between 3.5, 4e, and the various pretenders to the throne that there will no longer be support for a single unified game once the license is sold? Will Hasbro decide that they can sell enough crappy books to continue producing horrible crap that breaks game balance and ruins the core of the game?
There's a lot of doom and gloom down that road, just as much as there is down the road of continuing to produce 3.5 products indefinitely. 4e may well be a flop and we may yet find ourselves down this road, but the future of the hobby is worth putting away closed minded fear of change long enough to see what it is that 4e actually entails.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I will check out 4th Ed. after the core books are released. I'm not going to be paying any damn monthly subscription fees, however. I don't need any digital elements to enhance my gaming now and I don't forsee a need for such things in my future. I have a gaming group. I have a living room. I have dice. I have paper and pencils.
If they somehow make this online content necessary to play the game, then count me out. I played WoW for 2 years. I cancelled my account because I got tired of it. I spend my entire week in front of a computer. I'd like to get away from it and spend time with my friends on the weekend.
Will all the existing players try to come up with their own version of D&D 4e?
No, their eyes will finally be opened to all the other fine games out there.
|
|
There's a lot of doom and gloom down that road, just as much as there is down the road of continuing to produce 3.5 products indefinitely. 4e may well be a flop and we may yet find ourselves down this road, but the future of the hobby is worth putting away closed minded fear of change long enough to see what it is that 4e actually entails.
Really I'm on your side here. I was just wanting to say that it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom. D&D was dying and I do believe that WotC did save it. Basically, it happened before and it could happen again. (Of course, WotC might have just been lucky at the time.)
I plan on checking it out and I will probably support it. Regardless of what people are saying, the people in charge of this are not idiots. If it is crap, then it won't sell. They know this. They don't want to put out crap, so, in all likelyhood, it will be a good product. Just like everything else out there -- it may not be for everyone, but then they are not in the industry to make everyone happy.
|
|
I will check out 4th Ed. after the core books are released. I'm not going to be paying any damn monthly subscription fees, however. I don't need any digital elements to enhance my gaming now and I don't forsee a need for such things in my future. I have a gaming group. I have a living room. I have dice. I have paper and pencils.
If they somehow make this online content necessary to play the game, then count me out. I played WoW for 2 years. I cancelled my account because I got tired of it. I spend my entire week in front of a computer. I'd like to get away from it and spend time with my friends on the weekend.
Amen Fatespinneer. My sentiments exactly. That's what made me mad about the whole "magazines going online" thing. Before, I could buy a copy of Dungeon or Dragon, and I'd have it for good and could look at it whenever I wanted. Now, it looks like you'll have to pay the monthly fee if you want to look at old copies. To hell with that.
And what sucks is I can't even get into WotC's forums to complain because their damn website is screwed up.
And what sucks is I can't even get into WotC's forums to complain because their damn website is screwed up.
"How's the new DI going guys?"
"Not a single complaint on the website boss!""Ahhh, sweet success. Profit!"
The entire toy business is taking a big hit in credibility right now. If WotC wants to distinguish itself, there is no better opportunity.
Waitaminnit, are the D&D books assembled in China with lead-based paints? Oh man, suddenly I don't feel so good. ;P
- Chris Shadowens
|
|
I feel like I should chime in and say something important or refute the nonesense posted above, but it seems like it is in capable hands with Brent. I'm not going to debate the economics of WotC yet again. They need to sell products to stay in business, they they need to make enough money on those products to support keeping D&D as a brand they offer, and if they don't, there will either be no more D&D or it will receive insufficient resources and not be very good.
End. of. Story.
All of that is true, but that's all WotC's problem, not mine. My problem is that WotC chose to lie about 4th ed. Now, it's clear that some people don't really care about that, but I do.
"No, we're not even working on 4th ed., just give us your money."
I'll take a look at 4th, but it's going to have to be significantly better than 3.5 before I jump. And that probably means that I'll wait for the first service-pack release (4.5) at least.
I must say though, that I always find it particularly ironic that the people most vehemently against 4e usually lead off with "and I haven't bought anything from WotC for x years because it's all crap." Huh. I wonder why WotC isn't interested in continuing down the route of publishing 3e products when you're not even buying them.
Alternately, perhaps the products are selling well because they do appeal to a wide base of customers. That base just doesn't include you.
I'm probably not one of those strawmen you're hacking at, but I'm trending toward strong opposition to 4th. And I've spent somewhere over $500 on WotC product in the last year. (More at SRP.) I generally like their current product, and was willing to keep buying it. Not so much now. At this point, I'll probably just wait a few weeks for people to start dumping their 3.5 stuff at used-book stores before I bother to pick up the next books I've been looking at.
Heck, by now I have enough D&D minis that I'm not even sure I'll bother to keep buying them, even though they're system independent.
WotC is betting that it will add new players in numbers greater than necessary to replace the players that leave; maybe they're right. I make no claim to represent the whole hobby, but I don't think I'm alone here. From a strictly economic point of view, how many new players do you think it will take to replace my money?
How many people does it take to enjoy model railroading? Last I checked, it was a pursuit that could be sustained individually. It's not as if to enjoy model railroading you need to get together with 3-4 of your model railroading buddies to run the tracks or what have you. Thus, a correct analogy is not coin collecting, stamp collecting, or any other hobby that can be pursued individually, it is those hobbies that require multiple participants (games, if you will). Such as war games. Or bridge (maybe bridge needs a 2nd edition with super trump cards. hmmm....) To the extent that fewer people play such games, it is harder for all persons to play such games because they cannot find enough players.
All that is correct. D&D has always been strong in large part because of network effect. But the network I'm plugged into isn't wedded to WotC product. The campaign I'm just starting now is Iron Heroes, and I might well go back to Hero for the next one. I might even finally buy the latest GURPS basic set; I've been wanting that for a while.
(Note that Hero product from 1st ed. needs hardly any changes to be used with 5th ed. This is certainly not true with D&D. If 4th ed. were 3.5 plus errata and the best stuff from their other books, their sales would still be strong, but their audience wouldn't be as incensed. Note that this is pretty much exactly what Hero did.)
You've done a reasonable job of explaining the economic realities for WotC. What you seem to assume, however, is that people who don't work there should actually care about the continued survival of that company. On a purely economic level, I can't think of a reason why I should.
They want money? Great! They can give me something I want more than the other things I can buy with that money. Right now, 4th Ed. ain't it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For the record, my war cry is not "buy it no matter what." It's:
The least we can do is give it a shot.
Which basically means, keep an open mind, see what they have to offer, and see if it's what you want. As Moff and I discussed above, there are paths that could still lead to a happy ending if 4e were to fail. But the prevalent attitude of the community is a 6 year old throwing a temper tantrum over being forced to try new food.
I'm not saying that people don't have valid concerns, but all these huffy little "I'll never switch" posts are ridiculous and childish. Espcially when compared with more honest posts like those by Aberzombie or Fatespinner that basically say (if I may paraphrase) "I'm not entirely happy about this, but I like D&D, and I'll see if 4e is a product for me." I could be wrong Doug, but I suspect that you will end up there once you get over being irritated at WotC's sucker punch of an announcement.
If I may though, I would like to say that WotC's white lies may not have been malicious. Had WotC indicated when they would release 4e any sooner, the market would have reacted. This reaction could very well have done the most damage to Paizo as they were launching Pathfinder/the Gamemaster modules. By saying that 4e was a long ways off, they gave Paizo a window. They took a PR beating back in April to give Paizo a chance to launch with positive press. Maybe this is a sign of WotC's incompetence rather than their benevolence, but judging by the way Paizo has defended WotC, I believe it is the later.
That being said, I won't bend over backwards to defend their s%~*ty PR. But, I don't buy games from WotC because I like their PR, I buy games because I like their games. To the extent that the two can be separated, I would submit that they are worth separating.
When is Hero 6th coming out? (snicker)
Question:
Where is all this "D&D is dying, 4e must keep us afloat!" coming from?
My understanding is that 2e crashed and burned, and refugees flocked to other RPGs in droves. Then, aha! 3.x comes out! Salvation! People return to D&D in droves, and the game grows and expands. Up until this rampant talk of 4e, any discussions of editions seemed to center around "3.x has saved this hobby, revitalized it and made it stronger, better, etc."
So how did we suddenly come to the deathbed of D&D, with 4e potentially being the wonder drug that will save the ailing hobby?
Anyone have any numbers? Studies? Facts? Evidence of any kind that D&D was/is in recession?
Quite frankly, I fail to see the MMOs as that big a threat. I got into D&D after playing Baldur's Gate (computer, 2e version) and then NWN. I talk about D&D on WoW, and people are interested. There are solo games, movies, MMOs; fantasy is booming. That which was isolated and shunned is now popular. Seems to me this is fertile ground for the growth of D&D.
And, frankly, the vast majority of people in an MMO only care that they're playing an MMO. They really wouldn't care if it's City of Heroes, WoW, Warhammer, or what. They don't care if it's modern, fantasy, or sci-fi. They care about the features of the video game, which function under a whole different paradigm than a tabletop RPG. If the MMO wasn't around, most of the people who are playing it now wouldn't suddenly flock to D&D. Those who would be likely to play D&D probably see that likelyhood increase thanks to exposure through the MMO.
No, I don't have any facts to back that up, no studies or data. However, it seems a rather good counter to all the doom and gloom, S.O.S. that seems to come to the defense of 4e.
Don't take this as an attack on 4e. I think tabletop games should remain separate and distinct from computer games. If 4e is, great. If not, screw it. If the rules are good, great. If not, screw it. Regardless, I'm sure I'll give it a look when it comes out, and try to be open minded about it. I'll likely to be slow to switch, however, because I really like 3.5, am not interested in getting a whole new library of D&D books, and want to bask in the glow of knowing that there are no more supplements coming out for this edition to compete for my attention and money. It will be over- 3.5e will be complete, and I can frankly run games under its system as long as I want, or do not want, to.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So how did we suddenly come to the deathbed of D&D, with 4e potentially being the wonder drug that will save the ailing hobby?Anyone have any numbers? Studies? Facts? Evidence of any kind that D&D was/is in recession?
The data is out there. MMORPG's are killing D&D. Take a look at the latest ad campaigns that have been running for D&D - they are directly aimed at MMORPG players. Flip through Ryan Dancey's blog. He's the person that built 3e based on the market data that TSR/WotC gathered prior to the launch of 3e. Flip through Monte's blog, Mearls' blog, any insider's blog, and you'll see the same story.
WotC is in the business of selling games. They collect, tabulate, and organize the data regarding their games. It's not like they just decide to flip a switch and push out a new edition because it's fun.
But hey, you're closer to the ground than I. What's the state of affairs on college campuses these days and in your high school. Are people playing D&D or are they playing MMORPG's? Does you school have a gaming club? Do they record their historical membership? How does that look?
The only anecdotal data I have is you. Other than you, Sexi, and Onrie, the number of under 20 players on these boards is miniscule. It may well be that the under 20 gaming population is just not well represented here and that they have infested the lawns/forums of WotC, but I must say that if I had had access to WoW as a kid, I doubt I would've gotten into D&D.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The only anecdotal data I have is you. Other than you, Sexi, and Onrie, the number of under 20 players on these boards is miniscule. It may well be that the under 20 gaming population is just not well represented here and that they have infested the lawns/forums of WotC, but I must say that if I had had access to WoW as a kid, I doubt I would've gotten into D&D.
Yeah, I agree that the number of under-20 D&D players is dwindling. My group is fairly young as gamers go, but we're not that young. My old group (2 years ago) consisted of: a 22 year old, another 22 year old, a 23 year old, and an 18 year old. My new group's ages are: 24, 25, 25, 23, 21, 21. Still pretty young, but definitely beyond high school and, for the most part, college too.
|
|
Question:
Where is all this "D&D is dying, 4e must keep us afloat!" coming from?
My understanding is that 2e crashed and burned, and refugees flocked to other RPGs in droves.
Couple of thoughts. I don't think that "dying" is a good word here. I just don't think that it is really going anywhere currently. Even I haven't bought a lot of the books that have come out recently. How long can a company stay "afloat" if they can't sell a product? D&D will still be played for quite a while longer, but the company probably needs to do something or they will most likely take other measures (whatever that may look like). I too really like 3.5 and very likely will be playing 3.5 for quite a while after 4e comes out even though I will probably pick it up.
And I don't think that "refugees flocked to other RPGs in droves". I don't think that D&D was really working and a lot of the people that I knew gave the other systems a try, but it never really went anywhere -- it wasn't D&D. I think that a lot of people just stopped playing around that time. If anything, they are probably trying to keep people from quitting playing. They are trying to keep interest high and keep it always (often?) new and fresh.
And for what it's worth, I would much rather my children were interested in playing D&D than an MMO. If this actually does get the next generation interested, then I am all for it.