TheRPGSite

After voting explain why you feel that way.

I voted purely to tweak you.

I encourage others to vote that way as well.  Vote, "more successful than the 3.x version".  Because it's the option that is most likely to make Arduin's head explode.

Less successful than 3E, more successful than 4E (can't choose two).

When 3e came around, everyone was excited about this big new update, D20, the OGL/SRD, and a lot of folks got on board.  It appealed to a certain type of gamer that likes optimizing and crunching numbers and the plethora of choices and customization it offered.

4E, on the other hand, made a lot of changes people didn't like, so they started off on weaker footing.  Sales never got up to where they had been, which eventually sent the line to an early death.

Depending on how good a game Next is, one of those predictions may be wrong (but probably not both).  I think "Less Successful than 3E" is more likely, so I voted that way.

I vote "Better than Arduin's posts."

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRH4ssLOI_b8RtooLiTwU8zcS-F4jPGvtpFmpUYVqOFztXnV1BC)

Quote from: Rincewind1;713845I vote "Better than Arduin's posts."

I wish this forum had a "like" or "thumbs up" function ;)

I'm voting for "sells inversely proportional to how well Arduin thinks it will sell".

He has become my RPG compass. Whichever way he's pointing, I know I should be going the other direction.

Quote from: Rincewind1;713845I vote "Better than Arduin's posts."

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRH4ssLOI_b8RtooLiTwU8zcS-F4jPGvtpFmpUYVqOFztXnV1BC)

You think it'll do THAT bad?

By the way, your poll is just hard to decide how I should vote.

It should be more like

>3.x
<3.x, >4e
<4e
Absolute disaster.

Because right now, less than 3.x and more than 4e people could technically be voting for the same thing "Somewhere between these two".

Quote from: Emperor Norton;713848I'm voting for "sells inversely proportional to how well Arduin thinks it will sell".

He has become my RPG compass. Whichever way he's pointing, I know I should be going the other direction.

Then you MUST have thought that 4E would be the best RPG WotC ever produced...

Quote from: Emperor Norton;713852Because right now, less than 3.x and more than 4e people could technically be voting for the same thing "Somewhere between these two".

That's more accurate.  Based on the RPG market in general, I don't think no matter how well designed, anything would match 3.x's run these days.  So, the better than 3.x choice is realistically not possible.

Quote from: Arduin;713855That's more accurate.  Based on the RPG market in general, I don't think no matter how well designed, anything would match 3.x's run these days.  So, the better than 3.x choice is realistically not possible.

Unless they expand the market.  Which appears to be their plan.

Let me know when the game comes out , then Ill answer.

Quote from: Mistwell;713858Unless they expand the market.  Which appears to be their plan.

Yes, it is their GOAL.  They have set forth no plan that would have a chance in hell of significantly expanding the # of people playing P&P RPG's.

Quote from: TristramEvans;713860Let me know when the game comes out , then Ill answer.

Goddamn, another example of needing a thumbs up button

Quote from: Arduin;713862Yes, it is their GOAL.  They have set forth no plan that would have a chance in hell of significantly expanding the # of people playing P&P RPG's.

You know this how?  I wasn't aware you were in the WotC board meetings.

Actual honest answer:

As it stands right now, somewhere between 3.x and 4e. 3.x/d20 took the RPG market by storm, and I just don't see that being replicated in a market that already has a super strong competitor in the Fantasy RPG market (which 3.x didn't really have).

I think 5e will have similar initial sales as 4e (which reportedly had excellent initial sales) but retain those sales for a longer period of time, and will retake the #1 spot, but Pathfinders will still hold onto a significant player base inside the same genre in the market, keeping 5e from reaching the 3.x peaks.

There are still decisions WotC can make though that can make these predictions go up or down. Something similar to the OGL will be a positive, really restrictive licensing could be a negative.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;713864You know this how?  I wasn't aware you were in the WotC board meetings.

??  Read much?  When you have reread and comprehended what I wrote, send me a post card.

Quote from: Arduin;713866??  Read much?  When you have reread and comprehended what I wrote, send me a post card.

Question:  Do the thoughts in your head come out completely different when you type them, and just never notice the difference?

Because how else is someone supposed to interpret this:

QuoteThey have set forth no plan that would have a chance in hell of significantly expanding the # of people playing P&P RPG's.

How do you know they don't have a plan?  Are you in their meetings?  That's what that statement implies, that you have some knowledge of HASBRO's plans or lack thereof.

My best guess is that it will be slightly more successful than 4th, but considerably less than 3.x.

By trying to accomodate multiple play-styles, I think Next will manage to lure in a few players here and there and won't alienate anyone nearly as much as 4th did, but I don't think it will be able to please everyone by a long shot.  The problem is that nowadays there are so many products and systems that if you can't find a system that works for you and fits your tastes, you're just not looking very hard.  Want a high-powered, tactics-heavy tabletop wargame with roleplaying elements?  Go for 4th or 13th Age.  Want a granular game with a plethora of character options emphasizing choice and diversity?  Pathfinder and 3rd edition has you covered.  Want a gritty, old-school dungeoneering experience where death lurks behind every corner?  Labyrinth Lord, B/X, Basic Fantasy, Swords & Wizardry, or any number of other retro-clones are all available.  Want a game that blends traditional roleplaying with collaborative storytelling?  FATE, Dungeon World, etc will all turn your crank.  And then there are all the variants and specific niche games out there catering to more particular tastes - Burning Wheel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Hackmaster, True20, all that stuff.  And that's just fantasy roleplaying games; there's tons of other stuff out there for different sorts of games.  Why go with Next, which attempts to do everything, when there's such a plethora of systems out there?  With a little searching and playtesting you can find one that works for you and your group, so why chuck dollars at Wizards?

It'll still sell, and for some people (perhaps groups whose members favour divergent play-styles) it might be the perfect game, but I don't think it'll be nearly successful as 3.x, which in many revitalized what was then a dwindling hobby through things like the OGL.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;713867How do you know they don't have a plan?  Are you in their meetings?  That's what that statement implies, that you have some knowledge of HASBRO's plans or lack thereof.

To be fair, he said "set forth" a plan. Which I think he means said what their plans are going to be publicly.

I just can't for the life of me imagine why he would think they would have stated publicly what the plan was.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;713865Actual honest answer:

As it stands right now, somewhere between 3.x and 4e. 3.x/d20 took the RPG market by storm, and I just don't see that being replicated in a market that already has a super strong competitor in the Fantasy RPG market (which 3.x didn't really have).

I think 5e will have similar initial sales as 4e (which reportedly had excellent initial sales) but retain those sales for a longer period of time, and will retake the #1 spot, but Pathfinders will still hold onto a significant player base inside the same genre in the market, keeping 5e from reaching the 3.x peaks.

There are still decisions WotC can make though that can make these predictions go up or down. Something similar to the OGL will be a positive, really restrictive licensing could be a negative.

This.  The vast majority of D&D players I knew purchased 4e right away.  >90% didn't stick with it for more than 6 months.  Next is of a more acceptable design (based on people I know) than was 4e.  

3/D20 was industry changer.  Next won't be that.

Arduin, it's a miracle!  We agree on something! :)

Quote from: Steerpike;713871Arduin, it's a miracle!  We agree on something! :)

Oh noes!  The universe will collapse in on itself.  :eek:

Quote from: Arduin;713862Yes, it is their GOAL.  They have set forth no plan that would have a chance in hell of significantly expanding the # of people playing P&P RPG's.

You mean they have not told you personally their marketing plan, therefore that means they have none? LOL you really are myopic sometimes.

Quote from: Mistwell;713878You mean they have not told you personally their marketing plan

No, it is that you are illiterate.  Which has been shown to be true numerous times in the past...

Quote from: Arduin;713881No, it is that you are illiterate.  Which has been shown to be true numerous times in the past...

Maybe it's you who isn't aware of what the term "set forth" means? You should Google it (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+set+forth).

While I wish WotC well with 5e, I sincerely doubt it will ever see the market share of either 3e or 4e. I've just picked up the OD&D box set reprint, and I am significantly more likely to run that than 5e. I've been quite unimpressed with how they've managed D&D, but I'm happy they're bringing their back catalogue back.

However, I do feel that both 3e and 4e brought interesting changes to D&D (4e especially had some great ideas, even if the whole didn't excite me much), so I might pick up 5e purely to mine it for ideas... but only after it's been out for a while and I've seen the community's responses.

No vote until the game is actually out as a finished product.

More successful than 4e.

For one they're not pissing in the faces of people who like older editions (except for 4e HAHAHA WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW) with their marketing; rather, they're saying "Man old editions are/were cool!  We're making this have a lot of the feel and playability of those editions!  c'mon back to D&D for the big win!"

I voted "more successful than 3.x" just to piss off Arduin. :D ;)

Honestly though. It's going to be more successful than the 4e debacle, for sure. Just how much, impossible to say right now. Need the finished product in hand to have an opinion about it.

I voted more successful than 4e, only because I'm more interested in it than I was in 4e.

Good idea for a poll, dude.

Here are my thoughts:

4e has created wounds that cannot be wholly cured. 4e split the hobby like nothing else. In the 2e days, before 3e, the hobby was not split like that (though TSR was in trouble). Hence, 3e was a success.

The wound has been there since 2008. Interest has waned. Can momentum be regained? Can the clans be reunited?

I voted for "the latest debacle", but I can see "outsells 4e but not 3e" as well.

Anyone who voted "better than 3e" is being contrary, hopelessly idealistic, or just really bad at math. It simply isn't mathematically possible to outsell 3e - the market has had 15 years worth of contracting since then.

The product would have to be so good it would cause a huge expansion of the overall market; that's just not going to happen without a new paradigm. 4e tried for a new paradigm and failed.

RPGs are attempting to sell an inferior product (from the POV of consumers, at least, who seem to prefer electronic leisure activities) in an aggressive marketplace. WotC's strategy of attempting to corner the market and ride it out to the end is the best business strategy in that scenario, but don't kid yourself that it is anything but squeezing the last ounce of blood out of the stone.

You see the same sort of business strategies going on with department stores (JC Penny tried to get hip, failed, and is now resigned to ride it out until all the older shoppers die off) and network TV (broadcasters now keep shows around that have worse ratings than infomercials got in the 90s).

Quote from: 1989;713921Good idea for a poll, dude.

Here are my thoughts:

4e has created wounds that cannot be wholly cured. 4e split the hobby like nothing else. In the 2e days, before 3e, the hobby was not split like that (though TSR was in trouble). Hence, 3e was a success.

The wound has been there since 2008. Interest has waned. Can momentum be regained? Can the clans be reunited?

I think it would be like the Catholic Church trying to reabsorb all the Protestant churches at this point. If 5th succeeds it won't be because they lure back all the grognards.

I voted the next disaster. Next is looking to have pretty much zero appeal to anybody more or less satisfied with Pathfinder or 4E, and it's not going to be a home run with Old Schoolers either. I don't see it outselling 4E in the long run.

Ask yourself, who is going to buy this?

Quote from: TristramEvans;713936I think it would be like the Catholic Church trying to reabsorb all the Protestant churches at this point.

Not really.  The Catholic church was still larger than the Protestant churches at that time.  D&D sells less than PF does.

Quote from: TristramEvans;713936If 5th succeeds it won't be because they lure back all the grognards.

If they don't (you obviously mean those who play 3.5/PF and ALL earlier editions) then Next will be a HUGE CF and will have ZERO possibility of succeeding.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;713940Ask yourself, who is going to buy this?

Until I see the finished product that is tough one to answer with precision.  I was able to VERY accurately predict about 4E within a week of purchasing it and playing.

Quote from: Arduin;713943Not really.  The Catholic church was still larger than the Protestant churches at that time.  D&D sells less than PF does.

That won't always be the case, unless Next just tanks. And Im not much for predictions, but I wouldn't lay odds on that. And D&D is Hasbro now, they are big damn fish in a tiny tiny pond.

QuoteIf they don't (you obviously mean those who play 3.5/PF and ALL earlier editions) then Next will be a HUGE CF and will have ZERO possibility of succeeding.

No, the majority of players and potential buyers are not grognards. Market wise we're inconsequential to a game's success or failure.

Quote from: TristramEvans;713945That won't always be the case, unless Next just tanks. And Im not much for predictions, but I wouldn't lay odds on that. And D&D is Hasbro now, they are big damn fish in a tiny tiny pond.

Even if Next does as good as 4e, PF will still sell more.  WotC is the 2nd largest fish is that small pond.

Quote from: TristramEvans;713945No, the majority of players and potential buyers are not grognards. Market wise we're inconsequential to a game's success or failure.

People who play Basic - 3.x/PF are the HUGE majority of D&D players.  The only Demo outside that is 4e players...

Quote from: Arduin;713947Even if Next does as good as 4e, PF will still sell more.  WotC is the 2nd largest fish is that small pond.

Well, its fascinating you have such faith in Pathfinder, but I don't share any such belief.

QuotePeople who play Basic - 3.x/PF are the HUGE majority of D&D players.  The only Demo outside that is 4e players...

Okay. Hence not grognards.

But PF has never been tested against an edition of D&D that wasn't a completely new game. I doubt the majority of such players are not going to die hardly cling fast to thier relics when the newshiny comes along. 5e was a dud, it didn't erase history.

Quote from: TristramEvans;713950Well, its fascinating you have such faith in Pathfinder, but I don't share any such belief.

It's not an emotional belief thing.  It is sales numbers.  :banghead:

Quote from: TristramEvans;713950But PF has never been tested against an edition of D&D that wasn't a completely new game

4e was a "completely new game" and PF buried it.  Pretty damn simple.

Have you ever done a mktg plan & long term sales forecast for an international product in a limited market that has competition that is outselling you when you are going to intro a new product?

I remember reading an article, pretty sure it was by Mike Mearls (and hopefully I recall it correctly), about how their beginner box sets for 4th (the blue box and dismal red box) sold extremely well to people who were interested in trying D&D- but then didn't continue past that first box set towards the core books.  

I'm looking forward to seeing how 5th turns out.

Quote from: Arduin;713953It's not an emotional belief thing.  It is sales numbers.  :banghead:

Sales numbers ...in the future? Or do you think those things don't change?

Quote4e was a "completely new game" and PF buried it.  Pretty damn simple.

Im not sure "buried it" isn't more than a little hyperbolic, but Im also not certain that you comprehended what I said, because this response makes no sense.

Poll is terribly worded.

I predict that Next will sell less in its first year than 4e did in it's first year. But whether it will be more "successful" than 4e overall is a question about the ongoing health of the line and WotC's ability to manage it. I haven't been following the playtest enough to comment on whether the product is any good, so no idea frankly on the long term success front.

A lot depends on how they market it.  I know a lot of people bought B/X boxed sets for their kids because they thought of it as a regular game.  I am a firm believer that that works.  It's how we got started back in the day.  And I'm sure a lot of us can say we got our first D&D game as a present.

Quote from: Grymbok;713967Poll is terribly worded.

I predict that Next will sell less in its first year than 4e did in it's first year. But whether it will be more "successful" than 4e overall is a question about the ongoing health of the line and WotC's ability to manage it. I haven't been following the playtest enough to comment on whether the product is any good, so no idea frankly on the long term success front.

I actually think the opposite. I think the core 3 and first supplement or two will sell 80-110% of what 4E sold because of "new shiny" curiosity, and after that sales will crater faster than they did for 4E.

I haven't played Next yet.

Is there a WOW factor when you play the game? Is there something there that will rip players away from whatever they are currently playing?

Quote from: Endless Flight;713972I haven't played Next yet.

Is there a WOW factor when you play the game?

No, NOTHING like that.

Quote from: Endless Flight;713972Is there something there that will rip players away from whatever they are currently playing?

Not that has been identified so far.

The thing about 5e that I think will make it work:

Its familiar, will have high visibility outside of online communities, easy to run, easy to teach to new players, supported, and offers character customization.

O-2e = Not Supported, Little Character Customization
OSR = Not Highly Visible Outside of Online Communities, Little Character Customization (Depends on specific game)
3.x = Not Easy to Run, Not Supported, Not Easy To Teach
PF = Not Easy To Run, Not Easy To Teach
4e = Unfamiliar + Not Supported

People really tend to forget that OSR stuff isn't taking the world by storm outside of online communities, just like story games aren't. The big names in the business aren't ever going to be things that are only highly visible online. They are the Pathfinders, the D&Ds, the Star Warses, The Warhammer 40ks, the things that are SUPER VISIBLE IN THE REAL WORLD.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;713984The thing about 5e that I think will make it work:

Its familiar, will have high visibility outside of online communities, easy to run, easy to teach to new players, supported, and offers character customization.

O-2e = Not Supported, Little Character Customization
OSR = Not Highly Visible Outside of Online Communities, Little Character Customization (Depends on specific game)
3.x = Not Easy to Run, Not Supported, Not Easy To Teach
PF = Not Easy To Run, Not Easy To Teach
4e = Unfamiliar + Not Supported

People really tend to forget that OSR stuff isn't taking the world by storm outside of online communities, just like story games aren't. The big names in the business aren't ever going to be things that are only highly visible online. They are the Pathfinders, the D&Ds, the Star Warses, The Warhammer 40ks, the things that are SUPER VISIBLE IN THE REAL WORLD.

Its will be familiar and have high visibility but will encounter resistance from existing players who aren't on board with the new edition. It is easier to teach than PF but is aesthetically dated and could lack appeal for those unfamiliar with D&D. It has character customization, but its a pale shadow of what 3E/PF and 4E offered and won't be enough for a lot of people.

Sincerely voted "more successful than 3.X", but this all depends on how you define success.

If you're talking bigger sales of core books, more groups playing Next than played 3.X at its peak, and so on, then I don't think that's going to happen. Thanks to the OGL, the retro-clone movement, Pathfinder inheriting 3.X's crown and 13th Age providing a tightened-up and polished 4E alternative on the side, it's never been more viable to just keep on playing your preferred version of D&D and get support materials for it. The market fragmentation has happened and it's never going to 100% reverse.

On the other hand, I think Next has a much bigger problem to solve than 3E did. It's easy to forget that when 3E came out 2E was still a major player - remember, TSR didn't die because it had lousy sales of 2E products in general, it died because it competed with itself too much with the campaign settings and got stiffed by returns on the tie-in novels. True, the World of Darkness stuff was more fashionable, but I don't think even Vampire had pushed its way into first place (and even so, arguably the market for Vampire and the market for D&D are somewhat different, seeing how that Vampire scratches a very different itch).

In the current situation though, D&D hasn't just been shoved into second place, but in second place to a game that's marketed directly to the D&D fanbase (or the 3.X-loving section thereof, at any rate). I think Next will ultimately win out over Pathfinder, and I think that's a bigger challenge than merely re-energising the user base of what was still the undisputed champion of RPGs when 3E came out. So I think Next will be a bigger success because it's facing up to a bigger challenge.

Quote from: Warthur;714003Sincerely voted "more successful than 3.X", but this all depends on how you define success.

Revenue.  Not looking at any wishy washy new age babble.

Core books will not do as well as 3.X by that metric, but will outpace 4E. Basic boxed set properly marketed (EG, actually put it in the damn toy stores, don't make it crippleware, properly support it) might start threatening 3.X's revenue, especially if it's an evergreen product.

However, I suspect Next will be an edition which is sufficiently close to the 3.X/Classic tradition that the supplemental material may be highly useful for such games. If they play their cards right and put out supplements that lots of people want to grab and adapt for their own preferred D&D, then the revenue stream for the line as a whole might end up getting back to 3.X levels.

Quote from: Arduin;714008Revenue.  Not looking at any wishy washy new age babble.

There is also a prestige aspect. The D&D name is supposed to be a big deal. If large sections of the supposed D&D community are playing games that don't have the name D&D on the cover it diminishes the brand name.

Quote from: Benoist;713912I voted "more successful than 3.x" just to piss off Arduin.

+1

Though mainly just to see how the poll turned out.

Im not commiting an opinion or expectations to a game that doesn't exist yet.

Might have some suspicions once the advertising campaign gets underway, though Honestly I was just confused by 4th's advertising. Sarcastic flash cartoons juxtaposed with some weird French hipster.

I would be surprised if D&D5e even sees print.

An amazing number of people seem to have come to believe that "existing body of gamers" is the only pool that matters.

And yet, both "lapsed gamers who have not played an TRPG in many years" and "new players who have never played an TRPG but who would like one if they tried" are both significantly bigger pools of players than "existing body of gamers".

All rumors are that WOTC is going to go after those later pools of players hard, with a national marketing campaign that includes television, movies, video games, internet, magazines, comics, novels, and cross-branding in related fields like toys and clothing and accessories.  The type of marketing campaign nobody in the industry has tried since the heyday of TSR.

Now maybe that won't happen.  Who knows? But, it's incredibly myopic to only consider the existing body of gamers when analyzing the potential for 5e.  They could in theory convert exactly zero existing gamers to 5e, and still completely annihilate the combined sales numbers of PF, 3e, and 4e.  Now I doubt that happens, but it's theoretically possible, and seems to be at least part of the plan WOTC/Hasbro is working on.  So when I see people say it's impossible to do better than even 3e because "not enough PF and 4e players will switch", I gotta laugh at you guys.  You're so stuck in your own echo chamber you forgot what the potential marketplace actually looks like.

Quote from: Mistwell;714017An amazing number of people seem to have come to believe that "existing body of gamers" is the only pool that matters.

And yet, both "lapsed gamers who have not played an TRPG in many years" and "new players who have never played an TRPG but who would like one if they tried" are both significantly bigger pools of players than "existing body of gamers".

All rumors are that WOTC is going to go after those later pools of players hard, with a national marketing campaign that includes television, movies, video games, internet, magazines, comics, novels, and cross-branding in related fields like toys and clothing and accessories.  The type of marketing campaign nobody in the industry has tried since the heyday of TSR.

Now maybe that won't happen.  Who knows? But, it's incredibly myopic to only consider the existing body of gamers when analyzing the potential for 5e.  They could in theory convert exactly zero existing gamers to 5e, and still completely annihilate the combined sales numbers of PF, 3e, and 4 combined.  Now I doubt that happens, but it's theoretically possible.  So when I see people say it's impossible to do better than even 3e because "not enough PF and 4e players will switch", I gotta laugh at you guys.  You're so stuck in your own echo chamber you forgot what the potential marketplace actually looks like.

That potential marketplace is a pipe dream outside of somebody creating a world shattering virtual tabletop.

The vast majority of new players join existing groups. My first D&D game I joined an existing group. I became a lapsed player towards the end of 2E, and again during the 3.0E era, and when I came both times I joined existing groups. A game that is held in contempt by significant sections of the community of existing players isn't going to have an easy time with new players.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;714016I would be surprised if D&D5e even sees print.

I've seen you say this before.

And I think you're a fucking loon for saying it.

Quote from: Arduin;714008Revenue.  Not looking at any wishy washy new age babble.

Revenue alone isn't a good enough metric to define success - it only tells part of the story. You still need to know how many units sold, profit margin, return on investment, and so on before you can determine if the game is a success. And good luck getting WotC to give you their internal financials!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;714016I would be surprised if D&D5e even sees print.

Why is that?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;714018That potential marketplace is a pipe dream outside of somebody creating a world shattering virtual tabletop.

Why, because new products never find a market where there wasn't one before that product? Oh that just happens...every single year.

QuoteThe vast majority of new players join existing groups.

Right, because all companies have focused their marketing on existing players for decades.

But, there was a time when there WERE no existing players.  And that happens to also be the time just before the maximum number of players there ever were.  Because they managed to market to the entire nation, a new game.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;714010There is also a prestige aspect. The D&D name is supposed to be a big deal. If large sections of the supposed D&D community are playing games that don't have the name D&D on the cover it diminishes the brand name.

I'd say 4E damaged the brand name. It remains to be seen if 5E can repair the damage. It's a big ask.

5E will almost certainly be more successful than 4E but will that be enough to satisfy Wizbro?

You can only catch lightning in a bottle so many times.

Quote from: Mistwell;714022Why, because new products never find a market where there wasn't one before that product? Oh that just happens...every single year.

Hooking up with other people(a key to playing RPGs) online is easier than doing so in real life, all that's necessary is the software. Beyond that, new products tend to be new. If what you describe were to happen, I can almost guarantee it will have nothing to do with D&D, or anything resembling the tabletop RPG world you and I are familiar with. It will be new, never seen before.

QuoteRight, because all companies have focused their marketing on existing players for decades.

But, there was a time when there WERE no existing players.  And that happens to also be the time just before the maximum number of players there ever were.  Because they managed to market to the entire nation, a new game.

Its simple arithmetic. What is easier, finding 3-4 other people who have never played before and want to play(to say nothing of how badly such a game will be DMed with no previous experience) or finding an existing table with room for another? I've been in that situation multiple times, and I can attest that finding an existing table is vastly easier.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;714026Hooking up with other people(a key to playing RPGs) online is easier than doing so in real life, all that's necessary is the software. Beyond that, new products tend to be new. If what you describe were to happen, I can almost guarantee it will have nothing to do with D&D, or anything resembling the tabletop RPG world you and I are familiar with. It will be new, never seen before.





Its simple arithmetic. What is easier, finding 3-4 other people who have never played before and want to play(to say nothing of how badly such a game will be DMed with no previous experience) or finding an existing table with room for another? I've been in that situation multiple times, and I can attest that finding an existing table is vastly easier.

It IS simple math, but you're not doing the math.

The pool of existing players is about the size of a single grain of sand, and the number of potential players in the world is the rest of the sand on the beach.  That's an exaggeration, but not an extreme one.

Sure, it's vastly easier to find room at an existing table for one new player than it is to create a new table of players.  But when the number of potential new players is in the billions, and the number of existing players is in the hundreds of thousands, then even if the barrier to entry is 10 times harder for the new table, the total number of new players is vastly higher by that method anyway.

So yes, do the math. Realize the number of existing players is extremely tiny.  Measure it against the number of potential new players, or even lapsed players.  Even if it's hard to create a new table, it's still likely to happen more than the total number of existing players, if you do a good marketing campaign.  Because this is currently an incredibly small hobby, and it has NEVER been marketed to most of the current generation of likely potential players in their entire lives.  All marketing efforts have focused on moving tiny portions of existing players from one tiny game to another tiny game, for decades.

Quote from: RunningLaser;713954I remember reading an article, pretty sure it was by Mike Mearls (and hopefully I recall it correctly), about how their beginner box sets for 4th (the blue box and dismal red box) sold extremely well to people who were interested in trying D&D- but then didn't continue past that first box set towards the core books.  

I'm looking forward to seeing how 5th turns out.

Hmm...it seems like there's something to be learned in there. But what...?

D&D Next will be...the next edition that further divides the player base.

Quote from: Mistwell;714017An amazing number of people seem to have come to believe that "existing body of gamers" is the only pool that matters.

And yet, both "lapsed gamers who have not played an TRPG in many years" and "new players who have never played an TRPG but who would like one if they tried" are both significantly bigger pools of players than "existing body of gamers".

All rumors are that WOTC is going to go after those later pools of players hard, with a national marketing campaign that includes television, movies, video games, internet, magazines, comics, novels, and cross-branding in related fields like toys and clothing and accessories.  The type of marketing campaign nobody in the industry has tried since the heyday of TSR.

Now maybe that won't happen.  Who knows? But, it's incredibly myopic to only consider the existing body of gamers when analyzing the potential for 5e.  They could in theory convert exactly zero existing gamers to 5e, and still completely annihilate the combined sales numbers of PF, 3e, and 4e.  Now I doubt that happens, but it's theoretically possible, and seems to be at least part of the plan WOTC/Hasbro is working on.  So when I see people say it's impossible to do better than even 3e because "not enough PF and 4e players will switch", I gotta laugh at you guys.  You're so stuck in your own echo chamber you forgot what the potential marketplace actually looks like.

If that sort of push was going to happen, why hasn't it started yet? D&D Next is coming out when, sometime next year?

The only signs I've see any sort of cross-media push are that series of novels that have been coming, and those are largely aimed at people who liked the Forgotten Realms before 4e and want it back. If you aren't familiar with FR fiction, you'll be completely bewildered by them (I know I was, since it assumes you know who all these people are)

But ultimately what they need to do is produce a version of D&D that most people can understand. TSR stumbled onto that with Holmes which made more sense than anything before it, but it was really Frank Mentzer's Basic set that really was aimed at truly beginners, walking people through things.

I have no faith that the current people at WOTC can produce such a product (or game, even).

Well if the current WOTC poll wins out...

D&D Next will... have some really fucked up Dragonborn. (And dragons)

Quote from: JeremyR;714058If that sort of push was going to happen, why hasn't it started yet? D&D Next is coming out when, sometime next year?

There is no scheduled release date, and at least one official has said they think 2015 (I think that was Ed Greenwood), but that was just his guess based on what he knew at the time.  I personally think 2014 Gencon, but who knows? It's likely too early for that campaign to begin.

QuoteThe only signs I've see any sort of cross-media push are that series of novels that have been coming, and those are largely aimed at people who liked the Forgotten Realms before 4e and want it back.

I am not going to go over the lists people are composing over at EW, but it's much bigger than that.  It started with the lawsuit to reclaim the movies and stop the dreck movie director from making another one.  They already announced their own, and mentioned their intent to expand the brand massively.

D&D Next will be ... Probably irrelevant for me. For old-school gaming, I've got ACKS. For new-school gaming, I've got 3.5E. It is unlikely that D&D Next would surpass either system in its niche.

Quote from: Mistwell;714017An amazing number of people seem to have come to believe that "existing body of gamers" is the only pool that matters.

Because, statistically, that is correct.

Quote from: Jacob Marley;714020Revenue alone isn't a good enough metric to define success

I'm talking financial success.  Anyone who has run a corp. knows what I'm talking about.  Other people, who cares?

Quote from: Arduin;714140Because, statistically, that is correct.

if it is in fact statistically correct, then you can show how.

with math

I'll wait

Quote from: Sacrosanct;714146if it is in fact statistically correct, then you can show how.

with math

I'll wait

I can show lots of things with math.  If you want a lesson because of your lack of EDU , it starts at $1,000.  I'll wait for your PM so I can give you payment instructions.

Quote from: Arduin;714147I can show lots of things with math.  

then do it, back up your claim, or STFU

Quote from: Arduin;714140Because, statistically, that is correct.

Yeah, calling total bullshit there. There is no comprehensive statistical data on gamers. Besides a few surveys at gaming conventions (and its only a fraction of the hobby that attends cons), some surveys of retailers, and a few online studies, all of which amount to representing maybe 10% of gamers (and that's probably being VERY generous) in North America alone (suggesting less than 1% of gamers worldwide), No comprehensive statistical data exists pertaining to the hobby. You're claiming authority from pink fluffy elephants.

Quote from: Fiasco;714023I'd say 4E damaged the brand name. It remains to be seen if 5E can repair the damage. It's a big ask.

A pretty hefty portion of the potential market never even heard of 4E. They're either people who have known about D&D, but don't know about editions (or edition wars), or they're lapsed gamers who haven't really thought about D&D in six or more years, and don't read RPG forums. I know several guys who I've played with over the years who had no idea there was a 4th edition until I mentioned it to them a few months ago. Also never heard of Pathfinder. But they're playing in my Next game.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;714026Its simple arithmetic. What is easier, finding 3-4 other people who have never played before and want to play(to say nothing of how badly such a game will be DMed with no previous experience) or finding an existing table with room for another? I've been in that situation multiple times, and I can attest that finding an existing table is vastly easier.

I've followed the hobby boardgaming market as it exploded in the last 8-10 years. And if the game is sufficiently accessible, it does not require existing groups to latch onto. WotC have mentioned on more than one occasion that their marketing data shows far more people are curious about D&D and want to play it than actually do play it. And that's people who play all editions.

There is a huge and growing market out there for tabletop gaming. 20-something nerds. Couples. Middle-aged guys returning to a hobby after a lapse of 15 years. WotC knows this. Heck, Paizo knows it - their Pathfinder card/boardgame is selling like gangbusters. That's the market for Next, not the few thousand or so hardcore edition warriors who spend half their time on RPG forums.

Quote from: Spinachcat;714057D&D Next will be...the next edition that further divides the player base.

Why doesn't anyone want to believe it could grow the player base? What is it about the hardcore D&D crowd - old-school, new-school, 3E fan, 4E fan, grognard - that doesn't even want to consider the possibility that D&D can be a lot bigger than the current base of forum-wonks and edition warriors? Why is the very notion of D&D as a casual, accessible game with potential for growth so threatening? Is it the harsh truth that 95 per cent of the stuff bickered about in thousands of threads and flame wars is completely irrelevant to the far wider market of people who just want to play some Dungeons and Dragons?

It's possible that Next could hugely expand the player base, but in my experience most new players come to the game through word of mouth and by joining groups with more experienced players, whose tastes will tend to shape their choice of system.  Certainly exceptions might exist, and it's not impossible that Next will manage to enlarge the player base in some ways, but I don't think it's significantly more likely to than, say, a new edition of GURPS or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or any other moderately successful RPG franchise.

Quote from: JeremyR;714058I have no faith that the current people at WOTC can produce such a product (or game, even).

Nobody can recreate 1981.

Moldvay / Mentzer / Whoever = Doesn't matter. The entertainment choices of 2014 are worlds apart from what existed in 1981 and what D&D requires and offers is only going to appeal to a niche audience and the game (even the most perfect version ever) will have to compete in 2014, not 1981.

Quote from: Omega;714060D&D Next will... have some really fucked up Dragonborn. (And dragons)

What's going on? Link?

Quote from: Haffrung;714179Why doesn't anyone want to believe it could grow the player base?

I haven't seen anything about D&D Next that even vaguely looks exciting enough to draw in current gamers, let alone fresh blood. There is nothing "casual" or "accessible" about Next compared to modern boardgames.  

If D&D has a future with a widespread fanbase, it will be as video games and perhaps a casual dungeon boardgame ala Castle Ravenloft.

Boardgames & Card games are popular because they have fast setups, fast play, and little investment of time. Most modern boardgames are done in 2 hours. They are fun, shiny and don't tax the players with any kind of preparation or concern about continuity. I can't see how D&D Next shares anything in common with why people play modern boardgames.

But hey, I might be totally wrong and 5e will take the world by storm. I concede my total inability to see into the future.

Quote from: Haffrung;714179Why doesn't anyone want to believe it could grow the player base?

Of course it will grow the player base. It's D&D after all, which has always been one of the largest drivers of new player attraction for RPGs. The question is can it grow the player base substantially, and over what kind of time frame will it happen.

Personally I think that the year one sales are likely to be principally to the existing and lapsed player audiences (which is why I think it will undersell 4e in year one, because  the existing player audience shrinks every edition). If it's a good product and marketed well then we can hope to see it adding to the player base by bringing new high school kids from year two on.

Quote from: Spinachcat;714204What's going on? Link?

One of the designers for Next was showing odd on the WOTC forums the proposed new background for Dragonborn.

Now they are the offspring of unblessed dragon eggs. Of Bahamut or Tiamat doesnt give it the thumbs up then the dragon egg hatches into a dragonborn.

Which totally dicks around with dragons and dragonborn.

Polls on the site showed fan (probably sock puppet) support of the move.

Cant find the entry now.

Quote from: TristramEvans;714021Why is that?

Design by committee leads to a longer design process. Remember that Wizards is fully owned and controlled by Hasbro. This is not TSR days when D&D was basically all they produced so it continued no matter what, they have zillions of other products. To Hasbro there's nothing precious about D&D, it's just another line of games like Boggle or Cluedo. It either performs or gets dumped. But while it's not being published, it's not performing. That'd be what motivated all the reprints of 1e, etc, keep the brand in the public eye and justify the continued salaries of the people producing 5e.

If the design process goes on long enough, the parent company is likely to just bin the lot. Close on two years, not counting any time they were designing before announcing it publicly January 2012.

How long will Hasbro continue paying the salaries of people who are designing a product rather than actually selling something?

Quote from: Omega;714219One of the designers for Next was showing odd on the WOTC forums the proposed new background for Dragonborn.

Now they are the offspring of unblessed dragon eggs. Of Bahamut or Tiamat doesnt give it the thumbs up then the dragon egg hatches into a dragonborn.

Which totally dicks around with dragons and dragonborn.

Polls on the site showed fan (probably sock puppet) support of the move.

Cant find the entry now.

https://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20131127#89816

Current poll suggests that 36% thin Dragonborn are the most important dragon race in D&D. (Draconian and Kobold are second on 16-17%)

Favored method of creating Dragonborn is by human/dragon breeding on 26%. The proposed new unsactioned dragon egg method is at 9%. Thas about tied with most other results aapart from Io's Blood on 15%, and being individually created by Tiamat (5%) or being created by Io before Dragons on 1%.

44% like the mechanics of Dragonborn in D&D Next.

28% think the Dragonborn D&D Next origin story will satisfy players (That is historically a very low results on these polls, I predict it will mean the story is withdrawn).

33% think the story successfully brings all Dragonborn like races under the same umbrella.

53% belive that WotC is following the right goals by moving Dragonborn under the same umbrella as other Dragon Humanoids.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;714228Design by committee leads to a longer design process. Remember that Wizards is fully owned and controlled by Hasbro. This is not TSR days when D&D was basically all they produced so it continued no matter what, they have zillions of other products. To Hasbro there's nothing precious about D&D, it's just another line of games like Boggle or Cluedo. It either performs or gets dumped. But while it's not being published, it's not performing. That'd be what motivated all the reprints of 1e, etc, keep the brand in the public eye and justify the continued salaries of the people producing 5e.

If the design process goes on long enough, the parent company is likely to just bin the lot. Close on two years, not counting any time they were designing before announcing it publicly January 2012.

How long will Hasbro continue paying the salaries of people who are designing a product rather than actually selling something?

Surely Hasbro was aware beforehand how much time was intended to be put into the game's development. I don't think Hasbro is going to sit on the brand. But it would be interesting if you were correct. No new D&D, or it lives on as board games.

Quote from: TristramEvans;714234Surely Hasbro was aware beforehand how much time was intended to be put into the game's development. I don't think Hasbro is going to sit on the brand. But it would be interesting if you were correct. No new D&D, or it lives on as board games.

Hasbro is aware. They have their own long term plans for product so things like D&D shouldnt phase them at all.  Hasbro does though keep WOTC on a leash at times. D&D Gamma World is one example of some sort of limited budgeting factor in play according to one of the designers. Possibly because it was an experiment in adding a CCG element to an RPG.

Never underestimate WOTCs ability to screw things up somehow all on their own either. They might try to merge Next with that proposed Dragonlance setting total reboot for example and crash hard. Ir they could treat it all as a gigglefest like they did with D&D GW.

Im guessing neither of the above will happen. But untill se see actual setting details. Well. Its anyones guess. The modules so far though, aside from one, suggest its more traditional than off the wall which is at least hopefull.

Quote from: Haffrung;714179A
There is a huge and growing market out there for tabletop gaming.

As the RPG market has been shrinking, that data is not relevant.

Quote from: jadrax;714230Current poll suggests that 36% thin Dragonborn are the most important dragon race in D&D. (Draconian and Kobold are second on 16-17%)

That's a poll of mostly WotC fan boi's.  They need to attract the people who DIDN'T take that poll.

Quote from: Arduin;714258As the RPG market has been shrinking, that data is not relevant.

The current player base is shrinking, but I believe the market is much larger, but getting to potential customers is too costly for Hasbro. Marketing and advertising RPGs to the potential market doesn't make sense compared to those dollars being used for Magic or video games, particularly video games with an active micro-economy.

Quote from: Spinachcat;714367The current player base is shrinking, but I believe the market is much larger, but getting to potential customers is too costly for Hasbro. Marketing and advertising RPGs to the potential market doesn't make sense compared to those dollars being used for Magic or video games, particularly video games with an active micro-economy.

Of course it makes sense, if they do it alongside a massive brand marketing plan to sell you D&D-Everything-Under-The-Sun.

Honestly my experience makes me suspect that the player base is larger than ever, but the amount of people buying actual gamebooks from stores has gone down.

Quote from: TristramEvans;714375Honestly my experience makes me suspect that the player base is larger than ever, but the amount of people buying actual gamebooks from stores has gone down.

The player base is larger. Problem is. Everyone and their brother is trying to cash in on making an RPG now and selling it or releasing it free. OSR, SRD, etc. Theres alot to choose from and alot of styles of play now on top of competition from storytelling games.

Quote from: TristramEvans;714375Honestly my experience makes me suspect that the player base is larger than ever, but the amount of people buying actual gamebooks from stores has gone down.

Could be.  That's impossible verify.  The "market" is those who are paying customers.  Maybe piracy in the digital book area is the problem?

Im not sure it's actually a problem. I think the hobby could do fine without the industry. Give me the labour of love of an rpg geek online over a glossy published book written by comitee and seeking to appeal to a general audience any day.

Quote from: TristramEvans;714473Im not sure it's actually a problem. I think the hobby could do fine without the industry. Give me the labour of love of an rpg geek online over a glossy published book written by comitee and seeking to appeal to a general audience any day.

Truth

Voted "less successful than 3.X", because it would take a miracle for this not to be true.

Considered "more successful than 4e" but "less successful than 3.X" seemed like a more positive option (since 3.X was vastly successful while 4e was a total disaster).

I can see from some of the posts that some people didn't take a lot of business or economics classes since they can't seem to follow what people like Arduin and Spinachat are saying.

Rather than charge $1,000 (though I could always use it), here's some free education.

In a business market, the only thing that matters are consumers, people who pay money for your products. We can debate all day on whether or not there are more players now than ever, but the consumer pool has been shrinking steadily for decades.

Study after study has shown marketing almost never creates demand for a product market. Instead, it focuses demand from existing consumers from one product/brand to another.
* Coke ads don't make people buy more soft drinks, they make people buy more Coke and less Pepsi.
* Cigarette ads didn't increase smoking - tobacco companies made more money once they were prohibited from ads because of the loss of ad expenses.
* Ads for a new restaurant don't get people to eat out more, they just eat at the new place instead of one of their regular places.
* Ads for charities don't get people to donate more money to charity, they just donate to charity X instead of charity Y.
* D&D ads will likely only shift demand from things like Pathfinder, etc. to D&D.

A slightly new and improved product (which is what D&D Next is going for), will never increase a market. That's not how business works.

So when do markets (not products) expand? Things like technological innovations (that diffuse; plenty don't), overall paradigm changes, or fads (which cause a temporary expansion bubble that always pops).

Technological innovation is obviously not a factor here. Next isn't shifting any paradigms, and the overall societal trends are moving away from what pen and paper products offer (the broader leisure market is looking for on-demand activities; not things that take a lot of scheduling and prep time). That leaves fads, and I think it is extremely unlikely that a new D&D fad will break out.


But don't take my word for it, do your own research on similar hobbies. Look at the comic industry, for instance. Comics-based properties are bigger than ever: tons of movies, TV shows, toys, etc. Comicon is bigger than ever and has broad market appeal. Comic books themselves, still pretty much dead and limited to the same small, shrinking market.

Quote from: jgants;714600I can see from some of the posts that some people didn't take a lot of business or economics classes since they can't seem to follow what people like Arduin and Spinachat are saying.

Rather than charge $1,000 (though I could always use it), here's some free education.

In a business market, the only thing that matters are consumers, people who pay money for your products. We can debate all day on whether or not there are more players now than ever, but the consumer pool has been shrinking steadily for decades.

Study after study has shown marketing almost never creates demand for a product market. Instead, it focuses demand from existing consumers from one product/brand to another.
* Coke ads don't make people buy more soft drinks, they make people buy more Coke and less Pepsi.
* Cigarette ads didn't increase smoking - tobacco companies made more money once they were prohibited from ads because of the loss of ad expenses.
* Ads for a new restaurant don't get people to eat out more, they just eat at the new place instead of one of their regular places.
* Ads for charities don't get people to donate more money to charity, they just donate to charity X instead of charity Y.
* D&D ads will likely only shift demand from things like Pathfinder, etc. to D&D.

A slightly new and improved product (which is what D&D Next is going for), will never increase a market. That's not how business works.

So when do markets (not products) expand? Things like technological innovations (that diffuse; plenty don't), overall paradigm changes, or fads (which cause a temporary expansion bubble that always pops).

Technological innovation is obviously not a factor here. Next isn't shifting any paradigms, and the overall societal trends are moving away from what pen and paper products offer (the broader leisure market is looking for on-demand activities; not things that take a lot of scheduling and prep time). That leaves fads, and I think it is extremely unlikely that a new D&D fad will break out.


But don't take my word for it, do your own research on similar hobbies. Look at the comic industry, for instance. Comics-based properties are bigger than ever: tons of movies, TV shows, toys, etc. Comicon is bigger than ever and has broad market appeal. Comic books themselves, still pretty much dead and limited to the same small, shrinking market.

Winner!

Quote from: jgants;714600

Good post. I think this highlights an interesting factor in D&D3.x's success, namely, converting a large number of existing players into actual consumers with tons of player-centric product. We may never know the specifics, as we have no access to the financial breakdown, but I suspect it was a big part of the bump. I think this ended up harming the game in the end, due to ridiculous rule-bloat and the culture that sprang up around it, but it was no doubt lucrative while it lasted.

A lot of people complain in hindsight about the OGL, but it was a huge reason there was an explosion of interest in the early 00s.

D&D Next will be...


....a game my group plays.  Outside of that, who really cares?  It's not like I'll be playing with any of you monkeys lol

Gut feeling that it'll be better than 4e, but that's a pretty low bar.

Are they doing stupid things like changing high elves to 'eladrin' for no reason?

That was annoying.

Quote from: jgants;714600I can see from some of the posts that some people didn't take a lot of business or economics classes... still pretty much dead and limited to the same small, shrinking market.

Truf!

Quote from: jgants;714600Study after study has shown marketing almost never creates demand for a product market.

Link?

Which game did AD&D 1e take players away from again?

Quote from: Endless Flight;714634A lot of people complain in hindsight about the OGL, but it was a huge reason there was an explosion of interest in the early 00s.

Proof?

Quote from: jgants;714600So when do markets (not products) expand? Things like technological innovations (that diffuse; plenty don't), overall paradigm changes, or fads (which cause a temporary expansion bubble that always pops).

But the tabletop gaming hobby has expanded dramatically in the last 6-8 years. Membership at boardgamegeek is over 500,000, double what it was only four years ago. Our local convention now tops 300 attendees at its peak on Saturday. Most have only been playing for a few years. How do you explain that market expansion?

RPGs don't have to be a small, hardcore, weirdo hobby. There's a related hobby  market that overlaps about 80 per cent in its basic characteristics (nerds, face-to-face gaming, geek themes, requires reading and intelligence, multi-hour sessions), that is seeing growth across all age groups.

Quote from: Mistwell;714689Proof?

For what? People complaining about the OGL?

Quote from: Mistwell;714687Link?

Which game did AD&D 1e take players away from again?

Mistwell, I had a totally snide remark for you. But your right, if your mean to imply that AD&D focused the existing market to their game as focus.

Quote from: Endless Flight;714693For what? People complaining about the OGL?

That it was a huge reason there was an explosion of interest in the early 00s.

I have seen no proof that the OGL benefited WOTC more than it cost them.  People debate this topic endlessly, so you simply declaring it's one way begs for proof.

Quote from: JasperAK;714694Mistwell, I had a totally snide remark for you. But your right, if your mean to imply that AD&D focused the existing market to their game as focus.

AD&D obviously greatly expanded a market where there was none (or very little) before.  It's proof that, in the specific for this kind of market, you're wrong.  You made a generalization, but generalizations only hold up as long as the specific example hasn't already shown that market to be an exception.

Quote from: Mistwell;714696That it was a huge reason there was an explosion of interest in the early 00s.

I have seen no proof that the OGL benefited WOTC more than it cost them.  People debate this topic endlessly, so you simply declaring it's one way begs for proof.

I didn't say anything about Wizards in the post you quoted. I was referring to the hobby as a whole.

Will Wizards be licensing a woodburning set to coincide with the release of Next as part of this grand marketing plan?

Quote from: Endless Flight;714698I didn't say anything about Wizards in the post you quoted. I was referring to the hobby as a whole.

Maybe the hardcore niche of the hobby. But if you add up the sales of all the non-D&D OGL d20 games put together, I doubt they sold half as many books as WotC D&D in that era. OGL games and books provided some novelty to hardcore geeks who were bored with D&D and WotC offerings, but I don't believe they brought any new people into the hobby. Even the most successful 3rd party publishers like Necromancer Games and Mongoose were just a subset of the existing D&D market.

Quote from: Mistwell;714697AD&D obviously greatly expanded a market where there was none (or very little) before.  It's proof that, in the specific for this kind of market, you're wrong.  You made a generalization, but generalizations only hold up as long as the specific example hasn't already shown that market to be an exception.

Mistwell, I don't recall making any generalizations. That's you buddy.

Quote from: JasperAK;714703Mistwell, I don't recall making any generalizations. That's you buddy.

Sorry you're right, I confused you with jgants' post.  It's jgants that made the generalizations that don't hold well for the specific RPG market.

Quote from: jgants;714600I can see from some of the posts that some people didn't take a lot of business or economics classes since they can't seem to follow what people like Arduin and Spinachat are saying.

Rather than charge $1,000 (though I could always use it), here's some free education.

In a business market, the only thing that matters are consumers, people who pay money for your products. We can debate all day on whether or not there are more players now than ever, but the consumer pool has been shrinking steadily for decades.

Study after study has shown marketing almost never creates demand for a product market. Instead, it focuses demand from existing consumers from one product/brand to another.
* Coke ads don't make people buy more soft drinks, they make people buy more Coke and less Pepsi.
* Cigarette ads didn't increase smoking - tobacco companies made more money once they were prohibited from ads because of the loss of ad expenses.
* Ads for a new restaurant don't get people to eat out more, they just eat at the new place instead of one of their regular places.
* Ads for charities don't get people to donate more money to charity, they just donate to charity X instead of charity Y.
* D&D ads will likely only shift demand from things like Pathfinder, etc. to D&D.

A slightly new and improved product (which is what D&D Next is going for), will never increase a market. That's not how business works.

So when do markets (not products) expand? Things like technological innovations (that diffuse; plenty don't), overall paradigm changes, or fads (which cause a temporary expansion bubble that always pops).

Technological innovation is obviously not a factor here. Next isn't shifting any paradigms, and the overall societal trends are moving away from what pen and paper products offer (the broader leisure market is looking for on-demand activities; not things that take a lot of scheduling and prep time). That leaves fads, and I think it is extremely unlikely that a new D&D fad will break out.


But don't take my word for it, do your own research on similar hobbies. Look at the comic industry, for instance. Comics-based properties are bigger than ever: tons of movies, TV shows, toys, etc. Comicon is bigger than ever and has broad market appeal. Comic books themselves, still pretty much dead and limited to the same small, shrinking market.

Its not a matter of not knowing, its a matter of not caring, speaking for myself. I don't know why so many people are concerned with rpgs being popular, other than some misguided craving for validation. Some people look at the Golden Age of D&D in the early 80s at some halycon days that the hobby needs to get back to. I think that's not only impossible, but utterly undesirable. I'm fine with rpgs being a niche hobby (it really doesn't even touch comic books, and I'm not seeing the comparison as quite appropriate, as comics are an art form , one of only 2 art forms created in America, sadly held back by being mired in juvenalia and public perceptions). But yeah, rpgs are a drop in the bucket compared to comics, they're a niche of a niche, and as such I think that niche will do just fine without the publishing side of the industry. It may not expand, but it will always be around in one form or another for those types of people predisposed to seek out this kind of stuff.

Quote from: TristramEvans;714708Its not a matter of not knowing, its a matter of not caring, speaking for myself. I don't know why so many people are concerned with rpgs being popular,

It's so we have our choice of players, obviously.

Quote from: Mistwell;714697AD&D obviously greatly expanded a market where there was none (or very little) before.  It's proof that, in the specific for this kind of market, you're wrong.  You made a generalization, but generalizations only hold up as long as the specific example hasn't already shown that market to be an exception.

1) jrgants post that you quoted says that marketing almost never creates market explosions. So unless you're claiming that AD&D was driven to success by its marketing, you're not actually disagreeing with him.

2) At the end of his post he listed a number of conditions that can create massive market growth. D&D in general was arguably a technological innovation (I don't know which of the early D&D editions sold the most copies for TSR, and neither do you, so there's no point focusing on AD&D specifically), in that it invented a whole new type of game. With the benefit of hindsight it was also a fad.

Quote from: Haffrung;714701Maybe the hardcore niche of the hobby. But if you add up the sales of all the non-D&D OGL d20 games put together, I doubt they sold half as many books as WotC D&D in that era. OGL games and books provided some novelty to hardcore geeks who were bored with D&D and WotC offerings, but I don't believe they brought any new people into the hobby. Even the most successful 3rd party publishers like Necromancer Games and Mongoose were just a subset of the existing D&D market.

We'll never know for sure, since nobody releases their sales figures.

I do know back in the early 00s you could find other games besides D&D at bookstores like Barnes & Nobles. I got into Mutants & Masterminds (another OGL game) that way.

Quote from: Mistwell;714696I have seen no proof that the OGL benefited WOTC more than it cost them.  People debate this topic endlessly, so you simply declaring it's one way begs for proof.

The OGL benefited the RPG hobby greatly -- that's really all that matters to me (and to many other tabletop RPG players).

The tabletop RPG industry has a problem: little or nothing they produce is truly necessary to play tabletop RPGs. It may be helpful in many cases and convenient in others, but there is nothing one has to buy to play (beyond dice). And nothing the RPG industry can do can change this basic fact.  The last time the tabletop RPG industry had a (almost) necessary product was when OD&D was published. And even that product wasn't truly necessary to play. Tunnels & Trolls demonstrated that after exposed to the idea of D&D, others could develop rules independently that did basically the same thing.

Quote from: Endless Flight;714699Will Wizards be licensing a woodburning set to coincide with the release of Next as part of this grand marketing plan?

If the Blumes were still running things... possibly yes. :banghead:

Quote from: Mistwell;714697AD&D obviously greatly expanded a market where there was none (or very little) before

It created a new product ladder and category (within table top games).  It expanded over the decades to market saturation.  

ERGO, to have it happen AGAIN would require a NEW product category ( NOT an RPG).  

This is SUCH a simple business concept as to really not require an explanation...

Quote from: Arduin;714787It created a new product ladder and category (within table top games).  It expanded over the decades to market saturation.  

ERGO, to have it happen AGAIN would require a NEW product category ( NOT an RPG).  

This is SUCH a simple business concept as to really not require an explanation...

I think the belief runs something like this:

• In 198x there were X million people actively playing D&D
• Now there are only YY% of that still playing D&D (YY is generally assumed to be 25% or lower in this thinking)
• The 198x position represents the "natural" market size for RPGs
• Therefore a "good" new D&D edition could recapture the full natural market, and this would represent massive growth from the current sales position

Whether the expansion from YY% to 100% of the natural market comes from lapsed players or new ones depends on the believer...

Quote from: Grymbok;714803Whether the expansion from YY% to 100% of the natural market comes from lapsed players or new ones depends on the believer...

Yes, I've heard that line of fantasy for a few years.  The "logic" behind it means that by reinstituting AD&D and BX, the lost players would reappear.  Or, the contention couldn't be true. ;)  But of course the easiest way is to simply survey those players who fled the scene in the 80's, ask them what game it would take to bring them back, make such a game and HAPPY DAYS are here again.  :rotfl:

Quote from: Mistwell;714687Link?

Which game did AD&D 1e take players away from again?

I'm not Wikipedia, I don't have links. The most recent one I can recall was a study Blackbaud (a Fortune 500 tech company that produces fundraising software) did that they talked about on NPR a couple of months ago. Feel free to take a course in marketing or economics if you want better examples, especially game theory (note - that's economic game theory).

Quote from: Endless Flight;714634A lot of people complain in hindsight about the OGL, but it was a huge reason there was an explosion of interest in the early 00s.

It certainly was. That's one of those new innovation / paradigm shift things that can actually expand a market.

Quote from: Haffrung;714691But the tabletop gaming hobby has expanded dramatically in the last 6-8 years. Membership at boardgamegeek is over 500,000, double what it was only four years ago. Our local convention now tops 300 attendees at its peak on Saturday. Most have only been playing for a few years. How do you explain that market expansion?

RPGs don't have to be a small, hardcore, weirdo hobby. There's a related hobby  market that overlaps about 80 per cent in its basic characteristics (nerds, face-to-face gaming, geek themes, requires reading and intelligence, multi-hour sessions), that is seeing growth across all age groups.

I would argue that there was innovation going on. The newer "fancy" board games are using the more euro-style (quick setup, fast play) rules combined with higher production values.

D&D Next isn't doing that level of sea change. It's more like Monopoly adding the new cat playing piece.

I would also argue that although the sales of these new board games may be up, I'm pretty sure we're still looking at the same "geek hobby" consumer base - I don't think we're seeing Joe Average playing Arkham Horror so much as people that stopped buying RPGs, Pokémon cards, or Warhammer minis decided they liked the new board games. There's a reason specialty shops are the place you still primarily find these games and there are no ads on TV for them.

However, it does illustrate that RPGs are also capable of getting some of those dollars shifted back again if they provide consumers enough incentive. I'm not seeing a "slightly better new edition of the same D&D we've been selling for over 30 years" being enough to cause that much movement, but I admit it could be. We're still talking relatively small expansions though - to get enough to outsell 3e I think you'd have to literally raise old consumers from the dead.

Quote from: Mistwell;714706Sorry you're right, I confused you with jgants' post.  It's jgants that made the generalizations that don't hold well for the specific RPG market.

So RPGs alone are some hugely different market that in no way resembles the myriad of other hobbies or other products that have had the exact same business cycles.

All products follow a business cycle of: introduction, expansion, saturation, and decline. D&D Next is a way to stretch out the decline of the product; it's not going to reset it to expanding.

Traditional RPGs have been around for 30+ years. Everyone has heard of them. The people that are interested in such things already buy them, and everyone else doesn't care. In order to reset to expanding, you'd have to make a change big enough to the core product that it could attract new consumers.

For the moment, let's assume you are correct though and that RPGs are immune to the traditional business cycle. Why would that be? Just curious - what is it about RPGs that would give a slightly newer and different product of the same basic type that has been selling for over 30 years the ability to dramatically increase the overall market?

Quote from: Grymbok;7147281) jrgants post that you quoted says that marketing almost never creates market explosions. So unless you're claiming that AD&D was driven to success by its marketing, you're not actually disagreeing with him.

2) At the end of his post he listed a number of conditions that can create massive market growth. D&D in general was arguably a technological innovation (I don't know which of the early D&D editions sold the most copies for TSR, and neither do you, so there's no point focusing on AD&D specifically), in that it invented a whole new type of game. With the benefit of hindsight it was also a fad.

Yes, that is what I was saying - inventing a whole new type of game is an innovation. Creating a slightly different version of that game is unlikely to win over huge new audiences.

Quote from: Arduin;714787It created a new product ladder and category (within table top games).  It expanded over the decades to market saturation.  

ERGO, to have it happen AGAIN would require a NEW product category ( NOT an RPG).  

This is SUCH a simple business concept as to really not require an explanation...

Exactly. Whatever the new big thing is - it won't resemble the kind of traditional RPG we've been seeing for decades.

Quote from: Arduin;714809Yes, I've heard that line of fantasy for a few years.  The "logic" behind it means that by reinstituting AD&D and BX, the lost players would reappear.  Or, the contention couldn't be true. ;)  But of course the easiest way is to simply survey those players who fled the scene in the 80's, ask them what game it would take to bring them back, make such a game and HAPPY DAYS are here again.  :rotfl:

I wonder how the people using that theory reconcile it with the face that the RPG market was already in steep decline by the 90s despite still publishing B/X and AD&D (granted, 2nd edition, but 2e was designed to be more mass consumer friendly).

I also wonder if we can apply that same set of logic to other things that were really popular for a very short period of time...

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to admit that RPGs were a fad, and something that a vast majority of the population wants little to do with. I think its great to want to keep the hobby alive, but let's be realistic.

Quote from: jgants;714818I wonder how the people using that theory reconcile it with the face that the RPG market was already in steep decline by the 90s despite still publishing B/X and AD&D .

They don't.  Those kind of people are genetically incapable of a great deal of logic and operate mainly on emotion.  Otherwise they wouldn't be making such glaringly illogical statements in the 1st place.

Quote from: jgants;714818I also wonder if we can apply that same set of logic to other things that were really popular for a very short period of time...

Hmm, the patent on Frisbees has expired.  I think I'll make a quick $10,000,000  ;)

Quote from: jgants;714818I don't know why it is so hard for some people to admit that RPGs were a fad, and something that a vast majority of the population wants little to do with. I think its great to want to keep the hobby alive, but let's be realistic.

See my first response above.

Quote from: jgants;714814I would also argue that although the sales of these new board games may be up, I'm pretty sure we're still looking at the same "geek hobby" consumer base - I don't think we're seeing Joe Average playing Arkham Horror so much as people that stopped buying RPGs, Pokémon cards, or Warhammer minis decided they liked the new board games. There's a reason specialty shops are the place you still primarily find these games and there are no ads on TV for them.

This is the only part of your post that I would say is incorrect. Arkham Horror is the wrong example...look at Settlers of Catan, instead. That game alone is credited with an explosion of the market for boardgames, and rightly so. It is one of a small number of boardgames that actually acts as gateway game for large numbers of people who have never played a boardgame (or RPG, or non-standard cardgame) in their adult life. These games accomplished that basically through "technical innovation": by providing a fast playing, attractive, relatively simple and intuitive boardgame that plays in an hour or two without player elimination. Many games had some combination of these characteristics before that, but very few, if any, had all of them. I'm unsure of the timing of it (chicken or egg), but the act of getting it into major retailers obviously facilitated that market expansion.

In terms of arguing that the boardgaming market hasn't actually expanded, merely cannibalized, I find that very hard to swallow. Put aside the fact that you're now redefining "Boardgame Market" to mean "Any Game I Think Is Geeky Market" for a moment. Boardgames like Carcasonne, Settlers, 7 Wonders and Ticket to Ride are now sold in stores that I had never even seen boardgames in before, and the number of people who only started playing boardgames (or any "Geek" games) in the last 5 years has grown enormously, far faster than any conceivable rate of attrition.

None of this is to say that these boardgames haven't been eating others' (e.g. RPGs) lunch, merely that it doesn't explain anything like the whole of their success.

Now, the question is: what can D&D Next learn from this? Anything? Is there enough space for this kind of innovation in RPGs? I'm not quite as convinced as you are that it's impossible, but it's a high bar to jump. The main obstacles, to my mind, are accessibility (how quickly you can sit down and play?), play time (can you play in a couple hours and still have a satisfying game?), and time commitment (can you play once in a blue moon and have a satisfying game?). There are examples of how to address some of these out there; Beyond the Wall springs to mind for the former, and the D&D boardgames for the second point. The problem is that these two are somewhat incompatible, and that boardgame-style experience loses a lot of what actually makes RPGs shine. The long game, or campaign, is also a tricky one, as it's antithetical to the pick-up nature of the highly successful Eurogames I mentioned.

Quote from: jgants;714818I don't know why it is so hard for some people to admit that RPGs were a fad, and something that a vast majority of the population wants little to do with. I think its great to want to keep the hobby alive, but let's be realistic.

It was definitely a fad at one point. The question I'm interested in is whether or not the market can be expanded, not whether we can see D&D Mania again. As I don't have a crystal ball, I don't claim to be able to know the future, and I would suggest that anyone without one that thinks they know for certain what will happen is a fool, particularly when it comes to the fickle field of consumer products. Touting the accuracy of one's predictions after the fact is not terribly impressive, and it's very easy for one's predictions to be right for completely the wrong reasons.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714822In terms of arguing that the boardgaming market hasn't actually expanded, merely cannibalized, I find that very hard to swallow. Put aside the fact that you're now redefining "Boardgame Market" to mean "Any Game I Think Is Geeky Market" for a moment. Boardgames like Carcasonne, Settlers, 7 Wonders and Ticket to Ride are now sold in stores that I had never even seen boardgames in before, and the number of people who only started playing boardgames (or any "Geek" games) in the last 5 years has grown enormously, far faster than any conceivable rate of attrition.

Yep. A growing number of 20-something and 30-something geeks, not to mention families, are sitting down face-to-face with friends to play geek-themed games that require thinking and socialization. Surely this is at least a potential growth market for D&D.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714822Now, the question is: what can D&D Next learn from this? Anything? Is there enough space for this kind of innovation in RPGs? I'm not quite as convinced as you are that it's impossible, but it's a high bar to jump. The main obstacles, to my mind, are accessibility (how quickly you can sit down and play?), play time (can you play in a couple hours and still have a satisfying game?), and time commitment (can you play once in a blue moon and have a satisfying game?). There are examples of how to address some of these out there; Beyond the Wall springs to mind for the former, and the D&D boardgames for the second point. The problem is that these two are somewhat incompatible, and that boardgame-style experience loses a lot of what actually makes RPGs shine. The long game, or campaign, is also a tricky one, as it's antithetical to the pick-up nature of the highly successful Eurogames I mentioned.

Agreed on all points. I'd hazard that 80 per cent of the eurogamer market (which includes many couples and very casual gamers) would have nothing to do with even a very simplified D&D. But the remaining 20 per cent, and the very fact that the euro market is growing rapidly, make for an attractive market, and a source of optimism for D&D to remain a popular, commercially viable game outside the core RPG geek market.

And there's reason to believe this is exactly the market WotC is aiming Next at. They've largely turned their backs on the hardcore char op crowd, and the tactical miniatures format. They've repeatedly said that their goal is a game that new players can be up and running with in 20 minutes.

The barrier to casual takeup will be long-term campaign play. I hope WotC has the courage to eschew the Pathfinder format of 12-18 month long story-driven campaigns. That's a successful model for hardcore gamers and collectors, but it won't help Next appeal to new and casual gamers. What would appeal to the casual market is more episodic, or sandbox adventure content. Campaigns where players can drop in and out, and are location-based rather than multi-session story based.

Quote from: Grymbok;7147281) jrgants post that you quoted says that marketing almost never creates market explosions. So unless you're claiming that AD&D was driven to success by its marketing, you're not actually disagreeing with him.

I am absolutely saying that marketing drove the success of AD&D.  They did an excellent marketing campaign, and it worked to great success.

Quote from: Arduin;714787It created a new product ladder and category (within table top games).  It expanded over the decades to market saturation.  

ERGO, to have it happen AGAIN would require a NEW product category ( NOT an RPG).  

This is SUCH a simple business concept as to really not require an explanation...

First, that's not true though.  It was not the first RPG, and it wasn't even the second or third.  We're not talking about OD&D, we're talking about AD&D.

Second, it IS a new product category for the vast overwhelming majority of people who potentially would like the game.  MOST people have never tried it.  To them, it's new.  It's as new as ipads are to people who have heard of them but never tried them.  And that's a good example btw - there were lots of touch-screen handheld devices, that held on to a niche of customers for many years, until the ipad finally marketed the concept widely (and well) and the product exploded. Same thing happened with the smart phone - I had a palm-driven smartphone well before they hit mass marketing with the iphone, and only the really good marketing campaign of Apple with the smartphone blew that market up from the niche it had been for many years. I see potential for D&D to do just that.

Third, we'll see won't we? I am not saying I know 5e will succeed beyond 3e...you're the guy who is saying he KNOWS it won't do that.  You're the guy with the risk on the line here for being woefully wrong.  I hope you're comfortable with that risk, because so far all it looks like is a lot of bluff and bluster and epeener flapping from you.

What is it you do for a living, that you're lecturing others on business experience, by the way?

To date:

~59% of respondents believe Next will LESS successful than 3.x and more successful than 4e.

~19% think that it will be MORE successful than even 3.x

If this were a pool, most people would pick up some cash...

Quote from: Mistwell;714838First, that's not true though.  It was not the first RPG,

HIGHLY irrelevant babble.  As far as the MARKET (a term you still haven't grasped as of yet) was concerned, they were.

Quote from: Arduin;714839To date:

~59% of respondents believe Next will LESS successful than 3.x and more successful than 4e.

~19% think that it will be MORE successful than even 3.x

If this were a pool, most people would pick up some cash...

^ Those aren't the criteria you put in the poll because you didn't say that the "more successful than 4E" option had any upper limit.

Quote from: Arduin;714841HIGHLY irrelevant babble.

The Platonic form of an Arduin post.

Quote from: Warthur;714842^ Those aren't the criteria you put in the poll because you didn't say that the "more successful than 4E" option had any upper limit.

It was implicit.  (for those with IQ's >25)

Quote from: Arduin;714841HIGHLY irrelevant babble.  As far as the MARKET (a term you still haven't grasped as of yet) was concerned, they were.

You understand that in terms of the market, there is no RPG market right now.  On a national scale, it's the same niche as touch screen devices and smart phones, before the ipad and the iphone.

I'll ask again, what's you're business experience? I am happy to pit mine against yours.  You do a lot of talking right up until someone asks you to back it up.

Quote from: Arduin;714844It was implicit.  (for those with IQ's >25)

It very much was not implicit.  You can pretend we can read your tiny brain all you want, but there was nothing like that implied by your poll.

Quote from: Mistwell;714845You understand that in terms of the market, there is no RPG market right now.

Ya know, as is customary, you should have stopped digging LONG before you were 100' under...

Quote from: Mistwell;714846It very much was not implicit.

This stuff just writes itself.  :rotfl:

Quote from: Arduin;714847Ya know, as is customary, you should have stopped digging LONG before you were 100' under...

Look around you.

NOBODY agrees with anything you've been saying, for days now.  Even people who traditionally agree with you, have slowly backed away from you're idiocy.

You're the asshole in the room right now.  And the fact that you don't know it, is just one more part of you being the asshole in the room right now.

Quote from: Mistwell;714850NOBODY agrees with anything you've been saying

Ah, another "person" who believes that consensus = truth.

Watch out you don't fall off the edge of the Earth while travelling.  ;)

Quote from: Mistwell;714836I am absolutely saying that marketing drove the success of AD&D.  They did an excellent marketing campaign, and it worked to great success.

Really? AD&D specifically? Admittedly I wasn't gaming in 1979, but all the adverts I remember in the 80s were a) for D&D, not AD&D and b) terrible even at the time. See http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ic9GUM4jibA/T5fTO9KriDI/AAAAAAAAAzU/5ycwAs-F_HU/s1600/Adventure+1.jpg for example.

On the subject of market sizes and the potential pool of players forming the "natural market," I'd suggest that the rise of what, for want of a better word, we might call "nerd culture" could have dramatically expanded the number of people who could form the natural market but aren't currently playing pen & paper rpgs.  Nowadays liking things like comic books, Magic cards, weird German boardgames, and sprawling epic fantasy series aren't the preferences of the dorky margins, they're increasingly mainstream.  The culture is shifting.  Comic con attendance is through the roof - in 1974 it had a measly 2500 attendees, whereas now it has 130000.

The lingering stigma attached to nerdy hobbies and pastimes is dwindling.  These days someone doesn't know who Gollum is, can't name the current actor playing the Doctor, or confuses Star Wars with Star Trek is practically considered uncultured.  I can see the argument that there's a population of potential rpg players out there who haven't picked up a Player's Handbook but could be convinced to.

That said I still think Next will not grow the market substantially or convince many people to switch systems.  Because of the highly social nature of the game - people play in groups, and most people start playing with an established group - word of mouth is especially important, so if the rules suck I don't think even a great marketing campaign will do all that much in the long-term to keep the edition alive and successful.  I couldn't say for sure but I think it'll probably be a modest success, better than 4th edition but not close to 3rd.  I doubt it will put Wizards back on top of the heap, or at least not for any extended period.

Quote from: Mistwell;714845I'll ask again, what's you're business experience? I am happy to pit mine against yours.  You do a lot of talking right up until someone asks you to back it up.

I'd like this too.  Regardless of all of the other banter and argument on this topic, Arduin has made some really wild claims of his expertise.  I'd like to hear what those are, exactly.

So Arduin, hopefully you can restrain yourself from some childish insult in response to this question, and just answer it like an adult.  What is your expertise, specifically?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;714870What is your expertise, specifically?

Successfully ran 2 large companies.  One a multi-national with >1,500 employees.  One domestic with over 2,000 employees.  Former was in the IT/sw & hw space, the latter, financial services.   Revenues of both >$75,000,000

How 'bout you?

Quote from: Arduin;714875Successfully ran 2 large companies.  One a multi-national with >1,500 employees.  One domestic with over 2,000 employees.  Former was in the IT/sw & hw space, the latter, financial services.   Revenues of both >$75,000,000

How 'bout you?

So if you are that impressive, why are you here? Slumming?

Quote from: Arduin;714875Successfully ran 2 large companies.  One a multi-national with >1,500 employees.  One domestic with over 2,000 employees.  Former was in the IT/sw & hw space, the latter, financial services.   Revenues of both >$75,000,000

How 'bout you?

Invented the internet and the process for making cheese.

I said "specifically".  That means "specifics", like what company?

*Edit*  And stop listing "Administrator" as your user title.  I can't imagine Pundit promoting you, and I can even less imagine the staff here wanting people thinking you represent this site.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;714881Invented the internet and the process for making cheese.

More insane babbling.  Adjust your meds.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;714881I said "specifically".  That means "specifics", like what company?

:rotfl:

Sorry.  Unlike YOU my IQ is >50 and I don't give out PI to nut jobs like yourself.  :rolleyes:

Suffice it to say, I have forgot 1000 times more about business than you have ever known AND, still know 1,000 times more than you do.

Quote from: Arduin;714875Successfully ran 2 large companies.  One a multi-national with >1,500 employees.  One domestic with over 2,000 employees.  Former was in the IT/sw & hw space, the latter, financial services.   Revenues of both >$75,000,000

How 'bout you?

Type is cheap - prove it. Mistwell has been more than happy to provide his name and qualifications in the past. You, on the other hand? Considering the staggering stupidity you have repeatedly displayed, I do not, for a second, believe you. You make an extraordinary claim (that you're actually intelligent and successful in business), you need to support it with extraordinary evidence.

Maybe we should all exchange Social Security numbers.

Quote from: Endless Flight;714885Maybe we should all exchange Social Security numbers.

I'll settle for that and all their bank account #'s.  ;)

This thread is one way to sift out the IQ levels.

Quote from: Endless Flight;714885Maybe we should all exchange Social Security numbers.

No one here cares about your personal information. But then, you don't go around posting about your business pedigree that apparently makes you smarter than everybody else, do you? When someone as obviously stupid as Arduin does so, it requires a little more convincing.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714884Type is cheap - prove it. Mistwell has been more than happy to provide his name and qualifications in the past. You, on the other hand? Considering the staggering stupidity you have repeatedly displayed, I do not, for a second, believe you. You make an extraordinary claim (that you're actually intelligent and successful in business), you need to support it with extraordinary evidence.

No kidding.  Not only that, but claims that he's hired ex-Miss America to shill product for him.  When you make claims like that, and make posts like he has, there is no reason to believe anything he's saying.  I mean, I know I've made claims about pulling security for Pope John Paul, and working for the Chief of Staff before, and certainly those are wild claims. But at least I was able to provide photos.

The thing is, Endless Flight, is that for MOST people, it's no big deal because the claims aren't so opposed to the actual behavior.  So your post is really just hyperbole, as no one is asking anyone else to back up what they say.  Just Arduin, because the red flags just leap out, repeatedly.

Quote from: Arduin;714886I'll settle for that and all their bank account #'s.  ;)

This thread is one way to sift out the IQ levels.

So that's a "no" then.  You were unable to resist making a childish insult, and have in no way been able to back up your claims.


I wish I could say I was surprised...

Quote from: Bobloblah;714887No one here cares about your personal information. But then, you don't go around posting about your business pedigree that apparently makes you smarter than everybody else, do you? When someone as obviously stupid as Arduin does so, it requires a little more convincing.

Na, I could care less about Arduin and his "experience". He could be 1st, 5th of 10th level. Makes no difference to me.

People win NCAA tournament office pools all the time and are completely clueless about college basketball. That's about how much business experience you need in guessing how Next will do.

Personally, I'll take the safe bet that it'll land somewhere between the wildly successful 3rd Edition and the very modest success of 4th edition.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714887But then, you don't go around posting about your business pedigree

Did you just blow in from Stupid Town or, did you fail to see Wizard about a Brain?  A poster DEMANDED to know what my experience was so, I obliged.

If you want to sit at the adult table, handle that IQ thing first.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;714891I mean, I know I've made claims about pulling security for Pope John Paul, and working for the Chief of Staff before, and certainly those are wild claims. But at least I was able to provide photos.

Wild claims? Sounds fairly reasonable to me. I guess I've seen some whoppers in my day.

Quote from: Endless Flight;714900Sounds fairly reasonable to me.

If every other claim he made wasn't remarkably stupid (the others being just stupid), you'd be right. There are many other posters here from whom I'd accept his assertions of experience at face value.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714903If every other claim he made wasn't remarkably stupid (the others being just stupid), you'd be right. There are many other posters here from whom I'd accept his assertions of experience at face value.

I was talking about Sacro's claims. :D

I wasn't really defending Arduin, but the asking of personal info. He could give out any kind of bunk info, including a resume filled with Fortune 500 companies. It doesn't prove anything.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714822This is the only part of your post that I would say is incorrect. Arkham Horror is the wrong example...look at Settlers of Catan, instead. That game alone is credited with an explosion of the market for boardgames, and rightly so. It is one of a small number of boardgames that actually acts as gateway game for large numbers of people who have never played a boardgame (or RPG, or non-standard cardgame) in their adult life. These games accomplished that basically through "technical innovation": by providing a fast playing, attractive, relatively simple and intuitive boardgame that plays in an hour or two without player elimination. Many games had some combination of these characteristics before that, but very few, if any, had all of them. I'm unsure of the timing of it (chicken or egg), but the act of getting it into major retailers obviously facilitated that market expansion.

You make some good points here. I wasn't trying to argue that there wasn't any expansion in the board game market outside of the "geek segment" (for lack of a better word). Certainly we've seen some modest expansion.

That said, I'd still argue the overall effect was pretty minimal. Monopoly is still a top seller, no matter how many geeks complain on BGG that it sucks. Games like Settlers of Catan are still in the minority.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714822It was definitely a fad at one point. The question I'm interested in is whether or not the market can be expanded, not whether we can see D&D Mania again. As I don't have a crystal ball, I don't claim to be able to know the future, and I would suggest that anyone without one that thinks they know for certain what will happen is a fool, particularly when it comes to the fickle field of consumer products. Touting the accuracy of one's predictions after the fact is not terribly impressive, and it's very easy for one's predictions to be right for completely the wrong reasons.

Math and experience say that it is highly unlikely that D&D Next will expand the market.

Am I 100% certain? Of course not. Do I feel comfortable saying there is a 99.5% confidence level that D&D Next will not expand the overall RPG market in any meaningful way (meaning adding a significant percentage of new consumers that stay in the market), yes.

The race doesn't always go to the swift, but that's the way to bet. When I do an analysis for a major purchase and send it up to the CEO for approval, I can't guarantee everything will work out - the best I can do is make a rational analysis of what is most likely using the data I have at hand.

Quote from: Steerpike;714857On the subject of market sizes and the potential pool of players forming the "natural market," I'd suggest that the rise of what, for want of a better word, we might call "nerd culture" could have dramatically expanded the number of people who could form the natural market but aren't currently playing pen & paper rpgs.  Nowadays liking things like comic books, Magic cards, weird German boardgames, and sprawling epic fantasy series aren't the preferences of the dorky margins, they're increasingly mainstream.  The culture is shifting.  Comic con attendance is through the roof - in 1974 it had a measly 2500 attendees, whereas now it has 130000.

The lingering stigma attached to nerdy hobbies and pastimes is dwindling.  These days someone doesn't know who Gollum is, can't name the current actor playing the Doctor, or confuses Star Wars with Star Trek is practically considered uncultured.  I can see the argument that there's a population of potential rpg players out there who haven't picked up a Player's Handbook but could be convinced to.

I agree, the "nerd culture" does appear to be in. That said, nerdy past-times remain just that.

Comic con is huge. Comic book sales remain terrible - the comic companies essentially keep them going as a loss leader to keep up their IP so they can use them for movies, games, etc.

Lord of the Rings was huge. RPGs and minis games based on LotR didn't exactly set the world on fire.

Could D&D the brand be a big success in the new culture? Absolutely. Can D&D the RPG be a bit hit again? Not so much.

Quote from: Endless Flight;714904I was talking about Sacro's claims. :D

I wasn't really defending Arduin, but the asking of personal info. He could give out any kind of bunk info, including a resume filled with Fortune 500 companies. It doesn't prove anything.

I wasn't asking for his personal name or anything.  Just the names of the companies he "ran".

Because you see, I am 99% positive that he wouldn't be able to do that and maintain any sort of continuity, and that he's just making shit up.

Quote from: jgantsI agree, the "nerd culture" does appear to be in. That said, nerdy past-times remain just that.

This is kind of my point - there's now a big and growing culture of nerddom out there, but the pool of actual rpg consumers is still small.  To me that suggests there might be potential consumers (those into "nerdy" stuff) out there who aren't yet actually playing rpgs or buying rpg products.  I've introduced a number of such players to roleplaying.  I could be wrong though - I don't have any kind of marketing background.

Movies and comcis might be a good analogy, as you suggest.  For example, I remember back when I watched the movie Constantine (which I now recognize is a god-awful adaptation of Hellblazer, but still a halfway decent action/horror popcorn movie), I enjoyed it enough to find out more about its source material.  I then tracked down a bunch of Hellblazer trades and bought them; ironically I'd never spend my money on a Bluray of Constantine.  I'm certainly not saying this is a reliable trend (I might very well be the exception that proves the rule), I'm just saying the potential is there for crossover between different nerd media/pastimes.

All that said, I totally agree that whether or not a pool of potential consumers is out there, D&D Next is very unlikely to attract them, at least not unless it's some kind of paradigm-shifting manna from heaven.  So far the best reviews I've heard have described it as fun and perfectly adequate, not game-changing.

Quote from: Arduin;714852Ah, another "person" who believes that consensus = truth.

Watch out you don't fall off the edge of the Earth while travelling.  ;)

When the consensus is that you're behaving like an asshole, it IS truth.

Quote from: Mistwell;714937When the consensus is

Yes, avoid the subject when you are beaten badly.  I understand.

Quote from: Arduin;714939Yes, avoid the subject when you are beaten badly.  I understand.

That was the fucking subject, dumbass.  Look at the quote you replied to, "You're the asshole in the room right now. And the fact that you don't know it, is just one more part of you being the asshole in the room right now."

Again, you're the asshole, the whole room is calling you the asshole, and your reply that consensus doesn't equal truth (while not understanding that in this case it is, or even understanding what you're replying to) is yet more evidence that you're the asshole in the room.

Hey wait...Join date, October 2013...righter after a certain loser prick was banned...hmmmm..trolling the board, check.  Hating on the popular game at the moment, check.  Doing stupid bannable things like changing your user title to Administrator, check.  Starting posting after a prior ban under a new name, check.  Constantly calling people stupid, check.  Posting nearly 20 messages a day, check.  Hmmm...PM sent.

Quote from: jgants;714927You make some good points here. I wasn't trying to argue that there wasn't any expansion in the board game market outside of the "geek segment" (for lack of a better word). Certainly we've seen some modest expansion.

That said, I'd still argue the overall effect was pretty minimal. Monopoly is still a top seller, no matter how many geeks complain on BGG that it sucks. Games like Settlers of Catan are still in the minority.

I'd be interested to see sales figures for the two; Settlers currently outsells Monopoly in many (mainstream) places. Now, a large part of that is surely saturation - everybody already owns Monopoly - but Settlers' sales numbers are still rising. Time will tell.

Quote from: jgants;714927Math and experience say that it is highly unlikely that D&D Next will expand the market.

Am I 100% certain? Of course not. Do I feel comfortable saying there is a 99.5% confidence level that D&D Next will not expand the overall RPG market in any meaningful way (meaning adding a significant percentage of new consumers that stay in the market), yes.

I think we agree in broad strokes, if not on the actual odds. Moreover, my comment about foretelling the future wasn't actually aimed at you. Sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: jgants;714927Lord of the Rings was huge. RPGs and minis games based on LotR didn't exactly set the world on fire.

Could D&D the brand be a big success in the new culture? Absolutely. Can D&D the RPG be a bit hit again? Not so much.

LotR is an interesting example, and I think it suffers mightily from the stranglehold the IP holder has, which makes doing anything with it excruciatingly difficult and slow.

As for D&D, it depends on how one defines terms like "big hit." Do I think it's going to be 1983 all over again? A snowball has a better chance of surviving the day in Hell. Do I think it can be successful and outpace the previous edition? Yes, quite likely. Do I think it will approach or overtake one of the other boom periods by potentially expanding its current market? Well, that's the question. I wouldn't lay money on it, as the odds are not good, but I it's a possibility, and not just in the "anything is possible" sense.

Quote from: Bobloblah;714948I'd be interested to see sales figures for the two; Settlers currently outsells Monopoly in many (mainstream) places. Now, a large part of that is surely saturation - everybody already owns Monopoly - but Settlers' sales numbers are still rising. Time will tell.

Sales figures show that every year for the last 10 years board games have shown a 10-20% sales increase.  All while Hasbro board games have seen a decrease (http://thebiggernerd.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/overthinking-how-hasbro-missed-the-board-game-renaissance/). It's being called a board game renaissance, lead by the Euro Games, and it's caused video game manufacturers (whose sales are somewhat slumping in recent years) to start making board games based on their popular video game titles.

Quote from: Mistwell;714944That was the fucking subject, dumbass.  Look at the quote you replied to, "You're the asshole in the room right now. And the fact that you don't know it, is just one more part of you being the asshole in the room right now."

Again, you're the asshole, the whole room is calling you the asshole, and your reply that consensus doesn't equal truth (while not understanding that in this case it is, or even understanding what you're replying to) is yet more evidence that you're the asshole in the room.

Hey wait...Join date, October 2013...righter after a certain loser prick was banned...hmmmm..trolling the board, check.  Hating on the popular game at the moment, check.  Doing stupid bannable things like changing your user title to Administrator, check.  Starting posting after a prior ban under a new name, check.  Constantly calling people stupid, check.  Posting nearly 20 messages a day, check.  Hmmm...PM sent.

Wait, what? Silva?

Quote from: jgants;714927Comic con is huge. Comic book sales remain terrible - the comic companies essentially keep them going as a loss leader to keep up their IP so they can use them for movies, games, etc.

Comic publishers made the same mistake RPG publishers did - they came to tailor their product for the hardcore supernerd fanboys, rather than the casual audience. Comics went from being cheap books sold at convenience stores to random 10-15 year olds, to an uber-serious, expensive hobby that required huge buy-in to grok the 30 issue story arcs and cross-title plots. Twenty-something geeks who spent 40 per cent of their take-home pay from Staples on their subscriptions loved it. But the audience shrank and shrank.

RPGs, including D&D, have gone the same way in the last 15 years. Gotta give those number-crunching char op guys more and more grist for the mill. Gotta publish 30 session campaign arcs. Gotta create a system so impenetrably fiddly that you can't learn it without hands-on tutelage from some greasy 32-year old who has been DMing for 16 years.

Quote from: Mistwell;714944That was the fucking subject,

No, the exact reverse was.  Work on the English language comprehension.  A frightening thought, English ISN'T your 1st, 2nd or 3rd language is it?

Quote from: Haffrung;714960RPGs, including D&D, have gone the same way in the last 15 years. Gotta give those number-crunching char op guys more and more grist for the mill. Gotta publish 30 session campaign arcs. Gotta create a system so impenetrably fiddly that you can't learn it without hands-on tutelage from some greasy 32-year old who has been DMing for 16 years.

I remember a friend trying to write pseudo code for a 3.x Char gen engine around '05.  Unf'ing believably complex.

Quote from: Mistwell;714955Sales figures show that every year for the last 10 years board games have shown a 10-20% sales increase.  All while Hasbro board games have seen a decrease (http://thebiggernerd.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/overthinking-how-hasbro-missed-the-board-game-renaissance/). It's being called a board game renaissance, lead by the Euro Games, and it's caused video game manufacturers (whose sales are somewhat slumping in recent years) to start making board games based on their popular video game titles.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the general trend. I've read that Settlers has sold ~25 million (more, by now) over about 16 years. A couple years ago it's sales growth was around 35% annually. Wouldn't be surprised to find out that's flattened, but still...

On the other hand, Monopoly is estimated at something more like 275 million, but that's over 75 years, and its boom years are loooong behind it.

Quote from: Haffrung;714960Comic publishers made the same mistake RPG publishers did - they came to tailor their product for the hardcore supernerd fanboys, rather than the casual audience. Comics went from being cheap books sold at convenience stores to random 10-15 year olds, to an uber-serious, expensive hobby that required huge buy-in to grok the 30 issue story arcs and cross-title plots. Twenty-something geeks who spent 40 per cent of their take-home pay from Staples on their subscriptions loved it. But the audience shrank and shrank.

RPGs, including D&D, have gone the same way in the last 15 years. Gotta give those number-crunching char op guys more and more grist for the mill. Gotta publish 30 session campaign arcs. Gotta create a system so impenetrably fiddly that you can't learn it without hands-on tutelage from some greasy 32-year old who has been DMing for 16 years.

I agree.

Quote from: Haffrung;714960Comic publishers made the same mistake RPG publishers did - they came to tailor their product for the hardcore supernerd fanboys, rather than the casual audience. Comics went from being cheap books sold at convenience stores to random 10-15 year olds, to an uber-serious, expensive hobby that required huge buy-in to grok the 30 issue story arcs and cross-title plots. Twenty-something geeks who spent 40 per cent of their take-home pay from Staples on their subscriptions loved it. But the audience shrank and shrank.

RPGs, including D&D, have gone the same way in the last 15 years. Gotta give those number-crunching char op guys more and more grist for the mill. Gotta publish 30 session campaign arcs. Gotta create a system so impenetrably fiddly that you can't learn it without hands-on tutelage from some greasy 32-year old who has been DMing for 16 years.

Preach it.

Quote from: Haffrung;714960Comic publishers made the same mistake RPG publishers did - they came to tailor their product for the hardcore supernerd fanboys, rather than the casual audience. Comics went from being cheap books sold at convenience stores to random 10-15 year olds, to an uber-serious, expensive hobby that required huge buy-in to grok the 30 issue story arcs and cross-title plots. Twenty-something geeks who spent 40 per cent of their take-home pay from Staples on their subscriptions loved it. But the audience shrank and shrank.

RPGs, including D&D, have gone the same way in the last 15 years. Gotta give those number-crunching char op guys more and more grist for the mill. Gotta publish 30 session campaign arcs. Gotta create a system so impenetrably fiddly that you can't learn it without hands-on tutelage from some greasy 32-year old who has been DMing for 16 years.

That's the goddamn truth.

Quote from: Haffrung;714960Comic publishers made the same mistake RPG publishers did - they came to tailor their product for the hardcore supernerd fanboys, rather than the casual audience. Comics went from being cheap books sold at convenience stores to random 10-15 year olds, to an uber-serious, expensive hobby that required huge buy-in to grok the 30 issue story arcs and cross-title plots. Twenty-something geeks who spent 40 per cent of their take-home pay from Staples on their subscriptions loved it. But the audience shrank and shrank.

RPGs, including D&D, have gone the same way in the last 15 years. Gotta give those number-crunching char op guys more and more grist for the mill. Gotta publish 30 session campaign arcs. Gotta create a system so impenetrably fiddly that you can't learn it without hands-on tutelage from some greasy 32-year old who has been DMing for 16 years.

To be fair, this is an over-simplification.

It is highly unlikely comic books would have survived at all without the intervention of the direct market, because Newsstand distribution had changed so much and the Direct Market enabled them to survive.  The Stagflation of the 70s and the shrinking of options on the newstands would have killed this market.  I agree about inaccessible books, but that seemed to be a result of the 1990s speculator boom and the mentality that you could increasingly expand lines, as well as some poor editorial decisions.  Sadly, comics did start reversing this trend in the early 2000s only to fall back to these practices again in recent years.

I'm not sure RPGs can be compared.  Are today's games really overly complex?  Are large stat blocks in 3e more complex that the old AD&D tables or the mess of the rules they used to be?   And if people are talking about D&D, why hasn't another simpler game taken the lead.  There's a lot of more complex factors about the RPG hobby that aren't being taken into account here.  Plus, I think WoTC did expand things in the right direction--it was probably the first time they really did a lot of market research in the industry in a way TSR seemed unwilling to do.  It seems like this is a rant more about "splat-books" than anything else.  Because there are computer games that are hard-core strategy that are doing very well, and some CCGs have very complex rules.  

The big thing that both Comics and RPGs have in common is that different mediums and technology took over.  People know the comic book characters mostly from mass media--cartoons and videos and movies are kid's first exposure to characters like Spider-Man, The X-Men, Batman and Superman, so the lessening of comic books has not hurt the IP or their companies.  Plus the rise of Anime has given the market for Manga a big boost.  If the comic units died at Marvel and DC, there'd only be a major impact on the remaining comic book retail industry.

With the RPG, it was the computer game.   That was probably one of the biggest failures of TSR, not exploiting that early enough.  The computer game industry actually started back then--if TSR could have purchased a small studio or built their stuff in-house by investing in some computer programmers and artists, they would have been able to adapt.  But even with their computer success first with SSI, then with Interplay and Bioware, the D&D game was eclipsed by the actual computer games--so studios like Obsidian and Bioware grew and got all the attention, taking the audience for "spiritual successors" with the studios own original IP and gameplay, while the D&D brand is much weaker in the computer market when it once was the most exciting thing in the CRPG market.  The computer game license seemed to be doomed once Hasbro made its deal with Atari--it was enough to make Peter Atkinson quit.

The key for good companies to be successful is to be able to transform their products if they can to paradigm shifts like this.  The comic book companies have and if the print comics unit died, we'd still likely have good cartoons for ever decade and generation and successful movies.  But with the RPG market, I don't think any of the major Pen and Paper properties have been enough of a success in the game market for those brands to survive--rather, they've been eclipsed by the people who made those games, so now the tabletop market wants to license the computer games like Dragon Age rather than the opposite...

Excellent post, JRT.  I wonder if the key to reclaiming dwindling markets for both comics and pen and paper games is to try and find ways to cross-promote more - things like Numenera simultaneously developing both a computer game and pen & paper game.

... Man, a Numenera comic could be pretty good I think...

Quote from: JRT;715069The key for good companies to be successful is to be able to transform their products if they can to paradigm shifts like this.  The comic book companies have and if the print comics unit died, we'd still likely have good cartoons for ever decade and generation and successful movies.  But with the RPG market, I don't think any of the major Pen and Paper properties have been enough of a success in the game market for those brands to survive--rather, they've been eclipsed by the people who made those games, so now the tabletop market wants to license the computer games like Dragon Age rather than the opposite...

Apples & Rocks.  We aren't talking about keeping the IP alive in a different format.  P&P RPG's cannot be "replaced" by a computer game.  They aren't the same nor can they accomplish the same game. (unless you are talking about some kind of P2P pgm that creates a virtual table top)

  You are totally correct about companies being smart by shifting over though.

Quote from: Arduin;715079P&P RPG's cannot be "replaced" by a computer game.

Why?

For the majority of ex-RPG players, apparently modern video games give them a better experience than P&P RPGs gave them previously.

While I absolutely agree with the idea that pen & paper games and computer games offer different experiences, it's also true (perhaps unfortunately) that most people prefer computer rpgs to pen & paper ones, and it's not like the two have nothing to do with one another.  They both provide a form of escapism, but the computer version has fancy graphics and doesn't require social coordination nearly as much, and is much more convenient for most people.  I think that pen & paper games need to find ways to rope computer gamers back in.  Honestly, I think this is largely what 4E (ineptly) was attempting to do.

Quote from: Spinachcat;715082Why?

For the same reason that a bicycle can't really replace a boat.  You CAN decide to use a bicycle instead of a boat but you won't be able to cross a lake using one.

Quote from: Steerpike;715085I think that pen & paper games need to find ways to rope computer gamers back in.  Honestly, I think this is largely what 4E (ineptly) was attempting to do.

It was precisely what 4e was designed to do.  Emulate a computer game using P&P.  That was the chief mechanical design goal.

Quote from: Arduin;715079For the same reason that a bicycle can't really replace a boat. You CAN decide to use a bicycle instead of a boat but you won't be able to cross a lake using one.

The problem with that analogy is that computer and table-top RPGs share so much of the same DNA, it's more akin to a boat and a ship.  You're "apples and rocks" statement tells me more about your own personal tastes towards the RPG than an objective viewpoint.

There's only a few differences in the computer game than the tabletop one.  The first is most have a visual experience instead of being in the imagination, although text games like MUDs, Visual Novels, and certain Facebook games have this as well.  The second is the ability to free-form handle events outside of the narrative or rules--that's probably the biggest difference right now and hardest to duplicate.  The third is the social experience some value.  But they have very things in common--rulesets, story, combat, customization, etc., all things that people value and both follow certain expectations.  For many people, playing D&D on the computer is like playing D&D at home.  That's why I think your particular analogy is flawed.  

I could make the same argument, for instance, about Broadway and radio dramas vs. Movies and TV, and others have.  Is something lost in the differences between mediums--yes.  But does it matter?   Sometimes, changes to an entertainment experience win out.  This is true for the comics--a cartoon isn't a comic book--there are certain things comics do better--experimental panels, thought balloons, specific artistic styles--but in the end you still can have characters and drama and a visual style.

At it's core, an RPG is a game that is played with certain expectations.  The RPG itself is not the medium, the RPG is the entertainment itself while computers and PnP games are the mediums.

Quote from: Spinachcat;715082Why?

For the majority of ex-RPG players, apparently modern video games give them a better experience than P&P RPGs gave them previously.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but the boardgaming hobby has grown tremendously in recent years not in spite of being a face-to-face social experience, but because it's a face-to-face social experience.

Sure, a lot of RPGers just wanted to vicariously go on quests, kill shit, win loot, and level up. And CRPGs do that better for them. No doubt about it. And RPGs have long attracted a socially awkward demographic that would just as soon get their kicks sitting at home on a Friday night gazing at a screen. But there has always been a sizeable part of the hobby for whom getting together face-to-face with friends is the whole point. In my D&D group, about 2.5 of us give a shit about the system or game setting. The rest are just there for beer and laughs, with D&D as an agreeable facilitator.

Tabletop RPG publishers have to get away from the notion that they're primarily about using system X in setting Y to go on quests, win loot, and level up. Because CRPGs can do that shit better. Tabletop publishers need to understand that RPGs are first and foremost about getting together with friends around a table, using your brain, and having some laughs. RPGs are a sub-set of a broader recreation family which includes cards, book clubs, and boardgames, not an analog format of CRPGs.

Quote from: Haffrung;715104I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but the boardgaming hobby has grown tremendously in recent years not in spite of being a face-to-face social experience, but because it's a face-to-face social experience.

And from what I've read, board games that move to tablet and PC actually boost sales of the physical version.

Penny Arcade Report article on Ticket to Ride (http://http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/days-of-wonder-ceo-explains-how-ipad-ticket-to-ride-boosted-sales-of-the-re)

Quote from: Steerpike;715074Excellent post, JRT.  I wonder if the key to reclaiming dwindling markets for both comics and pen and paper games is to try and find ways to cross-promote more - things like Numenera simultaneously developing both a computer game and pen & paper game.

With comics anyways, you'd think the cross promotion is covered -films, cartoons, toy lines, etc. But it was a well-made point that there's no longer a low buy-in for new readers, and this almost schizoid trend in the supers genre since Watchmen to present stories that largely are not aimed at children or adults, but manchildren, so they're dripping with lewdness and violence and mistaking that for "mature", coupled with the bane of continuity and multi-issue story arcs...well Id feel bad for any kid trying to get into comics these days.

Parallels can definitely be drawn with D&D and catering to the minmaxer subculture. One of the reasons I think 5th, if done right, could be successful in a way RPGs largely are not is if they manage to create a game streamlined enough for a casual audience and marketed to a new generation of older teens & young twenty somethings. (Marketing to children is silly, the smart ones avoid stuff that panders to thier age group like the plague).

Quote from: TristramEvans;715117well Id feel bad for any kid trying to get into comics these days.

I've always been more into Disney comics, but those are marketed almost exclusively at the nostalgia market at this point. If properties as popular as Donald, Scrooge and Mickey are failing to find new fans in comic form then I doubt that new characters would do any better.

Quote from: therealjcm;715120I've always been more into Disney comics, but those are marketed almost exclusively at the nostalgia market at this point. If properties as popular as Donald, Scrooge and Mickey are failing to find new fans in comic form then I doubt that new characters would do any better.

Adventure Time comics are doing great. The audience is there, but the quality products are few and far between. There hasn't been anyone of Carl Barks's stature working on Disney comics for a long time. Hence the nostalgia crowd -what they're nostalgic for is a time when these things were good.

While there may not be the halcyon innovation+fad days of early 80s, the population is far larger nowadays, prosperity more spread from modernizing China & fallen Iron Curtain et al., access democratized by the internet, at least a generation without cross-promotional/mass ad exposure (insularity has not been a good thing), and a culture shift towards nerds and their interest (almost a retro revival).

That leaves plenty more eyes available for growth, albeit not at the same growth rate. As long as KISS design is followed and ads are not so insular there is potential out there. Just like Vampire somehow tapped into the latent female RPGer market, there is likely untapped room left on this planet.

Quote from: Opaopajr;715125While there may not be the halcyon innovation+fad days of early 80s, the population is far larger nowadays, ...That leaves plenty more eyes available for growth, albeit not at the same growth rate.

The problem is that while there's been a population growth, there are so many alternate options that the success of any single product or even a genre will likely have lower numbers.  Reading the Bushkin Biography of Johnny Carson, he mentions a show Carson produced (Amen), had moderate ratings for a Saturday Night--but those ratings pulled by that show were now the top-watched show, American Idol.  RPGs used to be unique, but a lot of their uniqueness has been channeled into other games and genres, so it's not as clear they can ever grow when there's lost of competition.

Quote from: Haffrung;715104Tabletop RPG publishers have to get away from the notion that they're primarily about using system X in setting Y to go on quests, win loot, and level up. Because CRPGs can do that shit better. Tabletop publishers need to understand that RPGs are first and foremost about getting together with friends around a table, using your brain, and having some laughs. RPGs are a sub-set of a broader recreation family which includes cards, book clubs, and boardgames, not an analog format of CRPGs.

Of course, if what you are saying is the case, if the publisher is big like Hasbro, and already has these games, then logicially they should probably consider shutting down tabletop RPGs, focusing on board games and CCGs and moving the complex stuff that RPGs are over to computers.  At some point you might over-simplify things so much that it's not considered an RPG.

Quote from: TristramEvans;715117With comics anyways, you'd think the cross promotion is covered -films, cartoons, toy lines, etc. But it was a well-made point that there's no longer a low buy-in for new readers, and this almost schizoid trend in the supers genre since Watchmen to present stories that largely are not aimed at children or adults, but manchildren, so they're dripping with lewdness and violence and mistaking that for "mature", coupled with the bane of continuity and multi-issue story arcs...well Id feel bad for any kid trying to get into comics these days.

Parallels can definitely be drawn with D&D and catering to the minmaxer subculture. One of the reasons I think 5th, if done right, could be successful in a way RPGs largely are not is if they manage to create a game streamlined enough for a casual audience and marketed to a new generation of older teens & young twenty somethings. (Marketing to children is silly, the smart ones avoid stuff that panders to thier age group like the plague).

See, I think you are confusing the two problems--the comic book writing today is mismanaged--but there are also difficulties involved with the comic market that is not based on what type of content is in them but the medium itself, "newsprint".

Is Min-maxing a die-hard sub-culture or what RPGers want?  DOTA is one of Steams top computer games, and it's loaded with min-max and complexity--MOBAs seem to be gaining in popularity.  CCGs have a lot of rules variants and complexity.  

I don't think what you call the "min-max" subculture is a small minority.  Back when WoTC bought TSR, Mike Stackpole wrote an essay on "If I bought TSR"...what he said seemed to go in the direction of more story--blending of the fiction lines with the games, more transmedia stuff.  It's fascinating to see how much of what he wrote is what game companies thought was going to be their future--and how WoTC went in the opposite direction and ended up re-engergizing D&D and the hobby.  

Hindsight is 20/20, and the RPG like any other medium tends to have fads and cycles.  Before the gaming "optimized builds" that D&D is today, we had the more narrative story-based stuff that TSR and White Wolf were producing in the 1990s, we had the fetishistic-simulation oriented rules of the late 70s TSR, etc.  I think the call for simplicity in gaming is not so much what the market wanted then but what people are craving now, but I also think that Wizards did a LOT of good research on the hobby before making their 3e plans, and I think that's why they were successful with the first major revision to D&D.  

Quote from: TristramEvans;715124Adventure Time comics are doing great. The audience is there, but the quality products are few and far between. There hasn't been anyone of Carl Barks's stature working on Disney comics for a long time. Hence the nostalgia crowd -what they're nostalgic for is a time when these things were good.

Define "great"?  I doubt AT comics are doing very good numbers, at least compared to the classics of newsprint--are they selling better than Batman, or One Piece manga, or a collection of classic Peanuts strips?  And regardless, AT is primarily a cartoon, so this is a spin-off product, not an original.

The reason Disney's comics division focuses on classic high-priced reprints is they realize that's the only market left.  Once comics were no longer viable, Disney moved to classic reprints.  It's not that they couldn't make good comics--it's because the audience moved on to other entertainments, and the print medium is simply too expensive and less embraced in the US culture to be worthwise as a mass entertainment medium anymore.

This is why I mentioned survival--there are actually two strategies key to survival.  The first and more important one is what I mentioned before--transform your products to the newer mediums and trends, even if they change somewhat in form.  Disney took Bark's spin-off work back to animation with DuckTales, and that paid off for them.

The second is to focus on the niche, and that's what the actual comics divisions are doing.  The direct market kept DC and Marvel alive for a few more decades and allowed their parent companies to make cool spin-off stuff that eclipsed the primary sources.  Disney publishes classic collections because they see comics as an art-form and are able to package it as such.  

You can do both--the thing that you may not be able to is re-vitalize a genre when outside forces have changed that market.  Even with the deep pockets a Disney or a Warner Bros. has, they'd probably lose more money if they tried to get a newsstand comics system going again.  

The tabletop RPG may have a similar fate--we'll see.  If numbers of players keep bleeding, we may see WoTC simply print classic collections like they've done for the oldest games, we may just see novels...or they may shut down.  But I think we would have been in better shape if Gygax was successful in getting multi-media attention that they started to in the 1980s, or if a computer company was purchased by TSR in the earliest days instead of outsourcing their developments.

Quote from: Opaopajr;715125While there may not be the halcyon innovation+fad days of early 80s, the population is far larger nowadays, prosperity more spread from modernizing China & fallen Iron Curtain et al.,

And YET, the RPG industry is has not done well in light of that...  Hmmm....  :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: Haffrung;715104Tabletop RPG publishers have to get away from the notion that they're primarily about using system X in setting Y to go on quests, win loot, and level up. Because CRPGs can do that shit better. Tabletop publishers need to understand that RPGs are first and foremost about getting together with friends around a table, using your brain, and having some laughs. RPGs are a sub-set of a broader recreation family which includes cards, book clubs, and boardgames, not an analog format of CRPGs.

My opinion is that RPGs (whatever the form) are about the experience of a character in another place. So whatever the media that the primary focus. What continues to make Tabletop RPGs unique is the use of a human referee to handle this experience. The advantage of this is the ability of the human referee to adapt and adjudicate anything that the players want to attempt as their characters.

The various other alternatives have their own strength but flexibility is not one of them whether it is a LARP, MMORPG, CRPGs. With Storytelling games the  focus on the creation of a story not the experience of playing a single character.

I feel that the human referee is the essential attribute that needs to be exploited by Tabletop RPGs. Make a better referee, you make a better experience,  coupled with the ability to attempt anything a character can do that will make a better tabletop RPG. And a lasting hobby and industry.

And yes the social aspect is important but there are plenty of things that you can do socially that are far easier to organize and do than a tabletop RPG sessions. What sells RPGs is the experience of playing another character. Tabletop RPGs share with the MMORPGs is the ability to do this in the presence of friends.

So again it comes back around to making your tabletop RPGs the best experience possible. Since this is dependent on having a good referee to present this then you need makes sure your product enables this.

Once you have this done then you work on the social aspect. Making easy to for groups to assemble and building a community around your games.

Quote from: estar;715184My opinion is that RPGs (whatever the form) are about the experience of a character in another place. So whatever the media that the primary focus. What continues to make Tabletop RPGs unique is the use of a human referee to handle this experience. The advantage of this is the ability of the human referee to adapt and adjudicate anything that the players want to attempt as their characters.

This and being able to really interact with NPC (monsters, et al) that cannot be done with a computer.

The above two are impossible to do with computers.  You are just Role playing to an inanimate object.  Kinda stupid.

Quote from: Arduin;715197This and being able to really interact with NPC (monsters, et al) that cannot be done with a computer.

The above two are impossible to do with computers.  You are just Role playing to an inanimate object.  Kinda stupid.

I still do it sometimes. It is kinda stupid, you're right. I'm ok with being kinda stupid sometimes. It is better in TTRPGs though.

Quote from: Arduin;715197This and being able to really interact with NPC (monsters, et al) that cannot be done with a computer.

The above two are impossible to do with computers.  You are just Role playing to an inanimate object.  Kinda stupid.

So would that mean playing a Tunnels & Trolls solitaire module is really just Role-playingwithmyself?

"MOM, I'M COMBING MY HAIR!"

Quote from: JRT;715174The problem is that while there's been a population growth, there are so many alternate options that the success of any single product or even a genre will likely have lower numbers.  Reading the Bushkin Biography of Johnny Carson, he mentions a show Carson produced (Amen), had moderate ratings for a Saturday Night--but those ratings pulled by that show were now the top-watched show, American Idol.  RPGs used to be unique, but a lot of their uniqueness has been channeled into other games and genres, so it's not as clear they can ever grow when there's lost of competition.

Yes, I believe that was covered by my "no longer halcyon innovation+fad days" comment.

And now here's the important part: so what?

The argument is about success and growing the market. Sure American Idol, in the age of 100+ channels, may have the same share now as Amen, on broadcast during the nascent start of cable, did then. Now tell me which one brought in more money and has a greater cultural impact. (And I ask this as a fan of Amen back in the day, and one who loathes American Idol.)

Of course slice of the pie matters, but so does the pie's size, as well as people's awareness of the pie.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;715292So would that mean playing a Tunnels & Trolls solitaire module is really just Role-playingwithmyself?

Exactly.  No different than playing Mario Bros. computer game.

Quote from: Arduin;715181And YET, the RPG industry is has not done well in light of that...  Hmmm....  :jaw-dropping:

You know, you sit in the catbird seat as you never defined what you mean by success.

In my eyes RPG industry has done well in that there is actual market penetration in unforeseen or forgotten areas.

If you asked me 20 years ago if Japan would be an exporter of RPGs into the grey market, and several works in translation, I would have looked at you as if you lost your mind. This speaks nothing about Europe and Latin America product awareness, let alone access.

If again you asked me 20 years ago someone would learn to monetize Modules through a subscription model -- a model currently that is dying on the vine for regular magazines -- I would check your temperature for feverous delusions. What kids would have had that sort of money to keep up such a subscription?

If you further asked me 20 years ago that you could profit from a monthly subscription for just an RPG service, like a damned utility -- not even a physical product! -- and I would have known you were raving mad, and talked soothingly as I reached for the phone for police to get you a 72 hour hold. I may hate the idea still, but I must give credit where it is due, profiteering from the ether as it is.

Now, those are innovations and access to untapped markets. And given the age of Big Bang Theory, etc., being en vogue, one cannot rule out future fad. RPGs are in my view doing surprisingly well after a self-made rut of the past few years. They may not have caught the next lightning in a jar, but I don't expect any of us to know the time and place of that phenom. Otherwise, for all the gloom fretted over, things are nowhere near as bad as the internet makes it seem (and looking at that, that should probably be a mantra).

So, what exactly are your criteria for success? What specifically do you care about that differs from what has already been mentioned? It is easy to be pithy and play "guess what I'm thinking;" it is harder to have concrete margins and defend them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;715318You know, you sit in the catbird seat as you never defined what you mean by success.

I've defined it a couple of times in business terms.  "In your eyes" doesn't pay the payroll...  ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;715296Yes, I believe that was covered by my "no longer halcyon innovation+fad days" comment.

And now here's the important part: so what?

The argument is about success and growing the market.

The argument I am making is that it might is that the potential market is probably being served by the newer competition--just because there's a growth of what people are calling "nerd culture", it does not mean that there's a potential untapped market, it could be (and from all appearances) that the computer games, card games, and board games have scratched the itches.

The fact that there is more choice out there is going to make it harder to expand the market.

Not saying your view might not be correct, just think it's going to be harder.

Quote from: Arduin;715320I've defined it a couple of times in business terms.  "In your eyes" doesn't pay the payroll...  ;)

Which business terms? State them openly, clearly, and compared to what.

I may hate DCI, but it draws a baseline monthly that is enviable.

Quote from: JRT;715327The argument I am making is that it might is that the potential market is probably being served by the newer competition--just because there's a growth of what people are calling "nerd culture", it does not mean that there's a potential untapped market, it could be (and from all appearances) that the computer games, card games, and board games have scratched the itches.

The fact that there is more choice out there is going to make it harder to expand the market.

Not saying your view might not be correct, just think it's going to be harder.

Uhh, with that sort of comparison we might as well throw in sports equipment as well. Chess, mah jongg, and contract bridge are doing nicely and ever expanding, as are soccer, golf, and horse racing (real, online, or video game).

Again: so what?

People can and do have more than one interest.

Quote from: Opaopajr;715344Which business terms? State them openly, clearly, and compared to what.

The whole discussion started as outselling (as in generating more revenue in  adjusted dollars) than 3e. So you could start with that definition.

But the better one is - will it sell enough to generate the profit margins and total profits Hasbro is looking for (which assumes some sort of sustained profitability over at least a few years' time). If it does, that is success. If not, that's not success. Clearly 4e was not a success.

But failing that, I would say a RPG that sells enough to employ a staff of full-time employees at the prevailing wage and keep the business as a going concern is a success. Yes, that definition means that a large percentage of RPG companies/product lines are financial failures, but I would say that is accurate.

Quote from: JRT;715327The argument I am making is that it might is that the potential market is probably being served by the newer competition--just because there's a growth of what people are calling "nerd culture", it does not mean that there's a potential untapped market, it could be (and from all appearances) that the computer games, card games, and board games have scratched the itches.

The fact that there is more choice out there is going to make it harder to expand the market.

Not saying your view might not be correct, just think it's going to be harder.

This is exactly what is happening (and what the rest of us have been saying too).

Frankly, the idea that just because current popular culture has some of the same trappings as RPGs will translate into a significant surge in RPG sales is downright laughable.

Here's my question - why didn't it already happen? It's not like any of this is new. The Fellowship of the Ring was a big hit in 2001; that's 12 years ago. Even the Big Bang Theory started 7 seasons ago.

It's not like D&D 3e wasn't advertised a lot or available in stores. Same with 4e. There are also the D&D themed board games in the supposedly bigger than Jesus board game market. D&D even had two (albeit terrible) movies for Christ's sake.

RPGs aren't some sort of arcane hidden thing only a select cabal knows about. People know they exist. They've been seen in movies, TV shows, and the shelves of book stores for decades. People know about them - they just aren't interested.It's still a super-geeky hobby that involves big books, complicated rules, and grown men pretending to be elves.

Why would D&D Next (which looks to be, at best, a slightly slimmed down version of 3e) suddenly be a big desire for people when previous editions weren't?

Quote from: Opaopajr;715344Which business terms? State them openly, clearly, and compared to what.

I may hate DCI, but it draws a baseline monthly that is enviable.

Son, when you have finished at least H.S. give me a ring.

Not as bad as 4e, but no 3e.

Quote from: Arduin;715376Son, when you have finished at least H.S. give me a ring.

Actually, it looks like he beat you at finals. I bet many indy producers would love to see a months worth of DDI's income, after expenses, as their own gross revenue. The service is still up and running, so it's obviously meeting costs, which at this point are probably server space and web hosting.

If success is measured in units sold, your poll questions are stupid.

Besides the obvious (as has been pointed out before) that less successful than 3.x and more successful than 4e basically mean the same thing, your terms are also inconsistent.

Personally, I don't believe it will be as SUCCESSFUL as 4th edition,  but I believe it will be better LIKED.  So I can't choose any answers in this poll.  

And I absolutely believe that if you're using a discussion thread to digitally measure your IQ, you're a bigger idiot than I've charitably given you credit for this far.

I have been seeing fan boiz and gurls heads explode out of having to decide to remain 4vengers or worship the new edition. Personally I am enjoying the play test but my group my go back to 3.5 soon. I vote for the death of WotC fan boiz & gurlz due to worship overload.

Quote from: dungeon crawler;715605I have been seeing fan boiz and gurls heads explode out of having to decide to remain 4vengers or worship the new edition. Personally I am enjoying the play test but my group my go back to 3.5 soon. I vote for the death of WotC fan boiz & gurlz due to worship overload.

So, death threats against people who doesn't share your taste in elfgames? Wow, such weakness!

I think I will worship 4E just to piss you off.

Also, worship makes us stronger. 3.crap breeds death and makes people weak ;)

Quote from: dungeon crawler;715605I have been seeing fan boiz and gurls heads explode out of having to decide to remain 4vengers or worship the new edition. Personally I am enjoying the play test but my group my go back to 3.5 soon. I vote for the death of WotC fan boiz & gurlz due to worship overload.

I think it's nice that RPG Pundit welcomes pre-teens like yourself to post on this message board.  I'll try to watch my language though.

I'm quite certain it will do better than 4e.  That's not really a meaningful goal to have, though.  The challenge will be to see if it can top 3e.

Topping 3e commercially is surely impossible? Even if 5e really and truly is the best version of D&D ever made, there are lots of other factors at work.

• 3e came out in a strong economic climate; 5e is coming out in a global recession.
• 3e came out when D&D had been lying fallow for several years and people were ready to go 'back to the dungeon'; 5e is coming out in a market with a huge number of D&D variations already being bought and played.
• 3e represented a then-exciting attempt to update D&D with more modern design ideas; 5e represents yet another attempt at doing this in a market that seems largely sick of innovation and instead wants stability/nostalgia.
• 3e had the OGL and a variety of other publishers creating support products (and support marketing); 5e will be in competition with those same publishers as they each have their own version of D&D already.
• 3e was made by a new, hungry games company and everyone was keen to see what they would do with the property; 5e is being made by an old, tired games company and everyone has seen their standard way of doing things a couple of times already.

Remember also that 4e looked like a big success for the first year or two (sold out print runs, etc). It's going to be the longer term that will count.

Quote from: soviet;718278Topping 3e commercially is surely impossible?

Wow.  What a crazy comment.  You really think a game which is incredibly tiny and niche in the grand scheme of just "games in the U.S.", much less "Games in world", can't be topped? If it just sold to all Magic the Gathering players, it would beat the sales of all versions of D&D in history combined.  

QuoteEven if 5e really and truly is the best version of D&D ever made, there are lots of other factors at work.

3e never had a wide national or international marketing campaign, of any kind.  It was purely marketed directly to existing players.  There was not one single television or cable commercial of any kind.  And you think it cannot top that?

My how standards have fallen.

Remember too, Next is not a "game" it is a brand.  They are launching with a transmedia event across several platforms.  5e might not match 3e rpgbook for rpgbook, or even novel for novel, but what about the apps, the various games on mobile platforms, etc?  One successful Android or Apple game could outsell all the books.

Quote from: Mistwell;718298Wow.  What a crazy comment.  You really think a game which is incredibly tiny and niche in the grand scheme of just "games in the U.S.", much less "Games in world", can't be topped?

Not by another game that is incredibly tiny and niche in the grand scheme of things, at this point in time, no.

Quote from: Mistwell;7182983e never had a wide national or international marketing campaign, of any kind.  It was purely marketed directly to existing players.  There was not one single television or cable commercial of any kind.  And you think it cannot top that?

You're saying that 5e is going to have a campaign of national and international television commercials for it? Cool, I hadn't heard of that.
 
3e had the movie as well by the way, bad though it may have been I think it counts as marketing. Not to mention a dedicated print magazine with global distribution into newsagents and supermarkets.

Quote from: CRKrueger;718303Remember too, Next is not a "game" it is a brand.  They are launching with a transmedia event across several platforms.  5e might not match 3e rpgbook for rpgbook, or even novel for novel, but what about the apps, the various games on mobile platforms, etc?  One successful Android or Apple game could outsell all the books.

I guess that's true, although if a co-released app where people can fight orcs on facebook or something did turn out to be a major success, I don't really see how it would be a vindication of D&D Next itself, or even of roleplaying necessarily. The cartoon didn't prove that AD&D was the best, for example (although it is).

I think there's a lot of people who have a lot of faith in Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast marketing division. Based on what I've seen of other properties, we are not going to see any new cartoons/many commercials/great tie-in products/etc.

I think it's going to tank utterly.

Essentially, the designers set out to make the most bland and inoffensive game they possibly could, for fear of alienating any lapsed players. They made the RPG equivalent of "Two and a Half Men".

No one's going to seriously accuse 5E of being "not D&D" but there is no incentive for anyone to switch over from whatever edition they are playing now.

Quote from: Endless Flight;718309I think there's a lot of people who have a lot of faith in Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast marketing division.

I have faith in Hasbro's marketing division...but I don't think Hasbro's marketing will be part of 5e's launch. They didn't do shit for 3e or 4e. They certainly know how to market Hasbro product lines though.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;718318Essentially, the designers set out to make the most bland and inoffensive game they possibly could, for fear of alienating any lapsed players.

I agree, but I don't see what choice Mearls had. His marching orders are clearly "go forth and please everyone" and that death march always leads to the same destination - Blandsville, Population: Meh.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;718318They made the RPG equivalent of "Two and a Half Men".

If 5e makes as much cash as a single season of 2.5 Men, WotC would be thrilled beyond all comprehension. I don't get most sitcoms, but hot damn those fuckers make money.

Quote from: Spinachcat;718330I agree, but I don't see what choice Mearls had. His marching orders are clearly "go forth and please everyone" and that death march always leads to the same destination - Blandsville, Population: Meh.

Yeah...I think that the best move wotc could have made with the D&D franchise is to mothball the property for a few years, then try to resurrect it in another form of media before releasing a new game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;718330If 5e makes as much cash as a single season of 2.5 Men, WotC would be thrilled beyond all comprehension. I don't get most sitcoms, but hot damn those fuckers make money.

That was perhaps a bad example. I keep forgetting that no matter how "cool" shows like Louie, Arrested Development, Veep and Breaking Bad are, most of America just wants laugh tracks and cliche punchlines.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;718318I think it's going to tank utterly.

Essentially, the designers set out to make the most bland and inoffensive game they possibly could, for fear of alienating any lapsed players. They made the RPG equivalent of "Two and a Half Men".

No one's going to seriously accuse 5E of being "not D&D" but there is no incentive for anyone to switch over from whatever edition they are playing now.

...looks at the posts you've made so far....



Yay, another one....

Quote from: soviet;718278Topping 3e commercially is surely impossible? Even if 5e really and truly is the best version of D&D ever made, there are lots of other factors at work.

Oh yeah, I don't see how it could possibly happen. I voted for that, though, just to fuck with Arduin – I'm pretty sure everyone who voted that way did? – and since he's banned I think all of us can come out and say what we really think. In my case it's "who the fuck knows but it looks like I can mine 5e for parts at the very least" and if I were in WOTC's shoes I'd have sat on D&D for 5 more years or so, but, maybe it'll do well? SHRUG. There is always the option of switching over from an edition just because you're bored.

Quote from: soviet;718304Not by another game that is incredibly tiny and niche in the grand scheme of things, at this point in time, no.



You're saying that 5e is going to have a campaign of national and international television commercials for it? Cool, I hadn't heard of that.
 
3e had the movie as well by the way, bad though it may have been I think it counts as marketing. Not to mention a dedicated print magazine with global distribution into newsagents and supermarkets.

I don't know for a fact they will do a major marketing campaign.

WOTC became very important to Hasbro over the past year, making up about half of their entire gaming portion of the company, which itself is 1/3 of all of Hasbro.  Meanwhile, their boys line of products has been dropping.  I think Hasbro considers WOTC much more important than they used to, and they really want D&D to succeed on a similar level to Magic The Gathering.  And the easiest way to do that is to mass market it - like they do with Magic the Gathering.

So yes, I suspect we will see a mass marketing campaign, targeting people who are currently non-players.  And yes, I think that's how you could top 3e. I think the number of potential players dwarfs the combined total of all current players of all RPGs.  We shall see.

Quote from: soviet;718307I guess that's true, although if a co-released app where people can fight orcs on facebook or something did turn out to be a major success, I don't really see how it would be a vindication of D&D Next itself, or even of roleplaying necessarily. The cartoon didn't prove that AD&D was the best, for example (although it is).

I don't think it will be a vindication of 5e itself, but I'm pretty sure no one cares about vindication over at Hasbro.  Someone over there finally went past Freshman Orientation at Business School with regards to D&D.  Like Bayer which still sells aspirin, or the music companies, which sell all of an artists albums not just the last one, or Hasbro's own Monopoly which has not one edition in distribution, but many at any given time - they've realized they can't yank D&D away from the OGL through Rebranding 101 - they're going to keep selling all versions of D&D (even 4th eventually I'm sure) and the new version is going to have aspects of most flavors of D&D in it through optional rules.  If they find someone who can write their way out of a paper bag to do modules and keep up with the multiple editions format, who cares if people are buying product because it's Next or can be used with 1e?  Who cares if people still play PF as long as they buy the Core Next books to check it out?  Who cares if splat sales are down if a facebook game goes big?

WotC purposely dropped and walked away from the number 1 spot in RPGs.  Maybe they get it back, maybe not, but by diversifying the product lines, they don't need to be the number 1 spot in RPGs if they end up being the number 2 spot in RPGs and the 348th spot in mobile apps, they'll be doing just fine.

Well, whatever they do, they have to figure out how to appeal to kids. Not just appeal, but make rules that are easily playable by them. 8-10 year olds.

While AD&D was certainly hard to understand, the Holmes set was pretty comprehensible and the Mentzer set was brilliant (no wonder it was the best selling version of D&D)

The later 2e attempts by TSR came up real short and I don't think they did anything at all during the 3e era to appeal to kids.

But regardless, they can't just do a one shot for kids. They have to keep supporting it, like TSR did with their basic line.

Quote from: Mistwell;718390I think Hasbro considers WOTC much more important than they used to, and they really want D&D to succeed on a similar level to Magic The Gathering.

Any evidence of this?

I am not disagreeing, just I have not seen any indication that Hasbro gives a rats ass about WotC. They like the Magic dollars, but where's the Magic TV commercials promoting Magic starter sets as Xmas gifts? I see plenty of commercials for Hasbro's other toys though.

Also, why would they care about the D&D brand beyond its value for video games? That's where the potential money lies, not in the RPG.

As I see it, that's the big problem of Hasbro owning D&D. Even D&D kicking ass is too small to matter to their bottom line. Our hobby would be better served by WotC being independent where the difference of just a $1M in sales per year was truly important to their bottom line and thus motivated them to promote RPGs to teens and young adults. For Hasbro, the ROI isn't impressive enough to care.

Quote from: JeremyR;718406Well, whatever they do, they have to figure out how to appeal to kids.

I can't see how they will make 5e appeal to kids. Hey kids, wanna read a bunch of books before playing a game...or do you wanna play a cool video game within 10 seconds of loading?  

And kids, its a game you can play with weird men older than your dad! They will corner you in game stores and creep you out talking about their favorite characters and yell at you if you like different editions.

Quote from: Spinachcat;718330I agree, but I don't see what choice Mearls had. His marching orders are clearly "go forth and please everyone" and that death march always leads to the same destination - Blandsville, Population: Meh.

Good god and you call yourself a tabletop role player. We are not talking about a wargame or a boardgame there. This is a game that about pretending to be a character in a different place or time with the ability to attempt anything the character can do.

A DIFFERENT PLACE OR TIME that is the key to a fun and interesting RPG. Now mechanics are important but only as far as whether they serve that goal. D&D Next success will hinge on its ability to deliver the D&D experience in a fun and interesting way. "Bland" rule system may be exactly what needed because part of D&D's historical strength is that it can be adapted to a variety of sub genres, situations, and experiences. Something a ruleset with a distinctive feel will have trouble delivering.

Quote from: estar;718446Good god and you call yourself a tabletop role player. We are not talking about a wargame or a boardgame there. This is a game that about pretending to be a character in a different place or time with the ability to attempt anything the character can do.

A DIFFERENT PLACE OR TIME that is the key to a fun and interesting RPG. Now mechanics are important but only as far as whether they serve that goal. D&D Next success will hinge on its ability to deliver the D&D experience in a fun and interesting way. "Bland" rule system may be exactly what needed because part of D&D's historical strength is that it can be adapted to a variety of sub genres, situations, and experiences. Something a ruleset with a distinctive feel will have trouble delivering.

While i think there is definitely a place for focused rpgs, there is something to be said for trying to have a little something for everyone in a game. I have never been in a group where every player had the same exact preferences and tastes. So it really is a plus if a game tries to please everyone at my table. There is a trade off, a game can choose to do one thing really, really well (which means it is going to be harder to find players for it will connect strongly with those who like it) or it can try to do a number of different things and hold them in balance. I find the later increasingly has more staying power for me.

And like Estar says, what is interesting anid fun isnt necessarily the mechanics themselves but the adventures you go on, the foes you meet and the places you explore. That stuff is all in the court of the GM and players.

Quote from: Spinachcat;718417Any evidence of this?

I am not disagreeing, just I have not seen any indication that Hasbro gives a rats ass about WotC. They like the Magic dollars, but where's the Magic TV commercials promoting Magic starter sets as Xmas gifts? I see plenty of commercials for Hasbro's other toys though.

First, I posted the graph above, and in the conference call it's mentioned how gaming (which WOTC makes up about 50%) is gaining hugely every quarter, while the Boys line (which used to be the best of their three lines) is lagging every quarter.  

Second, uh dude...there ARE commercials about Magic as Xmas gifts.  Perhaps you don't watch the cable stations they air on? YouTube them if you are curious, I'm sure they are there (?)

QuoteAlso, why would they care about the D&D brand beyond its value for video games? That's where the potential money lies, not in the RPG.

MTG sells hardcopies in huge sums, to be played at a table.  It's a similar model to D&D, and they hope D&D can approach it.

QuoteI can't see how they will make 5e appeal to kids. Hey kids, wanna read a bunch of books before playing a game...or do you wanna play a cool video game within 10 seconds of loading?  

They're playing MtG.

MtG =/= D&D

Quote from: jeff37923;718478MtG =/= D&D

Yes Jeff, I know.  I am saying WOTC wants to see D&D approach the level of MtG in sales.  And, since he kept saying all kids are interested in these days is video games, I am responding that MtG is something they are interested in and it's not primarily a video game, so it's fair to say kids can be interested in non-video games.

Nobody is arguing MtG is D&D.

Quote from: Mistwell;718485Yes Jeff, I know.  I am saying WOTC wants to see D&D approach the level of MtG in sales.  And, since he kept saying all kids are interested in these days is video games, I am responding that MtG is something they are interested in and it's not primarily a video game, so it's fair to say kids can be interested in non-video games.

Nobody is arguing MtG is D&D.

The thing is, MtG complexity = video games complexity. People do find a huge tome of rules off-putting when they have never played the game before. If D&D Next initial approach is the complexity of B/X D&D, Labyrinth Lord, d6 Star Wars, or even the Pathfinder Beginners Box then new Players who have never heard of the game before will be more willing to try it out.

Simplicity and elegance works with attracting new gamers.

Quote from: jeff37923;718504The thing is, MtG complexity = video games complexity. People do find a huge tome of rules off-putting when they have never played the game before. If D&D Next initial approach is the complexity of B/X D&D, Labyrinth Lord, d6 Star Wars, or even the Pathfinder Beginners Box then new Players who have never heard of the game before will be more willing to try it out.

Simplicity and elegance works with attracting new gamers.

I used to think this, but honestly I think that simplicity and elegance is what I am personally looking for in a game as an experiennced gamer, rather than what newer players are looking for.

Remember, newer players usually don't seek out rpgs under their own  initiative - they are introduced by friends who are gamers and they tend to play whatever their group is playing. 3rd edition D&D is probably the most complicated and rules heavy of all the editions, but how many new players have been inducted with 3rd ed/pathfinder between 2000 and now?

I think that the simplicity of D&D Next is meant more for veteran players who don't want all of the bureaucracy of a rules heavy game.

Quote from: Mistwell;718476MTG sells hardcopies in huge sums, to be played at a table.  It's a similar model to D&D, and they hope D&D can approach it.

In MTG you buy a load of packs of cards to build a deck. Then, every 3 months or so, another expansion comes out and you buy a load of packs of cards to expand your deck and find that chase rare you need. Every 12 months this is combined with the outlawing of the oldest half of your deck, so you MUST stay on the pack buying treadmill to keep playing. Also every 3 months you pay to go to a prerelease tournament, every month you pay to go to a local tournament, and every week you pay to go to FNM. That's even leaving out PTQs Grand Prixs, Nationals, etc.

In D&D you buy 3 books and you're set for life.

I'm not sure the two business models are as identical as you think.

Quote from: soviet;718550I'm not sure the two business models are as identical as you think.

And there's really no way that WOTC (or any other company) could turn the D&D business model into something much closer to the MtG business model.  Sure, they might be able to convince those who mainly play in WOTC sponsored tournaments or weekly "Encounters" at game stores to buy "booster rules" every couple of months by requiring them in sponsored play and to invalidate half the old rules every year (requiring a new set of core books to play in sponsored events).

However, the percentage of D&D players who depend on these events to play is fairly low and unless there were good prizes to win in the events, if WOTC moved D&D to a model like this, the number of players at those events would likely drop. Even with good prizes, the numbers would probably not go up enough to help them rake in MtG level bucks.

Players could always just buy a set of books and play with them for years with friends completely outside the tournament/event system. With most D&D players of D&D not interested in competitive D&D, tournaments and events just don't have the draw they do in a competitive game like MtG. They've been a minor footnote in D&D play since the 1970s and given the nature of RPGs and the players they attract, that's unlikely to change.

Heck, if WOTC wants to get a competitive system like MtG out of D&D, their best bet might be to return to the D&D 3.5 system and release a new character options splat book every few months. Have one-on-one charop tournaments where players interested in charop design their best rules-pushing characters from the core rules plus the last 3 or 4 character options splat books. Players of such characters would be pitted against each other in PvP fights, with the winners getting nice prizes. Most D&D players aren't extreme charop types, but there are a good percentage who are so this might be a way to get something like MtG money out of a subset of D&D players.

Quote from: soviet;718550In MTG you buy a load of packs of cards to build a deck. Then, every 3 months or so, another expansion comes out and you buy a load of packs of cards to expand your deck and find that chase rare you need. Every 12 months this is combined with the outlawing of the oldest half of your deck, so you MUST stay on the pack buying treadmill to keep playing. Also every 3 months you pay to go to a prerelease tournament, every month you pay to go to a local tournament, and every week you pay to go to FNM. That's even leaving out PTQs Grand Prixs, Nationals, etc.

In D&D you buy 3 books and you're set for life.

I'm not sure the two business models are as identical as you think.

I think this is the problem with trying to make MtG work as a model for D&D. I do think there is something to the notion though that if Magic can reach this level of popularity, so can D&D. However building the brand around regular tournaments and purchasing new packets of something seems like a bad fit (and feels like it would largely miss the point of playing an rpg). They could do cross over marketing though. Don't know much about magic, but if it has underlying settings, why not make a Magic Campaign setting for D&D?

Quote from: RandallS;718553Heck, if WOTC wants to get a competitive system like MtG out of D&D, their best bet might be to return to the D&D 3.5 system and release a new character options splat book every few months. Have one-on-one charop tournaments where players interested in charop design their best rules-pushing characters from the core rules plus the last 3 or 4 character options splat books. Players of such characters would be pitted against each other in PvP fights, with the winners getting nice prizes. Most D&D players aren't extreme charop types, but there are a good percentage who are so this might be a way to get something like MtG money out of a subset of D&D players.

There is a game called conflict roleplaying that basically does player versus player like this (and it has been an active line for several years now). I believe their business model is largely based around selling new "arenas" for tournaments. Worked a bit on their first edition, and I could definitely see a game like this serving as an additional branch of D&D that draws in the magic crowd (but also helps players who want it feed a regular combat or build bug).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;718555Don't know much about magic, but if it has underlying settings, why not make a Magic Campaign setting for D&D?

Apparently work started on this a few times but it always got killed by management.

Quote from: jadrax;718561Apparently work started on this a few times but it always got killed by management.

The reason being (apparently) that the two brands should not be mixed. Maybe WotC fears that a failure of one brand (4e...) would shed a negative light on the other.

Ever since I saw the Art of Weatherlight artbook I thought the MtG setting(s) would make excellent D&D worlds, leaving both D&D tropes and Tolkien tropes way behind.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;718568The reason being (apparently) that the two brands should not be mixed. Maybe WotC fears that a failure of one brand (4e...) would shed a negative light on the other.

Ever since I saw the Art of Weatherlight artbook I thought the MtG setting(s) would make excellent D&D worlds, leaving both D&D tropes and Tolkien tropes way behind.

Ravnica has been a strong influence on my vision of Sigil.

Quote from: soviet;718550In D&D you buy 3 books and you're set for life.

I'm not sure the two business models are as identical as you think.

In older versions of D&D it was 3 books. How many core rulebooks did 4th have? 6? 9? I lost track after a while.