Is WotC's layoff policy creating a D&D death spiral?

[TheFlatline]

I've known like, two campaigns in my entire gaming experience that used a published setting. Everybody else wants to make their own.

And how many of those DMs have published setting books? I'm willing to guess nearly all of them.

And how many of those "homebrew" worlds use pieces culled from published adventures patched together around some one or two or half a dozen ideas the DM had? Probably all of them.

[TheFlatline]

I take issues with your analogy. Tabletop RPGs are a LOT more similar to MMORPGs than Doom is to shooting rifles. Seriously, a broad sketching of the accepted evolution is MMORPG <-- cRPG <-- D&D.

D&D: You use dice, perform calculations, to play magic tea party. CRPG: Computer does it for you, you just point-and-click instructions to play computerized magic tea party.

Real shooting: You manipulate a device, perform calculations and estimates based on conditions, to shoot an arbitrary target. Doom: You point and click to shoot an arbitrary target.

Analogy stands.

LOLWut?

Here's where your analogy breaks down. In a CRPG the dice are still getting rolled, calculations are still being made, and knowledge of the underlying system still benefits you in either a tabletop or cRPG version of the game.

Literally zero percent of what you learn playing an FPS is applicable to shooting a gun in the real world, except maybe what the trigger is, and to look down the sights to aim better.

I can powergame the f*ck out of Vampire Bloodlines and Neverwinter nights and Baldur's Gate and all the cRPGs based on existing systems because I understand how those systems work. Even with homebrew systems I can powergame the fuck out of them because I understand that the system rewards certain play styles (Alpha Protocol for example, it got shit reviews for the combat system, but powergaming the f*ck out of it you had no issues with the combat system). I'm a decent marksman in the real world, and playing doom has nothing of the same transference of knowledge.

[Saxony]

I would compare tabletop rpgs to mmorpgs this way:

Tabletop RPG is shooting practice targets with a rifle.

MMORPG is playing Doom.

While they are both forms of entertainment, they are completely different in how you do it. And their only point of commonality is theme (using guns).

So while some people may like using guns both in real life and in their computer, this is probably a rare intersection of interests.

You did not explain your two analogies sufficiently.

How is Tabletop RPG like shooting targets with a rifle?

How is MMORPG like playing Doom?

You expected us to read between the lines when your two lines contained insufficient information. Your two lines contained literally the most basic of all relations (X is Y). You can never generate an implication from using the "is" relation. You have to say HOW something is like another thing. You can't just say something is like another thing.

Then you used that nonexistent implication to support a conclusion. Even more unfortunately, one of your conclusion sentences had 1st grade grammar skills:

While they are both forms of entertainment, they are completely different in how you do it.

Use more informative words when you communicate. It's really rude expecting people waste time deciphering your intent when you barely put any effort in translating it into language. You should have used "play" instead of "do" because "do" is an overloaded word with many meanings and some of them are nonsensical in this case (Entertainment can't be "done" like chores or homework can be "done"). The phrase "they are completely different in how you do it" should have been "they are completely different in how you do them" because there's no precedent established for the definition of "it" and "it" is thus completely meaningless in this case.

Use words with more than two letters. The amount of information you can convey per word rises significantly.

Your other conclusion sentence:

And their only point of commonality is theme.

Is sufficient to stand on its own and implies whatever difference you were trying to imply in the other conclusion sentence (because if only aesthetics are similar, all directly related actions are different, including whatever verb you meant to type instead of "do").

I'd go one step further. MMORPG's have only one thing; level up via monster killing. Tabletop RPG's also have level up via monster killing, but they have other things like plot, plot interactivity, remembering non-player actors (single characters or groups), and role playing.

[Zinegata]

And how many of those DMs have published setting books? I'm willing to guess nearly all of them.

Except for the Ravenloft and Eberron guy? None. Unless you count default Greyhawk.

And how many of those "homebrew" worlds use pieces culled from published adventures patched together around some one or two or half a dozen ideas the DM had? Probably all of them.

Adventures we use, definitely. But the point of most adventures is that they are not setting specific.

[Zinegata]

LOLWut?

Here's where your analogy breaks down. In a CRPG the dice are still getting rolled, calculations are still being made, and knowledge of the underlying system still benefits you in either a tabletop or cRPG version of the game.

Literally zero percent of what you learn playing an FPS is applicable to shooting a gun in the real world, except maybe what the trigger is, and to look down the sights to aim better.

Zero percent? Totally wrong there.

FPSs teach you that guns have recoil, which affects your accuracy. And that bullets are affected by stuff like gravity and will not travel in straight lines. They also teach you some incredibly basic things like how guns don't have unlimited ammo like some movies will lead you to believe.

It is true that there are some things that you learn from tabletop RPGs that are applicable to CRPGs. But you also learn some things applicable to FPSs that you learn by shooting a gun too.

But most of the time, you have to relearn almost everything in both applications. CRPG maths is usually very different from Tabletop math. Even CRPGs based on D&D have radically different maths from the tabletop counterpart, because a lot of D&D CRPGs play in real time.

Likewise, FPSs have a physics model. Real world conforms to physics. If you know physics, you'll be a better shooter both in FPSs and in real life. But FPS physics isn't exactly the same as real world physics. So you do actually have to relearn a lot of things if you go from FPS shooting to real life shooting.

I can powergame the f*ck out of Vampire Bloodlines and Neverwinter nights and Baldur's Gate and all the cRPGs based on existing systems because I understand how those systems work. Even with homebrew systems I can powergame the fuck out of them because I understand that the system rewards certain play styles (Alpha Protocol for example, it got shit reviews for the combat system, but powergaming the f*ck out of it you had no issues with the combat system). I'm a decent marksman in the real world, and playing doom has nothing of the same transference of knowledge.

Nope, you can powergame because you know how to do math.

And here's an important secret - You don't necessarily have to learn math from a tabletop RPG, in order to apply it to CRPGs. Many of the best CRPG powergamers never played a tabletop game ever. You just have to know simple plain math.

[Zinegata]

Saxony->

You did not explain your two analogies sufficiently.

That's because I think the use of analogies is generally retarded, but I'm being asked to provide one to counter the equally silly tabletop RPGs = bikes, and CRPGs = cars analogy.

So blame Lago and complain to him. I'm not inclined to elaborate any further on my analogy.

Analogies are inherently difficult to decipher. Because you have to make another set of logical connections before you get anywhere.

Again, you got what I was trying to say anyway: Their only common point is theme.

[Saxony]

Saxony->

You did not explain your two analogies sufficiently.

That's because I think the use of analogies is generally retarded, but I'm being asked to provide one to counter the equally silly tabletop RPGs = bikes, and CRPGs = cars analogy.

If you don't like analogies, just say that. Don't make an unholy concoction of thought death because that's not cool.

The entire point of communicating in a conversation is to communicate ideas to other people. Willfully putting minimal effort into communication and communicating deficiently is rather rude.

If you'd rather not play this game, bow out now and buy yourself a fucking diary so you can make zero sense to yourself.

Analogies are inherently difficult to decipher. Because you have to make another set of logical connections before you get anywhere.

Your analogy was not only difficult to decipher, it was impossible to decipher. This was the worst case scenario because I hadn't yet realized it lacked sufficient information and tried to decipher it anyway because analogies generally require more thought to understand. I suppose I'm smarter because of my realization, but I rather not accomplish intelligence by running into walls until I find a door.

Again, you got what I was trying to say anyway: Their only common point is theme.

Your conclusion of "only theme is common" is an understandable concept by itself and does not require analogies' roundabout communication method to be understood. Your use of deficient analogy when analogy is not required is most annoying; mostly because I read posts in top-down order and try to understand each sentence as I go along (like most sane people). The unnecessary deficient analogy preceding the actual meat of your post really wasted my time.

If you want to put something useless in your post to show off your creativity, put it at the bottom of your post and write "PS: " immediately before it.

[Zinegata]

If you don't like analogies, just say that. Don't make an unholy concoction of thought death because that's not cool.

... Saying that what I created was an unholy concotion of thought death only encourages me to play this card again in the future, because I'm totally the vindictive sort.

If you want to put something useless in your post to show off your creativity, put it at the bottom of your post and write "PS: " immediately before it.

Honestly, I just posted a bored and half-baked response to what I saw was a bored and half-baked challenge. But now that you've pointed out it causes thought death I'm totally adding this to my arsenal.

And no, I'm totally serious. Some people deserve inane and insane responses.

[Saxony]

Congratulations. You have join the short list of people I ignore on these forums.

Here's why you deserve it:

Choosing to cause unnecessary discomfort is evil. Not only would I simply not want to read something written with wanton sociopathic harmful intent, I can halt the harm by simply not reading your tripe. So I kill two birds with one stone by ignoring you.

You're an idiot for not knowing the following, but let me enlighten you. Being only self-serving and doing harmful things to others won't make you happy since people are self-serving (and thus vindictive). Interesting how an effective behavior becomes ineffective once other people are introduced, eh? You should have learned that lesson in grade school. Golden rule isn't just some idealized tree hugger fantasy. You get lonely real fast if you're an ass hole and people tend to make cruel, dramatic exits when they leave your life.

Follow the golden rule and learn empathy, Zinegata. You'll gain net happiness. Unless you want to live as an isolated hermit. Then do whatever the fuck you want to yourself.

See yah. Wish I could say it was fun.

[Zinegata]

Excellent. Now I don't have to deal with Saxony's moralizing unless he's lying about putting me on his ignore list.

About time.

[TheFlatline]

Zero percent? Totally wrong there.

FPSs teach you that guns have recoil, which affects your accuracy. And that bullets are affected by stuff like gravity and will not travel in straight lines. They also teach you some incredibly basic things like how guns don't have unlimited ammo like some movies will lead you to believe.

No, if you've never fired a gun in your life you know nothing about recoil other than potentially it might exist. Which if you've watched or read any reality-based footage or text about guns, you already know that there's recoil. An FPS doesn't teach you anything useful about recoil.

95% of FPS games do not include ballistics models that drag the bullet downward. 99% of FPS games do not need this, as the combat occurs at such close ranges that it's easier to just ignore. Hell, a lot of FPS games use hitscan weapons, where when you pull the trigger a ray is drawn from the tip of your gun out to wherever it hits, and the shot doesn't actually travel. Only in long/extreme range sniping situations do they account for gravity and bullet drop.

As for the unlimited ammo thing, I won't even dignify that with a response.

It is true that there are some things that you learn from tabletop RPGs that are applicable to CRPGs. But you also learn some things applicable to FPSs that you learn by shooting a gun too.

To a much, much more minor extent, yes. But waggling a mouse or controller around has almost nothing to do with the act of actually shooting a weapon.

But most of the time, you have to relearn almost everything in both applications. CRPG maths is usually very different from Tabletop math. Even CRPGs based on D&D have radically different maths from the tabletop counterpart, because a lot of D&D CRPGs play in real time.

Blatantly false unless you're playing a game like Demonstone or the new Neverwinter which is inspired by D&D and isn't actually the engine. The tweaks for something like baldur's gate to real time was actually relatively minor. Initiative gets tossed out the window, but as far as the guts of the game, understanding how spells work and interact, how to build a character, etc etc, there is a large amount of cross-sharing of knowledge.

Likewise, FPSs have a physics model. Real world conforms to physics. If you know physics, you'll be a better shooter both in FPSs and in real life. But FPS physics isn't exactly the same as real world physics. So you do actually have to relearn a lot of things if you go from FPS shooting to real life shooting.

Wrong. My ability to waggle a mouse has zero to do with the skills required to actually shoot a gun. If I take a 5 year old and give him an M-16 after he plays a bunch of Call of Duty, he won't know the first fucking thing about that gun and how to shoot it, and you know it.

Now, if I take that same kid, let him play through, say, Temple of Elemental Evil on the computer, and then stick him in a 3.x game, he's going to have a pretty solid foundation to get into the game.

Nope, you can powergame because you know how to do math.

And here's an important secret - You don't necessarily have to learn math from a tabletop RPG, in order to apply it to CRPGs.

And yet you just told me above that the math for a tabletop and cRPG is totally different. You're contradicting yourself.

Many of the best CRPG powergamers never played a tabletop game ever. You just have to know simple plain math.

Ah... but if you take those same powergamers and give them a tabletop game, they'll almost assuredly quickly powergame the tabletop version as well, having honed their min/max skills elsewhere. Even moreso if it's a tabletop game that uses an extremely similar rules set as the video game.

And you're right. Your analogies are stupid. Next time you think of one... do us a favor and keep it to yourself.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't want to get side-tracked by analogies or anything.

What I'm saying is that the safest targets to market people for are people already in your target demographic who don't own your product.

This doesn't mean that you market 5E to people who play WoW. I brought up WoW because they're the most obvious demographic of people who we know that like European heroic fantasy. But they're not the only group; there are people who play c/jRPGs and watch animes and read hot fantasy novels who would potentially be amenable to our message.

The question I'm positing to this board is 'why didn't they pick up D&D in the heyday of 3rd Edition'? And by asking this question I'm going to compare it to well-known features/problems/aspects of D&D in an attempt to locate and solve the problem. So here are some questions to ask in coming up with 'why aren't these people interested in D&D?'

Was it because the theme didn't interest them? Was it because D&D requires too much work to play? Because D&D requires too much imagination? Is it because D&D doesn't model enough tropes of people who want to play? Is it because it's too hard to find a group? Is it because D&D just isn't perceived as cool enough? Is it because aspects of the game that D&D touts (character creation, dungeon crawling, etc.) can be more easily realized on other products? Is D&D just too expensive to play?

The trick is to come up with a list of answers as to why people don't play the game. You'll want to restrict your search to nerds and children right now because reaching out to people in other demographics might be too difficult. Once you get answers to these questions you need to cross-compare your answers and judge any spillover effects changing tese aspects of the game will have on people.

Then you cross-compare results that you get against the potential of alienating a demographic. I'd rather get rid of plussed weapons for instance, but the people we're trying to attract probably won't care insofar that the game doesn't model the stereotypes that they've heard... but the grognards WILL get pissed off if you take them out. So they stay in. You keep doing that until you get a design sheet for a new game that you want. And from what I see, 5E D&D can maximize its numbers by making a game that's easier to pick up, is more balanced than its predecessors, offers more opportunity to customize characters, offers more opportunities to affect the plot, makes it easier for people to find other players, offers a plethora of tropes and setting information that is easier for non-fanboys to grok, and makes it easier for DMs to run games. All my suggestions, from the revamped monster manual to the social networking application, have been designed to help these goals.


So here's the question I posit to people of TGD: What specific ideas, dos, and don'ts would you do for 5E in order to grow the pie higher? I'm not asking about specific rules changes like implementing craft skills or fixing magical items unless its done so in a way to attract outsiders in a 'this is more balanced!' way. I'm asking for specific suggestions, like a new setting or a new advertising philosophy or whatever.


As far as I'm concerned, the appeal of Dungeons and Dragons is to fantasize about a Action Movie/Magic Tea Party that takes place in classic heroic fantasy that has a wide range of advancement and takes great pains to model a fictional character as accurately as possible in order to let them take direct the metaplot in meaningful in conjunction with others with an equal amount of screentime for each person. I am thus willing to compromise on a lot of classic D&D tropes as long as it does these things. I.e. 4E D&D is less appealing to me than 3E D&D because it models characters less accurately and takes tools out of the hands of players to deliberately affect the game world.

[Zinegata]

Flatline->

Again, you're confusing your ability to the math with the notion that tabletop RPGs prepare you for CRPGs. The skill you use to be a powergamer isn't "RPG skills". It's simple math skills.

To be an RPG powergamer, you need to be able to solve math problems. Like "What results in a bigger value - 15 multiplied by four, or forty-five?".

If you can answer that question, you can powergame in any type of game that involves numbers, regardless if you've played RPGs before. Powergaming is largely about mathematical comparison - which option gives bigger numbers at the same lvel.

So, frankly, the argument that being a good tabletop RPG player makes you a good CRPG player is bullshit. Tabletop RPGs may teach you math, and then you can apply math to CRPGs, but there is no direct link between Tabletop RPGs and CRPGs except for straight-up implementations - like the Gold Box series (NWN is NOT. It is a single-player realtime experience)

Also, you're completely wrong: Real-time changes the game dramatically. For instance, a key skill in early Baldur's Gate play is "run circles around the goblins". Which is clicking in a circle around a terrain feature, so that the goblins follow you around while you shoot them to death with arrows. That involves no math. That just involves clicking.

Secondly, like I said - math lets you play RPGs and CRPGs better. Likewise, knowing physics lets you shoot better in both FPSs and in real life. You haven't disproven this at all. You're just deliberately ignoring it so you can go "Haha, I'm right you're wrong".

Excuse me if I decide to ignore this entire tangent from now on.

[Zinegata]

The question I'm positing to this board is 'why didn't they pick up D&D in the heyday of 3rd Edition'? And by asking this question I'm going to compare it to well-known features/problems/aspects of D&D in an attempt to locate and solve the problem. So here are some questions to ask in coming up with 'why aren't these people interested in D&D?'

Because D&D's level of complexity is high.

My thesis is really simple. The core D&D market has always been attracted more towards complexity, rather than simplicity. I mean, D&D originally had a "basic" set and an "advanced" set, and the latter far outsold the former. In the early days - because of the lack of options - we also got the LARP-leaning crowd too.

Now, when I say "complexity", I don't mean arbitrary bullshit like THAC0. When I say "complexity", I mean that the game gives us a lot of variables to analyze. If an average boardgame gives us four stats to analyze, D&D gives us like ten.

The problem by 3rd Ed is that people already had lots of alternatives to fill their needs. LARP-leaners got their Magic Tea Party RPGs. The numbers & complexity people got CCGs and boardgames.

So here's the question I posit to people of TGD: What specific ideas, dos, and don'ts would you do for 5E in order to grow the pie higher?

Go back to basics. Acknowledge the pie is smaller now, because there are too many alternatives. Instead, focus on what D&D always was - a highly complex, combat-heavy roleplaying system. You won't become mainstream, but you'll get a strong and loyal fanbase that'll keep you afloat.

[Username17]

So here's the question I posit to people of TGD: What specific ideas, dos, and don'ts would you do for 5E in order to grow the pie higher? I'm not asking about specific rules changes like implementing craft skills or fixing magical items unless its done so in a way to attract outsiders in a 'this is more balanced!' way. I'm asking for specific suggestions, like a new setting or a new advertising philosophy or whatever.

DnD wants to attract people who want to imagine themselves in fantasy situations as the heroes of fantasy adventures. Fantasy as a genre, keeps moving, and DnD has to keep stealing ideas.

Modern fantasy usually has guns and often has airships. The fact is that people picture a much more steam punkish world when they think of fantasy these days, and DnD should adapt to that. Yes, Tolkien was a product of the 1930s, and he was hearkening back to the pre-industrial world. But people in the fucking information age get the same sense of ancient unrecoverable past from anything that doesn't have electricity.

Fantasy without steam engines is going to become more and more marginal as time goes on.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

The core D&D market has always been attracted more towards complexity, rather than simplicity.

Really? I'd say that the core D&D market has been attracted more towards rigor than complexity. It sounds the same, but it's not. No one really gives a shit about most of the math changes 4E brought about, even though in most cases the processes became simpler (until they inflated the game with too many bonuses, but that's another story). What people were mad about were losing things like crafting, open multiclassing, powerful magic to go along with epic-level characters, etc..

Now granted adding in more options and more depth will almost invariably lead to more complexity (because any amount of rules is more complex than nothing) but people aren't attracted to the complexity in of itself. No one weeps about losing random hit points or fractional BAB or spell schools.

Go back to basics. Acknowledge the pie is smaller now, because there are too many alternatives. Instead, focus on what D&D always was - a highly complex, combat-heavy roleplaying system.

Zinegata, that paradigm is failing. Yeah, if you believe the 3E/4E numbers the system has lost about a fourth of the players that it did at the height. But I seriously doubt that if D&D stayed the course and released an edition that stuck to 3E design principles but implemented math fixes they'd have more than 3 million fans right now.

If I was assigned to long-term care of D&D, that kind of thing would make me shit my pants and be looking for a way to attract new blood.


And it's not like 4E D&D isn't a highly complex, combat-heavy roleplaying system. You can talk about grognard shit all day like the changes to the magical item system or ritual rules or wizards getting unlimited magic missiles, but the fact of the matter is that when you get down to it most of that is pissant shit. Fanboys care about that stuff, but why would an outsider?

[Zinegata]

Really? I'd say that the core D&D market has been attracted more towards rigor than complexity. It sounds the same, but it's not. No one really gives a shit about most of the math changes 4E brought about, even though in most cases the processes became simpler (until they inflated the game with too many bonuses, but that's another story). What people were mad about were losing things like crafting, open multiclassing, powerful magic to go along with epic-level characters, etc..

I think we're talking about the same thing, just using different words.

Now granted adding in more options and more depth will almost invariably lead to more complexity (because any amount of rules is more complex than nothing) but people aren't attracted to the complexity in of itself. No one weeps about losing random hit points or fractional BAB or spell schools.

What people don't like is arbitrary complexity. Additional stuff to keep track of that don't really affect the game.

THAC0 is the biggest and worst example of arbitrary complexity. D20 + bonuses vs DC does exactly the same thing as THAC0, but is far easier to explain.

Stuff like losing random hitpoints is only arbitrary if you need to keep track of it, but the losses are so insignificant you might as well ignore them. Making people track the loss of 1 HP out of 400 definitely falls under arbitrary complexity.

Arbitrary complexity = stuff that you keep track off but don't add to the game.

Complexity = more stuff to do in the game.

Zinegata, that paradigm is failing. Yeah, if you believe the 3E/4E numbers the system has lost about a fourth of the players that it did at the height. But I seriously doubt that if D&D stayed the course and released an edition that stuck to 3E design principles but implemented math fixes they'd have more than 3 million fans right now.

If I was assigned to long-term care of D&D, that kind of thing would make me shit my pants and be looking for a way to attract new blood.

People have also said that boardgames and wargames are dead. From their lofty heights in the 70s, the rise of computer games and CCGs saw a rapid decrease in the number of boardgamers and wargamers.

Except neither actually ever died. In fact, boardgames have now begun to boom. And that's not because they decided to go mainstream. Catan is never gonna be sold like Coca-Cola. Instead, boardgame companies cleverly targeted a very specific set of players: Those who like face-to-face gameplay, with a lot of player interaction, and all without the arms-race-like cost of a CCG.

Just how big is the boardgame boom? Well, Catan alone has sold over fifteen million copies. That's seriously more than the number of D&D players at its height (6 million). And that doesn't count other popular boardgames of the new generation yet - including stuff like Power Grid, Munchkin, Arkham Horror, and the like.

Put all of them combined, and consider that each copy of Catan or Power Grid actually supports four or more players per set, and you've got a boardgaming base close to a hundred million people worldwide, without spending a single cent on a TV ad.

Likewise, wargame companies have gone into two directions:

Firstly, they went for simpler games like Catan, and got the scraps of the boardgame market. This is how Command & Colors sold well.

Secondly, they said "fuck you" to making their games less complex. Instead, they innovated. They added new mechanics. They started using shinier pieces. They did some streamlining (removing arbitrary complexity). They even republished the old wargames. But they never betrayed the wargame ideal that a wargame is a whole-day experience with a thick rule book.

Instead, they developed closer ties with their customers. GMT pioneered what was called the "pre-order" system. They'd show their customers a set of game pitches. If enough people commit to pre-ordering a particular game, only then would they actually build the game. This was so successful almost all wargame companies are now using this model.

Sure, it'd take a long time before customers get the game - but that's part of the point. Wargamers are the patient sort. They take all day to play one game. So they'd seriously willingly wait two years to get a new game. And they'd be hugely pleased at GMT because GMT would only publish the games they really want, and they'd often be involved in the playtests (because GMT could track the people who pre-ordered).

Moreover, it also makes each copy of a GMT game very valuable - because there aren't a lot of them in the market. Given that a lot of wargamers are also big-time collectors, this fits the "wargamer" mentality" even further.

And honestly, I suspect that's why Pathfinder is selling even though the rules are shit. Paizo recognized very early on that a lot of RPG players don't just value good rules. They value companies that listen to their "needs".

[DragonChild]

Those who like face-to-face gameplay, with a lot of player interaction, and all without the arms-race-like cost of a CCG.

Then explain Dominion to me. ;P

[Zinegata]

Clarification: Dominion 3, or Dominion the card game?

If it's the latter, you need to realize that Dominion isn't the same kind of game as Catan. It's base is still the intellectual type, but it dips much more into the "used to play CCG" market as opposed to the "likes face to face gameplay, with lots of player interaction" market.

Dominion's main selling point is that it will cost less than a CCG in the long run because you're not forced into an arms race over cards. But, despite the lower cost, you still get to experience the deck-building fun of a CCG.

Moreover, the new expansions of Dominion include quite a bit more player interaction than the original, making it more and more of a "standard" Euro.

And really, there's not a lot of other games that can give you the same experience at the same price. Your alternatives boil down to Dominion clones, or building a Cube of Magic Cards. The former are just rethemes of the original Dominion formula, while the latter is MUCH harder to buy off the shelf unless you rely on more expensive online single card retailers like Star City Games.

[Lago PARANOIA]

1) If you believe Frank's numbers, the fact that TTRPGs are in decline is a fact, not a myth. They are in jeopardy for some reason. If it's in jeopardy over a reason that the game developers can fix, then they should probably fix it don't you think?

2) The fact that non-TTRPG traditional games like board games are doing well has no impact on whether TTRPGs are doing okay. Settlers of Catan sold 15 million copies! Well, whoopty shit, how does that help us decide the long-term vision of 4E?

3) I'll believe you on boardgames, but not on wargames. All you said is that the customer base was really satisfied. While shedding a third of your potential customer base to increase sales by 50% is a valid strategy, shedding half of your PBC to increase sales by 75% is not. So customer satisfaction, while really important, is not by itself a good way to judge the 'afloatness' of a product. You judge the viability of a product by its customer base TIMES the satisfaction and quite frankly the former is a lot more important.

And honestly, I suspect that's why Pathfinder is selling even though the rules are shit. Paizo recognized very early on that a lot of RPG players don't just value good rules. They value companies that listen to their "needs".

I really, really doubt that even if you combined Pathfinder sales with 4E sales you'd get something that matched 3E's sales.

[TheFlatline]

Frank has a point. How many times can we do the same fucking settings over and over again?

Each edition everything starts over, but nothing really changes. Some of the furniture gets shuffled around, maybe one or two pieces thrown out and two or three new ones brought in, but Forgotten Realms still feels *exactly* like it did 15-20 years ago when I bought my 2nd edition copy of the campaign box.

Hell, mechanics aside, the theme of D&D and the feeling is identical to how it was 20 years ago. You're not selling a new model of a classic car, you're selling the same fucking car every year with aftermarket modifications thrown into it.

I'm tired of D&D. Seriously tired enough to question spending any more money on it. I mean, most of my D&D gamers I know aren't the absurd power-gamers who create builds like Pun Pun, they're casual gamers. Which begs the question: Why should I buy 4th edition over 3rd? If the rules work well enough, then why bother? Everyone already owns 3.x books.

5th edition needs to really address that question. A new rule set isn't enough. As much as I bitched about the direction that nWOD took, I understood completely why a reboot and a new setting was needed. oWOD was tired. However, White Wolf went and eviscerated their new settings in an attempt to avoid metaplot, which made nWOD suck.

I think 5th ed needs to take a drastic departure from the last 30 years of D&D. Frank's right, steampunk is in right now, and better yet, it's growing and not peaking yet. Making the default campaign of D&D steampunk might be radical enough to shake things up, while allowing hardcore fans to go back to Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.

It'll require *really* good writers though, and you can't fuck the rules up either. You only have one shot to hit the ball out of the park or you sink the IP. I'd personally rather risk it all and either succeed or fail in a single attempt than die a slow, inevitable death by continuing to reinvent the wheel.

[Zinegata]

1) If you believe Frank's numbers, the fact that TTRPGs are in decline is a fact, not a myth. They are in jeopardy for some reason. If it's in jeopardy over a reason that the game developers can fix, then they should probably fix it don't you think?

Lago, you're again horribly misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying that the day that a tabletop RPG can become mainstream is over. No amount of "fixing" by developers will change that. You can have whoever writer you want to do the next edition (even Frank and K), and at best we'd still be stuck at a mere 2 million or so players.

Stop worrying over the declining numbers. It's gone down. It's gonna hover at those levels. It's not gonna go up significantly in the high millions again.

Euros like Catan may have sold 15 million copies. But that's still a fraction of the lofty heights boardgames once achieved. Monopoly has seriously been played by between 500 million and 1 billion people. Similarly, a wargame in the 70s had a print run of about 50,000 to be called a success. Today, it's somewhere around 2000.

And before Catan and GMT, people were claiming that boardgames and wargames were heading towards total extinction.

What Catan and GMT proved however, is that being a smaller fish in a bigger pond is fine. You can STILL remain profitable, and you can continue to have a loyal fanbase.

2) The fact that non-TTRPG traditional games like board games are doing well has no impact on whether TTRPGs are doing okay. Settlers of Catan sold 15 million copies! Well, whoopty shit, how does that help us decide the long-term vision of 4E?

Stop with the bullshit of trying to gain the MMO market. They don't *care* about TTRPGs. Fuck, the D&D MMO's pen and paper RPG forums is seriously a ghost town.

Instead, focus on what D&D is good at - which is a highly complex, tabletop combat-heavy system with some Magic Tea Party thrown in that lets you play cool characters.

I'll even add in a controversial statement here: People who use Tome don't use it because they think it's "balanced". They use it because they think some of the Tome classes are cool from a mechanical and Magic Tea Party perspective. Focus on the market that likes cool shit like this, give them more cool shit like this (balance being largely optional), and you can sell an RPG.

3) I'll believe you on boardgames, but not on wargames. All you said is that the customer base was really satisfied. While shedding a third of your potential customer base to increase sales by 50% is a valid strategy, shedding half of your PBC to increase sales by 75% is not. So customer satisfaction, while really important, is not by itself a good way to judge the 'afloatness' of a product. You judge the viability of a product by its customer base TIMES the satisfaction and quite frankly the former is a lot more important.

I have no clue what equations you're talking about, because consumer satisfaction is not a nice, round number that you can simply multiply to a market base.

I really, really doubt that even if you combined Pathfinder sales with 4E sales you'd get something that matched 3E's sales.

Because again, the RPG market is real small right now. And it will probably remain so in the future. This is why even fucking Pathfinder is now big enough to be mentioned alongside D&D in the sales reports, as opposed to the old "D&D and everything else".

The idea that TTRPGs can become mainstream has come and gone. Time to acknowledge you're a highly specialized niche product where your focus should be having a few customers, but very loyal ones.

[Username17]

DnD has sold way more copies than Settlers of Cataan ever did. WotC's same numbers that show them circling the toilet for death spiral also posit twenty four million "lapsed players". That is to say that while the current number of people who buy DnD products is one tenth the number of people who ever bought Settlers, the number of people who ever bought DnD is five thirds as many.

RPGs are in trouble, yes. But they are in trouble because 4e sucks and Pathfinder is the second biggest game and the fourth biggest game is fucking Shadowrun, which is being driven off a damn cliff and the third biggest game is nWoD which is closing up shop and is currently on essentially a "print on demand" scheme that is 17 months behind schedule - hanging on to its title pretty much exclusively based on residuals from books they printed two years ago.

A vibrant new edition of, well, anything could easily kick Settlers in the nuts. There are a lot more RPG players than Settlers of Cataan players. It's just a question of getting them to actually spend money on your product.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Euros like Catan may have sold 15 million copies. But that's still a fraction of the lofty heights boardgames once achieved. Monopoly has seriously been played by between 500 million and 1 billion people.

No comment.

What Catan and GMT proved however, is that being a smaller fish in a bigger pond is fine. You can STILL remain profitable, and you can continue to have a loyal fanbase.

What exactly is the point of having a loyal fanbase if it's shrinking? Do you not understand how much harder it is to gain a profit by increasing sales to a small base than it is to increase the base?

Do you not get that if you lose a third of your fanbase, the remaining 2/3rds will need to buy 50% more to make up for the loss? That is really difficult, especially considering how PHBII will never sell as many copies as PHBI and PHBIII would have fewer still. It's just not a viable business strategy.

Having a loyal fanbase is good, but when it comes down to it fanbase loyalty is shit compared to fanbase size.

The idea that TTRPGs can become mainstream has come and gone. Time to acknowledge you're a highly specialized niche product where your focus should be having a few customers, but very loyal ones.

This deserves its own separate thread, which I am making right now.

[Zinegata]

DnD has sold way more copies than Settlers of Cataan ever did. WotC's same numbers that show them circling the toilet for death spiral also posit twenty four million "lapsed players". That is to say that while the current number of people who buy DnD products is one tenth the number of people who ever bought Settlers, the number of people who ever bought DnD is five thirds as many.

RPGs are in trouble, yes. But they are in trouble because 4e sucks and Pathfinder is the second biggest game and the fourth biggest game is fucking Shadowrun, which is being driven off a damn cliff and the third biggest game is nWoD which is closing up shop and is currently on essentially a "print on demand" scheme that is 17 months behind schedule - hanging on to its title pretty much exclusively based on residuals from books they printed two years ago.

A vibrant new edition of, well, anything could easily kick Settlers in the nuts. There are a lot more RPG players than Settlers of Cataan players. It's just a question of getting them to actually spend money on your product.

-Username17

You're citing 24 million lapsed players. Not sold books. Not all of those players will have a full set of books. Maybe one in four (hence the 6 million I cited).

And as I've already noted, Catan has sold fifteen million copies, each supporting about 4 players each, so that's seriously sixty million players.

Numbers of players and sold copies are NOT the same.

In any apples to apples comparison, Catan bulldozes through D&D. Especially considering D&D is over 30 years old (starting in 1974), while Catan is about half that age (starting in 1995).

Granted, add the supplements (including every issue of Dungeon and Dragon) and maybe D&D's numbers are better. But I seriously doubt it, because boardgame (including traditionals and not just Euros) have always been bigger than RPGs, even before CCGs.

EDIT: According to this bbc article, D&D book sales were at $1B by 2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3655627.stm

So that's 20 million books if we assume $50 a book, albeit that figure also includes sales of dice and other roleplaying aids.

This means that D&D has managed to outsell Catan by 5 million books (all supplements counted)... though mitigated by having a 21 year headstart. So D&D leads... for now.