Why I Cancelled My D&D 4e Books and Ordered C&C Inst

All topics including role playing games, board games, etc., etc.
TheNewGuy
Red Cap
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by TheNewGuy »

This post is a clarification to the original post ...

First, though, thanks to everyone -- especially Gideon -- for making it clear that I am not somehow under suspicion of starting a thread for nefarious purposes.

I truly was shocked by the altered nature of D&D 4e, and pleased by the more iconic feel of C&C -- and I really did want to start a "movie trailer discussion" type of dialogue to see what other people thought on these matters.

While I haven't posted a lot yet, I have genuinely enjoyed the intelligent, and often humorous, conversation which has ensued.

The side-topics which arise are as interesting to me as the main one, more often than not, and all of it gives me a better idea of the kind of folks who post here.

As we all know, there are good discussion forums, and there are horrible discussion forums (where the roads out of those hells are paved with the bones of the well-intentioned). I'm pleased to see that these TLG forums skew much more toward the friendly.

I'll post more, here, and elsewhere on these forums, as appropriate. First off, though, I wanted to clear up a misconception that's grown out of my original post.

When I first mentioned that Stephen Radney-McFarland of WotC went on to talk about the use of cards at the 4e gaming table, a few of you thought I meant Magic: The Gathering -type cards.

In fact, Radney-McFarland was talking about using index-card-like cards for things like tracking Initiative, and other 4e game states.

I didn't quote the section originally because, frankly, I found it long, dull and obvious. At most, it reiterated the point that (in my opinion, anyway) there sure does seem to be a sudden and powerful need for rigorous table-tracking of all kinds in D&D 4e -- a point I felt the earlier excerpts had already made.

But, in the interest of fairness and clarity for this discussion, here's the section on card use in Dungeons & Dragons, 4th edition, exactly as it appeared in the original article.

Please, again, I'm not posting this to invite scorn for 4e, or praise for C&C. It's here to put to rest the criticism that D&D 4e is somehow fusing with Magic: The Gathering. It's not. While C&C may be the preferred game hereabouts, we must give "that other game" its fair due.

Here's Stephen Radney-McFarland again, in his own words. This is my final excerption. If you simply must have more, I suggest you go sign up for a free D&D Insider web account, while they're still free.

Thanks to everyone for the ongoing discussion. It's much appreciated.

TheNewGuy
Quote:
Cards and More Cards

I really love using cards in my D&D games. Cards are portable and flexible information devices. They fit easily in the hand, and you can put a bunch of information on them. Right now, I am fitting entire 4th Edition D&D stat blocks on my 3x5 initiative cards with relative ease -- including my current monstrous bad guy, an adult red dragon named Nemisalat (and she's a solo creature to boot!). But I've lauded the virtues of initiative cards in this column before -- no need stomping old ground to death. For my 4th Edition games I've also been using condition, power, and magic item cards.

Condition cards are nothing new. There have been a number of publishers who've created condition cards, and many DMs use them. The reason that I think they'll be especially important in your 4th Edition D&D games is because there will be a period of time when everyone in the group is learning the rules, and the more you can avoid page flipping, the faster your first few sessions will run. While developing the new D&D edition, we made sure that the new conditions were simple, talked to one another, and were bullet-pointed so you don't have to wade through paragraphs to find the one clause you seek. This format lends itself to simple cards that convey information quickly. I hand players cards when their characters are afflicted with a condition, and they hand it back when the condition ends.

Power cards aren't entirely new either . . . other classes have had them in the past (mostly spell- or psionic-using classes, but weapon-users got their first taste of their use in Tome of Battle), but they are very helpful especially when you start playing 4th Edition. Like the casters of past editions, everyone in 4E has a healthy dose of interesting options they can employ in combat, and their use and reuse is determined by their rates of usage. While this greatly enhances choice and fun in game play, if you've never used a power-heavy class in past editions of D&D, this can seem a little daunting at first. Even relative veterans of the system (like my home playtest group) can find being thrown into a higher level of play daunting at first without some mnemonic tools. Writing even the most basic description of what a power does and on what page it appears only expedites game play. I know that some of you will scoff at using cards in a roleplaying game, but my sincere advice is to get over your hang-ups. Cards are tools, not the destroyer of roleplaying.

Many times the right card can enhance the roleplaying experience. I've been using the Paizo GameMastery item cards since their release and they're just as useful in 4E. They're relatively inexpensive, and they feature great art and basic descriptions, plus they offer enough room for you or your players to write what the item is or does on the back. They are especially handy to give out when the PCs have found an item, but aren't sure what its purpose (or true purpose) is yet. They are also very handy in that they allow your players to keep track of inventory and have a handy way of trading items . . . just pass the card along. There are, of course, other companies that produce similar products, and using index cards is probably the cheapest way of pulling off this particular time-saving trick.

TheNewGuy
Red Cap
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by TheNewGuy »

Breakdaddy wrote:
I think you will find C&C is a wonderfully fast and easy game to learn and play. That's what brings people in, I think. What keeps them coming back is the simplicity with which anyone can add their own house rules without causing major issues within the existing system.

That's what I'm hoping for -- and what I was trying (ineffectually) to contrast against what we know of D&D 4e thus far.

As treebore and others have suggested, true rpg games (as opposed to computer/console rpgs) are not typically intuitive. You need to be shown how they play to get the real feel for things.

As such, I have always believed that any rpg should have a simple, streamlined core play. Additional rules can come later, but the basic play experience should be easy to grasp.

The Castles & Crusades preface material makes it clear that C&C is intentionally designed to smooth the learning curve for new players, while leaving CKs plenty of tools for "ramping things up" later with easily-added customization and detail.

I was contrasting the C&C design philosophy against what we can see of D&D 4e thus far -- a game which seems complex and forbidding even to me, and I've been playing and running rpgs for decades.

The faster and easier rpg rules are to teach, the more players I can welcome; the less I have to research and wrangle the rules to get them to do what I need, the more I can concentrate on entertaining the players with action, storytelling, and fun.

Again, it looks like Castles & Crusades is poised to be my new fantasy rpg of choice.

Thanks for posting,

TheNewGuy

TheNewGuy
Red Cap
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by TheNewGuy »

Matthew wrote:
Old School systems like Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC and Castles & Crusades are not suitable for everyone, but then niether is D20 and that is rather the point.

Matthew,

You write such lucid posts, it seems criminal of me to cut your ideas down to just this one excerpt -- but this particular statement of yours twigged an idea for me that I feel compelled to mention to the general assembly:

While I completely understand the reasoning behind putting Castles & Crusades, OSRIC, and Labyrinth Lord in the same "old school" category -- if C&C was simply another note-for-note "remake" of early D&D, like those other systems, I probably wouldn't be here.

As an ancient gamer-lich, I have access to a large number of the vintage products; if all I wanted to do was recreate my gaming past, and live forevermore in Grognardia (off the bay of Old Coot), I probably could.

What drew me to C&C is that it goes beyond simply evoking the past. The SIEGE engine mechanics I've seen look a lot more flexible and intuitive than the 1e rules I cut my teeth on.

Sure, the early rules were simple, but they were also arbitrary (and hence, confining) in a lot of places. C&C may evoke the past, but the SIEGE game mechanics I've seen carry the "game DNA" of their modern origins. The rules are there to assist and enable CKs (DMs) and players in ways 1e really hadn't envisioned yet, back when "game support" meant little more than hireling price lists and sailing ship statistics.
I do realize that you were most likely only making a passing comment about old school -themed games in general, Matthew. However, your comment made me think about why I paid money for C&C when I've already acquired OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord for free.

Hope you don't mind the tangent, sir,

Thanks for posting,

TheNewGuy

User avatar
gideon_thorne
Maukling
Posts: 6176
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by gideon_thorne »

TheNewGuy wrote:
While I completely understand the reasoning behind putting Castles & Crusades, OSRIC, and Labyrinth Lord in the same "old school" category -- if C&C was simply another note-for-note "remake" of early D&D, like those other systems, I probably wouldn't be here.

As an ancient gamer-lich, I have access to a large number of the vintage products; if all I wanted to do was recreate my gaming past, and live forevermore in Grognardia (off the bay of Old Coot), I probably could.

What drew me to C&C is that it goes beyond simply evoking the past. The SIEGE engine mechanics I've seen look a lot more flexible and intuitive than the 1e rules I cut my teeth on.

Sure, the early rules were simple, but they were also arbitrary (and hence, confining) in a lot of places. C&C may evoke the past, but the SIEGE game mechanics I've seen carry the "game DNA" of their modern origins. The rules are there to assist and enable CKs (DMs) and players in ways 1e really hadn't envisioned yet, back when "game support" meant little more than hireling price lists and sailing ship statistics.
I do realize that you were most likely only making a passing comment about old school -themed games in general, Matthew. However, your comment made me think about why I paid money for C&C when I've already acquired OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord for free.

Hope you don't mind the tangent, sir,

Thanks for posting,

TheNewGuy

A far more common attitude than most realize. I see this a lot when I am going to various conventions. Most folks want new, but at the same time without straying too far afield.

Game design is such a fuzzy subject, but those who pioneered the field certainly winged it in the design as much as they did the play. Which is a perfectly valid means of conceptualizing.

"That sounds good, throw it in there" was the order of the day.

C&C kinda went at it backwards. "Whats the minimal core of the game that people can build upon".

Build up on a good foundation. Always a sensible philosophy.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach

Lord Falcon MacGreggor
Mist Elf
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:00 am

Post by Lord Falcon MacGreggor »

I agree with Gideon, I have been DMing for decades. I started with OD&D, then added stuff from AD&D. When 2E came out, I looked at some of the books, and added parts of the 2E system to my game.

I skipped over 3E altogether, (Mainly because I didn't know they had doen it) And then we adopted the 3.5 combat system to our game so that our younger players can 'see' what is happening on the table before them.

Once we did that, we needed to adopt more of the 3.5 rules to accomodate the combat system, but all in all, I still run the game as I always have.

Although I have 'stolen' revisions from each edition that has come out, my game is still a 'role-play' at heart, and allows my younger players the ability to understand that I won't always allow them a roll for a skill check when they have the chance to talk their way out of a jam. (Or into one if they are not careful with their wording.)
_________________
As far as YOU can tell . . . the door is not trapped.

Harry Joy
Ulthal
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Harry Joy »

Cards, cards and more cards?
Quote:
Like the casters of past editions, everyone in 4E has a healthy dose of interesting options they can employ in combat, and their use and reuse is determined by their rates of usage. While this greatly enhances choice and fun in game play, if you've never used a power-heavy class in past editions of D&D, this can seem a little daunting at first. Even relative veterans of the system (like my home playtest group) can find being thrown into a higher level of play daunting at first without some mnemonic tools.

I have this mnemonic tool that I created... It's really quite clever. Do you folks think it has any merit? 'Cause I was thinking of patenting it... See, I take this yellow magic marker. You know, those ones you never use and wonder why they even make them? And I mark up the important and most often over-looked parts of my character sheets with them! Pretty neat, huh?

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

No problems on this end, run off on tangents and cut away!
Sure, Castles & Crusades occupies a different space from Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC, in that it is not a Simulacrum Game, and by 'old school' I had something somewhat intangible, and certainly subjective, in mind. Part of the charm of C&C is that it is not virtually identical to BD&D or AD&D 1e/2e, whilst it also appeals because it remains compatable with those systems. In fact, if C&C were AD&D 3e, I might have been impressed with the degree of backwards compatability and integration of a modern standardised system.

In all fairness, I ought to say that I don't actually use the SIEGE System myself, but I fully recognise its significance and appeal. Indeed, I consider it to be the signature mechanical innovation of C&C and the means of reaching a broader audience.

To put it another way, I am grateful that all three exist, because I feel that they each have a distinct role to play as interelated 'old school' alternatives to 'mainstream' D20. In any case, I am glad that you have found in Castles & Crusades something more suitable for you than D20 2e!
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Dristram
Ulthal
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Dristram »

I guess roleplaying is roleplaying and only so much can be said on that, thus why all the previews seem to focus on the game combat mechanics. But it begins feeling like I'm reading about some new miniatures game. Cards being used for initiative tracking is nothing new, but using cards to represent a character's condition or state in the combat feels very miniatures game-like. Now with the mention of how whole character stats can fit easily on one card, it feels like 4e is trying to merge D&D with D&D Miniatures.

I personally feel that 4e will be a really cool game for what it is. It just won't be D&D to me.

sieg
Unkbartig
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am

Post by sieg »

Well said Matthew.
Re: Cards and quoted text,

...Again, what annoys me about that bit of quoted text isn't so much cards as reference tools. In 1978 we used 3x5s to keep entire characters on.
What's annoying is that (to me) sanctimonious attitude of its author. Does Mr. MacF. always write like he's talking down to people who aren't as sophisticated as himself? "Cards are great because I say so and if you don't agree you need to get over your hangup."

Feh,

Ok, I've been told feeding time's over. Back to the cage again.
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

User avatar
qstor
Ungern
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by qstor »

serleran wrote:
There are a few RPGs that do wounds to the level where "bloodied" makes sense. D&D has never been one of them.

Right like GUPRS or the Hero system.

Stephen Radney-McFarland kinda messed up the RPGA. Now he's a 4 spokesperson yikes.

I played some of the demo games at D&D Experience. 4e really wasn't for me. If they took the name Dungeons and Dragons off the covers and called it something else, I think thats what it SHOULD be. It just didnt seem like D&D to me. For one thing they've gotten rid of the Vancian magic system. That to me is a historic part of D&D. They did it cause WOTC claimed that 3.5 needed to be retooled or that high level combat in 3.5e was taking too long. I think around 2005 they wanted to sell more books for computer gamers. 2005 is when they came up with the idea of 4e. Doesn't make sense to me....

Mike
_________________
"I am a Ranger. We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass. We live for the One we die for the One"

Marcus B5
"No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by the force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom."
--G'Kar from “Babylon 5”

rabindranath72
Lore Drake
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:00 am

Post by rabindranath72 »

4e quite strongly reminds me of the hasbro D&D board game. It can be fun, but it is a board game nonetheless.

Darius
Ungern
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:00 am

Post by Darius »

Whether or not it succeeds, I understand the direction of 4E. I do not have the 3.0+ figures at hand, but their sales are better than 2E, but only about 75% of OAD&D. Most of the "rpg" market is in computer games.

So, if you are wanting to grow your player base, you need to compete with games such as World of Warcraft with its 10 million subscribers. I think the goal is to make D&D have similar features to online rpgs. I also think that they are seeing the subscription model that online games use as the best way to increase their profit. This is why they are going to have all of the online stuff they are adding.

When you are competing with something, you have two choices. You either point out the differences and use those as a selling point, or you make it similar. 4E has gone with the latter choice and only time will tell if it works out.

But I think 4E is the natural course of the game. 1st and 2nd edition shared most of the basic rules, at least until the later years of 2E. 3E marks a different rule system designed for different sorts of players. 4E builds off of the 3E mechanics and I think it is a natural growth for how 3E product design is.

Certainly there will be people upset with 4E and C&C is in a good enough place to pick up some of those players. But I suspect for those that do not need new books all of the time, if they are happy with 3E they will just stick with it much in the same way many people still play OAD&D.

jfall
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:00 am

Post by jfall »

So this thread finally persuaded me to go and read about the DnD experience event as well as some insight into what shape this newest iteration of the game might take.

I'm not going to go into the "bashing" mode for two reasons:

1. I haven't played it.

2. I'm likely to play it. (Not DM it though.)

Now saying that I'd also like to state that I am playing in a Castles and Crusades game as well as a house-ruled DnD 3.5 game. Oh, and I'm not at all, in any way shape or form criticizing thenewguy's post either. Heck, it got me to go out and read a bit.

I'll just throw in my 2 coppers. Not that it really matters at this point. Most of us here are a certain niche segment, and are, in one way shape or form, either open minded enough to at least look at C&C as a perfectly acceptable set of FRPG rules, or there's something attractive in the rules that correlates to what we're looking for in this type of game.

I started role playing after I had played the original Chain mail rules way back in the 70's. I was in love with miniature's gaming. I guess I'm trying to say that I know what a miniature's game looks like. I've played plenty of them.

Granted, what we've heard is targeted at combat for a reason: It's fairly difficult to portray the "role playing" aspect of the game in a 30 minute demonstration. But, while I was perusing the blogs and posts regarding 4e, I came across a post (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Comm ... logid=2100)

that was talking about more than just combat. Ah ha! I thought.. Now here's something that's indicative of what I'm looking for in terms of crunchy, non-combat related rules.

And then I read this "but I was able to do this and succeed because I had options that let me choose a course of action. I knew that I'd take more damage without a shield, but I also knew I had an at-will power that provided me with temporary hit points, effectively acting as a round-by-round buffer against death." And I immediately thought to myself, you need codified "options" in order to role play? If you don't understand what I mean, then please read the blog in order to gain context. For some reason that sentence stuck in my craw...

I'm not such a C&C fanboy, so blind in my devotion, that I poo poo all other game systems. I like the game... Heck, I like it a LOT. But... it was that one little sentence that really made me think, man, C&C just fits my style. This is MY game.
_________________
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.'

Lewis Carroll

TheNewGuy
Red Cap
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by TheNewGuy »

Darius wrote:
When you are competing with something, you have two choices. You either point out the differences and use those as a selling point, or you make it similar. 4E has gone with the latter choice and only time will tell if it works out.

True enough, Darius, but as long as we're all in "speculate over the movie trailers" mode in this thread, I have to wonder if the changes WotC is making will bring unforeseen repercussions.

It does make a certain sense to say "Hey, let's go after the online rpg fan", but the two markets are not identical, although they do overlap.

I have to wonder, if you change your core product sufficiently in an attempt to add demographic 2 to demographic 1, do you actually risk losing large parts of the original demographic in the attempt to create demographic 1+2?

I'll stick with examples from the world of online rpgs, since that's the focus of our theorizin' here
At the recent Game Developers Conference, Jack Emmert -- lead developer at Cryptic Studios, the guys who made the online superhero rpg City of Heroes/Villains, and who are now creating Champions Online -- gave a talk about what CoH/CoV did right, and what it did wrong, as Cryptic's first massively-multiplyer online role-playing game.

One of the things Emmert emphasized was, "If it's not there at launch, it's not there", and cautioned against the dangers of implementing too many changes to a game "after the fact".

His example beyond his own City of Heroes was, of course, "Star Wars Galaxies"-- the online game which attempted to radically re-invent it's own gameplay in mid-stream.

Emmert makes a point which is, I think, relevant to what's going on with 4e and C&C.

He skips the endless debate over which version of SWG is "better", and instead points out that, now that the dust has settled, it appears that SWG merely gained new players while losing a large segment of the original players.

In the end, SWG didn't so much grow their existing demographic, as simply swap one demographic for another.

I don't want to risk putting words in Emmert's mouth unfairly. I invite everyone to read Emmert's comments for themselves HERE

Since we're speculating, Darius, I have to wonder how this bodes for 4e's market strategy. In changing their core product significantly, will they add a new portion of game-players, as they hope -- or will they simply gain different players, while the existing players move on?

As I keep saying, for me, this is a friendly/humorous discussion/speculation thread -- it's not about "C&C = Good, 4e = Bad".

I will say, however, the C&C design model of a simple, clear, accessible and recognizable core rules mechanic -- which can then be modified and complicated to taste by the end user makes more business sense to me.

I guess, in the end, what 4e's doing looks risky to me. They appear to be complicating and changing the fundamental nature of their gameplay, instead of offering the latest innovations as modular additions to a familiar, basic mechanic.

The learning (and playing) curve seems to have jumped up; a strange choice, considering that the online/console gamer demographic actually plays a form of rpg which has most of the "crunch work" done for the user on the fly by the computer/console.

I play these games myself regularly, and they seem simpler to me (from an end-user perspective) than either C&C or 4e.

So, since we're wondering aloud in print here, I'm wondering if 4e is indeed "reinventing" itself -- and in such a way which misunderstands the essential nature of the additional demographic they hope to capture?

Castles & Crusades, with its simple-yet-expandable core mechanic, would seem a much easier sell.

But I'm just speculating, Darius, not debating or arguing. I do appreciate you taking the time to put forward your thoughts, and I hope I haven't bored you too much with my own.
TheNewGuy

K2h2m3
Red Cap
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:00 am

Post by K2h2m3 »

You definitely hit upon some of the same things I have been wondering about.

Darius
Ungern
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:00 am

Post by Darius »

Speculation is all that we have in terms of the success of 4E. For the record I do not like 3E, or probably 4E nor do I like C&C. So I have no vested interest in any of these "winning."

I do think WotC is taking a risk. Here is what we know from the past. D&D very successful. AD&D even more successful. 2E sold less than 50% of the number of books as AD&D. 2E ran TSR into the ground to the point where it was sell or bankruptcy. I think they were $18 million in debt. I am not going to speculate to the ultimate case why. But I will point out that the core mechanics were essentially the same and that many people just stuck with AD&D or gave up gaming from what I have seen.

3E is a different mechanic. It is so different that I do not really think it should be regarded as the same game. This new mechanics, however, proved to be a success. It has sold around 75% of the amount of books at OAD&D. It even survived going from 3.0-3.5.

From what I have seen 4E is going to have a similar mechanic to 3E, but with obvious differences. 4E will either pull in new gamers or keep the 3E gamers. It will probably do both. The real question is how much of each and if they will be able to keep the same success with 4E as they did with 3E. From WotC perspective, I doubt they really care if they players they have are old or new - just that there are a lot of them.

I think they are working on the assumption that the young players (14-20) are the main players to go after. They are into computer games. They placed the bets by trying to appeal to those people in a certain way. I am not sure that this was the best thing for them to do. We will know about a year from now.

I think what is clear is that gaming needs to grow. 3E reached a saturation point. As those players age they are less likely to play and purchase new books. You therefore need to attract new players. So they had to make a change. There are various models that can work for putting out new editions. Given 3E development, I think the choose the option and making everyone buy new core rule books. This way at least some of your current audience that is no longer buying books will buy a new set of core rule books. At the same time you plan for the future by trying to find a way to appeal to the kids.

The other way is simply to try and grow the entire industry. If you can do that, then there is a large audience to buy your books. A new edition that condenses rules found in various books is a better approach. I think WotC is trying to appeal to a certain segment of the population, but not necessarily going out of their way to grow the industry.

Does anyone recall the old D&D TV spots where it was a Dad playing D&D with his kids? That is how you try to grow an entire industry. But that hasn't been the model for a couple of decades. Unfortunately, WotC is the only one with the name and money to do anything to help the industry if they really wanted to.

TheNewGuy
Red Cap
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by TheNewGuy »

Darius wrote:
Does anyone recall the old D&D TV spots where it was a Dad playing D&D with his kids? That is how you try to grow an entire industry. But that hasn't been the model for a couple of decades. Unfortunately, WotC is the only one with the name and money to do anything to help the industry if they really wanted to.

Well articulated, certainly, Darius. I only quoted your last paragraph as a general reference, as all your points interconnect seamlessly.

I guess the only (rhetorical?) question I would ask at this point would be: Given that what we can see of D&D 4e from here, the game looks to be more complex and rules-heavy in it's entry-level form than any previous edition of D&D; is this the best way to attract new, younger gamers, and to set up the kind of "generational gaming", you describe?

I look at C&C's design philosophy in comparison (and no, I'm not championing it; it's a fair mechanics contrast, especially here ), and I have to wonder -- at the very least -- if WotC is making their recruitment agenda even harder for themselves than it needs to be.

That's all. Thanks for the well-thought response. It's appreciated.

TheNewGuy -- who wonders, on a lighter note, why you visit this humble forum if you don't even like C&C?

User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3735
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by moriarty777 »

TheNewGuy wrote:
Well articulated, certainly, Darius. I only quoted your last paragraph as a general reference, as all your points interconnect seamlessly.

I guess the only (rhetorical?) question I would ask at this point would be: Given that what we can see of D&D 4e from here, the game looks to be more complex and rules-heavy in it's entry-level form than any previous edition of D&D; is this the best way to attract new, younger gamers, and to set up the kind of "generational gaming", you describe?

I look at C&C's design philosophy in comparison (and no, I'm not championing it; it's a fair mechanics contrast, especially here ), and I have to wonder -- at the very least -- if WotC is making their recruitment agenda even harder for themselves than it needs to be.

That's all. Thanks for the well-thought response. It's appreciated.

TheNewGuy -- who wonders, on a lighter note, why you visit this humble forum if you don't even like C&C?

Easy enough to answer... Darius is a fan of Lejendary Adventures which TLG also currently produces and supports.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
Image

jfall
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:00 am

Post by jfall »

Darius wrote:
2E sold less than 50% of the number of books as AD&D.

This is true... but I think that there were a few societal impacts upon the game at the time that also influenced the market. (e.g. MADD. Not Drunk Drivers.) Times have changed though. WoW is so pervasive that it's changed the landscape quite dramatically.
Darius wrote:
3E... It has sold around 75% of the amount of books at OAD&D. It even survived going from 3.0-3.5.
Do you think that some of this might have been them opening it up? (OGL) Seems to me (speculation only, no data behind this) that a lot of the success came from outside of WotC. They were brilliant in making that move with the game, but if I've understood what I've read correctly, they now see a cash cow that's ripe for the plundering. (i.e. they're now charging for companies to develop off of the OGL)
Darius wrote:
I think they are working on the assumption that the young players (14-20) are the main players to go after. They are into computer games. They placed the bets by trying to appeal to those people in a certain way. I am not sure that this was the best thing for them to do. We will know about a year from now.
I completely agree... it's a different landscape today than it was 30+ years ago when the game was first released, and to be perfectly honest, I'm not certain that a game like this (tabletop Paper and Pencil) will ever enjoy that initial success again. Call me a cynic...
Darius wrote:
At the same time you plan for the future by trying to find a way to appeal to the kids.
&
Darius wrote:
Does anyone recall the old D&D TV spots where it was a Dad playing D&D with his kids? That is how you try to grow an entire industry.
This is the key for sure. I see this as being something that's been forgotten in the current day and age. Families just don't play games together much anymore. That's a broad statement, I know. But seriously, resurrect some of those older players (who most likely have children) by bringing them back into the fold and have them introduce the hobby to their kids.
TheNewGuy wrote:
I guess, in the end, what 4e's doing looks risky to me. They appear to be complicating and changing the fundamental nature of their gameplay, instead of offering the latest innovations as modular additions to a familiar, basic mechanic.
But if we look at what's sold well in the past decade in terms of games ('Clix', MtG, Pokemon, etc.) then this makes perfect marketing sense if you're trying to appeal to a new segment.

But, I think they're doing it wrong. (hubris I know..."sigh") See the above argument re: growing it organically. The best diplomats of the game that exist out there today are the "old guard". Those of us that are already hooked. We are the ones that they should be appealing to. I would hazard that a LOT of the success of 3e was bringing ex-gamers back to the table. Tie that in with the brilliance of the OGL and the release of new product (and the added marketing from THOSE companies) and we've come full circle and have an answer for the success of 3e(+). Can this be repeated?

Hasbro has a lot of money to dump into marketing this thing. And we all know what slick marketing can accomplish. So yeah, it'll sell. But here's the question: IF you move 30 years into the future, will those same people be sitting around a table playing THAT game? Will they be teaching their children THAT game?

Maybe... but for some reason I doubt it.
_________________
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.'

Lewis Carroll

rumcove
Skobbit
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by rumcove »

Darius wrote:
This new mechanics, however, proved to be a success. It has sold around 75% of the amount of books at OAD&D.

I don't think the success or failure of any edition was the result of the mechanics. As Jfall mentioned, social influences cannot be overlooked. By the time 3rd edition came out, D&D was a household name (and yes, one could argue that it was before, but being condemned in church circles doesn't help).

Video games, at that time actually HELPED attract new gamers. For example, the Baldur's Gate series introduced younger players or those that had never been around a table before, to the system. The social aspect was limited in the video game and if they found a table or formed one with their friends, the camaraderie and open-ended sandbox would be highly appealing compared to the limitations from the computer.

Then came the MMORPG.

Personally, I don't think WotC is expecting to convert many of the online gamers (or I'd say they are foolish to try). From what I've seen, I'd reckon they are targeting collectible card and miniature game players, where a lot of the original target demographic went to in the 90s. Note that AD&D never had to compete with these and I think it was a rarely discussed factor in what happened to 2nd edition.

4e has been built better than any previous edition from a financial standpoint. Most will only buy so many variations of "splatbooks", but put out a goblin miniature in a new pose and you've got the Smurfs all over again!

*takes a deep breath*

rumcove
Skobbit
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by rumcove »

Also, I don't agree with the notion that 4e is too complex to attract new gamers.

From what I've seen, at it's core, it is very simple. All the options, which may seem like a mess to slow the game down, are self-contained rulings for specific situations. The book-keeping might scare some, but the complexity of the system? I doubt it. Rookies will most likely fail to abuse their list of powers.

And if anyone needs to defend calling 4e a derivative of a CCG, one should know that I've read interviews with the designers/WotC employees where they mention "interrupts" at higher levels.

JFall, I had read that blog post you mentioned and experienced the same feelings. Confusing meta-gaming with role-playing is a personal pet peeve. To each their own, I guess.

rumcove
Skobbit
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am

Post by rumcove »

Gideon was right.

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13905
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Quote:
Gideon was right.

Don't ever say that again.

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Post by Omote »

serleran wrote:
Don't ever say that again.

Indeed, that is but part of an incantrical saying that might tear apart the fabric our our universe, should the stars be aligned just right.

BEWARE!

-
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

Lucifer_Draconus
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Lucifer_Draconus »

I for one won't buy 4th ed.,I had considered it prior to paging through their $20 preview (what a joke).What cemented my descision was when they up'ed the timeline in FR 100 YEARS! That & started "rifting" bits of other worlds into FR.Plus the getting rid of Gnomes (& possiblly Half-orcs).

But my brother most likely will.As they are adding his favorite bits from "Tomb of Battle " & adding Warforged to the core game.He's a power gamer & loves miniture games ala WH 40k n' Warmachine.

edit: I almost forgot..I will think about buying the new Eberron stuff when it comes out.As I'm collecting what I can of the current ed. used right now.
_________________
Let me wet my blade with your blood.

RIP Gary Gygax you will be missed.

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

jfall wrote:
This is true... but I think that there were a few societal impacts upon the game at the time that also influenced the market. (e.g. MADD. Not Drunk Drivers.) Times have changed though. WoW is so pervasive that it's changed the landscape quite dramatically.

Where are we drawing our figures from for this statement and what are we including as 'books'? The way I hear it, AD&D 2e sold even better than AD&D 1e in terms of gross volume of product, TSR just produced a lot more units than it sold.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Darius
Ungern
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:00 am

Post by Darius »

Matthew wrote:
Where are we drawing our figures from for this statement and what are we including as 'books'? The way I hear it, AD&D 2e sold even better than AD&D 1e in terms of gross volume of product, TSR just produced a lot more units than it sold.

I got my figures from Gary. He gave me at various times how this was done and roughly the actual numbers in one case. I only recall the percentages and how much money TSR was in debt. I also recall that Gary claimed that adventures were a huge success for TSR but weren't for 2E. I found one thing that Gary wrote which is that TSR was $30 million in debt in 1997.

But even if we grant that they sold a lot of additional books and just look at the core books, this means that you have lose 50% of your player base. Further, that even exploiting that player base with tons of books was not enough to keep them from going massively into debt.

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Was Gary privy to TSR sales figures after 1985? Were they published somewhere?
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

papercut
Red Cap
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:00 am

Post by papercut »

I would think that Hasbro is a much more sophisticated firm than TSR. They have sharper marketing minds that will look at the playtesting and market research data.

They are not making 4e in a vacuum (as 0,1, and 2e were). 4e fits in with the companies long term strategy, which is probably very different than the TSR strategy. Think of it more as an annuity rather than of quarterly sales- in WOW terms, dots versus burst damage- warlock versus paladin (Gygax TSR may have had this strategy as well- modules rather than box set after box set).

Wotc is very good at that, look at all of their products. $14 a month for all of the content is cheaper than WOW, and you don't have all those books cluttering up your life. Plus, $168 a year is about the price of 4-5 books, so a high use player may actually get good value and it is not a requirement to buy into online play. Who knows if the online version will be any good?

It could be great, I wish there was an all in one way to play RPGs with my pals abroad; there are kloogy ways to do it, people want to have convenience though. Maybe the online version will be simple and open enough to run older versions of DnD (ie CnC) as well.

I would imagine that Wotc doesn't really care about the old school audience, that cat is already out of the bag (plus they receive revenue from the PDFs). It wants to attract new buyers, and the buyers who want to keep up with the system. Younger kids have a different way to process visual data and a stronger instant feedback addiction. Video games offer this kind of stimulation. Power gaming as a mentality demands stimulation as well- remember 2.5.

Basically, 4e was made for today's market, one could view it as the first real modern mass market take on fantasty pnp roleplay. 3e was the real money grab. It will be interesting what the pros ( ) at Hasbro come out with next. All forms of entertainment need to keep up and be refreshed or they will disappear - just look at vaudeville or football. One could argue vaudeville still exists, but in a very different form on TV. Is there any one who watches the third game of the Atlanta Falcons' 1985 season? And if so, how does it generate revenue? How many people still run Molten Core, or Naxx (hehe, another WOW reference, see how the world is changing).

jaguar451
Ulthal
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:00 am

Post by jaguar451 »

I wonder what percentage of WotC's $$$ comes from computer game licenses (D&D online, Neverwinter Nights, .....) -- from the little that I've heard, 4E sounds well suited for computer games....

Post Reply