I was kind of trying to stay out of this, but let's face it, it's a big deal. The announcement of 5th Edition has stirred up a lot of chatter on the internet.
Only four/five years since 4th came out and they're already talking of a new one? Sorry, but it's always been my opinion that Wizards of the Coast dropped the ball on D&D and became so focused on the competition they thought they were up against from the MMORPG world they ended up emulating it with subscriptions and the like, and throwing it together quickly and sloppily to get it on the shelves, and then marketing it to the wrong crowd. Why try to impress existing gamers? Roleplayers are already roleplaying - we needed fresh blood in the hobby!
I always said, it needs to be on the toystore shelves, in The Entertainer or in W.H.Smiths, or on the shelves in Tesco. It needs to go back to it's roots as a game for kids and the family - Wizards of the Coast just wanted to impress and cater to the existing gamer groups and probably didn't think for one second that they could bring in new blood; at least, that's how I saw it because they did nothing to make it accessible to the beginning gamer, and the Essentials line was just a waste of time.
They need to leave out the old school players who are writing this stuff and who think they know best and bring in sub-30 year old writers who remember how to have fun, with the old-schoolers looking over their shoulders, and have a look at the rules-lite systems and strip the whole thing down to a version of the servicable 3.x Edition and rebuild it. But, make it a hell of a lot simpler and much more accessible to new gamers. The starter box they did in 2010 was a great idea, almost inspired, but it needed to be a simple, basic game for new gamers. And the three core rulebooks? Why? ONE BOOK! With everything in there for new gamers to run game after game after game! All the supplements could be modular.
I don't know, we'll see, I guess. I admit, I had fun with 4e when I played it a couple of years ago. Let's hope they've learned a thing or two over the last few years.
Your destination for fast, simple TTRPGs - home of Fireteam, Deep Space, Cyber Streets and adventures for the Those Dark Places RPG from Osprey Games
ONE BOOK!
ReplyDeleteHeck yes. I'm sure that the only reason the three core manuals model has hung around for so long is nostalgia, and as you rightly point out, appealing to the thirty years crowd is not the way forward.
(One might argue that three books make more money than one, but since there's always a second or third volume of the core manuals anyway, they could make the same money selling a one-volume edition plus supplements. It's AD&D nostalgia, pure and simple.)
There's something telling that if you ask long-term fans which is the best -- not necessarily favourite, but best -- edition of D&D, you'll probably get the mid-90's Cyclopedia as the answer. I'm sure it's because it's a complete version of the game in one volume.
'It needs to go back to it's roots as a game for kids and the family':
DeleteD&D was played by and marketed for adults initially.(Though Gygax's kids, mostly Ernie and Elise[IIRC], helped playtest it!) It grew out of Wargaming, as you might recall. Kids came in almost incidentally(Rob Kuntz and Michael Mornard became regulars at EGG's table), and then TSR decided to aim a simpler version at them and those adults who didn't appreciate the complexity of D&D.
As for making D&D a 'family' boardgame, nothing would probably kill it faster, imo.(You mean, like Candyland or Monopoly?) You could have a Heroquest or Dungeon game for family Hack 'n' Slash! :-) I feel kids should play in their own groups, where they can be themselves.(Or with understanding adults...) That's the way me and my friends played the game, and as I understand, I'm not alone on this.
As for one book, that'd be a great idea, as would a cheap, easy to use, widely available Box Set. Which should be based on B/X(or something similar[it's quick to generate PCs, and plays fast!]), rather than 3.X, imo.
'They need to leave out the old school players who are writing this stuff and who think they know best and bring in sub-30 year old writers who remember how to have fun, with the old-schoolers looking over their shoulders'
If old-schoolers don't remember how to have fun, why should they have any input at all? :-/ Way to leave out a possible demographic target. Also, 'sub-30 somethings' might have cultural influences that you seem to think don't belong in RPGs, ya know like WoW, fer instance. :-)
@Kelvin Green:
3 Books:
It's the cash. The DM needs all 3, and many players will buy the handbook(say 4 out of 5 or so), and then there's the ones who buy DM-stuff despite not being the Judge.... I mean, for the average group, measured as 6 players and a DM, that's 5 PHBs, a MM, and a DMG. Many people don't seem to feel the need to purchase all in one gamebooks(the way the majority of RPGs used to be published, following the heyday of the Wargame) in the same numbers as I understand.(Plus, the book has all the 'secret' stuff the Players aren't supposed to see...)
'There's something telling that if you ask long-term fans which is the best -- not necessarily favourite, but best -- edition of D&D, you'll probably get the mid-90's Cyclopedia as the answer. I'm sure it's because it's a complete version of the game in one volume.':
Yeah, it's usually B/X or Cyclopedia, ime.
I'm not sure it is the cash, because there's always a PHB2, MM3 and so on anyway, so they're still making that cash. There's no reason why they can't put out a complete game in one book then release supplements; after all, that's how every other game does it.
DeleteThat's what makes me think it's nostalgia for the AD&D three-core-books model.
'D&D was played by and marketed for adults initially.(Though Gygax's kids, mostly Ernie and Elise[IIRC], helped playtest it!) It grew out of Wargaming, as you might recall. Kids came in almost incidentally(Rob Kuntz and Michael Mornard became regulars at EGG's table), and then TSR decided to aim a simpler version at them and those adults who didn't appreciate the complexity of D&D.'
ReplyDeleteAnd it was when the game was targeted at kids that it really took off, and they progressd for the most part, ontp the AD&D stuff. That's in my experience, of course.
'As for making D&D a 'family' boardgame, nothing would probably kill it faster, imo.(You mean, like Candyland or Monopoly?) You could have a Heroquest or Dungeon game for family Hack 'n' Slash! :-) I feel kids should play in their own groups, where they can be themselves.(Or with understanding adults...) That's the way me and my friends played the game, and as I understand, I'm not alone on this.'
Perhaps it was marketed differently over here - D&D red box sat on the shelves in out local toyshop and newsagents along with the other boardgames, and the miniatures and paints with them. The target audience was the kid and the family around them and, even though I never purchased D&D as a family game, I did play it with my family. The idea is that they shouldn't try to target the kid gamers who might buy it, they should try to make it part of the general gaming market and allow it to grow that way.
'As for one book, that'd be a great idea, as would a cheap, easy to use, widely available Box Set. Which should be based on B/X(or something similar[it's quick to generate PCs, and plays fast!]), rather than 3.X, imo.'
Yeah, good point about B/X, that would make it much more accesible. The problem with the existing books is that they may be comprehensive but they appear complicated, and that puts a lot of people off, even more so if they have to buy more than one book and not know where to start.
'If old-schoolers don't remember how to have fun, why should they have any input at all? :-/ Way to leave out a possible demographic target. Also, 'sub-30 somethings' might have cultural influences that you seem to think don't belong in RPGs, ya know like WoW, fer instance. :-)'
It's why I said that the old-schoolers have to look over the shoulders of the younger writers, as they can remember what made the game special in the first place. What concerns me is any new game getting bogged down with so-called gaming theory and opinions derived from a thousand combined years of gaming - the experience is definitely necessary but shouldn't mould the game or it just becomes a heartbreaker. The demographic won't be left out, after all many of these old-schoolers are OSR players so they're still living the old game. No reason why they can't enjoy the new one, too.
Younger writers doesn't necessarilty mean a different cultural influence, but it can't hurt. And I'm not sure we need worry about WoW's influence - we already saw enough of that in 4th edition! :)
RPG ads in the U.S.A.:
DeleteIn the U. S. of the early to late 80's D&D was advertised in kid's mags, comics(when everyone still read them), in general gaming mags, and on television(you can see a couple on youtube.). They focused almost entirely on kids playing, with nary an adult in sight. The Box Sets and Moldvay/Cook/Marsh's Basic/Expert Books were found everywhere you cared to look(drug stores, hardware stores, toy stores, department stores, game stores, comic shops, sometimes even the local gas station...), due in part to a) 'looser' corporate ethos at the time that didn't care as much about uniform store layout/goods, and b) the popularity of fantasy in the general culture at the moment.
'The idea is that they shouldn't try to target the kid gamers who might buy it, they should try to make it part of the general gaming market and allow it to grow that way.':
TSR tried that with their Big Black Box(The New, Easy To Master DUngeons and Dragons Game) in '91(updated slightly in '96 when it went from a 'landscape' box to a 'portrait' box, sans its 'beginner's learning deck' and board game rules, and a title change [and cover[then back to the original , but still in portrait *wha?*:-P] to the Classic Dungeons and Dragons Game.), which was sold in hobby/comic shops, toy stores, and Wal-Mart amongst other places... The initial Black Box had some board game rules and components independent of the supplied RPG mechanics seemingly to disguise the fact it was an RPG rather than a board game like any of its shelfmates. From what I understand, it did quite well, but I rarely see/meet/read/hear of anyone who got in to RPGs because of it or the semi-related boardgames I mention below.
Non-RPG dungeon crawlers like Heroquest also had a great early to mid 90's run. Then there was the 3-Ed Era D&D Fantasy Adventure Game(it was sold only in Europe[and in a lot by Paizo years later :-/]|though the box says it is distributed in America by Hasbro!|). I love these, but they're not RPGs. Neither of course, is WOTC's latest offering: the Castle Ravenloft Board Game(despite its use of stripped down 4E mechanics) and its ilk.
I just want the games to be available, and played everywhere, myself. Whether family members play together is irrelevant, imo.(Though good on ya if your family is cool like that!) I'd rather not have the game labelled as a 'family' activity, with all the hum-drum mundanity and carefully controlled atmosphere(sometimes kids[and adults] can get a little 'free' with their speech, as it were... ;-)) that would entail. Monopoly, Clue, and Snakes & Ladders aren't that gripping, ya know? ;-) Settlers of Catan, maybe. Or not.
'What concerns me is any new game getting bogged down with so-called gaming theory and opinions derived from a thousand combined years of gaming':
That's why I suggest a B/X derivative, myself.
'No reason why they can't enjoy the new one, too.':
For the sake of argument( ;-)), the old ones are more than good enough. There's one reason, if not THE One Reason, right there! And, of course, the new edition might suck...(And not just from the position of the 'Old Guard'.) That said, if the new Edition has cool supplements, I'll probably buy, but I'm not concerned with being in lockstep with the current game. I've never had a player object to using 'old' rules.
Thanx for the response!