First, let me say I am completely neutral on D&D 4th Ed. so far. I want it to do well, because I think it's by far the largest entry point into the hobby (besides, get 'em in, and I'll worry about converting 'em to my games :D).
Even outside the discussion of how popular or sucessful 4e will be, would it be possible for a company or alliance of companies to marshal the resources and cooperation necessary to make a product that, perhaps if not surpassing D&D, slides into a competitive #2 spot? Perhaps by producing or maintaining a system that supports the assumed fantasy setting, tropes, and features built up over the past 30 years?
Choosing either a common system to write for (instead of their own in-house system), teaming up to promote it, and making it OGL, could this be done? I can see a million reasons where, say, Green Ronin, Mongoose, and SJ Games would never team up to do, but can anyone give me a scenario in which it would work?
The one I can think of is keeping 3.x alive with a popular 3.75 iteration, supported by at least many of the companies that support 3.x now. But I await the wisdom and thoughts of those more experienced and savvy than I (which should, admittedly, be a large pool from which to draw).
Anyhow, thoughts?
No.
-clash
That´d be assuming all 3.x publishers have the same interest.
I´m sure, that´s wrong.
Why?
Look at Paizo.
Look at Necromancer.
Which products are they famous for?
Necromancer is famous for re-hashs of old stuff for 3.x.
With 4e, they can re-sell Tome of Horrors & the Wilderlands.
Paizo OTOH sells adventures to subscribers.
Totally different approaches, for example.
That totally explains, why NG is reallyrallyreally looking forward to 4e: They can produce and sell their old content again.
WoTC is betting on a new generation of gamers for 4th edition. You need to figure out what will appeal to 15 to 20 years old and see if there is common ground with the current generation and go from there.
The major problem between WoTC and the rest of the market is that WoTC has the resources to do research and try to anticipate the market. For the rest of the companies it is crap shot at trying to figure anything for the future as there is little data to go on. In that circumstance your goal should be to make a quality product with a quality game with quality writing and quality support.
Also keep in mind that regardless of genre or subject matter a tabletop RPG requires people to sit down around a table and play. So you need to look for trends and ideas that favor that.
I certainly would not put any money on it, but I can see certain scenarios evolving. But it would only begin to happen after either a real failure of 4e or a severe splintering of 4e players from the rest of the roleplaying hobby, because 4e has been transformed into a pen and paper MMORPG.
But I have trouble seeing such a situation that would not involve a major shrinking of the hobby overall. Maybe if another large company bought one of the middle tier ones and started doing some major promotion and marketing, seeing that Wizards was weakening and losing the market with 4e. But that transition for some of these excellent but small companies (Green Ronin, SJGames, Pinnacle) would be major of high-risk.
What about the guy who runs GenCon? He's got money, gaming cred and management expertise. He's got something coming out after Bella Sara that will probably be a roleplaying game. He poached Luke Crane and some other small game designer (was it John Wick?). Maybe he'll look to bigger things if that does well.
Could A Game Seriously Compete With D&D 4e?
Absolutely. It happens all the time. :)
They're just not "RPGs that are just like D&D"... and remember, to the general public any RPG is basically "D&D".
Now, if you want to narrow it down and exclude lots of games on the shelves an under development (probably including my own), then the question is: could a tabletop RPG, following the same model as D&D, seriously compete with D&D 4e?
I'd still say yes. Vampire competed with D&D a lot in the past, and if 4e is as weak as I'm guessing it could be, there's no reason another game couldn't compete with it now.
If you want to narrow that even further and say: could a fantasy / dungeon themed tabletop RPG, following the same model as D&D, seriously compete with D&D 4e?
THAT is where I'm not 100% sure... because the D&D brand is still very strong. Although a weak 4e and a strong alternative...
yeah. I think it could compete. It'd take $ for marketing, or a really brilliant game though. And let's face it... as far as the *GAME* part goes, there aren't too many brilliant RPGs. ;)
Quote from: StuartCould A Game Seriously Compete With D&D 4e?
Absolutely. It happens all the time. :)
I have to assume you're not talking in terms of market share, so what do you mean by this?
If a game could, I don't forsee it.
But the thing about such trends is you don't forsee them. The last game to garner anywhere near D&D's market share was Vampire, and it was riding a different cultural wave and bringing new people into roleplaying.
D&D could also screw the pooch severely on its own, but again, I'm not seeing it. As much as I personally don't like what they are doing and suspect they will lose a non-negligible segment of their market without much in the way of apparent effort to bring in new blood, I don't see anything they are doing that is so bad that the loss will be very significant in the big scheme of things.
It's possible if it pulls in a new group of people and has a different feel. They're not in the same categories but WoW and Magic both surpassed D&D and maintained a respectable audience.
Something tells me that even if D&D was OOP print for 10 years it'd still be the most popular RPG.
I might be wrong, but I think there are still more people playing 2E D&D than pretty much any other RPG.
Quote from: McrowSomething tells me that even if D&D was OOP print for 10 years it'd still be the most popular RPG.
I might be wrong, but I think there are still more people playing 2E D&D than pretty much any other RPG.
It's always crazy how many 2nd Ed. players I run into when running demos or hanging out at an FLGS.
Quote from: James McMurrayI have to assume you're not talking in terms of market share, so what do you mean by this?
Monopoly, Risk, and Dora the Explorer Candyland sell more copies than D&D. :)
Tons of games do better than D&D. It's all about how you narrow game down into "certain kinds of games". Invariably that's "games that are just like D&D... and D&D will do very well when compared to those. ;)
Quote from: StuartMonopoly, Risk, and Dora the Explorer Candyland sell more copies than D&D. :)
Tons of games do better than D&D. It's all about how you narrow game down into "certain kinds of games". Invariably that's "games that are just like D&D... and D&D will do very well when compared to those. ;)
We are talking about TRPGs here, Stuart. At least the rest of us are. Are you just being pedantic, or is there another reason you're being contrary?
-clash
Quote from: StuartMonopoly, Risk, and Dora the Explorer Candyland sell more copies than D&D. :)
Ah, ok. I thought you were trying to be meaningfully on topic. Sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: SettembriniNecromancer is famous for re-hashs of old stuff for 3.x.
With 4e, they can re-sell Tome of Horrors & the Wilderlands...
That totally explains, why NG is reallyrallyreally looking forward to 4e: They can produce and sell their old content again.
That's not really true. First off, NG is not a real business. The two principals have serious day jobs (they're both lawyers), and dabble in RPG publishing because they're dedicated enthusiasts, not because they make any money out of it. So they don't churn out stuff to make a buck (though they don't like to lose money, either).
Here's Clark Peterson on NG's plans for 4E:
WotC just had a conference call with the publishers yesterday and have posted their OGL and SRD plans on their site today, as most of you know. I wanted to let everyone know that Necromancer Games is IN! in conjunction with Paizo. We will have products for GenCon or shortly thereafter.
Products include:
1. Tome of Horrors 4E. if WotC leaves monsters out of the offial rules, we will put them back in (cant say which ones cause we dont have the rules yet). Plus all the classics from the original Tome that you want in your 4E game will be back.
2. Advanced Player's Guide. Designed in part by industry insider Ari Marmell, if they left classes and races out, we put them back in (Of course, we can't say if bards or druids or barbarians or gnomes or half-orc are or arent in 4th edition, but we know some stuff has been cut, and whatever is missing we will create for you with work by respected designer Ari Marmell.)
3. Tegel Manor. A 4E version of the 1E Judges Guild classic.
4. Winter's Tomb. A free, downloadable PDF along the lines of Wizard's Amulet, Necro's Ennie-winning introductory adventure, that will help jump start your 4E campaign.
Winter's Tomb will be available at the first day 4E products can be released. Tome 4E should be available at GenCon with the Advanced Player's Guide. Tegel is also targeted for GenCon. Dates could slip pending WotC's delivery of the design kits. Looks like what they're doing is supplying old-edition content (like monsters and classes) using the 4E rules. Tegel Manor is a re-write that was originally planned for 3.5, but which is being ported over to 4E.
Winter's Tomb is all new.
I don't see anything there that suggests NG's plan is simply convert already-published NG books over into 4E. The main guy in the company, Peterson, is just one of those guys who is always keen on the latest trends in D&D. If he wasn't personally keen on the new game, they wouldn't be making the move. I don't know if the other main guy in the company even plays 3E - he's seriously old-school. He just likes cool adventures and setting books, regardless of edition.
But to answer the question posed by the OP:
No, I do not think any other RPG can come close to challenging D&D's market share -
especially if it's a combat-heavy fantasy game. D&D's prominence, recognition, and clout absolutely dwarf anything else.
The only way I could see another fantasy RPG challenging D&D is if it was hitched on a massively popular IP like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. The boat has always sailed for the former, and there doesn't seem to be any inclination on the part of Rowling to license a pen-and-paper RPG of Harry Potter.
QuoteSomething tells me that even if D&D was OOP print for 10 years it'd still be the most popular RPG.
I might be wrong, but I think there are still more people playing 2E D&D than pretty much any other RPG.
Yep. I think RPG hipsters and folks always looking for the latest thing would be shocked at how many groups are still playing Basic, 1E, and 2E in their rec rooms, happily oblivious to the internet RPG scene and the lastest 3.5 splat book.
The game's popularity reached far, far beyond the hardcore gaming geek demographic for a while in the early 80s. Only a small fraction of those people still play, but my guess is that fraction numbers in the 10s of thousands. Half the guys in my group wouldn't even have known 3E was published if I hadn't bought the books.
Quote from: flyingmiceWe are talking about TRPGs here, Stuart. At least the rest of us are. Are you just being pedantic, or is there another reason you're being contrary?
Outside of variations in theme and dice mechanics, most tabletop RPGs are the same game as D&D.
For a game to compete with D&D it needs to do something distinctive. That distinctiveness will very likely place it outside of how the generally accepted definition for TRPGs.
Vampire was successful because it included lots of LARP at the clubs with the hot goth girls along with the Vampire themed D&D game.
Magic the Gathering had the same theme as D&D, but the game itself was completely different. It competed with D&D so well that the company that made Magic ended up buying D&D.
I'm suggesting that for a game to compete with D&D, it needs to be more than just D&D with a fresh coat of paint. :)
I think it's highly unlikely, but, really, it depends on 4e. If 4e really does give the silent majority what it wants, then no bleepin' way. If it falls down in that regard, maybe.
Seanchai
Geez, guys. Stuart is using the examples to point out that in many ways it will all depend on how you define the competition. As you narrow the scope, the chance of competing goes does dramatically.
If you're a game just like D&D (whatever edition at this point), what are your chances of competing? Slim and none - because brand recognition, loyalty, etc. are enough to overcome any minor objective quality increases.
The question is, will 4e do something not seen before - differentiate itself enough, that is (as Pundit points out), narrow it's scope significantly enough (either by accident or design), that you could make a "bog-standard" fanatasy game that was different enough from D&D to pick up the people not included in the new, narrower focus. How many people will that be? Will the new edition of the game be differentiated/focused enough that a new slot essentially opens up?
Too soon to tell, but I'm betting on, at the very least, a small community of folks who do not move with the edition. As Haffrung points out, I think it will be more than just edition-specific grognards - how much more will be the question.
If DnD fucks up(in terms of their fanbase), someone will pick up the slack.
My thoughts are that the main competitor game won't be another trad fantasy, but will be some other genre. Like how Vampire used to be serious competition. I'm personally hoping game #2 will be a science fiction game.
Quote from: StuartOutside of variations in theme and dice mechanics, most tabletop RPGs are the same game as D&D.
For a game to compete with D&D it needs to do something distinctive. That distinctiveness will very likely place it outside of how the generally accepted definition for TRPGs.
Vampire was successful because it included lots of LARP at the clubs with the hot goth girls along with the Vampire themed D&D game.
Magic the Gathering had the same theme as D&D, but the game itself was completely different. It competed with D&D so well that the company that made Magic ended up buying D&D.
I'm suggesting that for a game to compete with D&D, it needs to be more than just D&D with a fresh coat of paint. :)
I agree that no game that does what D&D does will ever supplant it.
I also agree that no TRPG will ever supplant D&D.
I disagree that all TRPGs are just D&D with a new coat of paint.
I don't care if non TRPGs can sell better than D&D. I'm not interested in non-TRPGs. If I was, I'd be making CRPGs or board games or whatever else instead. Supplanting D&D is not necessary to making good, profitable, and fun games. Dozens, no - hundreds - of computer and video games make more money than D&D. Great for them. That means nothing to me.
-clash
Could any other rpg seriously compete with 4E ? I doubt 4E will be a flop but even if it is, I doubt any other rpg would replace it as the most played rpg.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RCould any other rpg seriously compete with 4E ? I doubt 4E will be a flop but even if it is, I doubt any other rpg would replace it as the most played rpg.
Well if it's a real flop, probably 3rd edition and the conglomerate of AD&D will continue to dominate the hobby.
Quote from: walkerpWell if it's a real flop, probably 3rd edition and the conglomerate of AD&D will continue to dominate the hobby.
Yeah. Which is why I think
D20 Haven is a really good idea. It could be the next Enworld or something.
Regards,
David R
Given the level of alientation / anger that some former D&D fans are feeling towards the company, coupled with resentment over the open source thing being in all but name taken away, and the "suggested" $10-15/ month fee to wizards for destroying Dragon & Dungeon magazines, I would say that yes, done right, a company could offer a serious challenge to D&D. But it will not be GURPS, or Paladium-- it would have to be a well known d20 publisher (or alliance of publishers) who essentially rebel.
If Paizo and Green Ronin worked together on that whole 3.75 thing, then they could give D&D a run for its money.
Quote from: David RCould any other rpg seriously compete with 4E ? I doubt 4E will be a flop but even if it is, I doubt any other rpg would replace it as the most played rpg.
In much the same way that Coca Cola consistently outsells Pepsi, and MacDonalds consistently outsells Burger King. Almost by sole virtue of having been first to establish themselves as THE representative of their respective markets in the public's mind, D&D, Coke, and MacDonalds will always be on top of their fields.
Now, notice the mention of corporate identity above.
D&D is now part of Hasbro, one of the world's largest manufacturers of toys and games. If we're talking about a serious run at the market share, like Pepsi trying to make the most out of second place to Coke, then we need a strong contender to be taken under the wing of a similarly-matched corporate toys-n-game powerhouse. Say White Wolf sold their
Vampire and/or
Exalted properties to, say, Mattel if they wanted to get in on the business. Mattel starts pumping many $$$ into the equation, produces a line or two of detailed, collectable minis and a boardgame-like adjunct to the RPG, and I think you could see a strong #2. Much closer than anything we currently see or can reasonably expect.
Will this ever happen, though? Probably not. Hasbro bought
D&D because it was THE recognisable name in RPGs. And Hasbro has also effectively cornered the market on US popular games, so there's not much of an incentive for competing toy manufacturers to diversify into RPGs without a similar stable of board and card games in production.
So, can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? It's a long, long shot.
!i!
Quote from: BASHMANGiven the level of alientation / anger that some former D&D fans...
I don't think that the anger is really that widespread. Online forums don't reflect the player base that much. It looks like even the online grumbles are not any more numberous than they were for 3E, and there are currently far more 3E players than AD&D players. Sure, some people will never switch. But even a fair amount of the grumblers will switch eventually.
For anything to get bigger than D&D, I think it would have to a reformulation of how we think of rpgs taps a whole new market.
Quote from: David RYeah. Which is why I think D20 Haven is a really good idea. It could be the next Enworld or something.
Regards,
David R
Thanks, David!
I don't know about Enworld. I just wanted to provide a community for like-minded people who want to take a different direction than the company that controls the IP of the most recognized TTRPG.
Come on over and chat - there's a general gaming forum there, too... :D
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIn much the same way that Coca Cola consistently outsells Pepsi, and MacDonalds consistently outsells Burger King. Almost by sole virtue of having been first to establish themselves as THE representative of their respective markets in the public's mind, D&D, Coke, and MacDonalds will always be on top of their fields.
Now, notice the mention of corporate identity above. D&D is now part of Hasbro, one of the world's largest manufacturers of toys and games. If we're talking about a serious run at the market share, like Pepsi trying to make the most out of second place to Coke, then we need a strong contender to be taken under the wing of a similarly-matched corporate toys-n-game powerhouse.
Bingo.
Look at Koltar's thread on sales. The entire RPG sales picture is "60 to 65% D&D, and everything else". I think White Wolf is #2 -- at about 20% or so.
D&D's nearest competitor is one-third its sales volume.
No. No other game could seriously compete with D&D. If a serious number of people desert D&D due to 4e, they will either go back to earlier editions or leave RPGs altogether.
For most of the public, "D&D" is what "RPG"
means.
The only RPGs which will seriously compete in terms of market share with the newest iteration of the game branded D&D, are older editions of the D&D brand. It's an insanely dominant brand, synonymous with its product in the same way that Coke and Kleenex are but with advantages that neither of those brands have.
KoOS
Do I need to bring up New Coke? The king of world-wide brands brought to it's knees. No, I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just pointing out that for many people, Coke was what soft-drink meant; until Coca-Cola decided to change the formula and got their heads handed to them on a platter.
Why did Coke change? To be Hip and Edgy? To go after the competition? To refresh the image?
And what did people demand? Go back to the old formula...
And yet when the dust settled, Coca-Cola was still King of Sodas.
Quote from: James McMurrayAnd yet when the dust settled, Coca-Cola was still King of Sodas.
Ummmm...yeah....after they had to abandon the New Coke and go back to "Coca-Cola Classic" as it then became known...
Quote from: James J SkachWhy did Coke change? To be Hip and Edgy? To go after the competition? To refresh the image?
And what did people demand? Go back to the old formula...
Exactly. And as James McMurray pointed out above, Coca-Cola stayed on top no matter what they did. So will
D&D.
The corporate analogies are weirdly apt. Now that
D&D is a corporate IP of Hasbro, they can -- and probably will -- change the formula of the product regularly to meet shifting market focus. It'll always be essentially "D&D", but the flavor will change over time in order to maximise profits. That's what the game is there to do now.
So, we're back at one of the earliest questions to arise in this thread: Are we talking about there being a better
functional game, or a better
selling market competitor? If it's the former, then the answer is highly subjective, but will probably lie with a third party derivative of the SRD. If it's the latter, then it's a matter of corporate sponsorship/ownership to even enter the race.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaExactly. And as James McMurray pointed out above, Coca-Cola stayed on top no matter what they did. So will D&D.
Correction - not "no matter what they did." If that were the case, they could have just stayed with the New Coke.
But they could not. The backlash and the bad "reviews" were eating away at the bottom line. So some smart young man who some day will be working for George Bailey, got the bright idea of having two brands - New Coke and Coke Classic. Then they quietly let New Coke die off.
See? They couldn't do whatever they wanted and keep on top. They ignored what people said - which was "what the fuck is the matter with the Coke I'm drinking now" for the most part - and got their asses handed to them.
None of which is to say this will happen, or I'd like it to happen, or whatever. Only that it can happen. Hell, look at Microsoft and Vista.
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe corporate analogies are weirdly apt. Now that D&D is a corporate IP of Hasbro, they can -- and probably will -- change the formula of the product regularly to meet shifting market focus. It'll always be essentially "D&D", but the flavor will change over time in order to maximise profits. That's what the game is there to do now.
Beyond the New Coke / Coca-Cola Classic comparison, I don't think the analogy carries on.
"Coke" is the primary money earner for the Coca-Cola Company.
"D&D" the RPG is *not* the primary money-earner for WotC... and WotC is only part of Hasbro, and is *not* the primary money earner for Hasbro.
D&D to Hasbro is nothing like Coke to the Coca-Cola Company. :)
Edit: The shifting of some elements in D&D could have more to do with developing unique Intellectual Property rather than following market trends. "Tiefling" is IP of WotC. "Gnome" is not.
Quote from: StuartEdit: The shifting of some elements in D&D could have more to do with developing unique Intellectual Property rather than following market trends. "Tiefling" is IP of WotC. "Gnome" is not.
That is salient. And so annoying.
Quote from: StuartEdit: The shifting of some elements in D&D could have more to do with developing unique Intellectual Property rather than following market trends. "Tiefling" is IP of WotC. "Gnome" is not.
Hah! See? See? :p
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHah! See? See? :p
The development of that IP could be for reasons
other than success in the RPG itself. Marvel and DC Comics run their publishing businesses at a loss as sort of IP R&D departments. They make their money with all the
other things they do with that IP.
Hasbro may have similar thoughts for WotC and D&D. Let them run at a loss, if they can turn out some IP they can use for more profitable things elsewhere.
If we're going to use this soda-pop analogy - the better question is : Whats the gaming equivalent to Mountain Dew???
When I was younger I worked the inevitable Fast Food jobs, also sold drinks at a local Film Society when we played movies.
The numnber one best selling brown cola that people ask for is Coca Cola ("Gimme a coke.")
...but the number one lemon-lime flavored green caffeinated soda is MOUNTAIN DEW.
At least three time Coke Inc has tried to beat that fact.
Most people do not go after Pepsi at the store, they go after tjhe Pepsi company product Mt. Dew (and all its variations)
Whenever there is a sale at KROGERS on Pepsi products - Mt. Dew and all its variations sell out first.
So, with that in mind , What is the game equivalent to Mountain Dew?
- Ed C.
Nice one, Koltar. The first answer that popped into my mind was... well let's just say that I then suddenly realized it was a very clever leading question that you posed.
Quote from: James J SkachCome on over and chat - there's a general gaming forum there, too... :D
Will do.
Back on topic. Ian's post and the subsequent exchanges is pretty spot on. I find Stuart's take on the IP issue pretty interesting. I remember reading....maybe it was James Skach's post, that
4E was merely a holding pattern until Hasbro decides to make a more intensive play for the computer games market...
Regards,
David R
Of course a game could seriously compete with D&D 4E. In fact, I'm betting there will come a game that will actually topple 4E.
D&D 5e
Or have we done that joke already? :D
Quote from: David RWill do.
Back on topic. Ian's post and the subsequent exchanges is pretty spot on. I find Stuart's take on the IP issue pretty interesting. I remember reading....maybe it was James Skach's post, that 4E was merely a holding pattern until Hasbro decides to make a more intensive play for the computer games market...
Regards,
David R
Yup, that was me. I doubt I'm the only one who has thought it. But it makes sense. When you're blind-sided by competition that's so far ahead you can't immediately react, you take baby steps to try to keep your base but move them towards your new version of the competition's approach - so that you can compete on their terms later..
And with the IP position Stuart points out, it makes even more sense.
What Hasbro really wants to be, 5 years from now, is WoW with D&D IP....
My point is I think that's a mistake. By then, WoW will have it's own Brand recognition (how many geeky fantasy CRPG's do you recall having commercials like the WoW ones?) that will make D&D the fucking underdog in that market.
And while they move in that direction, I don't see why someone else couldn't move into the market position now held by D&D because by then, it won't be D&D the way most TTRPG players know and think about it, IMHO.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkOf course a game could seriously compete with D&D 4E. In fact, I'm betting there will come a game that will actually topple 4E.
D&D 5e
Or have we done that joke already? :D
I think D&D 5e is going to be a pretty cool, well constructed, well thought out MMORPG. And I think it will kick 4e's ass.
The question is, will it make a dent in the TTRPG market. I think Hasbro/WotC is leaving that market - or at least wants to.
I agree with you 100% James and I esp liked the way you linked your views with Stuart's point....a connection I think is esp relevent which is why I brought it up :D
Quote from: James J SkachAnd while they move in that direction, I don't see why someone else couldn't move into the market position now held by D&D because by then, it won't be D&D the way most TTRPG players know and think about it, IMHO.
Yeah, which is why I think the only rpg which can compete with
4E is
D&D....that is if
4E falls flat.... if
4E does not attract any new gamers and the existing user base rejects the system....which is where D20 Haven comes in....remember, it's better to be a Dragon's Foot, than a Fawn's Paw...
Regards,
David R
Quote from: James J SkachWhy did Coke change? To be Hip and Edgy? To go after the competition? To refresh the image?
To disguise the fact that they were switching from cane sugar to corn syrup?
Quote from: James J SkachI think Hasbro/WotC is leaving that market - or at least wants to.
Paper is a liability. An expensive one at that. Thus, we have the virtual miniatures board they're developing.
!i!
I think under the right circumstances yes another game could unseat D&D.
I don't think it's likely. For one thing WotC would have to fail to see it coming for long enough that they couldn't adapt.
For another it would take vision and significant financial backing. And please keep in mind that I've never said it would make money.
First off I do think an rpg could dislodge D&D from the public consciousness. Mainly because fads are short lived and people's memories are even shorter.
It would have to be advertised heavily on TV to kids. It would need the right TV show. It would have to be right on the zeitgeist. That is to say that it couldn't be before its time or even a few days too late and it would have to nail the up and coming next big thing.
You'll note I haven't said a thing about settings or mechanics. This is in no small part because I don't know what it would take specifically. My own guess is that military sf will be the next wave. I've thought for a long time that the only way today's kids can scare their parents is by putting on a uniform, cutting their hair, marching in straight lines, and going to church.
It couldn't be liscenced from another media source because that essentially means the ship has already sailed and you're just riding its wake. You don't become a cultural trend by following.
Quote from: Old GeezerTo disguise the fact that they were switching from cane sugar to corn syrup?
IIRC, they were responding to the "Pepsi Challenge" campaign. In blind tests, people actually
preferred the taste of Pepsi and Coke was, presumably, worried about losing market share. So they modified the flavour to be more like Pepsi.
Ironically, New Coke tested more positively than the old flavour. But it was their marketing tactics that blew up. Had they
slowly changed the flavour of regular Coke to be more like New Coke, it probably would have been a success. But a big, brash marketing campaign heralding the arrival of New Coke alienated the vast majority of traditional drinkers.
What does this mean to RPGs, and more specifically D&D? Never underestimate the power of nostalgia.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkIIRC, they were responding to the "Pepsi Challenge" campaign. In blind tests, people actually preferred the taste of Pepsi and Coke was, presumably, worried about losing market share. So they modified the flavour to be more like Pepsi.
Ironically, New Coke tested more positively than the old flavour. But it was their marketing tactics that blew up. Had they slowly changed the flavour of regular Coke to be more like New Coke, it probably would have been a success. But a big, brash marketing campaign heralding the arrival of New Coke alienated the vast majority of traditional drinkers.
What does this mean to RPGs, and more specifically D&D? Never underestimate the power of nostalgia.
Well, being a connoisseurs, I can tell the difference and prefer the nostalgic version. Anecdotally, most people I knew who drank coke at the time felt the same. I disagree with your hypothesis that if they'd changed it slowly without fanfare, they would have been OK.
The Pepsi challenge, however, was taking place at the time - but don't forget that was Pepsi's marketing shot across the bow, and should be (and probably was) taken for what it was - a marketing ploy.
How do I know? If the scenario you describe was true, Pepsi would be outselling Coke right now. I'm not sure, but from what little I know, it did not then, and does not now, and has never in between. So much for the Pepsi challenge and the New Coke testing...
...As I said in my earlier post, COKKE tends to outsell Pepsi. Mountain Dew tends to outsell Mello Yello, Canada Dry ....etc.
Other consumer/merketing phenomena : African-Americans tend to request Sprite to drink more often than Caucasians do . Don't know why - just know its true. Whenever the Film Society would show a Spike Lee or other similar movie - we had to double our order on Sprite canisters.
So, if D&D is "Coca-Cola"
Then what game is the "Mountain Dew"
For that matter what game died out blike ZIMA ? and what RPG system is as overmarketed as Red Bull?
- Ed C.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkIronically, New Coke tested more positively than the old flavour. But it was their marketing tactics that blew up. Had they slowly changed the flavour of regular Coke to be more like New Coke, it probably would have been a success. But a big, brash marketing campaign heralding the arrival of New Coke alienated the vast majority of traditional drinkers.
OMG! I cannot believe how many people don't know "the real story". The massive campaign against New Coke-- was a marketing ploy by COKE! They did it to make people nostalgic for coca-cola and begin buying the Coca-Cola "Classic". Then phased out the New Coke-- which was only created as a marketing ploy? Where did I hear this from? The brother of a Coke VP-- so yeah, it is hearsay, but I still think that story makes more sense than Coke F'ed up-- because the backlash against New Coke actually HELPED sell more coke!
Quote from: James J SkachThe Pepsi challenge, however, was taking place at the time - but don't forget that was Pepsi's marketing shot across the bow, and should be (and probably was) taken for what it was - a marketing ploy.
How do I know? If the scenario you describe was true, Pepsi would be outselling Coke right now. I'm not sure, but from what little I know, it did not then, and does not now, and has never in between. So much for the Pepsi challenge and the New Coke testing...
Pepsi Co. may possibly have overstated the preference for Pepsi in blind taste tests, but it is correct to claim that just knowing the brand influences peoples perceptions of taste.
http://www.hnl.bcm.tmc.edu/cache/eurekalert.org.htm
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=242
Stretching to get myself back on topic... If a similar brand loyalty exists for the D&D logo, that would go far to explaining D&D's ongoing popularity, and suggests that 4E will not have a serious competitor.
OK guys, I'll cop to being wrong about market share. Apparently, Pepsi did briefly take the lead after New Coke was introduced - for a period of a few quarters.
But read the rest of the snopes.com urban myth (http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp) about marketing and corn syrup. Very interesting.
The more I think about the New Coke episode, the more similarities I see between it and the current situation. Marketing, testing, "blind taste tests" all seem to point to something. And yet....
EDIT: I love this quote:
QuoteAs for the debacle's being a deliberate marketing ploy, Donald Keough said: "Some critics will say Coca-Cola made a marketing mistake. Some cynics will say that we planned the whole thing. The truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart."
Quote from: David JohansenFirst off I do think an rpg could dislodge D&D from the public consciousness. Mainly because fads are short lived and people's memories are even shorter.
I can't see a tabletop RPG coming anywhere close to reaching the popularity and prominence that D&D did in the early 80s. D&D is still riding that wave. And I can't see a tabletop RPG coming close to reaching the popularity and prominence of the most popular MMORPG. So I just don't see how this fad overtakes its rivals.
As I said it would have to be like the Pokemon phenomenon, just the right thing at just the right time. In 1989 if you'd told anyone in the industry that card games were then next big thing they'd have laughed in your face.
*edit* I use Pokemon here because Magic never broke into the public consciousness on the same level nor did it get the kind of cross market support I'm talking about.
Quote from: David JohansenAs I said it would have to be like the Pokemon phenomenon, just the right thing at just the right time. In 1989 if you'd told anyone in the industry that card games were then next big thing they'd have laughed in your face.
That's a good example. We've all been trying to think of what convoluted market situations could bring down D&D's dominance, and I think most of us have concluded that it is very unlikely given the factors that we all are currently aware of. It's the unknown factor, if anything, that will probably change the face of the marketplace.
Which is why Stuart was trying to bring that perspective to the conversation. If you're talking about "game," then the answer is yes and, to David's point, we probably don't know what it will look like - though my speculation is we know exactly what it looks like - WoW.
Haffrung's contention seems to be that they hey day of TTRPG's are but a memory now and that because of that, it will be nigh impossible for someone to gain the kind of traction necessary to unseat a brand with such entrenchment.
I'm not that pessimistic - I think if the brand leader screws up, it could be sorry. At which point it would be possible to compete against it, whether that's with D&D Classic, Diet D&D, Mountain D&D, etc.
It would be interesting to see if 4e does poorly how fast, or even if, WotC backtracks and releases there own 3.75 - ya know, for the fans ;)
Quote from: Old GeezerTo disguise the fact that they were switching from cane sugar to corn syrup?
Or marketing. Generate news like "Look! We are abandoning the recipe you love! Oh...wait, never mind." A great way to generate news and get even more people talking about your product. On a smaller scale, look at the Burger King commercials where they "Removed the Whopper" from the menu for a day at a Las Vegas BK. People will remember that. Heck, here we are talking about New Coke and the Coke Co. many years after its release.
Just saying, not all things are as they appear.
Bill
Quote from: SaladmanPepsi Co. may possibly have overstated the preference for Pepsi in blind taste tests, but it is correct to claim that just knowing the brand influences peoples perceptions of taste.
http://www.hnl.bcm.tmc.edu/cache/eurekalert.org.htm
http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=242
Those deluded liars!
Seanchai
Quote from: David JohansenFor another it would take vision and significant financial backing.
I'm not sure about that last bit. It seems to me that Vampire rose to second place without having scads of money thrown at it.
Personally, I think D&D is the king of the hill because people like it. It meets their needs.
If some game were going to supplant D&D, it would have to stop meeting their needs and the new game would have to start.
Quote from: David JohansenIt would have to be advertised heavily on TV to kids.
I disagree. I don't think creating a new generation of gamers would overthrow the preferences of the existing one. They're drawn in too many directions to be helpful.
Seanchai
Quote from: KoltarSo, if D&D is "Coca-Cola"
Then what game is the "Mountain Dew"
Vampire, or if you prefer, the whole World of Darkness chain. The flavor is different enough that it captures a decent portion of the market, and if WotC were to try to make D&D taste like WoD it would fail miserably.
The analogy can even be twisted just a little bit to show how New WoD (Monte Cooke's d20) bombed and they opted not to pursue the line.
QuoteWhat Hasbro really wants to be, 5 years from now, is WoW with D&D IP....
people keep saying this, and yet, it still fails to make any sense whatsoever when you consider that Hasbro sold the interactive rights to Atari until 2015. And allowed Atari/Turbine to get away with the utter abortion that is D&D Online. If they were really serious about competing with WoW, do you really think they'd have been stupid enough to do either of those things?
Frankly, I think people drastically overstate the influence that Hasbro has on the workings of Wizards themselves, and there's no better proof of that than the whole digital initiative business, because if the higherups were at all aware of the virtual tabletop business they'd be shitting a brick, because Atari is desperate for cash and would absolutely salivate at the possibility of nailing Hasbro to the wall for breach of contract.
That's interesting, J - I didn't know that. When did they sell the rights?
Never mind J, I did some googling....
Hasbro sold off Hasbro Interactive in 2001. After a promising start, this portion of Hasbro posted dismal numbers in 1999 and Hasbro got hammered in the dot com bust in 2000.
WoW came out in 2004. While Warcraft existed as a single player computer game for years before, the MMORPG did not arrive until 2004.
So it's possible that Hasbro never foresaw the use of the technology, MMORPG, as a viable risk - especially given the losses of 1999. Now they see what they can do by marrying the technology with the IP.
I also saw, paging through google results, some reference to Hasbro buying back a bunch of the stuff they sold off in 2001. I'll see if I can find a decent source for that...
Quote from: flyingmiceNo.
-clash
What he said.
Quote from: J ArcaneFrankly, I think people drastically overstate the influence that Hasbro has on the workings of Wizards themselves, and there's no better proof of that than the whole digital initiative business,
Fun fact: It was Hasbro, not WOTC, who decided Dungeon and Dragon had to switch from print to online.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityFun fact: It was Hasbro, not WOTC, who decided Dungeon and Dragon had to switch from print to online.
How do you know this?
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityI could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
If you do....salvage the pipe first....
Quote from: J ArcaneFrankly, I think people drastically overstate the influence that Hasbro has on the workings of Wizards themselves...
I dunno, man. Every time I meet someone who works for WotC -- and I do from time to time -- they invariably identify themselves as working "for a division of Hasbro". I'm guessing they're pushing corporate identity pretty hard. Wizards
is Hasbro.
!i!
See, Transformers was one booklet and a die away from having a game when it came out, there were stats on the packaging and everything.
Package "imaginative play aids" like adventures and some rough guidelines with a line of modular action figures, add a big TV show with bad animation and there you go, you've got a mass market rpg coming from an entirely different industry. We've already seen a fair bit of wargame like products from heroscape to attacktics in the toy stores. It wouldn't take much to create an rpg.
Quote from: James J SkachThe question is, will 4e do something not seen before - differentiate itself enough, that is (as Pundit points out), narrow it's scope significantly enough (either by accident or design), that you could make a "bog-standard" fanatasy game that was different enough from D&D to pick up the people not included in the new, narrower focus. How many people will that be? Will the new edition of the game be differentiated/focused enough that a new slot essentially opens up?
Too soon to tell, but I'm betting on, at the very least, a small community of folks who do not move with the edition.
And you would be totally right that there will be a small community of discontents. Where I'm skeptical is whether a
single "bog standard" frpg will pick them up.
Most likely, some of them will go to former editions of D&D (from OD&D to 3.x), others will go to their old favorites, others to one of the gazillion frpgs out there.
The only credible scenario I can see for another rpg to to eclipse DnD in terms of sales would be where 4e did not meet Hasbro's revenue expectations leading them to take it off the market but where they chose to retain the IP in case later projects suggested themselves.
At that point, DnD would be out of print and likely to remain so, I'd expect the market then to fragment, I'd also expect the rpg market to shrink heavily over time as a result.
Quote from: James J SkachDo I need to bring up New Coke?
Yes, please bring up New Coke. Then we can talk all about the advantages D&D has over Coke as a dominant brand:
Coke is a disposable, multiple-purchase item. You buy a can/bottle/cup of Coke, drink it, and it's gone. You can try an alternative to Coke once with almost zero impact on your overall Coke purchasing habits (unless you prefer the alternative). You don't need to invest any time or effort in learning how to drink Coke, and once you're a Coke drinker you don't need to relearn how to drink Coke-alternatives should you want to try them. There is no meaningful barrier preventing Coke drinkers from trying Coke-alternatives, other than availability (and indeed, availaiblity is the biggest advantage Coke has over Pepsi -- it's superior sales numbers are driven in large part due to restaurants and similar venues which carry Coke products exclusively).
D&D is a persistent, single-purchase item; you buy the books once and continue to use them virtually forever (as many 1e players will happily tell you). There is a not-insignificant investment in money, time and effort involved in purchasing and using the D&D product, and even if you know how to play D&D there will be a similar investment in money, time and effort required should you wish to sample an alternative to D&D. This represents a meaningful barrier to competition for D&D-alternatives. That's why they based a whole product marketing and development strategy around the phenomenon... it was called d20, and you may have heard of it.
KoOS
D&D also rots your teeth.
Quote from: King of Old SchoolYes, please bring up New Coke. Then we can talk all about the advantages D&D has over Coke as a dominant brand:
Coke is a disposable, multiple-purchase item. You buy a can/bottle/cup of Coke, drink it, and it's gone. You can try an alternative to Coke once with almost zero impact on your overall Coke purchasing habits (unless you prefer the alternative). You don't need to invest any time or effort in learning how to drink Coke, and once you're a Coke drinker you don't need to relearn how to drink Coke-alternatives should you want to try them. There is no meaningful barrier preventing Coke drinkers from trying Coke-alternatives, other than availability (and indeed, availaiblity is the biggest advantage Coke has over Pepsi -- it's superior sales numbers are driven in large part due to restaurants and similar venues which carry Coke products exclusively).
D&D is a persistent, single-purchase item; you buy the books once and continue to use them virtually forever (as many 1e players will happily tell you). There is a not-insignificant investment in money, time and effort involved in purchasing and using the D&D product, and even if you know how to play D&D there will be a similar investment in money, time and effort required should you wish to sample an alternative to D&D. This represents a meaningful barrier to competition for D&D-alternatives. That's why they based a whole product marketing and development strategy around the phenomenon... it was called d20, and you may have heard of it.
KoOS
All good points, KoOS. The idea seemed to be that companies who hold an overwhelming market share are immune, or nigh impossible to fall from grace. It's even implied in the title of the thread. My point with New Coke was that it's not unheard of.
It will be interesting to follow Windows Vista, of which we haven't seen the full impact yet IMHO, and is much closer to the points you make above - it's more investment to discard in order to switch. And yet, I'm hearing, only anecdotally mind you (no, not the Apple advertisements) that people are so frustrated that they are requesting machines that still come with XP, or trying/wanting to switch back. So maybe that will end up a better example in the long run - at least with respect to the very applicable points you raise.
Quote from: James J SkachAll good points, KoOS. The idea seemed to be that companies who hold an overwhelming market share are immune, or nigh impossible to fall from grace. It's even implied in the title of the thread. My point with New Coke was that it's not unheard of.
It will be interesting to follow Windows Vista, of which we haven't seen the full impact yet IMHO, and is much closer to the points you make above - it's more investment to discard in order to switch. And yet, I'm hearing, only anecdotally mind you (no, not the Apple advertisements) that people are so frustrated that they are requesting machines that still come with XP, or trying/wanting to switch back. So maybe that will end up a better example in the long run - at least with respect to the very applicable points you raise.
Vista is failing, HARD. The only reason it's selling at all is the usual OEM strongarming of forcing companies to only sell boxes with Vista preinstalled. Actual retail sales are far from stellar, some of the biggest OEMs are finally just giving the finger to MS and selling boxes with XP anyway, and to top it all off, even MS seems to admit failure by amping up support for XP with a new service pack on the way and even backporting supposedly exclusive features like Games for Windows Live.
But the key there is in that latter portion, because if 4e really does flop, then there's nothing stopping Wizards from taking the same route if they're smart. Backpedal a bit, revitalize support for 3.x, maybe label it "Classic D&D" or some other wierd misnomer, and keep it as a parallel product line until 4e either finally reaches critical mass, or flops, at which point one or the other can just be axed.
Quote from: DrewD&D also rots your teeth.
And causes brain cancer, just ask Ron Edwards.
Quote from: J ArcaneBut the key there is in that latter portion, because if 4e really does flop, then there's nothing stopping Wizards from taking the same route if they're smart. Backpedal a bit, revitalize support for 3.x, maybe label it "Classic D&D" or some other wierd misnomer, and keep it as a parallel product line until 4e either finally reaches critical mass, or flops, at which point one or the other can just be axed.
Hey - I said that already! ;)
Here's a question - can someone else who stayed with d20/OGL/3.5, or maybe made their own 3.75 and supported the hell out of it, could they compete in such a way as to head-off this kind of back slip from WotC/Hasbro? Maybe someone who takes a page from Apple and actually advertise as someone who has the real next best game - 3.75 (Like Apple is now doing with Leopard)?
Just a thought...
Quote from: James J SkachHey - I said that already! ;)
Here's a question - can someone else who stayed with d20/OGL/3.5, or maybe made their own 3.75 and supported the hell out of it, could they compete in such a way as to head-off this kind of back slip from WotC/Hasbro? Maybe someone who takes a page from Apple and actually advertise as someone who has the real next best game - 3.75 (Like Apple is now doing with Leopard)?
Just a thought...
There's nobody in the "industry" with enough clout and marketing push to pull it off except White Wolf, and I doubt they're interested considering both the half-assed nature of much of their D20 material in the past, as well as them being tied up with CCP and everything now.
Quote from: James J SkachIt will be interesting to follow Windows Vista, of which we haven't seen the full impact yet IMHO, and is much closer to the points you make above - it's more investment to discard in order to switch. And yet, I'm hearing, only anecdotally mind you (no, not the Apple advertisements) that people are so frustrated that they are requesting machines that still come with XP, or trying/wanting to switch back. So maybe that will end up a better example in the long run - at least with respect to the very applicable points you raise.
Exactly. Vista's real competition isn't the Mac OS, it's XP. Likewise, if D&D4e sucks hard its biggest competitor will be 3.x... as in, existing D&D 3.x books with the D&D name printed on the cover, not some 3.75 pastiche put together by Paizo* or Necromancer or whoever and almost certainly not some other non-D&D-related RPG. I suppose it's possible that a really,
really sucky 4e released roughly simultaneously with some new RPG that draws completely new blood into the RPG market, a la V:tM 1e, might set up a brief period of real close competition, but IMO that almost certainly won't happen.
KoOS
* FWIW, I'd almost certainly buy a Paizo-produced 3.75 pastiche if it were produced with the same phenomenal production standards and design sense as Shackled City and Pathfinder, and I'd probably end up liking it better than I'll like 4e, but that's not the same as saying I think it would be a serious competitor for 4e in the overall market.
Quote from: J ArcaneThere's nobody in the "industry" with enough clout and marketing push to pull it off except White Wolf, and I doubt they're interested considering both the half-assed nature of much of their D20 material in the past
??? I don't see anything "half-assed" about the Scarred Lands, Necromancer or Malhavoc stuff, regardless of whether or not I personally like any of it.
Agreed about CCP, though.
KoOS
Quote from: King of Old School??? I don't see anything "half-assed" about the Scarred Lands, Necromancer or Malhavoc stuff, regardless of whether or not I personally like any of it.
Agreed about CCP, though.
KoOS
The Necromancer and Malhavoc stuff doesn't count, because it's basically outsourced from other companies wit their own independent editorial staff, they just print it.
Their inhouse stuff has largely been awful cashins, almost as bad as Mongoose, and all of it very clearly not given the same focus and effort they give to their Storyteller line.
Another thing to keep in mind about the OS comparison: I doubt there is a significant percentage of the potential Windows customer base which isn't aware of Apple and the Mac. There's a big chunk of the D&D customer base, OTOH, which is completely clueless about tabletop RPGs that aren't called "Dungeons & Dragons," doesn't know anything about them and doesn't care to find out.
KoOS
Quote from: J ArcaneTheir inhouse stuff has largely been awful cashins, almost as bad as Mongoose, and all of it very clearly not given the same focus and effort they give to their Storyteller line.
If you honestly think that Scarred Lands is remotely comparable to Mongoose's dreck, IMO your standards are waaay out of whack. And I don't even like Scarred Lands...
KoOS