Quote from: LibraryLass;683930I don't think those retroclones compete with D&D, I just think most old-schoolers, lapsed or not, already have the D&D they want, and if they don't, as of this year they can buy a reprint of it anyway. I don't think there are more than ten or twelve thousand active players of old school games and I think most of the lapsed ones can't be arsed to get back into it no matter how good 5e is.

You know, I was kind of thinking about that.  How do you appear edgy enough to gain new players, while still remaining traditional enough to maintain the brand history.

Maybe the answer is to make the old new again.  Forget the "look how awesome and heroic you are" crap, and do something that RPGs don't really do any more.

Go old-school.  Not rules, but feel.  Go for the whole survival horror/fantasy Vietnam vibe.  Make the rules explicit.  Promote the idea of campaign as the characters that survive.  Give players that old "PTSD&D" feeling.

Well, I'd buy it, anyway.

Quote from: Haffrung;683889Heck, it already has:150,000 downloads of the playtest rules.

First off, I agree with pretty much everything Haffrung said in the mail I lifted this quote from. However, I have seen this number of downloads quoted a few times now. Does anyone know where it comes from? And if it refers to total downlaods of all of the different playtest packs they've put out, or just the latest one?

Quote from: robiswrong;683945You know, I was kind of thinking about that.  How do you appear edgy enough to gain new players, while still remaining traditional enough to maintain the brand history.

Maybe the answer is to make the old new again.  Forget the "look how awesome and heroic you are" crap, and do something that RPGs don't really do any more.

Go old-school.  Not rules, but feel.  Go for the whole survival horror/fantasy Vietnam vibe.  Make the rules explicit.  Promote the idea of campaign as the characters that survive.  Give players that old "PTSD&D" feeling.

Well, I'd buy it, anyway.

I'd buy it in a heartbeat, too!

"Awesome & heroic" is what surviving PCs become, way down the road.
They shouldn't be super special awesome down at level 1. But at level 10? Sure.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683869Yeah, but let's face it they'll have a hell of a time pleasing the 3.x crowd and the old-schoolers. Neither of which seem like a safe market to me what with them having Pathfinder or sticking to their old editions and indie retroclones, respectively.

People who assume this don't understand how 3e got popular in the first place.

Quote from: J Arcane;683970People who assume this don't understand how 3e got popular in the first place.

"Back to the dungeon"?

Quote from: The Ent;683972"Back to the dungeon"?

See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it, and while there were some who split off for older editions from the beginning, even in the early days the focus for those wanting more old school flavor was more on finding ways to make D20 feel more old school, so you got stuff like the DCC line, C&C, and Wilderlands.

There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

3e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

I'll confess that may have been just a little before my time-- keep in mind that I started playing at all during the tail end of 3.0, in the fall of 2002 or thereabouts. Even in those days I remember WOTC CharOp being a fairly happening spot, something that eventually pushed me away from 3.5, and in time, from 4e as well (though I still like it when sufficiently reigned in. Sadly I have not been able to regain my taste for 3.x)

The thing that worries me about that though, is will WOTC again make the same mistake of catering to the twinkers and push away their regained market share? If so, then when twice burned, will these lapsed and casual fans dare to fall for it a third time, no matter how much WOTC promises it'll be different?

Quote from: J Arcane;683973It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it

That's true, but to be fair, it showed some signs of that even pretty early on.

I honestly don't think that the designers thought that the multiclass rules would end up being used the way that they are in practice.  The exp penalty was supposed to be a control on that, but it seems to be the first thing that most tables houserule away (and is it even still in 3.5?)

Quote from: J Arcane;683973See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

It only later turned into the CharOp dominated powergame that defined 3.5 and the splat treadmill for it, and while there were some who split off for older editions from the beginning, even in the early days the focus for those wanting more old school flavor was more on finding ways to make D20 feel more old school, so you got stuff like the DCC line, C&C, and Wilderlands.

There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

3e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

We're in agreement!
(Wasn't being sarcastic about "back to the dungeon" btw, I just remember the catchphrase. I suppose that, while I guess 2e is "my" edition, it did go a bit far away from its roots at times etc etc etc.)

Took a while before the big bad flaws in 3e became apparent to me. I mean sure there was stuff I wasn't entirely happy with even from the beginning (I didn't really like the dungeonpunk artstyle at any time, allthough some of it was pretty imaginative and good actually) but it did seem like a bunch of fun and at the time I was pretty tired of certain brokennesses of 2e's (like two-weapon fighting, say). But, early on in the line? Sure, it was fun, and it was fun to experiment with stuff like say rogue/fighter dudes and psychic warrior dudes and so forth. Fun was had. It was only some years down the line that it became obvious that at high levels, fighters = suck even with great items.

Quote from: robiswrong;683986That's true, but to be fair, it showed some signs of that even pretty early on.

I honestly don't think that the designers thought that the multiclass rules would end up being used the way that they are in practice.  The exp penalty was supposed to be a control on that, but it seems to be the first thing that most tables houserule away (and is it even still in 3.5?)

It is.

Quote from: Haffrung;683889The lapsed/old-school D&D market is way, way bigger than the retroclone OSR, which is largely an online thing. Just as indie gamers have their heads up their ass when they suggest 13th Age will be popular alternative to Next, old-schoolers on the forums who think an amateur retroclone that sells 1,000 or 2,000 copies is any kind of a rival to official D&D lack any sense of perspective.

I agreed and disagree. Individual OSR publishers are mostly at the hobbyist level, a few are a small RPG company. Collectively however it is a solid third tier or even second tier market. While not dominated by a single company in the way 3.X gaming is dominated by Paizo, there is a higher degree of cohesion because the OSR is centered around the classic D&D mechanics.

Basically the result is that the collective impact of the OSR is no more or no less than any other company that is not Paizo or Wizards.

Quote from: LibraryLass;683930I don't think those retroclones compete with D&D, I just think most old-schoolers, lapsed or not, already have the D&D they want, and if they don't, as of this year they can buy a reprint of it anyway. I don't think there are more than ten or twelve thousand active players of old school games and I think most of the lapsed ones can't be arsed to get back into it no matter how good 5e is.

As said before the point has been nothing more than to play, publish or promote a classic edition of D&D. If what TSR, Wizards, or Paizo is producing is not classic D&D or useful to a classic D&D then these gamers are not particularly interested in it.

It like expecting all people in a chess club to like Go. Sure some of them may like it or play it a lot but when they are at chess club the point is to play chess.

Classic D&D is no different.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973See, thing is, 3e brought a shitload of people back into the fold when it came out. Including a lot of old schoolers. It was close enough in spirit to previous rules, while bringing a lot of modern rules innovations, and so it brought back a lot of old players, plus a lot of new players of other games and even from outside the hobby because of the very successful marketing push they gave it.

Yep. A lot of the people who returned to the fold with 3E hadn't played D&D in years. Then they read about a new edition in Wired magazine, or some other mainstream source. And when they bought the core books, it looked like the D&D they knew but with some fixes and some new stuff that looked cool. Then Necromancer Games ('3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel') hit the ground running with Crucible of Freya, an old-school adventure which (IIRC) sold in the high five-figures. People who hadn't played D&D in 10 years could come back to the game and play something clearly recognizable as the game they played back in the day.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973There's this myth that gets propped up mostly by 4e fans that somehow anyone who likes old school games is just some hidebound jerk who'll never be satisfied with anything new, because it's easier for them to swallow than to question the idea that maybe 4e doesn't feel so much like any D&D before it.

The 4E fans on forums like RPGnet, dominated by the system-first theory-wanks, lack all perspective of how big the potential D&D audience is. They think the game-specific traffic on RPGnet maps to the real world. So to them, the old-school crowd is already sewn up with retroclones. It would shatter their fragile indie delusions if they learned that the market of people who would buy an official, professionally-produced D&D game with an old-school feel dwarfs the online OSR presence by a couple orders of magnitude. I suppose some are too young to remember D&D as a huge commercial market of casual players. Others have always hated D&D and willfully deny its success. They trumpet the commercial success of 4E without recognizing that the market for a genuinely D&D-like edition of D&D is far higher. But WotC knows how many customers they left on the table with the mistake of 4E. That's the whole reason for 5E.

Quote from: J Arcane;683973But the truth I think is that most are more like Sacrosanct here, people who've played just about all the editions prior and are just looking for something that provides enough of the flavor and feel they know as D&D, while really preferring something actively supported and with the actual D&D name on the box because, let's face it, everything outside that name in this market is a stone in a lake.

The notion that gamers are fiercely loyal to the edition they play is another delusion fostered by forum-think. If it has D&D on the cover and hits a number of key elements, it's D&D to most players. 4E failed at the latter. Doesn't mean another game with D&D on the cover will fail too. And yeah, I suppose I could still play AD&D. If it weren't for the fact that I've had to houserule the shit out of to address wonky mechanics. And the fact that it's not actively supported, and I'm at a stage in my life where making up all my own setting and adventure material is not practical. 40-somethings tend to have a fair amount of disposable income. And we're not all reactionary dinosaurs like some of the more vocal OSR forum-trolls.

Quote from: J Arcane;6839733e had no trouble getting those people on board at first, it was only faulty design direction and focus that drove them away.  The right 5e could get a lot of those people back, and I think that's what Wizards seems to be trying to do here.

The fact that they're explicitly admitted that they lost sight of what their customers wanted is a good sign. And I don't get the impression they mean just with 4E. With all the talk about not getting fixated on mechanics and stats, I think they realize that the play culture that developed with 3.x (and that they exploited) wasn't good for the health of the game in the long run. So they'll let the hardcore min-maxing char op crowd have Pathfinder. They're after bigger fish.

Quote from: Glazer;683955First off, I agree with pretty much everything Haffrung said in the mail I lifted this quote from. However, I have seen this number of downloads quoted a few times now. Does anyone know where it comes from? And if it refers to total downlaods of all of the different playtest packs they've put out, or just the latest one?

The number is from WotC, and I don't know what the qualifications are. Even if it's total downloads of all the packs, that's still a huge number. Especially when you consider that in a lot of groups (like mine) only the DM would have downloaded the rules. And I suspect few people have downloaded every pack.

Quote from: Haffrung;684071The fact that they're explicitly admitted that they lost sight of what their customers wanted is a good sign. And I don't get the impression they mean just with 4E. With all the talk about not getting fixated on mechanics and stats, I think they realize that the play culture that developed with 3.x (and that they exploited) wasn't good for the health of the game in the long run. So they'll let the hardcore min-maxing char op crowd have Pathfinder. They're after bigger fish.

Jesus, Haffrung, I really hope you're right about that.