Next needs new players

[Secret Bard]

So I have heard a lot of people say that, in order to survive and continue, Wizards needs to draw in new players. Well, Next is almost out and... what is Wizards doing to draw in new people? They have shown us, the people who already play tabletops, a bit of the game and drawn us in; but they haven't advertised to anyone who isn't already playing.

As this is just from what I've seen, I might be wrong; am I? And if not, then why is WotC not advertising the game as much? And what could this mean for the future?

[RustyArmor]

Don't think I have ever seen any big advertising for any PnP game in all my years of playing. It is just one of them games that sort of always gets around by word of mouth, going to hobby shops, or going to cons, etc. I think in that regard it will get as much acknowledgement as any other game/edition.

[Secret Bard]

Ok, I'll admit I am somewhat new to tabletop games, I didn't know that is how it worked.

[Yorrin]

Given their recent trends I'm expecting to see a decent internet presence with ads on FB and sites like GitP or other gaming sites, as well as keeping up their youtube output. Also they've got pretty good connections to various "nerd" celebrities, so a game of celebrity DnD puts the game on the radar of the fans of those individuals. But don't expect to see a TV ad or a roadside billboard. That's just not their M.O.

[obryn]

Even though I don't think I'll be running it anytime soon, I honestly can't imagine another game I'd recommend more to a new player right now.

[Kurald Galain]

Don't think I have ever seen any big advertising for any PnP game in all my years of playing.

They had a big one for 4E, which was basically "World of Warcraft is for losers, play D&D instead". That didn't work out too well. Another classic is Whitewolf's ad campaign, which was basically "D&D is for losers, play Vampire instead". That didn't work out too well either. Gee, I wonder why :smallbiggrin:

Overall though, tabletop games don't advertise much. Heck, even the last Magic: the Gathering advert I saw was just weird (as I recall, a boy and a girl playing magic by candlelight with her wearing a long classic dress... yeah)

[archaeo]

There's also not really anything to buy, and soon, the only thing you will be able to buy is a starter set directed toward new players. One assumes WotC will pay to have big endcap displays with the boxes and other things to make them visible in-store, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see an aggressive online ad campaign or even a commercial.

e: we also know that a line of miniatures is coming out to tie in with the new starter set, and given the size of the boxes, it'll probably command a big piece of shelf real estate even without the endcaps. It's also bright and easy-to-read as all get-out and probably says something about the rules for the complete game being free online on the back. It's a pretty solid impulse buy, especially if WotC gets an ad/media campaign going that capitalizes on nostalgia. There are more than a few parents who played D&D back in the day.

Who knows what WotC is planning? I doubt they spent all this money on an expensive development cycle without plans to market the heck out of it once it gets rolling, anyway, and as the ball gets rolling on these releases, we'll see a lot more. While the TTRPG press is happy to write about the drabs and dribbles coming out of WotC, the actual release of the new D&D will garner some more mainstream coverage, which will also go a long way.

[Morty]

WotC seems to market D&D Next primarily towards people who already know D&D and a bit towards those who have never played a tabletop game before. They seem uninterested in drawing RPG players from outside the D&D franchise.

[Psyren]

I got into tabletop thanks to avenues like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights. Now I am one of the most knowledgeable players in my playgroup(s).

IMO, this is what they need to do to bring new blood into the genre. People are tired of MMO after MMO; they want singleplayer or small-scale multiplayer RPGs where they can storm a dungeon, alone or with friends, and experience a rich story either solo or as a group. And if you set it up so that it teaches you the TTRPG mechanics as you play, including things like skill checks (finding unique solutions to problems, like talking your way out of combat or stealing a key instead of fighting for it), spell slots, item slots, feats etc., it becomes a gateway drug like no other. It also gives newer players a safe space to practice and make mistakes. We are sitting on a treasure trove of adventure paths and modules that could easily be digitized and run by a DM over LAN, the internet, or even by a competent AI.

If you only target the people who are exposed to tabletop already, there is no room to grow there.

[1337 b4k4]

WotC seems to market D&D Next primarily towards people who already know D&D and a bit towards those who have never played a tabletop game before. They seem uninterested in drawing RPG players from outside the D&D franchise.

To be completely fair, that's probably the best targeting strategy. D&D players are likely to play new D&D and those that have never played a TTRPG before have no biases. TTRPG players outside of D&D likely come in two types:

A) Never played D&D. To get these players, you have to overcome the inertia of learning a new system, investing in new materials and finding a group to play.

B) Played D&D, didn't like it. To get these players not only do you have to overcome all the inertia of A type players, but you have the added hurdle of convincing them that D&D has changed and they should give it another look.

[Millennium]

WotC seems to market D&D Next primarily towards people who already know D&D and a bit towards those who have never played a tabletop game before. They seem uninterested in drawing RPG players from outside the D&D franchise.
What else are they going to do? Outside its own fanbase, D&D has long had a poor reputation as "the system for that kind of player." Pure marketing can't fix something like that, and even changing the product would only have a limited ability to fix it.

You'd have to actually take steps to effect change in the player base, and that's a really, really risky proposition from a business perspective. It's not something any business would do lightly, not only because of the inherent risk but also because it looks like a desperate move. Is Wizards really in a position where it needs to do that?

[Psyren]

A) Never played D&D. To get these players, you have to overcome the inertia of learning a new system, investing in new materials and finding a group to play.

Honestly, given D&D's ubiquity I would expect this group to be an extremely tiny minority anyway. Just about anyone who plays tabletop at all is at least aware of D&D and likely has seen it. This is like trying to find a TCG player who has never played either Magic, Pokemon or YGO.

And even for those folks that exist, either they never tried D&D because they know they won't like it (in which case they're more likely to be in group B) or they want to try it, in which case there is little inertia other than cost. Either way, they will fall out of group A and it will get even smaller.

[pwykersotz]

I got into tabletop thanks to avenues like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights. Now I am one of the most knowledgeable players in my playgroup(s).

IMO, this is what they need to do to bring new blood into the genre. People are tired of MMO after MMO; they want singleplayer or small-scale multiplayer RPGs where they can storm a dungeon, alone or with friends, and experience a rich story either solo or as a group. And if you set it up so that it teaches you the TTRPG mechanics as you play, including things like skill checks (finding unique solutions to problems, like talking your way out of combat or stealing a key instead of fighting for it), spell slots, item slots, feats etc., it becomes a gateway drug like no other. It also gives newer players a safe space to practice and make mistakes. We are sitting on a treasure trove of adventure paths and modules that could easily be digitized and run by a DM over LAN, the internet, or even by a competent AI.

If you only target the people who are exposed to tabletop already, there is no room to grow there.

Darn skippy I do. Well said.

[Person_Man]

I'm in the process of going through rule by rule and comparing the 5E rules to previous editions of D&D. Obviously I can't be sure about anything until it's officially out. But based on my current reading, it appears as if 5E is basically a cleaned up version of 3E (3.0/3.5/PF) + 2E (AD&D 2nd Edition).

Most things are resolved by 1d20 + stuff vs. 1d20 vs stuff or a DC. This standardized resolution mechanic is very similar to 4E and 3E, and unlike the "look up what to do on a chart" mechanic from 2E and 1E.

Each class has a unique chart of things that it does, each class gains something new every levels, and for spellcasters those things are explicitly modeled on 3E. This is unlike 4E, where every class used the At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility Power setup with balanced resources. It's also unlike the highly simplified 2E and 1E classes, where non-casters had many "dead levels" where they gained nothing but higher bonuses, Saves, and/or % success rates.

The Background and Skill systems to me feels like a simplified version of the 2E Non-Weapon Proficiency system, where having a Non-Weapon Proficiency allowed you to do certain non-challenging things automatically, and if you wanted to do a challenging thing you had to make an Ability check. This is unlike the 4E, where you choose from trained Skills based on your and resolved them with 1d20 + 1/2 level + trained bonus + lots of fiddly modifiers. It is also unlike 3E, with it's class Skill Lists and highly granular Skill ranks + lots of fiddly modifiers.

Combat feels like 2E (quick, swingy, random-ish), especially when you're using the "theater of the mind." Once enough supplements come out, if you're using a physical tabletop map it may begin to resemble 3E combat, which had a heavy focus on buffs, battlefield control, and Save or Lose/Suck effects. But either way, it's very unlike 4E, with it's balanced, longer, "grindy" tactical combat.

Also, it's note worthy that 5E contains relatively few new elements. It's not a step forward in game design. It's a nostalgic return to the past.

Established 3E and old school D&D players could look at it, make the reasonable assessment that there's nothing that new or that exciting about the game, and decide that it's not worth the cost of converting over to it. 4E players could look at it, make the reasonable assessment that it has almost nothing in common with 4E, and just stick with the game they enjoy. Older (age 25ish+) gamers who don't play D&D could look at it, decide that it's basically the same as previous versions of D&D, and decide that they didn't like it before so why should they like it now. The only place where 5E truly makes sense to me is with brand new players who have never looked at D&D before. For them, it seems like the simplest version of the game to learn and play.

[Yorrin]

Established 3E and old school D&D players could look at it, make the reasonable assessment that there's nothing that new or that exciting about the game, and decide that it's not worth the cost of converting over to it.

Firstly, excellent analysis of ties to previous editions. The one place where I'm seeing a lot of 4e come through is the monsters, though they might be more of a 2e thing. My 2e familiarity is not that great.

That being said, I find that I'm basically the opposite of the statement I just quoted. I'm a (primarily) 3.5 player who's planning to convert to 5e. And here's my reasoning: it's a lot simpler. I'm not looking for "new and exciting" in the sense of brand new mechanics and revolutionary game design. I'm looking for something simple and streamlined that I can use to help new players craft great stories without having to 4-6 hours teaching the game and rolling characters the way I have to with new players in 3.5. Because frankly I'm at a stage of life where my players don't have a lot of time to commit to the game. We've got jobs and children and a lot of us are in grad school.

And from what I've heard from WotC that's one of the target audiences- busy people. People who don't sit down for four hours a week to play, but rather have an hour or two here and there where the whole group is free. This is also why they're pushing stuff like mobile games and Neverwinter and the various other products other than the TTRPG. They've created a great game for "legacy" players who want it to feel familiar but don't have the time to plan out twenty levels each with decisions about skills, feats, magic items, etc. And at the same time it's simple enough that it also does a decent job of targeting new players who are interested in getting into TTRPGs but haven't yet tried them out.

There are all sorts of legitimate complaints against the system, but one thing you can't knock it on is simplicity compared to 3.5 or 4e.

[Morty]

To be completely fair, that's probably the best targeting strategy. D&D players are likely to play new D&D and those that have never played a TTRPG before have no biases. TTRPG players outside of D&D likely come in two types:

A) Never played D&D. To get these players, you have to overcome the inertia of learning a new system, investing in new materials and finding a group to play.

B) Played D&D, didn't like it. To get these players not only do you have to overcome all the inertia of A type players, but you have the added hurdle of convincing them that D&D has changed and they should give it another look.

I suppose sticking to your guns might be a sound business strategy. In my purely personal opinion, a new edition is a good time to reach out to new players, but I don't claim to have any knowledge of release market. Time will tell if WotC's approach works for them.

[Lokiare]

Firstly, excellent analysis of ties to previous editions. The one place where I'm seeing a lot of 4e come through is the monsters, though they might be more of a 2e thing. My 2e familiarity is not that great.

That being said, I find that I'm basically the opposite of the statement I just quoted. I'm a (primarily) 3.5 player who's planning to convert to 5e. And here's my reasoning: it's a lot simpler. I'm not looking for "new and exciting" in the sense of brand new mechanics and revolutionary game design. I'm looking for something simple and streamlined that I can use to help new players craft great stories without having to 4-6 hours teaching the game and rolling characters the way I have to with new players in 3.5. Because frankly I'm at a stage of life where my players don't have a lot of time to commit to the game. We've got jobs and children and a lot of us are in grad school.

And from what I've heard from WotC that's one of the target audiences- busy people. People who don't sit down for four hours a week to play, but rather have an hour or two here and there where the whole group is free. This is also why they're pushing stuff like mobile games and Neverwinter and the various other products other than the TTRPG. They've created a great game for "legacy" players who want it to feel familiar but don't have the time to plan out twenty levels each with decisions about skills, feats, magic items, etc. And at the same time it's simple enough that it also does a decent job of targeting new players who are interested in getting into TTRPGs but haven't yet tried them out.

There are all sorts of legitimate complaints against the system, but one thing you can't knock it on is simplicity compared to 3.5 or 4e.

You should check it out yourself rather than relying on WotC advertising.

[Knaight]

To be completely fair, that's probably the best targeting strategy. D&D players are likely to play new D&D and those that have never played a TTRPG before have no biases. TTRPG players outside of D&D likely come in two types:

A) Never played D&D. To get these players, you have to overcome the inertia of learning a new system, investing in new materials and finding a group to play.

B) Played D&D, didn't like it. To get these players not only do you have to overcome all the inertia of A type players, but you have the added hurdle of convincing them that D&D has changed and they should give it another look.

Existing TTRPG players who don't play D&D (or buy it, which is what they care about) are really not who WotC should be going for. Group A is pretty small (I know a fair few, but that's mostly because I've introduced them to RPGs), Group B is a hard sell, and the two of them together are a pretty small market demographic.

Now, people who aren't currently TTRPG players, but have other nerdy/geeky hobbies? There are a lot more of those people. Trying to pull new people into the hobby is a much more viable option, and WotC appears to be trying this with the starter box.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm in the process of going through rule by rule and comparing the 5E rules to previous editions of D&D. Obviously I can't be sure about anything until it's officially out. But based on my current reading, it appears as if 5E is basically a cleaned up version of 3E (3.0/3.5/PF) + 2E (AD&D 2nd Edition).
(snip)

Excellent analysis.

[obryn]

But based on my current reading, it appears as if 5E is basically a cleaned up version of 3E (3.0/3.5/PF) + 2E (AD&D 2nd Edition).
I think it might be even closer to think of it as a second attempt at 3e, if that makes sense. Like taking a few things from 3e and 4e (hahaha not really from 4e).

[captpike]

they are actively going away from 4th, to the point of making sure the names of things are not similar, and even ignoring solutions 4e offers to big problems 5e has.

[Millennium]

You should check it out yourself rather than relying on WotC advertising.
This is true as far as it goes, but it's hard to do that when it hasn't been released yet. The only facts we have to go on are, essentially, various forms of WotC advertising: even the leaks are calculated to serve WotC's purposes.

[Person_Man]

I think it might be even closer to think of it as a second attempt at 3e, if that makes sense.

Yeah, I think that's a fair way of putting it as well.

It just seems like a very odd strategy to me. To me, it seems clear that they're going after three big groups: new players, 3.5 players, and Pathfinder (and/or other similar 3rd party game) players.

I think they have a decent chance at new players.

But the OGL for 3.5 and Pathfinder exist. We also have at least a dozen other big rewrites of the 3E rules (d20 Modern, SWSE, Legend, FATE, True20, Iron Kingdoms, etc) plus hundreds (thousands?) of supplements. Every possible play style within that game design space has already been catered to. And once 5E comes out, someone can hack out a backwards compatible version of 5E from the OGL (though they'll lack legal protection to do so directly, so some elements will have to be different by necessity).

So they may want that group of players. But that group of players is already deluged with options that fit within that game design space, and those games are largely already purchased or free online.

So what's the big reason why a dedicated 3.5 or Pathfinder players should convert, other then "5E is simpler"? Why retread the same game design space that has already been gone over dozens of times?

I'm primarily a 3.5/PF guy, so I appreciate their desire to cater to me. But I already own 3.5 and PF. I don't need to buy it again.

[1337 b4k4]

So what's the big reason why a dedicated 3.5 or Pathfinder players should convert, other then "5E is simpler"? Why retread the same game design space that has already been gone over dozens of times?

I'm primarily a 3.5/PF guy, so I appreciate their desire to cater to me. But I already own 3.5 and PF. I don't need to buy it again.

As a guess, they might be banking on the idea that many 3.5 / PF holdouts aren't holdouts because they like 3.5 per se, but because they like 3.5 better than 4e. For those players, a new edition that improves on the rough edges of 3.5, but still largely plays like 3.5 is a reason to switch. Whether it will be a strong enough reason remains to be seen.

[obryn]

Like I said upthread, I literally can't think of another RPG I'd recommend as an on-ramp to a new player over 5e right now, with the free Basic set and the cheap Starter Box.

I don't think WotC is specifically courting any particular group of gamers right now. If I were to guess, they're just giving away enough to let folks make up their own minds. I think they'll be pretty successful in getting groups to give it a shot - and if not now, maybe later.

e:

As a guess, they might be banking on the idea that many 3.5 / PF holdouts aren't holdouts because they like 3.5 per se, but because they like 3.5 better than 4e. For those players, a new edition that improves on the rough edges of 3.5, but still largely plays like 3.5 is a reason to switch. Whether it will be a strong enough reason remains to be seen.
Yep, I think that's fair, and it matches what I'm seeing on a few various boards. There's also some 4e players switching who have happily run 4e but think it's time for something new. A sizable contingent of PF players seem to feel the same.

Heck; it's even getting some traction in oldschool circles, which is surprising.

Keep in mind - I have no plans to switch, myself. I'm enjoying the game I'm running and don't want to quit this campaign. Down the road, I'll float 5e to my players, and we'll decide as a table, assuming the game isn't broken from the outset.

[neonchameleon]

Like I said upthread, I literally can't think of another RPG I'd recommend as an on-ramp to a new player over 5e right now, with the free Basic set and the cheap Starter Box.

Depends on the people. For some groups it would be Next, for others Fate following a game of Fiasco, and for still others Apocalypse World or even Monsterhearts.

But yes, Next does look a decent starting point. As long as the beginner set works out better than the 4E Red Box.

[Knaight]

Depends on the people. For some groups it would be Next, for others Fate following a game of Fiasco, and for still others Apocalypse World or even Monsterhearts.

Most of those are not particularly accommodating for a group of entirely new players. It's a problem in the RPG industry in general - getting into RPGs through people who already play them makes it really easy, getting into RPGs with a totally fresh group is pretty painful - but it's exacerbated with something like Fate, which is written on the assumption that those reading it are already fairly familiar with RPGs.