You might miss the boat

[Congzilla]

As tabletop RPGs go it could sell well... but D&D4 ain't selling remotely as well as D&D3 did.

Since WotC doesn't release sales numbers that is a guess at best. Below is how the rank as of today on Amazon.

D&D 4e - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #6,058 in Books
D&D 3.5 - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #16,436 in Books

[rabindranath72]

As tabletop RPGs go it could sell well... but D&D4 ain't selling remotely as well as D&D3 did.

Since WotC doesn't release sales numbers that is a guess at best. Below is how the rank as of today on Amazon.

D&D 4e - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #6,058 in Books
D&D 3.5 - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #16,436 in Books

Well, 3.5 has had a lot of time to sell w.r.t. 4e. It could be useful to compare similar time windows. I believe I have read somewhere that even D&D3.5 did not sell as much as 3.0 did, despite this being around for only two/three years.

[Crimfan]

Since WotC doesn't release sales numbers that is a guess at best. Below is how the rank as of today on Amazon. D&D 4e - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #6,058 in Books D&D 3.5 - Amazon.com Sales Rank: #16,436 in Books

I'm not sure what these mean. We would have to compare 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0 sales at similar points in their respective life cycles. As I recall, Monte Cook wrote a nice "why 3.5 when it happened" which explained some of the business logic behind the decision. A bit of searching turns up: http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

(Aside: I know when the book I wrote with a colleague (academic book, not RPG title) came out I would obsessively check its sales rank and, well, frankly it never made much sense to me---and I speak as an professional trained in mathematical statistics, thus someone who knows more than a little about ranking systems. The publisher's trying to figure out a way to screw us out of more money so I suspect that it must still be selling compared to other titles in the series, though. )

[Irontruth]

The games (we've updated each system) have become more and more complex and time consuming. We're a very intelligent group, but we all miss our simple systems that allow us to frakin' play the game, instead of feeling like we're doing homework!!!

I miss old school gaming and I think Pramas is trying to get Dragon Age back to those roots. I hope he succeeds, it might just save our gaming group.

Maybe we grew up in different universes. AD&D and 2nd edition were both very complicated and used a huge number of books. I still have my 1st/2nd edition collection and it definitely weighs over 100lbs. I feel like I should have earned a bachelors in Archiving for my ability to catalog and find spells in that huge mess.

[rabindranath72]

The games (we've updated each system) have become more and more complex and time consuming. We're a very intelligent group, but we all miss our simple systems that allow us to frakin' play the game, instead of feeling like we're doing homework!!!

I miss old school gaming and I think Pramas is trying to get Dragon Age back to those roots. I hope he succeeds, it might just save our gaming group.

Maybe we grew up in different universes. AD&D and 2nd edition were both very complicated and used a huge number of books. I still have my 1st/2nd edition collection and it definitely weighs over 100lbs. I feel like I should have earned a bachelors in Archiving for my ability to catalog and find spells in that huge mess.

No 2e campaign setting required more than the 3 core books, and the occasional setting-specific monstrous appendix; all the rest was optional, and you were quite left to yourself if you wanted to use something outside the core with a pre-defined setting (e.g. all the Complete manuals).
I have all of the 2e campaign boxed sets, and I only ever used (and owned) the PHB, DMG and MM; and lately, the Tome of Magic, which was referenced only in the Birthright campaign setting, and clearly marked as optional.
So yes, you could have tons of books, but that was your choice, not something dictated somewhat by the settings. You could expand the campaign settings boxed sets, but that was just expansion.
Even 3e (well, 3.0 at least) only required the 3 core books to be self-sufficient, at least for the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and Greyhawk. In the Eberron campaign setting book there is reference to psionics, but for those who do not have the psionics manual, there are rules for replacing psionics with magic, so you do not need the Psionics Handbook.
Consider the situation with 4e now: 6 _core_ rulebooks, and more expected to come (at least PHB3 and MM3); the other books clearly marked as "supplements". As the core expands, you find references to more core books in the published settings (e.g. Eberron has references to at least PHB2).

[Anomandaris]

I totally do not get the whole "to complicated, complex" argument. This is just not true. I am also a gamer going on 20 years of active gaming...and if you ask me, ADnD was as complex as DnD 3.0 was. Sure, you have a lot of options to stack on top of the corerules set (all optional! The splat explosion is not mandatory!)...but if you only play with the PHB, DnD 3.0 really isn't that complex. Plz give today's kids a bit more credit! The problem i see is more one of "better alternatives" ... today they have online games, PS3, W II and so on.
And, as no one has seen the DA PnP rpg yet, i wonder at the many users here who already declare how much easier it will be then DnD 3.0 . As it sounds, it will be a bit simpler, true...but the base mechanic of the game is exactly the same as in all iterations of DnD i know ...roll dice and add modifier and specialization to beat a difficulty... .

[rabindranath72]

I totally do not get the whole "to complicated, complex" argument. This is just not true. I am also a gamer going on 20 years of active gaming...and if you ask me, ADnD was as complex as DnD 3.0 was. Sure, you have a lot of options to stack on top of the corerules set (all optional! The splat explosion is not mandatory!)...but if you only play with the PHB, DnD 3.0 really isn't that complex. Plz give today's kids a bit more credit! The problem i see is more one of "better alternatives" ... today they have online games, PS3, W II and so on.
And, as no one has seen the DA PnP rpg yet, i wonder at the many users here who already declare how much easier it will be then DnD 3.0 . As it sounds, it will be a bit simpler, true...but the base mechanic of the game is exactly the same as in all iterations of DnD i know ...roll dice and add modifier and specialization to beat a difficulty... .

The problem is not the base mechanic, which obviously can be grasped by anyone (and roll, add modifiers, beat a threshold has existed since Original D&D in one form or another).
But the fact that there are no skill ranks to keep track of (how many 3e books do you know in which NPCs and monsters have the correct number of skill points assigned?); and the combat system does not require a map (attacks of opportunity anyone?) are huge simplifying factors. Obviously things can get bad in other areas, but at least these factors seem to have been taken into account.
I have used D&D 3.0 (not 3.5) since it's publishing, and only the 3 core books, and I agree it's not that complex.
But I always get attracted back to simpler games, since they are easier to handle for the GM, and since I do not have much time to prepare sessions, and I surely do not want to spend half of a gaming session just running one combat.

[Crimfan]

Consider the situation with 4e now: 6 _core_ rulebooks, and more expected to come (at least PHB3 and MM3); the other books clearly marked as "supplements". As the core expands, you find references to more core books in the published settings (e.g. Eberron has references to at least PHB2).

Agreed that WotC has altered its publication model, but you can have a perfectly good campaign with just the PHB, DMG and MM. Even the DMG is relatively optional and the DMG2 is definitely optional. WotC may call extra books "core" but they're really more like big splatbooks.

[rabindranath72]

Consider the situation with 4e now: 6 _core_ rulebooks, and more expected to come (at least PHB3 and MM3); the other books clearly marked as "supplements". As the core expands, you find references to more core books in the published settings (e.g. Eberron has references to at least PHB2).

Agreed that WotC has altered its publication model, but you can have a perfectly good campaign with just the PHB, DMG and MM. Even the DMG is relatively optional and the DMG2 is definitely optional. WotC may call extra books "core" but they're really more like big splatbooks.

I have problems with the whole publication model when it extends the core indefinitely; I would have been more than happy with just the first three core books like I have always been with all previous versions of D&D. The 4e FR campaign books were OK; but when I bought the Eberron campaign setting book...well, let's just say I was not happy at all with references to things I did not have.

But let's not threadjack anymore We are here to speak about Dragon Age, after all!

[danbuter1]

3e and 4e are way more complex than 1e or 2e. Just look at page counts. If a book takes 200 more pages to explain the rules for the same type of game, it is more complicated.

[Crimfan]

3e and 4e are way more complex than 1e or 2e. Just look at page counts. If a book takes 200 more pages to explain the rules for the same type of game, it is more complicated.

More pages != more complicated.

For instance, the fact that these have unified mechanics (for the most part) make them much simpler in many ways. There are clearly way more options, though, but the sheer number of special cases and non-uniform systems in 1E made it more complex in many ways. If you want an example, try to parse the Gygaxian prose in the DMG1E on the topic of initiative. (I don't have a copy of the DMG1E with me to give you a page number but if you have it, use the excellent index.)

Tons of special cases is one of those things that I really HOPE doesn't come back in any old skool feel.

[danbuter1]

That would be a great argument, except that a large percentage of at least 3e (don't know about 4e, as I quit DnD), is exceptions to the standardized rules (feats especially).

[Crimfan]

That would be a great argument, except that a large percentage of at least 3e (don't know about 4e, as I quit DnD), is exceptions to the standardized rules (feats especially).

Agreed (and 4E is even more like that), but they're not like 1E's exceptions, though. The feats tend to be "add +X in this situation" or whatever, and a good chunk of the PHB3E is spells. Ditto for the PHB4E (powers being, well, spells, essentially).

1E had tons of crazy exceptions like the elf secret door rules, dwarf stone detection rules, thief skills, hearing rules, etc. None of these worked the same way and it was often totally unclear when one should apply or not. Why are secret doors different than traps? No idea, but they are in 1E and 2E. Secret door detection doesn't scale with level and traps are only the province of thieves.

This is complexity of a different---and IMO very annoying---sort and I profoundly hope that DA doesn't go down that road. I suspect the answer is that it won't.

[Irontruth]

3e and 4e are way more complex than 1e or 2e. Just look at page counts. If a book takes 200 more pages to explain the rules for the same type of game, it is more complicated.

Do you consider Spirit of the Century to be a complicated game? It has a high page count, well over 300 I believe.

How about Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies? Also page count over 300.

These are both very simple games (a S7S character can take up less than 1/3 of a notebook page), but have a lot of pages to their books. It's a logical fallacy to assume page count equates to more complex.

[dm4hire]

Unless the game is Twerps, it's complicated. J/K

Going back to the OP's concerns I don't think there will be a timing issue with the release of the RPG. I believe, as mentioned by others, that DAO is just the first step for Bioware. I wouldn't put it past them to have plans to eventually arch the game line into a fully functional MMO down the road. What better way to set a foundation than to create a single player game and wait for the responses to pour in about wanting to see it multiplay-able. The next DA will proably be along the lines of Neverwinter and then the third will be the full MMO if it comes to that. If it doesn't then we'll still see new DA only it will stick with the working format that works. Based on current reviews, sales, and demand I'd say at least single player versions will remain a viable option. So being a couple of months late after the release of the actual game won't hurt the RPG. However if it gets delayed 'til this time next year it might see a decrease.

[Divyr Cousland]

They may be able to sell a lot more if they distribute it for sale where the video game is sold. People browsing in places like Gamestop that see it will be at least tempted to pick it up and look at what it is.
As long as they can stick with the production dates, it could be successful and start a new trend in PNP games.
As long as they are using innovation there, online could be the way to go with future video games. There's no way to compete with the successful juggernaut that is WoW, but the strength of Dragon Age is the storyline and Role-Playing opportunities that seem almost non-existant in MMO's. A CooP online function for future Dragon Age games could work well for a more story driven game like this setting.

[Dark_Heron]

I don't think they will miss the boat. Bioware is still producing DLC, so as long as people are playing and buying, Green Ronin has some time.

[Flurdt07]

I agree. BioWare does GREAT things and the DLC they do will be just as GREAT. Yes ... Im a fan lol. In any case, there are so many ways you can play DAO, and so many things you can do. Its not a one time play, and (for me anyway) it takes what, 25 ... 30 some hours just to beat it in the first place? Its an amazing world which has ben created, and I feel confident enough, the Green Ronin will handle the table tops release well. We should be seeing alot more DA to come.