 January 5, 2012 - 9:29am | This topic isn't started to allow people to bash RPG companies, rather, it's intended to discuss how we have been able to keep Star Frontiers alive these last few years. Even though we don't own the Star Frontiers intellectual property, we have a tangible product to be proud of. But. What happens when were gone? Will w00t Jr. take up the Editorship? Will Little Iggy Spud grow up to be a Real Dralasite? Will jedion's force powers pass onto his offspring? Quote from page 3: Not all gamers are so optimistic. "I think the tabletop RPG market is enduring a kind of death. I think it is transforming into something that isn't a viable commercial business for more than a handful of people," said Ryan Dancey, former VP of RPGs at Wizards and marketing guru at White Wolf/CCP. Dancey was instrumental in developing the OGL before the 3rd edition era of D&D, but he foresees the RPG industry becoming a dead hobby like model trains. "Kids stopped playing with trains, and the businesses that remained dedicated to hobbyists who got more disposable income as they grew up, until the price of the hobby was out of reach of anyone except those older hobbyists. Eventually, it became a high-end hobby with very expensive products, sold to an ever-decreasing number of hobbyists. As those folks die, the hobby shrinks. That is what is happening to the tabletop RPG business." What's your opinion? What do you see in the future of the Star Frontiersman and starfrontiers.US? |
 January 10, 2012 - 6:39pm | WOTC has a disease. Instead of finding out what will attract new players, they look for consensus about what existing players want. The problem with this is "attrition". By looking for consensus of existing players, they block out those who are at the opposite end. Each time they look for consensus, they do this, so that their numbers continue to diminish and the game just gets more and more complicated. Consensus works for government, it doesn't work for enterprise. If they want to improve, they need to find out what everyone who is not a customer wants, reconcile it with what the regular players want, and put it into practice. This is how other companies do it for their products. Clearly, WOTC is not paying dedicated marketers to do the marketing. They're hiring players with extreme biases to do the marketing, which is a big mistake. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
 January 11, 2012 - 6:12am | @ascent: your statement assumes that what appeals to existing players will in noway appeal to new players. Somehow I cannot agree. The problem is that the gaming industry knows that its setting that attracts new players not the rules thus most rules systems get little play test and the focus is on color pics and trying to spark the imagination. For me if there are enough problems with the rules I get frustrated and drop them. Game design companies just don't care if the rules work figuring most players will house rules many things anyway. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 January 11, 2012 - 7:15am | Have to go with Ascent on this one. By asking players to contribute they will find out only what people who play alot want to fix the game. Some of these will want more and more but to introduce new players you need less. Check out drivethrurpg.com in the FREESTUFF section for the intro rules to games that companies are just releasing. The real books are 200+ pages long but these intros are complete at often 20 pages. Of course we only have the article saying "Hey players tell us what you want!" They could be doing alot of other marketing and research and focus groups which we haven't been told about. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 11, 2012 - 11:55am | This looks a little more promising about WOTC's approach to the new D&D being planned:
View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
January 11, 2012 - 12:05pm | @ascent: your statement assumes that what appeals to existing players will in noway appeal to new players. Somehow I cannot agree. The problem is that the gaming industry knows that its setting that attracts new players not the rules thus most rules systems get little play test and the focus is on color pics and trying to spark the imagination. For me if there are enough problems with the rules I get frustrated and drop them. Game design companies just don't care if the rules work figuring most players will house rules many things anyway.
Marketing is more than just making an appealing setting. Marketing is EVERYTHING about the product, including the ease of use of its rules. I was actually referring to the rules set. You're exactly right, but that's only part of the picture. Yes, a clean rules system is absolutely essential, but so is a simple rules system that everyone can use and understand. In fact, they go hand in hand, as we've proven with Star Frontiers. The simpler the rules system, the less buggy it is and the easier it is to make adjustments. The more complicated it is, the harder it is to maintain balance and the more things clash. As Einstein said: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
 January 11, 2012 - 1:23pm | This actually reminds me of Honda's dismal failure in the past decade in their motorcycle division. Shortly after the turn of the millenium, they released an 1800cc motorcycle that at the time, was the "biggest and baddest" available. As such it sold well during that first year, what with the typical ignorant American appetite of "bigger is better" which is naturally followed by "biggest is best". Three things happened here that I can see happening with WOTC. First and foremost, this bike only held that coveted "biggest" title for a brief time, several other companies released 2053cc and 2300cc monsters a year later (and still others came out with 1900cc machines a few years alter). But that wasn't the issue. Item two --- Honda had promised some in-house accessories to help owners dress up their factory machines (aka "modules" in game speak). A year later, no accessories...but lo and behold they swapped out the fenders, exhaust, and wheels to create two new <cough> models that were no different from the original, while still offering the original as well (aka "rulebook revisions" in game speak). Item three --- Honda continued to discontinue any other motorcycle that outperformed or outsold (or both) this behemoth, thus making it their "best" by default. Meanwhile other companies (Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha, and Harley Davidson) were releasing new models that were either different from old models, or at the very least improvements on the old models...while Honda continued to steamroll ahead with more fender/pipe/wheel exchanges to create nearly a dozen different/same incarnations of the original (aka Lorraine Williams in game speak). In other words, over the past ten years everyone else was actually releasing new product while Honda kept re-releasing the same thing that everyone had grown bored with long ago. Result? Honda saw a continuous loss in total market share each year while the other four saw a continuous gain. Not only did they ignore what the overall riding public wanted, they also ignored what the diminishing Honda riding market wanted. They finally nixxed that stellar sales turd and now they're playing catch-up. So on that premise, I would applaud WOTC for at least considering what SOME degree of their target audience wants, as opposed to steamrolling ahead with something NOBODY wants. Is it perfect? No. Could it be better? Yes. Could they have opted for a worse route? Definitely...as was clearly demonstrated by Honda  |
January 11, 2012 - 2:06pm | Yes, but currently we have had the WOTC model of seeking the interest of the majority. What happens when you have 80% of the people asking for 2200 cc bike and they get it. You lose 20% of your audience. then you get 90% of the remaining asking for a 2500 cc bike. You lose 10% of your audience. Then you have 75% asking for a 2800 cc bike. Then you lose 25% of your audience. If you keep doing it this way, pretty soon your customer base will be so diminished that you can't make a profit. Now, what happens if you say, alright, my current audience likes big bikes, but I want to appeal to a wider audience? Suddenly you stop concerning yourself with catering to the big bikes, but start opening up the field to those who like options. Some like bigger bikes and some like smaller ones, so you make it modular. To do that, you strip it down to a frame. From that frame, you can design several different styles and sizes. Suddenly your customer base blossoms. Modular appeal is always what broadens the customer base. Modular means a simple, universal component that other models are developed from. That is how the RPG system, in especially D&D should be operating. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
January 11, 2012 - 2:57pm | Part of this reminds me of the greatest marketing failure of all time. Yes I am talking about New Coke. The marketing research was done quite extensively with hordes of taste testing and questionnaires and the like. The problem was they did blind tests which proved the new formula was better liked than the old but they just forgot to tell people they were getting rid of the old. Heck at the time Pepsi had changed its formula four times already and no one really cared. The Disaster was Coca-Cola did not research or understand what Coke meant to people and when they tried to change that people went nuts. Now WOTC is going to try and offer a product which appeals to gamers of all editions of D&D and new gamers by asking them what they want. This is gonna be like making one set of rules which appeal to fans of baseball but cover T-ball, Little League, College Ball, Minor League Ball and Pro-Ball with accessories for Cuban and Japanese Baseball thrown in. Good luck with that. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 11, 2012 - 3:47pm | Unless you're buying your Coke & Pepsi from Mexican outlets, you're not getting the Real Thing anymore because they all switched to HFCS (high fructose corn syrup)...only Mexico is still making it with real cane sugar. The difference is like night and day when you taste it. Ascent, I get what you're saying about the modular bit...alas it doesn't work that way with bikes. Bigger engines mandate bigger frames, smaller engines mandate smaller frames. If you put a 250cc motor into an 1800cc frame your 0-60 times change from being measured in seconds to minutes, and if you put the 1800cc mill into the 250 frame it will torque itself free from the frame after a few throttle twists. There simply isn't a happy medium there --- for the most part, the frame and engine are intertwined as load bearing structures and as such each is unique for every model. Harley would be the exception as they lend themselves to be "semi-modular"...meaning they have two engines: the 883/1200 Sportster engine (which is the same engine with different bores) in one frame and their big twin 96ci motor that is shared across three other frames (Dyna, Softail, and Touring...which are basically the same frame with alterations to the steering head and swingarm/rear suspension). But I do get what you're saying, it's better to try appealing to the general audience rather than one part of it. All I was saying is that it's better that they are appealing to one part of the audience versus alienating ALL of it...which still leaves much to be desired. |
January 12, 2012 - 6:28am | The Day New Coke came out the CEO of Pepsi proclaimed that they had won the cola wars. Asked how he could predict that he told a story about when he was hired as an executive at Frito lay: That one engineer had figured out how to make Corn chips exactly the same for less money and had switched in a cheaper ingredient. Instantly in one month they had a massive drop in corn chip sales. An investigation was done and the truth learned and the engineer was fired and the corn chips recipe returned to normal. The executive telling him the story phrased the moral this way, "Dont F--- with the Fritos." Hard to imagine the many hard core camps of D&D players out there who are dedicated to only one edition getting on board with yet another edition and yet another set of rule books to buy, somehow I think most of them will see it as "F---ing with the Fritos" and continue to do their own thing. I commend WotC for trying to listen to the fans but perhaps its too little too late. I might have been won over back in 2008 but at last year I washed my hands of D&D and said enough. "Stick a fork in my I'm done" @ Shadow: Funny how much better all your food will taste if you start eliminating all high frutose corn syrup from your diet but then that will mean reading lots of food labels and just not buying lots of processed food. However, you do start to buy Mexican soda called Jaritos (as a treat for the kids), train the children to ask for soda water mixed with fruit juice when in a resturant, and make trips to Trader Joes if you just have to put soda in your frig for some reason. I seriously enjoy the taste of food more with this ingredient (plus one more) out of our diet. On top of that eliminating this ingredient also lowers the overal sugar content of our diet as well which is probably a net gain for my kids in the long run. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 12, 2012 - 6:41am | And in another example of what is happening to the gaming industry from another part of real life...Hostess has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. They are an iconic brand and their products have not changed BUT the public tastes have changed. With the obesity rate out of control people are cutting back on snacks and truth be told Hostess hasn't been keeping up with the changes. WOTC is trying the same thing of changing D&D to keep up with the times. This of course has lead to the multiple changes in the few years compared to the very few in the first years. Then again too many changes can alienated your core audience to the point they run away. Kinda like GamesWorkshop and Warhammer who seem to plan the next edition while still releasing new products from the latest edition. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 12, 2012 - 7:33am | Precisely on that last point. Drastic changes incite drastic responses. What they should be doing is providing separate variations of D&D in tandem, such as D&D Classic (AD&D 1.5[1.0+/2.0-]), Ultra D&D (3.75), and D&D Horizons (4.0). (Simply as a demonstration.) Each version would forever remain true to the core mechanics of its original edition, while improving it only as much as it needs to be for balance. Perhaps some mechanis, such as alignment could be made modular, so that GM's choose which type of alignment system they want to use, if any, no matter which system they use. "1.0+/2.0-" means to subtract some of the extra bull from 2.0, while letting it improve upon 1.0. View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
January 12, 2012 - 8:18am | Precisely on that last point. Drastic changes incite drastic responses. What they should be doing is providing separate variations of D&D in tandem, such as D&D Classic (AD&D 1.5[1.0+/2.0-]), Ultra D&D (3.75), and D&D Horizons (4.0). (Simply as a demonstration.) Each version would forever remain true to the core mechanics of its original edition, while improving it only as much as it needs to be for balance. Perhaps some mechanis, such as alignment could be made modular, so that GM's choose which type of alignment system they want to use, if any, no matter which system they use.
Separate editions still leads to fractured customer base. It costs just as much money to bring each product to market but targeting them at small segments mean each product is individually less profitable. Under AD&D the whole customer base bought the modules but under 2.0 with the multitude of settings the whole customer base did not buy every module but rather only the modules for the settings they were interested in. Yet each of those products had a cost to bring it to market. If WOTC does this with the rules they may as well not bother as it will be another cautionary tale of corporate mismanagement that they should have known better then to try. "1.0+/2.0-" means to subtract some of the extra bull from 2.0, while letting it improve upon 1.0. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 12, 2012 - 10:06am |  Now that we've exhausted the D&D Thing, let's discuss:
What do you see in the future of the Star Frontiersman and starfrontiers.US? |
January 12, 2012 - 12:52pm | @ Shadow: Funny how much better all your food will taste if you start eliminating all high frutose corn syrup from your diet but then that will mean reading lots of food labels and just not buying lots of processed food. However, you do start to buy Mexican soda called Jaritos (as a treat for the kids), train the children to ask for soda water mixed with fruit juice when in a resturant, and make trips to Trader Joes if you just have to put soda in your frig for some reason. I seriously enjoy the taste of food more with this ingredient (plus one more) out of our diet. On top of that eliminating this ingredient also lowers the overal sugar content of our diet as well which is probably a net gain for my kids in the long run.
Not to get off on another tangent...but it's amazing what they put that crap (HFCS) into these days. Frozen pizzas...I mean seriously?! Why does pizza need to be sweetened? If I want a pepperoni/sausage pizza the last thing it had better be is sweet. Maybe for that foo-foo pineapple topping it makes a bit of sense (no, because pineapple is already sweet) but any combination of cheese/meat/vegetable does NOT need to be sweetened. As for dropping it for the sugar effect, that couldn't be any further from good advice. See, regular cane sugar is notorious for adding fat to your muscle tissue, but the HFCS goes one step further by adding fat not just to your muscle tissue --- but to vital organs such as your heart, kidneys, and lungs. Yeah, that suddenly makes fat on the muscle tissue look pretty good. And in another example of what is happening to the gaming industry from another part of real life...Hostess has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. They are an iconic brand and their products have not changed BUT the public tastes have changed. With the obesity rate out of control people are cutting back on snacks and truth be told Hostess hasn't been keeping up with the changes. Unfortunately they DID keep up with the changes. They too jumped on the HFCS bandwagon. Not that there was much of a choice, mind you. Courtesy of government subsidzing of the corn market, it only drove the price of sugar through the cieling by comparison. Chicago used to be home to many candy factories (such as Brachs) but they moved north to Canada where sugar is affordable....resulting in a 75% decrease in American labor in that segment of the job market. They didn't move to Canada to save on labor (it's actually the same rate there), they moved there because the sugar is affordable. |
January 12, 2012 - 12:55pm | Separate editions still leads to fractured customer base.
Yep, look no further than Zebulon's Guide to Frontier Space for proof of that. Never mind the fact it was never finished, just look at the division on the subject here and at other SF boards. Most hate it, some prefer it over the original...but NONE like both versions. |
January 12, 2012 - 1:04pm | Now that we've exhausted the D&D Thing, let's discuss:
What do you see in the future of the Star Frontiersman and starfrontiers.US? Well, I didn't scour the linked page very far but I'll say this much: if there is a customer feedback section for D&D 5.0, we should swamp it with requests for Star Frontiers. It's a long shot, but if they compile the various answers and see a most common opinion, odds are good they might pay attention to it. If the most commonly recurring opinion is "Bring back Star Frontiers"... |
January 12, 2012 - 3:35pm | Future of Star Frontiers? First we need to recruit players and fans. Second we need to recruit fans and players. Third we need to recruit playerfans. Once this is done we need to hit WOTC and show them their is a profitable demand for an updated version of SF. Then they will give us one. Which will look like the new Gamma World and we will hate it. SO we need to show them exactly what we want in the updated version so they can get it at least part right. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 12, 2012 - 4:20pm | After the IP owner not play testing 2nd edtion, and the fiasco known as 3x edition with the slowest freaking combat known to RPGs, and then 4.o; I shudder to think of what WoTC would do with Star Frontiers. In fact I think I know what they would do: more D20 Modern. some bright boy will dictate that it must be compatible with the flagship product and there would go fast play, customizability, and we'd probably get the second coming of the Zebs timeline and setting treatment with so many problems and inconsistencies that will leave most of us pulling out hair. Rather I'd like to see WoTC make good on their promise to include fans. I'll believe it when I see it. Never forgot, you cant trust the mega corps. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 12, 2012 - 4:49pm | After the IP owner not play testing 2nd edtion, and the fiasco known as 3x edition with the slowest freaking combat known to RPGs, and then 4.o; I shudder to think of what WoTC would do with Star Frontiers.
Well ya gotta admit, it would have to be an improvement over the Lorraine Williams SF 2.0 (aka Zebulon's Incomplete Guide to the Frontier). |
January 13, 2012 - 7:33am | Does anyone think they will try and complete Zeb's Guide? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 13, 2012 - 10:38am | Does anyone think they will try and complete Zeb's Guide?
No. Its a failed line. They could start from scratch and redo it. But probably not. The name Zebs guide was piggy backing off the popularity of a David Adams product which was making money in the '80s we're 30 years later and no one remembers Adams. Plus Zebs was such a dog of a product with a shaky reputation not a good choice to continue it.I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 13, 2012 - 12:24pm | I doubt it as well. Zeb's was the early 2.0 attempt, which MIGHT have enjoyed some degree of success had it been finished back then. Alas, the obvious lack of playtesting says otherwise, and for political reasons (via Lorraine Williams) it never really had a chance to begin with. It could be said that it was produced with the INTENT of killing off SF... So it begs the technical question, if WOTC did decide to resurrect SF, would it be 3.0 or 2.1? |
January 13, 2012 - 12:40pm | I doubt it as well. Zeb's was the early 2.0 attempt, which MIGHT have enjoyed some degree of success had it been finished back then. Alas, the obvious lack of playtesting says otherwise, and for political reasons (via Lorraine Williams) it never really had a chance to begin with. It could be said that it was produced with the INTENT of killing off SF...
Beta Dawn or 3.0. I'd be very interested in what they would do with the setting. Rewrite it, pick up at year FY111 of something else. So it begs the technical question, if WOTC did decide to resurrect SF, would it be 3.0 or 2.1? I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
January 13, 2012 - 1:01pm | WoTC would update SF and use the d00 mechanic. :-) SF will continue on it's current path for a while. Only when the IP is released will it have a future. In the next 2 years you'll see more games come out using the d00 mechanic. You might see a Star Frontiers setting book as well. |
January 13, 2012 - 1:02pm | Personally, I'd leave out the FY-111 bit. That references Zeb's and indicates the new version is inspired by Zeb's. We want this to succeed, not fail at the starting gate. I'd simply favor a Holmes to Moldvay or Moldvay to Mentzer D&D approach...expand on what was already done in the successful version. |
January 13, 2012 - 3:31pm | Well we did see some of this is the different Traveller versions. The original lasted quite a while and then out came Mega-Traveller and the end of the Imperium. The next couple of versions tried to keep that up but if I understand the latest version just went back to the original with only slightly different mechanics. Seems to be doing well. Begs the questions: 1) Do you want the original setting with some updating in game play or a something like Zeb's adding onto the history? 2) What would you change about SF to bring it into the modern realm? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
January 13, 2012 - 3:54pm | 1) Do you want the original setting with some updating in game play or a something like Zeb's adding onto the history? Option A any weekday and twice on the weekends. Option B needs to be erased from history. 2) What would you change about SF to bring it into the modern realm?
Really, it doesn't need much more than some simple terminolgy exchanges. You know, just a little more science behind the science fiction. Flesh out the worlds a little bit. Hard definitions on the UPF/Coucil of Worlds, Star Law, and the various megacorps. I see very few flaws in the actual game mechanics (KH ship design being the only real beef), and fewer still in the setting. |
 January 15, 2012 - 12:21pm | There are a few game systems that I really like and I'm loyal to those particular systems. I've never found anything better than Star Frontiers for my go-to sci-fi gaming system and so, I've stuck with Star Frontiers. One thing I don't care for is a gaming system that constantly has to 're-invent' itself (read: D&D). I refuse to run out every few years and re-purchase the entire system in order to remain current. If they couldn't get it right the first time I don't see the reason why I should have to shell out more cash later...and so I avoid systems like that. What I do like though, and what I will pry cash out of my wallet for are things like modules. If WotC were to go ahead and revamp Star Frontiers and essentially make a new game out of it, I seriously doubt I'd buy into it. I'd check it out...and maybe I'd buy it if it was better than the original game, but I don't see how they could really improve upon the original. So in my opinion, if they were to update the original so that it wasn't so 'dated' and then start putting out modules and other similar support materials - and completely refrain from tinkering with the basic mechanics of the original work; that would be supremely interesting to me. Anything else would look more like the company attempting to fleece the pockets of the gamers in true D&D fashion and I would steer clear of that. I don't have to outrun that nasty beast my friend...I just have to outrun you!  |
January 15, 2012 - 2:39pm | One thing I don't care for is a gaming system that constantly has to 're-invent' itself (read: D&D). I refuse to run out every few years and re-purchase the entire system in order to remain current. If they couldn't get it right the first time I don't see the reason why I should have to shell out more cash later...and so I avoid systems like that.
D&D got it right the first time. They simply managed to get it wrong four more times. |
