Read the post I quoted. Read my reply. Consider the last question a rhetorical one. The premise is this: the game, when it was most popular was certainly not due to its nostalgia as opposed to good game design, because the game was too new for it to have nostalgic value. Therefore, it must have been something else that made D&D a household name and multimillion dollar industry unto itself. I cited it's ease of use, low cost, and broad appeal as the reasons it became what it was. Now, knowing that the question was rhetorical, who decides what good game design is anyway, do you understand that you and I agree that simple, cheap and broadly appealing might just be that answer? And that perhaps that answer can be measured in terms of sales and/or popularity?
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Read the post I quoted. Read my reply. Consider the last question a rhetorical one. The premise is this: the game, when it was most popular was certainly not due to its nostalgia as opposed to good game design, because the game was too new for it to have nostalgic value. Therefore, it must have been something else that made D&D a household name and multimillion dollar industry unto itself. I cited it's ease of use, low cost, and broad appeal as the reasons it became what it was. Now, knowing that the question was rhetorical, who decides what good game design is anyway, do you understand that you and I agree that simple, cheap and broadly appealing might just be that answer? And that perhaps that answer can be measured in terms of sales and/or popularity?
If that's the case, then 5E is really going down the wrong path right now, and taking a few lessons from 4E's core design would really help it.
I think your logic is full of holes too. Audiences change. Pac-Man, a game controlled by a single joy-stick, used to be the most popular videogame in existence. These day, Call of Duty, whose sales utterly annihilate anything that came before, requires mastery over two joysticks, over a dozen buttons, an RPG-like character customization system, and vastly more complicated strategy and three-dimensional spatial navigation, not to mention it is required to co-ordinate with your fellow players over voice-chat.
Every single genre of gaming (and by this I mean both traditional board and tabletop gaming and videogaming) has demonstrated a tendency towards much greater complexity and intricacy over time. Over time, audiences become more sophisticated, and develop tastes for more complex (and at the same time easier to use) game systems. At the same time, they develop a more critical eye towards things like game balance, with fanbases full of people willing to use spreadsheets calculus to analyze every element of a game.
I would wager that if 1E was released in today's RPG market, without nostalgia, novelty or name-recognition to prop it up, it would be dead on arrival. Both game design and the tastes of the audience have grown more sophisticated over the years.
This is another false premise if you really want growth. Playtests sample those most likely to already play the game. It's a skewed sample from the start. If you want to grow the fanbase then you must attract those not already most likely to purchase the product. Everyone seems to agree that the RPG fanbase is dwindling. If so, why? Might it be that the most popular system with the greatest name recognition is appealing to a smaller and smaller subset than it did previously?
I think that is the case. Obviously, I can't prove that anymore than you can prove 3e and 4e selling better than previous editions, though many of us "feel" the pool of gamers has shrunk, which is worthless, I know. WotC has the real information and I doubt they share it with either of us. And, if they did, I'd be very interested in the metric used to measure "better sales". Is it more books? Net profit? Core rulebooks sold? Do we count Expert sets or just Basic? PHBs or all three cores? All D&D brand sales to include miniatures, posters, t-shirts, etc.? All of that would matter, obviously, because not all editions of the game relied as heavily on some of those items as did others. Or, some of those other items were contracted out to other companies and TSR simple slapped the or allowed the D&D logo on them.
TwinBahamut
First Post
This is why a good playtest is designed to get information from a wide range of people, including those that would not necessarily play that game normally. The best kind of playtester is someone who has never even played a game in that genre before. This is why the 5E playtest is actually a very, very poor one for improving the quality of the game. The 5E designers are focused entirely on recruiting existing D&D players and are clearly avoiding a lot of the negative feedback they are getting from playtesters. This won't help the game.
I mentioned this before, but I have no interest in discussing theoreticals about whether the fanbase is shrinking or increasing or whatever. Either give me solid numbers or this is entire line of conversation is a meaningless waste of my time.
A game can be complex and intricate yet still be intuitive and simple to play. No where do I say you cannot cater to a more sophisticated market. And, so far, that is what 5e claims to be: a core that can appeal to a broad audience that can easily be put to use. The brilliant part, at least from the stated goals, is that with modules you can add more complexity, more challenge, and more intricate layers. If they pull this off, it will be brilliant. It promises to be easy to play but take time to master. Of course, what it is remains to be seen.
Stormonu
Legend
Have you been reading or seeing something I haven't? To my knowledge, I haven't seen any discussion on they surveys they have done yet. Have they even posted about the survey results yet? (Only thing I can think of is a Mearls comment "60% like the playtest.")
Li Shenron
Legend
This is a good point.
Unfortunately I think the designers must feel like they are kept hostage by the majority of gamers who want only one thing for their character: to be good at combat. Without being a fighter, because it's too mundane and not fun enough, unless it is given superhuman powers and flashy manouevers.
But still those who like a magic-flavored character, they want it to be great in combat. They keep demanding every edition to shift more into the direction where a cleric doesn't need to bother with healing, and can heal without stopping to attack (then they wonder what exactly is the role left for the paladin in the game, since the cleric they want is the combat cleric - just check what is the most wanted cleric concept out there: the warpriest...). They demand that the rogue has a great damage output during combat albeit situational, but this has lead to the introduction of the "striker" role. And of course the spells they invariably equip their wizard with is fireball-types which they demand they are great damage-dealer.
It feels like most gamers want D&D to be a shoot'em'up.
Now that sounds like "dumbing down the game" to me, not the attempt at making the rules lighter.I would like to see a game where if you want to fight you really want to play a fighter, and you play a rogue if you want to explore, and you play a cleric if you want to heal & support, and you play a wizard if you want to solve those situations that cannot be solved with mundane means.
Tony Vargas
Legend
My guess, from both simple logic and the way they're acting, is that the demographic they are targeting is the kids (now in their 40s) who made D&D a fad in the 80s. It's a classic - cliched, really - marketing strategy. Wait 20 or 30 years until people who have fond memories of a fad are feeling old and in their peak earning years, and then 'bring back' the fad to make a few bucks. WotC very clearly already tried this with the 'Red Box' a couple of years ago. I guess it must have been wildly successful, because they're re-printing AD&D 1e, as well. But, that's just a guess.
I'm no telepath, but I wouldn't be shocked if that's what some brilliant marketeer at WotC is thinking. Maybe not "any old piece of garbage," but "any new book with 'D&D Players Handbook' on the cover." The logic is simple. 4e fans adopted that latest editions, while fans of earlier eds rejected it. That is consistent with (though by no means proof) 4e fans being enthusiastic adopters of any new edition, who could therefor be counted on to buy 5e, regardless of it's overall quality or resemblance to 4e. (That's jumping to a conclusion, of course, it may also be that fans of 4e actually like it.) Fans of other eds, OTOH, reject later eds. That's consistent with (but not proof that) they have a clear preference for the mechanics and other content of their edition of choice, who would have to be courted by an edition very similar to their favorite. (That's also jumping to a conclusion, of course, they could just be set in their ways or nostalgic, in which case nothing short of a re-print or re-launch of their favored ed would be of interest.)
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
Well, in an /ideal/ world, cynical marketing folks wouldn't take advantage of our nostalgic impulses to fleece us in our 40s. But, yes, in an ideal world envisioned by folks with a fiduciary responsibility to Hasbro stock-holders, and the unenviable task of using TSR's old IP to fulfill that responsibility, all the kids who played D&D in middle school in the 80s would run right out and buy 5e.
So, the poor kids who don't know any better need to be eased into 'real' D&D?
Yeah. You can expect more strongly-held opinions from more experienced hobbyists.
In yet a third 'ideal world' it wouldn't be happening for another 5 or 6 years.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
I've introduced a couple dozen of them to the game, myself. But, 4e's only had a 4-year run, and has already had Essentials come out in the middle of it. So, unless you started with Essentials, you've been through one rev-roll of a sort, already, anyway. I don't think that'll've built the same strong impression of "this is D&D" that 20 years of AD&D or 15 or so of BECMI did. I could be wrong, I clearly have the outsider perspective on it.
Similar Threads
