non-4e D&D Players . . .

[WheresMyD20]

Not to mention the fact that the money is in the place here you can sell the most product. If the game isn't complicated, you can't sell crunch - so having a simple game limits your sales potential.

But it's a double-edged sword: Having a complicated game limits your sales potential by driving away the casual market. One of the keys of the 1983 Red Box's success is its utter simplicity.

 

[Goblyn]

Initially, I was hopeful ...

But now, probably not; which makes me sad. 4e both before and after Essentials looks really fun, and the thing that bothered me about 4e; the way the classes were; was what was being changed. Yay! But in play, on both sides of the screen, it was just ... boring. And that's why it makes me sad. It's like M. Night Shyamalan's The last Airbender: "The version before this was so good, how could they possibly mess it .... no! NO!"

*cry*

 

['Arry]

No. Maybe 5e, we'll see.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Even these lapsed players may be tough to attract given how technical the game has gotten.

You know, thinking back I think this was me, too. I was pretty much a casual 3.x gamer. I never had a firm grok of the rules, though I gamed with many who did. The terminology was familiar though as I've gamed D&D since the first Red Box. When I bought the 4e PHB and DMG I stared at glumly at how many new terms there were and how many old terms seemed to have been renamed. It might have been just that when I decided I didn't have the time to relearn a whole new dictionary of game terms. It made it a significant barrier to bring forward my hard-earned understanding of rules because it felt like a whole new game.

 

[scadgrad]

Nopers.

After bailing on 3.X for C&C, I still gave 4E a legitimate chance. Bought the first round of books, ran a couple of mods, and then it sort of hit me that the game didn't scratch my D&D FRPG itch like older versions (and even 3.0) did.

I'm a grognard, I do not deny that, but in my 30+ years in the hobby, I've been a fine customer. Hell, I was even fully invested in 2.0 (which I liked, just not as much as 1E). I don't understand from a business standpoint why WoTC doesn't want my money anymore. While I still buy RPGs (not theirs), does that mean that somehow, I'm not a "lapsed customer"? This sounds like one of those terri-bad moments where Smart Upper Management Dudes™ out think themselves. I can't see a company like Starbucks being flippant about my java dollars if I simply moved on to buy my Lattes from a competitor. "Nah, we're good. We're simply going after those customers who haven't tried coffee yet or have stopped drinking it altogether. That's where the growth numbers are in our models."

 

[Umbran]

If the so-called gearheads want a game where they can optimize their powerdecks (which I witnessed first hand in 4E RPGA, with people referring to their powers as their deck), that's great - have fun. It's just not that accessible

Oh, irony!

You're telling WotC, the company that broke the CCG market wide open with Magic: the Gathering, that brought tens of thousands of new players (many, probably mostly, teens and adolescents) into a market with a gearhead-targeted complex game that such things are inaccessible?

You remember that success with gearhead stuff is what allowed them to buy D&D, right?

I tell you, history simply shows it to be untrue. Complexity itself doesn't make it inaccessible - the folks who play RPGs are basically bright, and catch on quick.

 

[Umbran]

Trying to convince John Doe that he wants to spend his evenings playing pretend is a poor use of resources.

Setting aside, of course, that this was how D&D started - convincing non-gamers to game...

There is no easy way to separate John Doe (non-gamer) from Jim Dogood (gamer who hasn't realized it yet) in the general population. You get a few chances, here and there, to cut them out of the herd first, but by and large the real potential market is mixed into the frappe that is the population as a whole.

This is why advertising is Serous (and Expensive) Business.

 

[Chainsaw]

Oh, irony!

You're telling WotC, the company that broke the CCG market wide open with Magic: the Gathering, that brought tens of thousands of new players (many, probably mostly, teens and adolescents) into a market with a gearhead-targeted complex game that such things are inaccessible?

You remember that success with gearhead stuff is what allowed them to buy D&D, right?

I tell you, history simply shows it to be untrue. Complexity itself doesn't make it inaccessible - the folks who play RPGs are basically bright, and catch on quick.

You "win," I forgot how savvy WotC is at making card games work - Essentials will be a huge success and a worldwide phenomenon, bringing in thousands of new and long-retired gamers, undeterred by hundreds of pages of complexity and endless Core Products.

 

[BryonD]

Setting aside, of course, that this was how D&D started - convincing non-gamers to game...

Nope, that isn't correct.

Again, as I've said a couple times before in this thread, there very well may be "gamers" who just don't know their options. There are prospective gamers and there are people who are not.

I was a "gamer" long before I ever heard of roleplaying.

There is no easy way to separate John Doe (non-gamer) from Jim Dogood (gamer who hasn't realized it yet) in the general population. You get a few chances, here and there, to cut them out of the herd first, but by and large the real potential market is mixed into the frappe that is the population as a whole.

This is why advertising is Serous (and Expensive) Business.

Well, it is expensive because people want to intelligently apply their marketing to their actual potential market. If it was all just market to the herd and hope your targets get the message, then it would be much easier and cheaper.

You are never going to get a perfect selection of Dogoods and no Does. But you can seriously stack the deck.

 

[BryonD]

Complexity itself doesn't make it inaccessible - the folks who play RPGs are basically bright, and catch on quick.

Amen to that.