Is D&D 4E too "far out" to expand the market easily?

[Mallus]

So you're actually agreeing with my point that 4E appeals to people who are already customers of MMOs, Star Trek, Farscape et cetera.

I believe that collective market could be described as the low-hanging fruit, and they are exactly the customers WotC should focus on.

This for me is a lost battle. Between playing on a console/PC (or watching a show on TV) with little to no hard rules to comprehend before playing, and digesting hundreds of pages of abstract ideas, these gamers will just keep on playing instantly rewarding games.

Unless, of course, they want a different experience.

 

[Maggan]

I still have that 3rd edition Basic Set.

The first one (Black dragon on cover) or the second one (blue dragon on cover)? There were differences in strategy between the sets, but you have a point that there weren't anywhere to go but to the books when you were done. Well, unless you count the Player's Kit, with the softback PH in it.

It's gonna be interesting to see the strategy this time.

/M

 

[hexgrid]

It's not a problem for a noob introduced to role-playing at a game table if the DM's description is clear and appealing. It is a problem when one of the goals of 4E in and by itself is to appeal to non-gamers as an entry product to the hobby.

Basically, this doesn't make the product any more appealing to non-geeks. It hunts on the grounds of other geek-related hobbies, like MMOs, fans of Farscape, what-have-you. Which previous editions already did.

This is all I think D&D should do, because reaching any farther is an automatic failure. You've got to have a certain level of geekiness to be a potential gamer.

 

[Umbran]

So you're basically denying that the old D&D boxed sets ever got any significant number of people "into" D&D, and that the people who cite that as how they got into gaming are a meaningless minority, and that similar future efforts are worthless?

Wow. Way to overstate a position, RE. And way to laden said overstatement with emotionally-loaded terms.

I am going to suggest you turn the rhetorical antagonism waaaayyy down. This is a friendly discussion. And I'm not seeing you as too terribly friendly right now.

 

[Jhaelen]

To the original poster (quoting another post). Thank you for that. It's just cleared up something for me in my mind.

I wondered why I actually missed seeing rows of halberd variations in later editions of the game. 1st Ed. AD&D, to me, does have a more 'Medieval' feel to it than later editions, and perhaps it was the 'Quasi-Medieval' feel of the core rules I liked.

I've just started playing Keep on the Shadowfell, and hopefully (slowly) getting to grips with it. (Like the new presentation format, but DM's book could do with a card cover, methinks.)

'Medieval' is not a term I would associate with D&D now. I do remember people describing D&D in various 70s & 80s articles as 'Quasi-Medieval', but I don't think that's a term you could use for the current edition. Very much a personal preference, I used to enjoy medieval wargames using the WRG rules back in the 80s, maybe that's it?

To me, D&D 4th edition feels like its own thing.

I agree with your assessment to a certain point. Still, I've always considered D&D to be more 'high fantasy' than 'quasi medieval'. There have always been anachronistic and even sci-fi elements in the game and I don't know many other rpg systems that include spells as powerful and 'epic' as the ones in D&D.

Since I also enjoy a more realistic portrayal of medieval times, I looked to other rpg systems to get my fix: Pendragon and especially Ars Magica took my fancy. It makes for a welcome change of pace and a completely different roleplaying experience to play one of these from time to time.

But I wouldn't want to give up on D&D for either of these. For me the strength of D&D has always been the very tactical nature of its combat system. I like that 4E seems to emphasize this aspect even further.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I still have that 3rd edition Basic Set. It's not the same as the old D&D Basic set in a one important way. The 3rd edition set is a one-off ("Play this once, now go buy our full edition rulebooks."), whereas the old Basic sets had an entire series of scenarios for them (indeed the whole BECMI rules path as well).

Would using the D&D Minis game as an introduction to what full Dungeons & Dragons is, simply encourage new people to treat D&D more as a wargame than a roleplaying game when they get into it? Just not sure on that one.

If I heard correctly, they don't want to include miniatures in the 4E basic set, since this just inflates the cost. I hope this will give the potential players more material to work on.

The D&D min-game _might_ serve as an introduction to D&D, but are they a good introduction to role-playing? Would new players look out for more board games or want to expand the D&D role-playing side of things? I don't know.

 

[SKyOdin]

So you're actually agreeing with my point that 4E appeals to people who are already customers of MMOs, Star Trek, Farscape et cetera.

This for me is a lost battle. Between playing on a console/PC (or watching a show on TV) with little to no hard rules to comprehend before playing, and digesting hundreds of pages of abstract ideas, these gamers will just keep on playing instantly rewarding games.

This just makes D&D more geekish, more entrenched as an has-been's hobby (not unlike wargames were to RPGs when they rose). Not less. It's like an old lady that dies her hair platinum and wears slut clothing to appeal to younger men. That doesn't make her any more attractive, but instead underlines her issues with her age.

Hey now, I got into D&D primarily from my interest in console RPGs such as Final Fantasy. Saying that people who play videogames are unwilling/unable to learn how to play tabletop RPGs is rather misguided. Fantasy videogames at the very least introduce people to fantasy in general and to complex rulesets (and if you think videogame players don't get involved in digesting complex rule mechanics, you have overlooked a large element of the fanbase).

In any case, I wouldn't call fans of MMOs and console RPGs necessarily "geekish". Every year, videogaming comes closer and closer to being mainstream. If 4E successfully attracts a lot of current MMO and console game players, it might be able to tag along on the ride towards mainstream acceptance.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wow. Way to overstate a position, RE. And way to laden said overstatement with emotionally-loaded terms.

I am going to suggest you turn the rhetorical antagonism waaaayyy down. This is a friendly discussion. And I'm not seeing you as too terribly friendly right now.

I don't think what I'm said is as extreme as you're claiming. Perhaps you could clarify though. Do you need me to repeat the question toned-down? I guess I should:

"Are you say that the old D&D boxed sets didn't get any significant number of people "into" D&D? Are you saying that future similar efforts are largely pointless/a waste of time and effort?"

How about that? I'd really like you to answer this question, because it seems like an entirely valid one given your apparent position.

BTW, totally off-topic, is there any way I can put your avatar on ignore whilst viewing your posts? (which often have some merit) I have to admit, whenever I see that prat together with an opinion I disagree with, I want to see Angel kick him across a room in a bad wire-fu style. He's got to be the least likeable "Oh but he's not really a villain" in TV history. Angel did a great job of making me loathe him utterly. If I'm overwrought, it's his fault

 

[Set]

They don't have Phraints and Deodanths as core races yet, so I'm not terribly worried about D&D getting too far away from Tolkein.

Even some of the 'out-there' races of Eberron come from mythic stock (changeling children, golems, beast-men) that's every bit as valid to explore as dwarves and elves (and many times more 'traditional' than nasty hobbitses).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even some of the 'out-there' races of Eberron come from mythic stock (changeling children, golems, beast-men) that's every bit as valid to explore as dwarves and elves (and many times more 'traditional' than nasty hobbitses).

I think you've missed the point of my thread, Set. That's exactly what I was saying. Something like changelings (or whatever they're called) or shifters or even maybe Warforged, especially if they were a little more golem-like, is I think, going to fit better with the perceptions of say, the average fantasy reader than Dragonborn.

It's not really down to "just the races", though, that's a side-show. The main deal is the focus on ultra-fantasy adventure, and the art style, which, as the woman quoted says, looks more like Star Wars than perhaps what someone imagines when the phrase "Dungeons and Dragons" is uttered. Still, over the thread I've come to realize that's there's a market for that. I just think that WotC might want to consider whether there's a market for something else, too.