When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[vagabundo]

I must be different, since I used to read all of the books from front to back and then re-read the parts I needed. The color-coded verbal vomit of the class section of 4E does not really work well with that.

While the power section is of little interest, unless you are actually playing the character class, I find the rest of the layout much better. 3e books were unreadable to me, their small font and a background image at the start of every chapter, just terrible.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

In summary: 4E had to be a radically different game to be locked-down IP according to current WOTC strategy. Your reaction is based on the fact that you fundamentally liked the game as it was for the first 30 years, and now it's quite different.

This is my take on the reason for the break in continuity as well. In order to pull some of the IP back under their own control, WoTC needed to make a clean enough break with 3.x and previous versions of D&D that previous products would be unusable with the new system.

I suspect that this is part of the reason for the significant changes between 3.X and 4E. It will be interesting to see if we ever get confirmation that this was a part of the discussions when 4E was planned.

 

[Aeolius]

...now that there is an implicit animosity to world builders I don't feel the desire any longer. As to the new Cosmology, it's badly conceived... I bought the 4E FRCS and skimmed it once. I doubt I'll ever read it again.

I'm right there with you, along with resent at "change for the sake of change"; succubus/erinyes, several traditional monsters no longer able to do what they once could, omission of classic critters, etc.

I fully intended to flesh out a campaign concept of mine, using 4e. The concept requires Awakened animals, greenhags, and druids, none of which were in the initial core books.

I also keep this quote handy, when thinking of reasons why I am not the target audience for 4e; "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)

 

[Mallus]

I also keep this quote handy, when thinking of reasons why I am not the target audience for 4e; "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)

While I completely disagree with the quote, I also find it fairly meaningless. Nothing about 4e prevents my group from spending time "interacting with the little people". Conversely, nothing about 3e (or any previous edition) offered much in the way of support for playing in that manner.

 

[Sunderstone]

I also keep this quote handy, when thinking of reasons why I am not the target audience for 4e; "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)

Thats really in there?

 

[Maggan]

My main problem is that a mere 3 years after 3.5 (which supposedly "fixed" 3.0) was produced, along came 4e.

But it was 3.0 that lasted 3 years. 3.5 lasted 5 years, as far as I can tell.

/M

 

[Aeolius]

Nothing about 4e prevents my group from spending time "interacting with the little people". Conversely, nothing about 3e (or any previous edition) offered much in the way of support for playing in that manner.

Fair enough. Granted, that quote, along with the aforementioned references to quotes mentioning how to have "fun" in 4e, create an underlying tone that I find distasteful. Perhaps, in time, I will learn to ignore that tone but not today.

 

[Fifth Element]

My main problem is that a mere 3 years after 3.5 (which supposedly "fixed" 3.0) was produced, along came 4e.

3.5 was released in 2003, not 2005. So it's 5 years, but anyway.

I'm just simply curious as to why they released it so quickly after "fixing" the previous edition, that's all.

Presumably because they don't consider 3.5 a new edition over 3.0, which is why they called it 3.5.

So it was 8 years since the last new edition, and they felt it was time to do a new one. It's not that different from previous new editions. 2E was what, 12 years after 1E, and 3E was 11 years after 2E. So it's a bit quicker, though the pace of RPG design has arguably increased in recent years, so maybe it makes sense.

 

[Carpe DM]

Does anyone have actual numbers?

My predictions:

1. The 4E core books sold quite well.

2. 4E in general will not generate the revenue that 3.0 and 3.5 did.

My reasons for those predictions can be found elsewhere in this thread. I am more interested in asking whether anyone has data that can disprove or support this hypothesis.

-Carpe

 

[Cadfan]

Its not possible to have data to disprove the second hypothesis. Ask that one again in a few years. As for the first, I suspect that Ari Marmell and Charles Ryan are both telling the truth when they say that they do in fact have data to support it. The idea that they'd lie about this is unrealistic and also insulting.

I also doubt they will share that data with us. I wouldn't if I were in their position.