When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Fifth Element]

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)

So we have one quote, possibly taken out of context. Granted Mr. Wyatt is one of the lead designers of 4E. But that's one man's opinion, and many things changed between the preview books and the release of the game.

But you're probably well-served in ignoring designer intent as much as possible, and play the game how you want to play it. Goodness knows I never played 1E the way Mr. Gygax intended.

 

[Halivar]

along with the aforementioned references to quotes mentioning how to have "fun" in 4e

I'm still contesting this. I see a lot of guidelines on how several different gamer-types might have fun, and guidelines on how to cater to them.

 

[Carpe DM]

Sure, it's possible. We can look at trends, and make predictions. We might look to see if further books, beyond core, are selling at the same rate. Has the Forgotten Realms 4E received the same adoption numbers as the 3.0 and 3.5 reworks? In short, do we think people are playing the game, or bought the core books to see what it is all about.

Asking for numbers may be naive, and the refusal to give numbers may be revealing, but it is not insulting. I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm just curious.

-Carpe

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What I disagree with is the shape 4e took. A system could have been designed that addressed the tastes of a broader degree of the existing market.

This is all just speculation, so let me say: No, I don't think so.

There are too many things that people seem to want that I simply don't want to want. For example, Raven Crowking is perfectly able of telling me how he wants to play D&D, and what he prefers. I think I generally understand his goals and interests. But I don't share them. The direction he would take a new edition is not the direction I would want to go.
Then I read pemertons post and think "well, I might not entirely share all his priorities, but I like where he's going." And he seems to like the 4E enough to consider running/playing it, when he used to play Rolemaster instead of D&D 3.x.

(Sorry pemerton and RC if I pick you as examples, but we've batted heads in so many threads by now...)

I myself was already in the process of being no longer part of the 3.x audience - I DMed Iron Heroes and would have loved (preferred?) to play it, too. (Despite all its flaws!)

Anyway, RC and I have been part of the "broader existing audience" of 3.x. Where was 4E supposed to go if it wanted to keep us both? How would it have added pemerton?

 

[Fifth Element]

Does anyone have actual numbers?

Yes, WotC does. But they're not in a position to share.

 

[der_kluge]

Two things -

First, I stopped buying WoTC books years ago - when I realized I could find far more creative and imaginative stuff from 3rd party publishers. Nowadays, my whole campaign is based around 3rd party stuff - mostly Necromancer Games.

Secondly, with 4th edition, I feel like the designers, isolated in a box amongst themselves, decided amongst themselves that they alone knew what was best for the game, and changed so much stuff in it, that it (to me) hardly feels like D&D anymore. So, for me at least, part of why I hate 4e is the arrogance on the part of the designers that "this is the most fun version ever!" attitude that really grates on me.

And I tend to agree with Aeolius that the attitude surrounding the design of the game really basically states that unless you're using the game to go around killing monsters, you're doing it wrong. Sorry. No thanks. I've got role-playing to do.

 

[Razuur]

This whole "I don't like 4E, so it's obviously a failure" shtick is getting old. Yes, a large number of the old fan base doesn't like it. That's been the case with every edition to date, and will always be the case with new editions.

I was here way back when 3 e first came out, and I just don't remember the vitriol or sheer divisiveness from 2e to 3e. I remember some detractors, sure, but nothing like I see going on this time. I think the new edition has been a success, but I wonder if it could have been an even bigger success had it remained an everymans game, instead of setting it sights on part of its audience. But I suppose:

A. We'll never know.

B. It doesn't really matter anyways

I mean hey, what has happend has happened. People at some point will just get over it and move on - We lost a lot of DnDers, we gained a lot of DnDers. I wish those that enjoy the game all of the luck in the world and years of gaming bliss!

Oh, and Ari - *LOVE* Hamunaptra!

Razuur

 

[Carpe DM]

Yes, WotC does. But they're not in a position to share.

Why not? Often, publishers release numbers if their book is selling well.

 

[Mallus]

Sorry. No thanks. I've got role-playing to do.

Like I asked before, what about 4e impedes your role-playing (and, conversely, what was present in previous editions that aided it)?

I've got plenty of role-playing to do --sometimes much to the chagrin of my friends. Would you like to hear about my Gnostic, quixotic Dragonborn paladin who marks foes with his semi-divine semen? Thought not.

For the life of me I can't see how 4e gets in the way of role-playing (which isn't, of course, to say that you're wrong in disliking 4e)

 

[Gothmog]

I've given up being a DM with 4th Edition. I've mostly been DM for 20+ years, but 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 but with good writers could be ok; but if they start shoe-horning every old setting into it they will lose me completely. I bought the 4E FRCS and skimmed it once. I doubt I'll ever read it again. Even bad 3E books got a few reads from me, that's how bad I feel 4E is to read.

Hmm, different strokes for different folks I guess. 4e fired my imagination like nothing since 1st edition AD&D has, and I developed a world based off the 4e rules without noticing any impediment or antagonism on the part of the rules and books. 4e reminds me much more of myths, legends, fairy tales, and ghost stories with its background, tone, and themes - much like 1e AD&D. 4e dropped a lot of the tie-in of rules and fluff of 3.x, and the rules of 4e are MUCH more modular- I can alter something in 4e or ignore rules with almost no consequences, in contrast to 3.x where even small rules tweaks in the interest of flavor for a setting could snowball out of control. I also find leaving the baggage of the Great Wheel and its silly alignment-coded planes out of the new edition a much welcomed change. The Feywild, Shadowfell, Elemental Chaos, Astral Sea and Far Realm are far more evocative to me than Arcadia, Olympus, Tartarus, the Negative Energy Plane, or the Abyss of previous editions. Finally, IME 4e stands in the way of roleplaying less. I run RP-heavy simulationst games, and I felt 3.x tried to put far to many mechanics into RP aspects of the game when none were needed. Roleplaying is not "I ask the duke to let me lead a force of 100 soldiers against the orcs. I rolled a 28 on my Diplomacy check." To me, the player should make a case and roleplay out the situation rather than relying on die rolls as a crutch. 4e handles this better mechanically via skill challenges (for those that want to use a mechanical method for roleplaying) by making the number of successes achieved have a result along a continuum of possibilities, rather than the binary effects of social interaction rolls in 3e (either the duke lets the PC lead the soldiers, or not). As for the simulationist aspect- I want my fantasy world to make sense, so I figure out detailed histories, trade routes, political struggles, religious wars, monetary/cashflow/resource issues for countries, and NOTHING in 4e prevents or hinders me from doing this.

In contrast, I felt 3.x forced me into a corner with world design because of the heavy interaction of rules and implied fluff, magic levels, and class balance (caster dominance). I found the 3.x rules were actually a rather severe impediment to world building, because it forced me to build with rules as a primary consideration, rather than history, theme, tone, and interesting ideas as the primary concerns.

In any case, play whatever works best for you. My group and I are playing 4e, and never looking back. But for folks who like 3.x, there are literally truckloads of material out there, and Pathfinder is still around for you, so we all win.