Wil Wheaton plays and reviews 4th.

[DonTadow]

That's an interesting thought.

Analogies only go so far, though, and I want to add some counterpoints to it.
I think you underestimate a few aspects.
World of Warcraft might have been designed for casual play, but there are still a lot of people that play it extensively and even grow addicted to it. I think it might be casual to pick up, but there is a lot to do with the game. For me, I saw there was too much to do, and I didn't just want to spend the time for it, so I gave up after playing the Demo for an hour or so.

Easy to learn, hard to master might be the description. D&D 4 doesn't stay simple. Maybe character creation and advancement is simpler, but the devil in the detail, during actual play. Some that wants hardcore D&D might never leave D&D 4 for another edition. He just plays it more often, gets more books, reads message boards on the optimum tactics for his character, have the DM throw exceedingly more difficulty encounters at him. Or maybe instead he rolls the dice less, and instead does more "improvised theatre" then using rules.

People that visit those "pop" Jazz Clubs are interested in Jazz, and pick up the stuff that's easy. But they don't decide suddenly "I want my music more demanding" and listen to classical music from Mozard or Beethoven, they hear more Jazz, and visit your hardcore club, that gives them a different, possibly greater, selection of it.

But again, analogies only go so far. Is your Jazz Club the equivalent to D&D 3E? Or is it the equivalent to D&D 4E with the party fighting itself through dozens of encounters with at least two levels higher then party level? Or is the equivalent to someone trying more game systems? Or is the equivalent to someone becoming a DM instead of a player? Or is the the equivalent of a party playing in a sandbox instead of a railroad? Or is the equivalent of a guy collecting every book on his favorite game system(s)?

---

Speaking for myself, I play nearly ever week-end. Some of the guys in my group play RPGs (and not just D&D) for probably a decade longer then I do. We are pretty much "hard-core" gamers, I think. Well, I suppose you know what our edition of choice is... Suffice to say it doesn't match your expectation. Maybe we are unique in that regard. But I think few of the guys here on EN World can be described as "casual" gamers.

I in no means want to say that hardcore fans will not like 4e, there are some aspects of it that attract hardcore fans. The same reason why we have hardcore jazz fans who love the soft stuff, because their more into strings which, admittantly, our hardcore jazz bands are good at. I'd say the hardcore band would be 3rd edition.

As with the wow quote, i wanted to touch on that. Wow's primarily build is for the casual gamer, however, it has elements for the hardcore gamer, specifically even an expansion that is touted for the hardcore wow player (high level stuff). But its specific focus and marketing iwill always be first and foremost the casual player.

Regardless of how you played any of the previous editions, it has always been a nerd's game. YOu'd have a hard time trying to convince a journalist in the 80s that you're a hack and slasher or a simiulationist. It's all nerd to the public. And right now it still is nerd. And nerd is not bankable.

Yes. You have to change your target base if you are going to make a profit. Sometimes that means alienating your first target base. I would not call us "core" as core implies that we are needed to make the product work. Now, the goal is to change your target that it includes many of your first target base, but if it is not the primary goal. The primary goal is to make ap roduct that attracts the many. And considerring how much of a billion dollar business mmos are, it would be crazy for a world wide traded company not to figure out how to get a piece of that niche.

Take a look at square soft's final fantasy series of games. Games 1 to 6 were traditional j-rpgs, a lot of reading, a lot of puzzles, a lot of characters, still a great plot. But Final Fantasy was just not popular outside of RPG circles. Square saw this as a potential problem and began to change the apperance and marketing of the game. They added more cut scenes, a bit more scifi elements and limited the characters and created a new dyanamic and marketable game. I remember how different it was when final fantasy 7 came out, about how "cool", it was now to play final fantasy games. Heck, it can make (final fantasys ps2) or break (no final fantasy ps3) a system.

That's the kind of rep change for d&d that needs to change. 4e needs to be the final fantasy, the WOW, the Pokemon of gaming. Without final fantasy, the Shin Megasami games won't get made, without WOW the Eve's can't strive, without Pokemon there's not a feeder system for Magic and without 4e the more complicated and direct sequel systems to 3.5 won't survive.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, I think an opposite only makes sense if you have a certain "spectrum". This spectrum can be binary, but doesn't have to be. The things in between are not opposites to the extremes of the spectrum.

This is true. But the implication of justanobody's post seemed to be "if you're not a fanboy, you must be a hater."

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Good article. Thanks for the link.

My group is about as hard core (read: addicted and nerdy) as you can get when it comes to D&D, so we don't fit the casual gamer archetype (of which Wil seems to be a member). We do agree with him, however, that 4e is tons o' fun. We also agree - at least, those of us who know what a 3PP is (read: me and one other guy) - that WotC dropped the ball when it comes to this issue.

I should note that I'm in another group that is more casual, and - ironically - that group has more issues with 4e (of course, they had many issues with 3e as well). The apparent necessity of sound tactics in 4e, as opposed to amazing single-shot booms from 3e, has created some trepidation amongst the players who find themselves compelled to pay more attention to the tactical situation than they have in the past.

I think this is a good thing, but they dislike the effect it's had on their ability to drink beer and B.S. without their characters biting the farm.

WP

 

[jaerdaph]

...just reminds me of watching two guys with ponytails argue about which Linux distribution is better while they ignore the stripper grinding on the rail right next to them.

That's what I've been saying all along!

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Regardless of how you played any of the previous editions, it has always been a nerd's game. YOu'd have a hard time trying to convince a journalist in the 80s that you're a hack and slasher or a simiulationist. It's all nerd to the public. And right now it still is nerd. And nerd is not bankable.

I would dispute that nerd is not bankable, given the recent success of films like the Dark Knight, Cloverfield, and the pre-hype and excitement being generated by Watchmen and Star Trek.

I think nerds are VERY bankable.

 

[Lacyon]

ANY time I get to play Dungeons and Dragons for 10 hours straight, it's the best thing ever. Any edition.

Amen to that.

I think nerds are VERY bankable.

Indeed. When I was 10, being "nerdy" got me teased mercilessly (when it wasn't getting me beat up).

By the time I turned 15, being "nerdy" was starting to earn (sometimes grudging) respect.

Cultures change.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I agree with you that Wil is a gamer. I just don't see him talking about all the D&D he played except when he was a teenager. He admits to swapping his maths heavy 1e books and suggests an aversion to maths heavy games. For the last 20 odd years D&D has been maths heavy. I guess that leaves him playing WOD or GURPS. Nothing wrong with that.

Whoa!! GURPS is math lite?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Same here. I love most of 4e's design concepts. I just want them without all the unsavory parts of 4e.

I would've figured by now you would have done a stellar re-write including the stuff you like, expanding what is still light (like the craft skill re-write), and adding in new stuff to make things a bit grittier to suit. But when you do, you won't forget to send a copy of the result to your old buddy, right?

 

[kenmarable]

I would dispute that nerd is not bankable, given the recent success of films like the Dark Knight, Cloverfield, and the pre-hype and excitement being generated by Watchmen and Star Trek.

I think nerds are VERY bankable.

Yep, and I think that's largely because the nerds have grown up and are taking over.

As stated on a poster at the local Jimmy John's (just got back form there in fact - yum!): "Be nice to nerds - you will probably wind up working for one."

 

[DonTadow]

I would dispute that nerd is not bankable, given the recent success of films like the Dark Knight, Cloverfield, and the pre-hype and excitement being generated by Watchmen and Star Trek.

I think nerds are VERY bankable.

But you've proven my point. Dark Knight is not your traditional batman film, as it's marketed as a crime thriller and was toted as a movie that is a "realistic" comic book. Batman has not been nerd forsome time. Cloverfield, not nerd, Watchmen a classic graphic novel (again marketed to seperate itself as a standout) and as star trek has gotten the makeover I told you about to denerdify it. Hot characters, popular director (who makes hip scifi), and a revamp of updated tech.

That's also not to say that putting a lot of money behind something and throwing out of the nerd realm and into pop culture doesn't help. (LOTR)

REst assured, nerd is still not bankable. Take scifi shows on regular and cable tv. A show, like alost or heroes, has to make steps to denerd it, and put it in normal worlds so that its not so nerdy. The minute it takes a nerdy turn, the ratins start to tumble