What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Let's see, I got kicked to the curb because, beside playing D&D since '74, I didn't fit the target demographic anymore and they want the snot nose kid and his buddies from down the block at their game table now and not me.

Ironic that you were the "snot-nosed" kid back in '74...

Well, it isn't you, specifically. Marketing to you is a losing proposition.

This. Anyone who thinks kids don't spend as much as us adults is out of touch with the reality of kids spending money on frivolities.

 

[Imaro]

Personally...I'm kinda amused that WOTC is being faulted for trying to appeal to a new generation of gamers who have grown up on anime and videogames...

I mean, AD&D would never try to be hip by stealing something from popular culture like say a tv show about some white guy playing a monk in a western setting....

I think you are simplifying the matter a tad bit. I don't think people are faulting WotC for trying to appeal to a new generation of gamers... but according to their release plans, back when 4e was first announced, that was suppose to be the second phase of 4e not the first. Now we see them tailoring essentials not to actually go after new gamers but, it appears, to moreso entice current (and possibly lapsed) D&D players who aren't playing 4e.

IMO, this tells me that for many people the changes both in 4e's fluff and mechanics (at the same time wasn't a smart move in my book) didn't sit well with many, current gamers. It seems thye may have dropped the ball by changing too much in the part of their plan that was actually suppose to be appealing to current gamers... and now are trying to make the lost audience back up. I think a better route would have been to keep the original release more classic in it's feel, cosmology and mechanics and then released a different version catered to new players with a brand new fluff and more radical mechanical changes. All IMO, of course.

 

[Beginning of the End]

By the rules, the high level barbarian is fantastical, yes, but by this view, the rules are not taken as axiomatic first principles. They can be wrong.

If you're going to start rooting out all the ways in which high level characters are fantastical, though, you're going to have to do a lot more rooting than just the rules for falling damage.

Taking the same barbarian for example: At 12th-level he's got DR 2/--. When an average guy comes up and stabs this guy with a dagger, half the time the blade literally bounces off his skin. The dagger didn't miss. He just literally wasn't hurt by a sharp piece of metal. He's that tough. Beyond about 8th-level, the extraordinary class abilities fall very much into the "...though they may break the laws of physics" half of the definition.

I can understand that some people may not like the reality being modeled. But it's consistent unto itself.

Sure, one can come up with D&D world justifications for the barbarian, in much the same way as Gary tries to justify hit points - skill, luck, divine intervention. But that would mean that a Cure Light Wounds spell 'heals' all those things, as does a few days rest, which is weird. But this is an old argument. Hit points ain't got no verisimilitude.

With the exception of the cure spells, hit points actually work just fine. Assuming you understand how the mechanics work.

This is exactly the problem with the barbarian, the rules don't fit the perceived reality of the game world. Making them fit is a struggle, just as it is with Come And Get It.

And I maintain that there's a fundamental difference between "I don't like that the rules let me play Superman" and "these rules have no explicable connection to the game world".

Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps verisimilitude.

Sure. Virtually all character creation and improvement mechanics are dissociated. This includes XP for treasure. And it also includes XP for defeating monsters or achieving story goals. IME, most people who usually have a problem with dissociated mechanics don't have a problem with this because the process of building a character is not the same as the process of playing a character.

I think there's more objection to the way 4e mixes gamism with dramatism, as opposed to just objecting to dramatism itself. See even with your example above, in 90-95% of most action movies the major villain will not rush in like some stupid mook. You expect the mooks to just rush in, but CaGI affects anyone equally... since there is no way to resist it. That isn't good dramatism IMO, it's sloppy because gamisim is still king.

I agree. I think the whole "4th edition has narrative control mechanics" is, with rare exception, a bit of a misnomer.

Narrative control mechanics are dissociated mechanics. 4th Edition has dissociated mechanics. This doesn't mean that 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics are, by and large, narrative control mechanics. (Although it's true that a few of them could probably be classified as such.)

CAGI, for example, gives the player control over an NPC's actions in a way that would traditionally be reserved for the GM. But it's not really narrative control that's being taken. It's, for lack of a better term, gamist control.

The mechanics LEAD the roleplay. A player, or DM, uses a power and then it is the job of the roleplaying to catch up and fill in the blanks. I've used the term before: "pop quiz role-playing".

Good point. And the thing about it is that you can do this sort of roleplaying with any game. Play Monopoly and provide a roleplaying reason for why your character suddenly developed an interest in buying Park Place. Play Arkham Horror and act out the journey across town to find a clue. There's nothing wrong with that. But I think that a roleplaying game needs to have the roleplaying lead the mechanics.

"Oh my god! He's saying that 4th Edition isn't a roleplaying game!" No, I'm not. There are still plenty of associated, roleplaying-focused mechanics in the game. Describing it as anything other than an RPG would be silly.

 

[BlackMoria]

Well, it isn't you, specifically. It's your age bracket.

You've been playing since '74. You're middle-aged. You're in with all the folks who have college debts, mortgages, and kids. Quite frankly, in your age bracket folks have major choices - there's almost nothing considered really disposable income. On top of that, with the family commitments, you probably don't have time to play anyway. Marketing to you is a losing proposition.

The snot-nosed kid, on the other hand - every cent he's got can be squandered on drek, and he's got oodles of spare time.

Middle-Aged?! Thank you. Being aged 54 and being called middle aged is nice for a change. Not what the snot nose kid and his buddies called me.

I guessed they didn't like me telling them to keep off the lawn....

 

[Mournblade94]

Middle-Aged?! Thank you. Being aged 54 and being called middle aged is nice for a change. Not what the snot nose kid and his buddies called me.

I guessed they didn't like me telling them to keep off the lawn....

You would have been that older teenager guy in the complete strategist (Local Gamestore) that my friends and I used to pester. You would have been the guy that has been gaming forever, and we wanted to know as much about D&D as YOU!

Then you would scoff at us for not knowing who Cthulhu is, and we would have to go buy Deities and Demigods to find out. You would laugh at our painted minis, and we would absorb all we could from you. If we got in YOUR D&D group we would brag about it to our friends. We played D&D with THEM!

NO WAY! You must know everything now!

I would be in 6th grade but you would be a freshman in college, proving to us it was not a game just for kids like my parents said... Oh yeah and not just for satanists either.

I grew up in the "my kid is a satanist" erra. Just because I liked AD&D, Ozzy, and Iron MAiden.

 

[The Little Raven]

IMO, this tells me that for many people the changes both in 4e's fluff and mechanics (at the same time wasn't a smart move in my book) didn't sit well with many, current gamers.

The fluff and mechanics aren't changing. It's still 4e mechanics and 4e fluff. The only real big changes are the new builds, which don't change the game, they just add new build options. If anything, they're doubling down by doing a second 4e core rules release and books like the Nentir Vale Gazetteer.

 

[Imaro]

The fluff and mechanics aren't changing. It's still 4e mechanics and 4e fluff. The only real big changes are the new builds, which don't change the game, they just add new build options. If anything, they're doubling down by doing a second 4e core rules release and books like the Nentir Vale Gazetteer.

Re-read my entire post, and tell me what your statement has to do with what I am conveying please... because I never said they were doing anything to 4e's fluff or mechanics in the Essentials line.

Side Note: They are however adding new mechanics that allow for magic schools, more vancian casting and other throwbacks to older editions... Oh, yeah and let's not forget a "retro-box"

 

[Nagol]

Well, it isn't you, specifically. It's your age bracket.

You've been playing since '74. You're middle-aged. You're in with all the folks who have college debts, mortgages, and kids. Quite frankly, in your age bracket folks have major choices - there's almost nothing considered really disposable income. On top of that, with the family commitments, you probably don't have time to play anyway. Marketing to you is a losing proposition.

The snot-nosed kid, on the other hand - every cent he's got can be squandered on drek, and he's got oodles of spare time.

ROFL,

I have more after-tax disposable income this year than 2-3 years of ttoal salary back in university days.

Middle-age years are the time of greatest income since careers are hitting peak.

 

[Verdande]

Yeah, I dunno about you guys, but my peers, who are heavily into anime and video games, don't have all that much money. We're working minimum wage jobs, bankrupting ourselves on college, and generally trying to save as much money as possible.

We're the ones who jump on anything free, cheap, or discounted. We're not the ones who are able to afford three-four 40$ books to play a game. We're the ones who steal dice from our parent's Monopoly set to have enough d6s to roll for damage.

Just putting it out there.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Perhaps there is a chicken-and-egg thing going here - which comes first, the rules, or the perception of the world they represent?

That's a good question. For some, fusangite for example, it's the former. The rules are the laws of physics of the game world. I believe this to be a fairly rare view though, for most there is a perception of the secondary world's 'sub-reality' which supercedes the rules. Though oftentimes we just let the rules get away with their filthy lies so the game can move forward at a reasonable pace.