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

[Mournblade94]

Similarly, I once used to buy a lot of Marvel comics. As the quality (in my view) dropped in the mid-90s I hung on for a while out of a sense of fondness for the characters, and then eventually stopped buying them. One day, if I discover that Marvel is publishing comics I want to read again, I might start buying them again. It's not a big deal.

If I may hijack for a moment. Pemerton I did the same thing in mid 1990's. I started reading Marvel comics again after I heard how great a story CIVIL WAR was. In my opinion, marvel has achieved a level of sophisticated storytelling. Maybe if you were to go back, you might find them enjoyable again. I for one did. I now continually buy MARVEL comics every month.

 

[carmachu]

Don't confuse current practices with potential market.

Yes, in 1999, the research showed that older gamers tended to spend more than younger gamers. Those were spending habits largely associated with folks who were already players of 2e.

A study I saw recently suggests that teens spend about 8% of their budgets on video games, and that teens represent about 35% of the video game market.

Note that video games are a $7.3 billion dollar business. If 35% of that is teens, that's $2.5 billion on games (and their budgets totaled up are something like $30 billion).

So, as a company you have a choice - market to a few old warhorses, or try to get a hunk of that $30 billion (or that $2.5 billion). Relying on spending patterns from 10 years a go is perhaps not the best way to grow a business.

Yes, but youru ingoring something. If 35% of that market is teens, the other 65% is....adults. Which is $4.8 billion dollars....so perhaps excluding warhorses, if its even remotely similar in RPG's isnt the smartest move.

 

[Mournblade94]

So how did you and your players describe the 17th level fighter's iterative attacks in prior editions? I find that at least there are different powers for a fighter now. In past editions it was "I hit it with my sword" or "I hit it with my axe". Not sure what you're getting at with the attack vs. effect. In any edition I suppose the attack doesn't matter, but the effect. If the fighter power attacks, regular attacks, charges, etc in prior editions, it doesn't matter, only his 1d8+whatever. Just like this edition. It didn't matter that the mage cast magic missile or scorching ray or ray of frost just the damage it did.

You illustrated the point that the poster you were quoting made.

No the TYPE of effect is just as important or you are playing a board game. YES, all editions can be distilled to offensive numbers vs. defensive numbers. If i want that I will happily play my wargames. I WANT effect and type of effect to be important in my gaming, and that is a major criticism of many people unhappy with the direction of 4e.

ALL editions could be distilled down into rote numbers. However, it seems where many experienced gamers who play 4e add the flavor, 4e encourages "only numbers matter" thinking.

 

[Umbran]

I can understand the impulse to withdraw, but it just runs counter to the realities of the IP market.

I am not sure there are a single set of realities that applies to all IP equally. If nothing else, we have copyright and patent because not all IP is the same. It follows that different types of content will be used differently, and the public will or may think of them differently, such that they will have slightly differing practical realities.

But even if they don't, WotC could look at them as a part of their promo/marketing budget, a loss-leader to get people to consider their merch, computer games and so forth.

My point is that they don't have a lot of other product, so that thinking of the game content as a loss-leader may not be a wise thing for them.

But merely withdrawing from the market simply gives all the potential revenue to the pirates.

Potential revenues? What potential revenues? I can understand the idea that someone may desire to pay the real owner of a property rather than take a illegal copy for free. But to pay one provider for an illegal copy when you can have an illegal copy for free in five minutes seems... a bit alien to me

 

[Kaiyanwang]

And when it comes to elements, I have a much easier time in 4e of playing a big burly fighter who barges people with his shield and forces them backwards because the mechanical support is there to play this way. Other than Wind Blast, I have problems with 3e wizards using forceful spells - because the force produced doesn't actually mechanically move anything. 4e Wizards produce explosions that throw people into walls or off cliffs.

In 3e a weapon attack just does damage most of the time. In 4e, an attack is often accompanied by movement as part of the attack. I find the movement included much more inspiring for both visualisation and roleplay. (And a far better simulation even than standing there and trading blows.)

Point being, that 3.5 or its implements can support the things you said. Explosive Spell metamagic feat was not core, but spread around people hit by a fireball. Bullrush push people. Shield feats in pathfinder make S&B awesome AND make you fighter push and smash people.

Simply put, 3.5/Pathfinder design seem to put , maybe slightly, more emphasis on the way this happens in the gameworld. I Push people with my shield because I perform an action similar to spartans in phalanx, say.

Of course you can roleplay powers in 4th, but sometimes happpens that powers seems first conceived mechanically, then "fluffed". This, for someone, is a problem. And let me say that this could be a problem bigger for newcomers, because, IMO, "regain" immersion with a good RP of a power is more a thing of a seasoned player. I'm not sure this strictly gamist approach is so good to make or keep new players interested.

Another thing: 4th edition simply refutes to support mechanics slightly out of push, damage or some utility. This is great or lame, basing on your gamestyle. Let me make an example.

In 3.5 and Pathfinder, Efreet can gran Wish to mortals. I see that many people see this as a great risk of gamebreaking. In fact, they see it as a potential abuse of the spell planar binding. What happened in 4th edition? At least in MMI (don't know others) Efreet are apparently far more cool in combat, with all their flames and whirling, flying scimitars. But designers removed the wish feature, because things like that are unthinkable in 4th edition.

Of course, the monster is very balanced, but, instatnly, any root with legends an arabian nights, any possible RP implication about desperate heroes, crazy summoners and twisted wishes is gone.

Moreover, in 3.5/PF, if you advance the efreet with fighter, sorcerer, eldricht knight levels, you come up with a far more cool monster (IMO, this is debatable because of monster creation guidelines).

If you want another example, just take a look to 4th edition Phane, and D&D 3.5 Phane. This one is not a case of mechanics divorced from game reality, or of "nerf" due to balance: is a case of a monsters that really seems to play with time in 3.5, and now.. well..

Of course, 4th edition phane is far more easy to use in play - but, for some people (like me) is completely unappealing. Again, I'm not even sure 4th edition could support one modeled more on the 3.5 version, because it would need some awful, broken, clumsy, AWESOMENESS.

 

[Mournblade94]

For what it's worth, I have passed on to WotC a link to this thread, with a note that except for a very few posts, it is well-worth reading.

Well taking the chance they will look...

Consider licensing pathfinder or 3.5 into the DDI. Just for the tools even. I know ALOT of people that would pay $8 a month for that.

 

[mudbunny]

Yes, but youru ingoring something. If 35% of that market is teens, the other 65% is....adults. Which is $4.8 billion dollars....so perhaps excluding warhorses, if its even remotely similar in RPG's isnt the smartest move.

Don't forget, that 65% counts *all* adults, from 20 and up. Proportionally, teens control a fairly large proportion of expendable income, in addition, they have a lot of free time in which to use that expendable income.

Generally, when we reach adulthood, our preferences are more set and getting us to try something outside of that is more difficult. Often, it is not only a matter of convincing one person, you need to convince the entire group.

 

[Herschel]

Except it's not just teens and adults. "Teens" covers what, 4-5 years of a person's life? "Adults" cover 40-80, and not all are a single demographic group. Generally you see numbers ike 14-17, 18-24, 25-45, etc. If the 'old warhorses' are actually the over 45 group, then that's something to consider.

 

[avin]

(except I like GURPS...)

You are wise, good sir.

In fact, this is exactly why I use D&D (4E at moment) for less immersive games, ans GURPS for games I want to push character immersion (skills for the win!).

 

[renau1g]

However, 4e encourages "only numbers matter" thinking.

How?