D&D 5E Who really IS the target audience of D&D Next?

[billd91]

Then I'm afraid they may have radically over-estimated the size of that target audience. I'm sure there are some who made the switch to 4e who would be willing to make the switch to 5e. But there are also those who would only do so if it was /better/, and those who have just decided to cirle their 4e wagons. Fans of other eds, though, have been resisting change for 4 or 12 or 23 years...

Maybe they, too, would be willing to switch if 5e were better than what they were playing. I didn't switch to 4e because it wasn't better than what I was playing (3.5). But I did switch to Pathfinder because it was.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I imagine that those who like to homebrew may find appeal in the new edition, since it should allow them to scratch their creative itch a bit more.

All else being equal, any system that lets me homebrew easier (than what I have now) in my preferred playstyle--is at least going to get a look and a try--D&D or otherwise.

 

[Ratskinner]

All else being equal, any system that lets me homebrew easier (than what I have now) in my preferred playstyle--is at least going to get a look and a try--D&D or otherwise.

This. I've been trying other systems for nigh on a decade now for just this purpose. While some have(a lot) more freedom, its always a struggle to find players for an "indie" game. I'm too old to be a purist anymore, if I have to sacrifice some wild freedom and play D&D with its wonky baggage, so be it. However, that doesn't stop me from valuing that homebrew freedom.

Before third edition, campaigns varied wildly. I recall some that were wildly fantastic and highly magical, and others that were pretty gritty. 3e...I have such mixed emotions about that game, nowadays. It really revitalized things, and for that I love it. However, as time wound on in that edition, I saw that different campaigns weren't so wildly creative as they had been. I wouldn't say that 3(.5)e "locked you down" to a certain playstyle, but it certainly gravitated toward one. The more supplements you included, the worse it got.

I know that some 4e proponents will disagree, and that's okay. As with all things gaming, YMMV quite a bit. However, I felt 4e was much harder to pull out of its "home" playstyle. I think mostly because each character had a sheet full of "powers" to use, and all had flavorful descriptions built into them. My table, the table at the FLGS, my friends' tables, 4e looked almost identical at all of them. That didn't make 4e bad at all. I still think 4e is a fun well-designed game. Even my friends who despise it as "not DnD" still regard it as a very good tactical skirmish game.

I also don't think there is anything sinister here. WOTC got into the business of selling rules for DnD. Each rule, though, adds a little bit of inflexibility, and does its small part to raise a wall around how the game is "supposed" to play. 4e, as a byproduct of the AEDU structure, just had the most byproduct right out of the gate. The basic books of 3(.5)e had less, but you could approach it if you added all the supplements.

So, I'm cautiously optimistic. They are making good noises AFAICT. A very simple core with a modular structure tells you immediately that this game will play in different ways. I don't think their target audience is anybody more specific than "Fantasy roleplayers."

 

[innerdude]

After reading through some of the responses, I began making a mental list of probable "targets" for D&D next. In terms of actual numbers of players, I don't think anyone really has a firm grasp of just how large each of these segments are, but to me, I think Wizards is more pursuing "mind share" in various categories more than numbers.

1. The hardest of hardcore "grognards"--i.e., The players who have been running 1e, or at most, may have switched to 2e at some point during their run; are ardently opposed to later editions (3e/4e). I would also consider groups that switched to one of the early D&D alternatives (Runequest, Hero, Rolemaster) and never branched out as part of this category as well. A very narrow slice of the overall gaming population. Haven't switched systems in 2+ decades; the likelihood of 5e causing that to change is low. Doubtful WotC considers this a significant market.
2. The "OSR" camp--those who moved ahead with later editions of D&D (3e/4e) but didn't find it to their liking, and reverted back, either directly to 1e/2e/OD&D/BECMI, or its OSR equivalent. I suspect this is a significant target market for WotC. They have experience with the later systems, and Wizards wants to get them back purchasing relevant product.
3. The 3.x holdouts--For clarity, these are NOT people that switched to Pathfinder, but stuck with the actual WotC branch of the OGL product line. These are also likely a significant target, at least in terms of mind share. 4e wasn't their bag of tea, but I'm sure WotC believes that given a real reason to move (i.e., a superior ruleset), they'll make the jump.
4. Current Pathfinder players--This is probably the second-largest, possibly largest contingent of active RPG players as a collective. WotC would be absolutely crazy not to attempt to get these folks on board in some way. The key to getting this group is to present 5e as an opportunity to improve the rules in ways that Pathfinder simply didn't tackle--improved caster/non-caster balance, more balanced math with skills/AC/BAB, etc.
   
   Though I'm certain there are hardcore Pathfinder players that would not consider making the switch, I'm sure there are a number of them that are all-to-aware of the 3.x rules system's basic flaws, and wouldn't mind looking at something that tackles those flaws head on.
5. Current 4e players, casual--A significant target audience, and likely the easiest "sell" on 5e. This is a group that plays 4e more out of the habit of playing "whatever D&D is currently out there." They probably don't look at alternative rules systems much, and really just want an actively-played D&D rules system, and will "go with the flow." I suspect much of this category is comprised of newer players.
6. Current 4e players, hardcore--Other than the hardcore "grognards," this group is probably the toughest sell. They like 4e, want to actively support 4e, and are probably slightly miffed that product support for their chosen system is going to be significantly lessened in the coming 24 months.
7. The "Uncommitteds"--Those who play a wide variety of RPGs, don't strongly identify with any particular rule system. Likely comprised of groups that have a particular "style" or "vibe" that they're trying to emulate, and simply want the rules to reflect that. There is likely cross-over between this group and other markets that play 4e/Pathfinder. These are the types of people that'll buy a 5e Player's Handbook just out of habit, "to see what it looks like." Probably likely buyers, but A. not a significant "mind share" or number, and B. not likely to be repeat buyers of follow-up material.
8. The Rules Light / Narrative-focused / Indie group--Not likely a significant market. Mostly composed of people who simply didn't/don't like D&D's core play style, or who actively decided to switch from D&D to something else, because they wanted a system that better fit their needs.

I'm sure there's more groups than this, or that many people fall within several, but the interesting thing is to me, when I think about each of these groups collectively, I don't really see that ANY of them have a real need for 5e at all, other than #5. And even then, that's only because the rules are being actively supported, not because its contingents have any burning desire to play 5e over something else.

There's something to be said for good design in anything these days, particularly something we all enjoy as a hobby. But I'm beginning to think that WotC may be simply grasping at straws here in terms of recovering market share. With the state of the current RPG market, the chance of 5e becoming the dominant, overriding market force that D&D has been in the past is fairly low, IMHO. I think WotC is going to be tragically mistaken if they think that they can recapture the "persona," or "mind share" they had in the past. It's a significantly more complex market than it has EVER been for the RPG hobby. We the consumers hold all the power now.

 

[pemerton]

The hardest of hardcore "grognards"--i.e., The players who have been running 1e, or at most, may have switched to 2e at some point during their run; are ardently opposed to later editions (3e/4e). I would also consider groups that switched to one of the early D&D alternatives (Runequest, Hero, Rolemaster) and never branched out as part of this category as well. A very narrow slice of the overall gaming population. Haven't switched systems in 2+ decades; the likelihood of 5e causing that to change is low. Doubtful WotC considers this a significant market.

I would agree that the prospects of recapturing hardocre RQ, RM or HERO players for D&D at this late stage is very slim. It's been a while since I was on the ICE (publishers of RM) boards, but the vibe there continues to be very hostile to D&D (including 4e).

I suspect that my group is atypical in having moved from nearly 20 years of RM to 4e, but this wouldn't have happened but for the ways in which 4e differs signficantly from prior editions. (But for 4e, we probably would have gone to HARP, a slighlty more modern and "lighter" version of RM.)

Current 4e players, hardcore--Other than the hardcore "grognards," this group is probably the toughest sell. They like 4e, want to actively support 4e, and are probably slightly miffed that product support for their chosen system is going to be significantly lessened in the coming 24 months.

I think I fall into this category! I'm not miffed at losing support for my system - if anything, it will save me a bit of money! And I've GMed an unsupported system before (RM, which went into hiatus for a while and has been on little more than life support since the late-90s).

The "Uncommitteds"--Those who play a wide variety of RPGs, don't strongly identify with any particular rule system. Likely comprised of groups that have a particular "style" or "vibe" that they're trying to emulate, and simply want the rules to reflect that. There is likely cross-over between this group and other markets that play 4e/Pathfinder. These are the types of people that'll buy a 5e Player's Handbook just out of habit, "to see what it looks like." Probably likely buyers, but A. not a significant "mind share" or number, and B. not likely to be repeat buyers of follow-up material.

This may be where I end up. I have an interest in RPGs and RPGing, and have a modest amount of discretionary income I'm prepared to spend on books for systems that I don't play but which can (more or less directly) help me with what I do play. I am therefore likely to buy D&Dnext material - perhaps plenty of it - even if I don't play it. Just as I have plenty of 3E/d20 material, which I have used and continue to use to support my game in variuos ways (maps, adventures, rules ideas, story element ideas, etc).

The Rules Light / Narrative-focused / Indie group--Not likely a significant market. Mostly composed of people who simply didn't/don't like D&D's core play style, or who actively decided to switch from D&D to something else, because they wanted a system that better fit their needs.

I like what I think of as D&D's core playstyle - gonzo fantasy with larger-than-life protagonists who find themselves engaged in interpersonal violence with improbabl frequency - but also like those aspects of 4e that take it in this direction (tight scene framing, skill challenges, consideration of dramatic pacing as a feature of core action resolution design, etc). I am unlikely to play D&Dnext if it pushes back towards more classic D&D mechanics and the pacing that they tend to lead to.

Once my current campaign finishes, I'm hoping to run a Burning Wheel game unless I have strong pressure from my players to keep running 4e, in which case I think I might try something in DarkSun (but probably not 1-30 this time - I'd try and run something a bit more episodic).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I didn't switch to 4e because it wasn't better than what I was playing (3.5). But I did switch to Pathfinder because it was.

Nod. Pathfinder was an evolution of 3.5, obviously a bit better than it; 4e was a revolutionary improvement over 3.5 - a /lot/ better in a number of very important ways, but also very different, and thus possibly harder to accept.

Of course, one of the biggest differences was in game balance, and game balance, which has the effect of putting everyone on a more-or-less even playing field /can/ get in the way of certain 'styles' of play. Not to say that those styles are wrong, per se, but game balance is in effect a compromise that allows people to play the characters they want, the way they want, to the extent that doing so doesn't too negatively impact the play exerience for everyone else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Good analysis, overall. I think the 'casual 4e player' is particularly spot-on. I game with a few people who are barely aware of the distinction between 4e and Essentials, even though they've been playing Essentials for a year. 4e has been great for casual gamers, and hopefully 5e won't throw them under the bus.

The key to getting this group is to present 5e as an opportunity to improve the rules in ways that Pathfinder simply didn't tackle--improved caster/non-caster balance, more balanced math with skills/AC/BAB, etc.

4e tried that and it didn't work. I'm not sure the improved caster/non-caster balance isn't what drove many away from 4e...

Some folks want their 'system mastery rewarded' or want magic to be simply and clearly superior to 'mundane' or just want 'real D&D' (which was never balanced before, so if it's balanced now, it clearly can't be D&D).

 

[BryonD]

Your first post was clear. I don't think there's any disagreement between our posts. You think that 4E--AP or no AP--has no chance of capturing a meaningful portion of the pathfinder market. I think that D&D--4E or 5E--will not be competing for the pathfinder market until WotC releases a quality AP line. I don't see any conflict between these two statements.

You have two different statements there.

We do agree on the first.

But an awesome 5E with crap adventure support could still be huge.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Clearly the target audience is a bunch of dead presidents.

 

[wedgeski]

I like 4E. I play and DM it regularly, and think it's in great shape.

As to the question of whether I'll switch, it's really too early to say. I don't like much of what I've heard, because it seems to run counter to the design ethic of 4E, which I think is about as perfect an expression of D&D as I've ever played. Obviously, many others disagree, and when the game comes out, I might find it so alluring that I'll be tempted over. It's just impossible to say without actually seeing a set of rules.

Still I'm sure I'm on Wizards' spreadsheet somewhere. They wouldn't be proceeding with 5E if they didn't think the majority of 4E players would switch over.