Are Gognards killing D&D?

[el-remmen]

D&D will never "die" as long as people are playing some form of it. Perhaps I am a gronard (by the OP's definition), because personally the individual success of any edition of the game does not matter in the least to me, even if it meant that D&D stopped being published.

 

[Cyronax]

No, it's never good to waste half a session bickering about anything, but when you get campaign setting fan-boys, whoa, it can be trying.

Yeah, I don't game with them anymore. I tried to run an Eberron game for that same group. I owned only the ECS, while they had most of the other books.

I wouldn't let one of them take a racial substitution level and they broke into total rebellion.

My new game group is great though. We're happy with the 3.5 core and the Spell Compendium and that's all we need!

 

[Steely Dan]

We're happy with the 3.5 core and the Spell Compendium and that's all we need!

The Spell Compendium is actually one book I regret letting my players have free reign with in my current Planescape campaign.

Murderous mist has got to be one of the most annoying, encounter halting spells I've ever come across. Even the other players hate it.

 

[Clavis]

The idea that D&D (or any game) needs a new rules set to attract new players makes no sense from a marketing point of view. The reason is simple; how does a new player know the ruleset improves anything if they have never played the game before? New features in a rules set can only be attractive in themselves if the customer has knowledge of the prior rules set, so they can compare. The complete neophyte is not buying the game for its rules, because he doesn't even know what those rules are. A new edition of a game only really makes sense as an attempt to re-sell to the existing customer base.

D&D doesn't require a new edition to attract new customers; it requires a better marketing campaign, one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming and convinces women that male gamers aren't racist, sexist, anti-social creeps. (To their credit, WOTC is trying to do this with Shelly Mazzanoble's book) Non-gamers do not get involved with gaming because new editions come out, because they're not part of the social networks that know or care about new editions of RPG games. You have to already be a gamer to know that D&D has even had different editions, never mind that there's going to be a 4th.

At this point, if you're even exposed to any 4th edition advertising or buzz, you're already a D&D player. I don't know of any non-gamer who has ever ever seen a D&D ad. D&D doesn't need new editions to grow, but the company that publishes it seems to have decided it needs new editions to keep sales going. I have no problem with a company wanting to make money. We all need to eat and keep a roof over our heads. But don't try to sell me bulls**t about how buying my rulebooks all over again is "good for the game". It's good for WOTC, and Hasbro. The game would keep going on its own, because its actually advertised by its players.

 

[pogre]

The Spell Compendium is actually one book I regret letting my players have free reign with in my current Planescape campaign.

Murderous mist has got to be one of the most annoying, encounter halting spells I've ever come across. Even the other players hate it.

My approach to 4e is going to be to try everything RAW and build a concensus on what is getting in the way of our game and enjoyment and houserule or throw them out.

I do not know your group, but I sometimes admit to a mistake in allowing things in. Explain to the player how it is interfering with the game for myself and others. I then let them know that trick is now out of my campaign. It might be something like this spell you mentioned, a prestige class, or an entire race.

For my group as long as I am reasonable and open about it - everyone seems to be just fine with such decisions. YMMV.

 

[Cyronax]

My approach to 4e is going to be to try everything RAW and build a concensus on what is getting in the way of our game and enjoyment and houserule or throw them out.

I do not know your group, but I sometimes admit to a mistake in allowing things in. Explain to the player how it is interfering with the game for myself and others. I then let them know that trick is now out of my campaign. It might be something like this spell you mentioned, a prestige class, or an entire race.

For my group as long as I am reasonable and open about it - everyone seems to be just fine with such decisions. YMMV.

That's a good policy that I definitely intend to follow (it took me a while to learn that as a DM). And with things like the Spell Compendium, I allowed clerics and druids to only add a number of SC spells to their spells lists equal to their permanent wisdom modifier per spell level.

Wizards also were only allowed to add PHB spells to their books when they gained a spell level. SC spells were seen as 'lost lore or yet to be discovered magic.'

Sorcerers and bards however, could learn any spell in the SC that I deemed not broken (of which there were several).

C.I.D.

 

[Steely Dan]

one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming

What's nice is that over here in Europe, there isn't the stigma attached to RPGs and gaming in general, it's just another one of many eccentric hobbies.

 

[Steely Dan]

I do not know your group, but I sometimes admit to a mistake in allowing things in. Explain to the player how it is interfering with the game for myself and others. I then let them know that trick is now out of my campaign. It might be something like this spell you mentioned, a prestige class, or an entire race.

For my group as long as I am reasonable and open about it - everyone seems to be just fine with such decisions. YMMV.

Yeah, we've all talked with him (communication rules!), and even he admits the spell is a real fun-killer, so thankfully we no longer have to deal with it, but thanks for the tip.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The idea that D&D (or any game) needs a new rules set to attract new players makes no sense from a marketing point of view. The reason is simple; how does a new player know the ruleset improves anything if they have never played the game before?

While I don't imagine that 4E will bringing in many new RPG gamers, it might bring in (or bring back) D&D gamers.

That is, of the 40% of the gaming market that D&D *doesn't* control, at least some of those players may have left D&D for other games because of things like the Vancian magic system. By trashing that system, WotC may bring those gamers to D&D.

On the other hand, it will lose gamers like me by doing that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D doesn't require a new edition to attract new customers; it requires a better marketing campaign, one that removes the "geek" stigma from gaming and convinces women that male gamers aren't racist, sexist, anti-social creeps. (To their credit, WOTC is trying to do this with Shelly Mazzanoble's book)

And, oddly enough, one has to wonder just how many potential new gamers will read that book, flip through a 4e PHB, and discover that the options they enjoyed reading about in the book have little or nothing to do with what is in the game.

Or was the book written from a 4e standpoint?

Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress? Cool...can I make a sorceress? No.

This whole character creation thing....still works as a primer, right? No.

Wait a minute, though, Shelly explains how spells work. That's still correct, right? No.

Charms? No.

Familiars? We're still not sure about that.

Okay, though, surely "elf" means the same thing? No.


Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress may be a great idea, marketing-wise, and might be a great read. OTOH, as a means to reach out to potential new gamers, it is poorly timed. Had this book come out a year earlier.....or come out later, with 4e crunch, it might have been better. (Again, marketing-wise, not lit-wise.)

RC