• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Dragon Con: A Sight of the Schism in action

Ah, but just as importantly, the RPGA has changed.

The RPGA from my perceptions seems more casual friendly, thus, the type of gamer who might've been frustrated with the more "hardcore" LG campaign might be more willing to try LFR in 4e.

That's as may be ... but this thread is the first place I've heard such. I'll certainly look into it. :)

-The Gneech :cool:
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I think the schism has more to do with the similarities that 4e has with WoW, and the fact that most younger gamers experienced WoW first, as opposed to the other way around for us older folks. Speaking as a rare individual who hardly ever plays video games at all (I'm not counting Solitaire), I can't say that I'm happy with the new edition, particularly its breakdown of combat into chapters that resemble levels in a video game, complete with "boss" monsters. Sure, there have always been arch-villains in D&D, but were they ever really just "boss monsters" to kill and loot for treasure? I remember playing in Ravenloft and knowing that I would never really defeat the villain for good, but I could maybe foil his or her plans to a degree. We always had enemies in town that thwarted us, but we couldn't raise a sword against them without the law siding with them against us. Also, the concept of the wizard as little more than an energy blaster with every spell the same but for the type of energy it uses is sort of a video game staple. Sometimes taking out loopholes (like summoning a mount twenty feet above your opponent's head and watching them get squashed as it falls on them) also takes a little bit of the charm from the game as well. It starts to feel like the villains are all the same: this is a minion goblin, this is an elite goblin, this is a boss goblin... whatever, we're sick of frickin' goblins! Does anything else live in this cave? I'm getting way off-topic here...
The best part is that half of the above doesn't come anywhere near accurately describing 4th Edition.

In fact, some of the things about previous editions are incorrect, too! Summoning a mount (or any other summon) in midair was not a loophole in 3.5, it was against the rules.
 

Ah, but just as importantly, the RPGA has changed.

The RPGA from my perceptions seems more casual friendly, thus, the type of gamer who might've been frustrated with the more "hardcore" LG campaign might be more willing to try LFR in 4e.
Yeah, the tone of the 4e RPGA is radically different from the old RPGA. I know a lot of people were frustrated with the restrictions and requirements placed on previous RPGA play, and those are largely gone, now. Beyond really quirky one-shots, I can see little reason not to play in RPGA games at cons. They offer about as solid an experience as you can expect in convention play.
 

The best part is that half of the above doesn't come anywhere near accurately describing 4th Edition.


See this is where the misconception is. 4E does indeed look like that. Upon first look, maybe a fast read though it screams wow. Now does it play anything like wow, well no of corse not but it look a lot like wow, it seems to anyhow. And that is what drawls some folks in

Now once ya get into the game it's nothing alike but You don't want to know how many wow players and nonplayers that I know {or folks I have seen in the bookstore) without me saying anything and folks that DO NOT come to the boards upon seeing the 4e books go "Man this looks like wow!" Now once they read it they may change their minds, and I would say it plays nothing like it...being a pen and paper game and all but thats the first impression it does bring to alot of people and really I think it was the intent (I mean really the new tifling art looks an awelot like a wow race who's name I will mangle}
 

It boils down to this:

There are three demographics WotC needs to market the game to:
1. New gamers
2. Existing gamers.
3. Former gamers.
(gamers as in purchasing gamers)

New gamers want the "bright & shiny"

Existing gamers may or may not clutch to the game/edition they are playing.

Former gamers are people with experience but aren't currently playing (in this case) 3E.

For new gamers, letting them know the game exists and getting them to try it is the thing, regardless of edition.

Existing gamers generally only buy so much, then there's the law of diminishing returns (or repeated material)

Former gamers need to be lured to the new edition in order to open their wallets again.

It looks nice and simple. Too bad the lines are actually really blurry between them. Former gamers may become existing gamers (like me) or existing gamers may become former gamers. The only unique group is new gamers. Once they're in the cycle it's easier to keep them/get them back than if they don't know the game in the first place.
 

Actually, to me that points to the brilliance of the Goodman Games DCC line -- "You can have your old D&D experience with the new shiny rules!" allows for the best of both worlds.

-The Gneech :cool:
 

See this is where the misconception is. 4E does indeed look like that. Upon first look, maybe a fast read though it screams wow. Now does it play anything like wow, well no of corse not but it look a lot like wow, it seems to anyhow. And that is what drawls some folks in

See, for me, it started off screaming City of Heroes, not WoW. Still does and I've been playing on alternate Thursdays for some time now.
 

See this is where the misconception is. 4E does indeed look like that. Upon first look, maybe a fast read though it screams wow. Now does it play anything like wow, well no of corse not but it look a lot like wow, it seems to anyhow. And that is what drawls some folks in

Dude, if you reduce any edition of D&D to casual terms, (you assume the role of a character you create and take it through a fantasy world) anyone with even a passing knowledge of WoW will think the two are similar.

Comparing 4th edition and 4th edition alone to WoW isn't any more reasonable than comparing D&D in general to witchcraft. They're both so ignorant that no attention need be paid to either.

I'm not saying that 4E is perfect, but people who want to criticize it ought to debate the merits of the system itself rather than simply comparing it to WoW and letting that stand as their argument.
 

It's not a criticism or anything, but man I have heard that said to much to just wave it off as bashing. The over all look of the book tends to remind folks of wow, and the powers and such. I am not saying it plays like wow or that they are right but that is what they jump to.

Saying it's not like wow all day long does nothing to make folks think of it as like a MMO upon first look. I am not bashing the game but people get the impression they get. Saying they are wrong, ignorant or bashers does nothing to change that first impression

I know people that seem to enjoy the game so it's not an attack on it. Stand in a bookstore near the games a while, watch teenages with no pen and paper knowledge look though the books. I have Pointed a few to some games even cleared up the "It looks like wow" thing twice now. This group looked though some shadowrun, 3.5 and wod books yet when they picked up the 4e PHB it was "Hey guys look this looks like WoW!" At that point I went over said Hi told em I was told it did not play like wow, but still thats what they jumped to.

This is not me saying that{though I did on first looking at the book) but other people that had never played. The comparison is not going away unless the books are vastly redesigned and thats not gonna happen. But hey if they can bring more players into the community then more power to em
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top