Feeling short changed by 4th Ed.

[Intense_Interest]

They just don't really care if you can't convert your sorcerer character right away, because the new hotness is more important to the strategy of the brand.

Allow me to posit that this is the most important factor of not only 4E, but of D&D as a whole, and therefore is a positive rather than negative factor.

The central/spine factor of Dungeons and Dragons has always been, since the 1st printing, that it is the Market Leader and First-Brush Role Playing Game. The ancillary factors you've noted are unimportant as long as you continue to have an increasing chance to find another five to seven players to play the game with.

If the initial success of 4E continues, it will transfer the commonality of D&D to the current system. If it can be reasonably proven that the system has been a success in it becoming the base-line comparison of table-top role-playing, than the system is a good one. This precludes arguments over the inclusion of Half-Orc or Sorcerers.

The 4E "marketing" you note is a desired aspect of the system, arranged to create the most successful possible product.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Allow me to posit that this is the most important factor of not only 4E, but of D&D as a whole, and therefore is a positive rather than negative factor.

I, personally, wouldn't call it a positive or a negative factor, inherently. There are some things it will be good for, and some things it will be bad for, but that's true of any choice.

The central/spine factor of Dungeons and Dragons has always been, since the 1st printing, that it is the Market Leader and First-Brush Role Playing Game.

Central factor for what? I mean, it has been, sure, but it also has been that without a real tenacious marketing meddling like 4e is getting.

If the initial success of 4E continues, it will transfer the commonality of D&D to the current system. If it can be reasonably proven that the system has been a success in it becoming the base-line comparison of table-top role-playing, than the system is a good one. This precludes arguments over the inclusion of Half-Orc or Sorcerers.

Well, all it really would prove is that adding more brand blitz to the equasion doesn't mess up something that is already leading, by letting it continue to lead.

What WotC hopes from this, I believe, is that "D&D" can be recognized outside of the context of PnP RPG's, and to increase the awareness of it outside of gamer circles (to grow the brand). If someone says "Tiefling Warlock" you should know that's D&D, just like when someone says "Night Elf Hunter" you know that it's WoW, and when someone says "Hogwarts" you know that it's Harry Potter, and when someone says "Gimli and Legolas" you know that it's Lord of the Rings.

4e, it seems, is very focused on this goal. It's not about being a "good system" per se (though I'm sure they see that as something of a prerequisite), it's about being part of the zeitgeist.

For one reason or another, "Half-Orc Barbarian" and "Gnome Bard" were not considered as key to that strategy. It would be wrong to say that they don't care at all, they just don't care quite as much.

The 4E "marketing" you note is a desired aspect of the system, arranged to create the most successful possible product.

I agree, but jumping the shark on Happy Days was trying to do the same thing. "New Coke" was trying to do the same thing.

Those are famous failures, but there are plenty of successes, too, they just tend to be less famous because if it works, you shouldn't realize it unless you're a canny observer.

And making the most successful possible product is not the same thing, by any stretch, as making the highest quality possible product, or the most interesting possble product. McDonald's is wildly successful, after all.

Again, despite these comparisons, this isn't a positive or a negative thing by itself. It just forces some choices, which are good for some people (perhaps even the majority!), but it's not gonna work for some others.

 

[Intense_Interest]

4e, it seems, is very focused on this goal. It's not about being a "good system" per se (though I'm sure they see that as something of a prerequisite), it's about being part of the zeitgeist.

And making the most successful possible product is not the same thing, by any stretch, as making the highest quality possible product, or the most interesting possible product. McDonald's is wildly successful, after all.

I see both of these quotes as part of the same thing: the "Highest Quality" (boy ain't that an arbitrary metric) spectrum of a role-playing game being that there is at least one game within walking distance and/or two-three games within driving distance for any gamer in the world for the life of the product.

Central factor for what? I mean, it has been, sure, but it also has been that without a real tenacious marketing meddling like 4e is getting.

Central Factor in that the commonality of all forms of D&D have been that it is the Market Leader. And luck-slash-genius may have gotten it there before, but that doesn't preclude marketing decisions as well (hello, renamed Demons and Devils).

 

[Grom Stonekin]

People would really rather play a Warlord (whose all about aiding other) than a Barbarian (whose all about hacking things to bits)? Come on!

 

[I'm A Banana]

the "Highest Quality" (boy ain't that an arbitrary metric) spectrum of a role-playing game being that there is at least one game within walking distance and/or two-three games within driving distance for any gamer in the world for the life of the product.

I'm not sure I know what you mean? Being popular with gamers is something that D&D largely is already, and has been since the red box, so 4e might hope to expand the audience, but they're not going to give it much more market penetration than it already has...they need to find new markets.

And luck-slash-genius may have gotten it there before, but that doesn't preclude marketing decisions as well (hello, renamed Demons and Devils).

I guess in the mid-80's there might have been some jive (with the cartoon and the TV commercials and the like), but under TSR I'd wager the game got nothing like what it's getting now with Hasbro and Wizards both behind it.

People would really rather play a Warlord (whose all about aiding other) than a Barbarian (whose all about hacking things to bits)? Come on!

If I may analyze this from a bit of an unprofessional angle, here's a possibility:

The Warlord:

• Enhances the idea of D&D as a game of tactical combat (tactical combat is what they are all about!)
• Allows player choice by serving as another possible leader option (no one "has to play the cleric")
• Is new, and thus will generate a lot of interest for the new game.

The Barbarian:

• Is attached to the druid (who is not making an appearance)
• Might not have a clearly defined role (is it a striker or a defender?)
• Has unfortunate cultural associations
• Is tethered as an archetype to the half-orc (who is not making an appearance), and not really solidly to any of the existing races.

 

[malraux]

People would really rather play a Warlord (whose all about aiding other) than a Barbarian (whose all about hacking things to bits)? Come on!

The warlord is a great class for anyone who like tactical actions and planning, which seems like a reasonable sized subset of the DnD player base.

 

[SSquirrel]

When the PHB II hits the stores, l think players will be killing off their own characters left and right or begging their DM to reboot the campaign just so they can play the races and classes they actually wanted to play all along but could not.

"Uhm, hey Bob, we just leveled right?"
"Yeah, you got a new daily and, of course, now you get a retraining too"
"Right. So about that retraining, I know what I want to retrain."
"Good to hear, whatcha thinking of picking up?"
"Half-Orc"
"Bwah?"
"Yeah, I wanna retrain my Elf into a Half Orc. Same class and such, I just wanna be a Half Orc"

This image amuses me. Our group is already planning to run so that if we get bored w/one character or just decide to swap to something new we can take all the current XP and move it to someone new. Kind of like Amazing Engine My old group had lots of character swapping over the years, largely just starting at the low end of the current level.

 

[Imaro]

The warlord is a great class for anyone who like tactical actions and planning, which seems like a reasonable sized subset of the DnD player base.

I would say he's a great class when the rest of your team agrees to let you shine... otherwise he's a second rate fighter...same with the cleric

 

[Intense_Interest]

I'm not sure I know what you mean? Being popular with gamers is something that D&D largely is already, and has been since the red box, so 4e might hope to expand the audience, but they're not going to give it much more market penetration than it already has...they need to find new markets.

Universal penetration in a graying niche market ain't where a company wants to be. Therefore if the game expands to what could be called "fad" level, you have a high-quality game.

I guess in the mid-80's there might have been some jive (with the cartoon and the TV commercials and the like), but under TSR I'd wager the game got nothing like what it's getting now with Hasbro and Wizards both behind it.

And if I'd wager against you, neither of us would collect on our bets. How much, exactly, does the changes of an edition come from internal design and production's taste, versus what is popular or needed by the player-base?

The Barbarian:

• Might not have a clearly defined role (is it a striker or a defender?)
• Has unfortunate cultural associations

I think close to these two selection is the reason it was delayed. Bezerker Dwarves (Warhammer Trollslayers) are around, and the class isn't inherently Druidic. Yet "guy who wears little armor and swings ax or axes and gets angry" is probably close to Striker with maybe Defender with Hit Points instead of AC. And Barbarian is kinda a silly name.

I almost think the Rage thing might be an anti-Defender; instead of being sticky, it scares people away and lashes out at anyone who gets adjacent. Viking of Stamford Bridge, for example.

 

[lutecius]

I mean, take the monk, bard and the fighter. All 3 classes that frankly, didn't work out of the gate and you had to wait until the splatbooks.

Would it have better to hold off on those classes and actually insure that they, I don't know, actually work?

I dont' think those classes were flawed because they were rushed. The problems that became apparent after a while were simply things the designers hadn't thought of. Holding off on them wouldn't have changed anything.

And it is a bit premature to assume that no such issues will come up with 4e classes and options.

A lot of 3E options were just plain bad (I really, REALLY hope System mastery wasn't intentional) or at the least, seriously sub-optimal.

Take the very first chapter, races. 4E's races actually are all interesting and have strengths but the difference IMO is that you can pretty much use ANY race with ANY class and be happy with your choice.

Compare this with the races in 3E. If you had a penalty in a stat, chances were, you're not going to be playing that race-class combination.

I'm sure 4e racial bonuses have been included in the math just like the penalties were in 3e.
And I don't expect to see many tiefling rangers or eladrin paladins.

Is it better to have 5 options where the difference between the worst and the best is much smaller than with 10 options where the difference between the worst and best is MUCH, MUCH wider.

I don't see the logic here. These options weren't broken just because they were included in the phb. They were broken because of design flaws. The solution would have been to, you know, fix what didn't work (bard, multiclassing, summoning...) I don't see how removing anything under/overpowered does that.