D&D 4E I really don't like the new 4E PHB cover

[Wolfspider]

Like a zillion other games. ZZZzzzzz. I know, taste differ. Sorry if my post look aggressive, but I don't mind the change in style so much.

Just like zillion other games? Really? Hmmm. Could you list, let's see, five examples of fantasy RPG core rulebook covers that depict a party of adventurers fighting an iconic monster? D&D books excluded, naturally.

 

[Bishmon]

Like a zillion other games. ZZZzzzzz. I know, taste differ. Sorry if my post look aggressive, but I don't mind the change in style so much.

To me, that's kinda like saying, "All pizzas have tomato sauce. Boring! I like the idea of replacing it with mustard."

Just saying, often times, if something happens a lot, there's a reason for that.

 

[MichaelK]

It's funny, but I think the moment I started to worry about 4e was when I first got a look at some of the artwork and design ideas and thought, "This edition looks ugly".

And years ago, the moment I started to get intrigued by 3e was when I looked at the PHB and thought, "Wow, this is pretty".

Apparently I judge books by their covers.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I *heart* the BECMI covers.

Me too. I would go one step further to say that for me, the BECMI art in general is my favorite out of all the editions.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Emphasis on the point why it probably Wouldn't be a good 4e cover. I understand the thinking: "Traditional" is how you capture a market of over-20's and up; non-traditional is how you attract teens and 20's to look at your product.

If being "traditional" is bad, then why are they calling the game "Dungeons & Dragons"? Why not come up with a new and non-traditional name?

 

[Kishin]

If being "traditional" is bad, then why are they calling the game "Dungeons & Dragons"? Why not come up with a new and non-traditional name?

Because when you have a delicious piece of alliteration, you just can't let it go. You must savor it.

 

[Quartz]

Not everyone necessarily wants to imagine themselves as King Arthur or Aragorn.

Very true, but I think that's a vast minority of newer players - and an even vaster majority of those who buy for them.

 

[Quartz]

However, I will note that the dragonborn may seem a bit too monstrous to be attractive for parents.

Yes. Thank you for expressing what I did not.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Like a zillion other games. ZZZzzzzz. I know, taste differ. Sorry if my post look aggressive, but I don't mind the change in style so much.

I don't mind the change in style, but the fact is that D&D's main distinguishing factors really are:

-Mixed-race party of adventurers with distinctive class roles (fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric, etc.)
-Emphasis on dungeon adventuring
-Loads of wacky monsters and traps

I think the cover of Dungeonscape would have been pretty much ideal for branding D&D (it even has WotC IP on the cover!).

[EDIT: Other than the faces, which I think are terrible both as to their quasi-realistic style and general appearance.]

The DMG cover looks pretty good to me.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Very true, but I think that's a vast minority of newer players - and an even vaster majority of those who buy for them.

Are you basing this on information or data of some kind? Otherwise I don't understand how you can speak for new players or those who buy for them.

Even if the vast majority of players are not interested in Dragonborn, the cover of the book does not prevent them from playing the King Arthur and Aragorn types. The inclusion of new archetypes does not necessarily mean the exclusion of old.

Your original post assumes a couple of things that I disagree with:

1) That people will be put off from playing DnD because of the dragonborn image
2) That the dragonborn will impede others' imaginations.
3) That young children who need their parents money and permission to play the game will not be able to, because their parents will be put off by the image.

Point 1 is false because there are people out there who do not like the image but will still buy (and presumably play) the edition. Point 2, I would argue if the cover of the book impedes one's imagination then I suspect they'll have a lot more trouble with the content. And Point 3: I can understand what you're saying, but I would argue that the huge "DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" lettering will put off those types of parents whether or not the cover is dressed in dragonborn clothes. The image itself is meaningless because those parents will reject the game on name alone.