If 4th Edition didn't use the "D&D" moniker...

[Arnwyn]

.. as in, if it wasn't called "Dungeons & Dragons," and bear the official imprint of this brand name...

Would you but it?

No. But then, I'm not in the market for a new game of any type... known brand names or otherwise.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm actually kind of intrigued at the number of "nos!" here. This being the most pro-4e board out there, I'd expect people to pick up a good game regardless of the tag attached.

My "no!" comes at it from the other side. I'm seeing a few things I like, but the fact that it's D&D is letting me give it a real chance to shine. Without that label, I'm not that interested in what I've seen. It's got enough switches that are pulled for me to basically see it as more trouble than it's worth, and I'll take up True 20 or something instead.

I don't NEED the new edition. The new edition needs me (or at least players like me).

 

[Wystan]

My no is brought about by my gaming group...

I bought me some Spycraft, love me some Spycraft, and will never play it due to my group.
I bought me some Arcana Unearthed, love me some Arcana Unearthed, and will never play it due to my group.
I bought me some Ptolus, love me some Ptolus, and will never play it due to my game group...

Repeat until I cannot be bothered anymore (I.E. Now....)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm actually kind of intrigued at the number of "nos!" here. This being the most pro-4e board out there, I'd expect people to pick up a good game regardless of the tag attached.

That surprised me, too. But it really seems to be that the brand name is worth a lot.
I mean, I can absolutely understand the aspect of marketing of the name - if it's "The new D&D" people will here of it, but when it's "Mustrum Ridcullys Role Playing Game" from "Unseen University Publishing" with the same rules as 4E, people will probably miss out on it.

The other factor is that regardless of whether you personally hear from the game, you must find players interested in playing it. And apparently, a lot of gamers are not willing to try out a different system then what they always played - D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

if it's "The new D&D" people will here of it, but when it's "Mustrum Ridcullys Role Playing Game" from "Unseen University Publishing" with the same rules as 4E, people will probably miss out on it.

Well, I'd play it, but I'm a mindless consumer zombie for Terry Pratchett stuff.

The other factor is that regardless of whether you personally hear from the game, you must find players interested in playing it. And apparently, a lot of gamers are not willing to try out a different system then what they always played - D&D.

I think, to their credit, WotC is trying to change this. Gleemax's "gamer" focus tends to aim a bit broader, though Gleemax has been struggling with a lot of issues so far. The talk of the use of cards and minis and other "accessories" in D&D opens up board game and card game possibilities to be "tacked on," too. Indeed, the D&D Minis line is, IIRC, a pretty decent success, so maybe it's already working.

Still, it's interesting to see that on a board where so many people are into the "new paradigm," they still would be playing a "worse" system if it didn't have the D&D brand keyed to it.

It's a little eerie, from a "OMG CAPITALIST CONSUMERISM ADVERTISEMENT PANIC!" angle, to see so many people choosing a brand over (more objective) quality.

Heebie jeebies.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Why can a Fighter only use Brute Strike once per day?

I've seen this complaint a lot, but I just don't understand it. Why can a quarterback only throw the hail mary touchdown pass once a game? Why can the running back only make the breakaway 80-yard touchdown run once a game? Why don't our soldiers in the armed forces just make single-shot headshots every time they pull the trigger? Why don't photographers take pulitzer-worthy photos with every shot? Why don't Olympic figure-skaters simply perform quadruple lutz after quadruple lutz after quadruple lutz--why do they only attempt one per outing on the ice? Why do boxers bother with jabs, hooks, and straights--why not just start with huge fight-ending haymakers, and stick with that the entire time?

Are you bothered by those real-world examples? Does the reality of human limits on effort challenge your suspension of disbelief?

A person just can't reach down and make that exceptional "best effort" at-will, as often as he or she wants. They can only pull it off once in a while. They save it for when they really need it.

What, do you expect Beckham to score a goal every time his foot hits the ball?

 

[Scarbonac]

wouldn't buy it in any case unless it went into the Bargain Bin for 75% (or more) off.

 

[BluSponge]

I'd be a lot more likely to check it out if it didn't have DnD on the cover. As it is, it bares only a passing similarity with the D&D/AD&D that I grew up with. And while some of the design goals are interesting, it just doesn't sound like D&D to me. Neither did 3e, and that wore really thin after a while. But from the start, 4th ed has sounded more and more like a heartbreaker fantasy, something that might sell a 10th of the volume if it was called anything else, regardless of the quality of the play. And yet, it would be free of the baggage that comes with the D&D title. It also wouldn't have to worry about fixing so many things that were never broken simply to shed itself of a few sacred cows (and yet, the 3-18 ability scores remain, even though they are a useless measurement now).

If this is starting to sound like a screed, I don't mean it to be. It's only that the farther the game wanders from its roots, the less reason I have to be loyal to the brand. And right now, Savage Worlds out 4es 4e as far as I'm concerned, so I'll stick with that. If I need a D&D fix, I have my 1st/2nd ed books, which is really the experience I want to be playing anyway. ::shrug::

Tom

 

[Ondo]

I've seen this complaint a lot, but I just don't understand it. Why can a quarterback only throw the hail mary touchdown pass once a game? Why can the running back only make the breakaway 80-yard touchdown run once a game?

Great football plays are rare, but they can be done more than once a game. I think they're far more accurately modeled as a critical success than as some sort of extra effort they only rarely choose to give.

 

[PeterWeller]

Great football plays are rare, but they can be done more than once a game. I think they're far more accurately modeled as a critical success than as some sort of extra effort they only rarely choose to give.

I see your point of view, but I look at it more like a, "trust me, guys; I know I can do this" moment. It's not a matter of the character putting forth extra effort once a day, it's a matter of the player choosing, once a day, for his or her character to achieve above and beyond what he or she might normally be capable of. To me, this is the major distinction between the Martial powers and the other, supernatural power sources.

Daily martial powers don't make a lot of sense when you look at them from a narration determines effect angle, but they work wonderfully when you look at them from an effect determines narration angle. This may seem odd. Daily martial powers are a lot like spells, and in many ways, spells follow the narration determines effect angle, but daily martial powers aren't spells. They're basically more effective (as in they have more effects) versions of the same old, "I swing my sword." When you roll a basic attack and its damage, you're generally following the effect determines narration model. Based on your rolls, your DM is going to narrate a different outcome that will not only account for the effects of your rolls but also the context in which those effects take place.