Is 4e bringing new players to the game?

[Erik Mona]

This guy I saw in a store once bought a copy of the PH, so that's totally one new customer right there.

 

[Halivar]

This guy I saw in a store once bought a copy of the PH, so that's totally one new customer right there.

The PHB is a gateway drug.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Is 4e bringing new players to the game? Is it specifically because of 4e design goals, or is it just bringing in the people who would've gotten into D&D anyway, regardless of edition? Is it managing to bring in people who have no previous contact with tabletop RPGs, or is it mostly folks who are being invited into existing groups? Even if a new player doesn't stick around long, is it at least generating enough non-gamer interest so that those who will stick around get the chance to do so?

Anecdote ahead:

My son, 15 years old . . . I tried to get him in to D&D before. He was interested, but never wanted to do the "work" to play D&D. If I would make his character and handle the work he was in, but otherwise no. His friends would try, but get distracted/bored in making characters and such.

4th edition came out. My son and four of his friends joined a game I was running. I'm no longer running that game because I can't stand playing with teenagers (I discovered this fact much later than I should have).

So my son is DMing a game for these same teenagers. Would they have played D&D anyway without 4e? Maybe. I know my son would not have done the work required to DM a 3rd edition game, but he is now running a fairly successful game with four of his friends. That's five people who have played less than half a dozen games prior to 4e that now play weekly.

The teenage crowd is, of course, the prime target for new gamer blood. They might have gotten into gaming anyway, so who knows if it's 4e being successful at bringing in new players or just "the right time" for them to start playing?

 

[ProfessorPain]

Anecdote ahead:

My son, 15 years old . . . I tried to get him in to D&D before. He was interested, but never wanted to do the "work" to play D&D. If I would make his character and handle the work he was in, but otherwise no. His friends would try, but get distracted/bored in making characters and such.

4th edition came out. My son and four of his friends joined a game I was running. I'm no longer running that game because I can't stand playing with teenagers (I discovered this fact much later than I should have).

So my son is DMing a game for these same teenagers. Would they have played D&D anyway without 4e? Maybe. I know my son would not have done the work required to DM a 3rd edition game, but he is now running a fairly successful game with four of his friends. That's five people who have played less than half a dozen games prior to 4e that now play weekly.

The teenage crowd is, of course, the prime target for new gamer blood. They might have gotten into gaming anyway, so who knows if it's 4e being successful at bringing in new players or just "the right time" for them to start playing?

This could be a double edged sword. Part of the draw for many gamers is the work involved. Personally I can go either way. Sometimes I like a robust and invovled system, other times I want something more stream-lined and easy (though for that I normally go to Savage Worlds rather than 4E). It will be interesting to see if they really can "break through" and make the game more mainstream by simplifying the work involved. The biggest hurdle, in my opinion, is the stigmas associated with gaming. If they can figure out a way to make being a gamer okay (who here actually mentions there gaming activity at work or with people who might be judgemental about it). Also, I don't think the devil worship stigma is as much a problem these days, as the loser/geek stigma. Overcome that AND simplify and I believe the hobby will grow.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I think the more important question is: Is 4E bringing in more players than are leaving?

Also: Was 3E not bringing anyone new in at all anymore?

Anytime a new edition comes out you'll have people jumping on board. Plus, I'm sure there were still new people coming into the game before 4E.

Not trying to be negative, just offering a slightly different perspective. I know plenty of gamers that don't want to go into 4E, and some that tried it, and have left it.

The game needs to grow, that's for certain...just be sure the rate of gain exceeds any potential losses.

 

[Spinachcat]

Here is what I know:

1) I left D&D during 3e because I hated to DM the game and I was bored when playing it. I love to play and DM 4e. I'm running 2 games every month at our D&D Meetup and I am having a blast.

2) Our D&D Meetup draws about 70 people per month. We have 10-12 tables in the game store. Back in 3e, the store rarely saw more than 30 people at a Game Day.

3) Every time I run at the Meetup, I have at least one Total Noob and at least one AD&Der at the table. This number was double at the "Learn 4e" events I ran at the local convention.

4) LFR has been the most successful RPGA event at the local conventions since 2e. At OrcCon, RPGA had 108 events go off with full tables whereas non-RPGA had less than 50.

 

[Scribble]

I think the more important question is: Is 4E bringing in more players than are leaving?

The game needs to grow, that's for certain...just be sure the rate of gain exceeds any potential losses.

Well, true, but remember the game is still brand new. It's not as if every potential player was handed a copy and asked to check it out. IF (I have no way of knowing the facts on this) the rate of growth had staled, then even if 4e looses some of the existing base, the potential for growth (even if slow) is more important for the longevity of the brand.

 

[Mournblade94]

New players that have entered the hobby, are not entering on the merits of 4e rules, as much as they are entering on the marketing work done by WOTC.

WOTC marketing has been more efficent with this edition than any previous edition they have released. The D&D brand name will sell no matter what, and the 4e rules set is lucky enough to have the dungeons and dragons brand name attached to it. If any rules set had the marketing available to it that the 4e does, it would bring just as many new players into the game.

It is obvious that WOTC simplified the rules so it would be attractive to non casual gamers or video gamers. As was mentioned in one of the earliest posts, its board game presentation makes it more accessable.
I like board games but I don't want my RPG's to be board games, and so many long time supporters of RPGs left the currnet line of 4e.

Roles are familiar terms to any MMO Gamer, so it gives the m casual familiarity. Roles have been part of RPGs ever since it made the jump from wargames, but WOTC redefined the roles to fit more into the roles of an MMO rather than the roles of a table top RPG.

The living forgotten realms IS doing much better than living greyhawk because of marketing. I have been able to compare the outreach of the RPGA 'then' to RPGA 'now' and they are reaching many more venues. This is completely system independent.

The simple system and board game presentation are characteristics of the system which might attract new players, though I think a more sophisticated rules set could attract players just as well.

The reasons why 4e has attracted new players is completely system independent and reliant upon the multiple platform marketing strategy that WOTC efficiently deploys.

 

[Scribble]

New players that have entered the hobby, are not entering on the merits of 4e rules, as much as they are entering on the marketing work done by WOTC.

WOTC marketing has been more efficent with this edition than any previous edition they have released. The D&D brand name will sell no matter what, and the 4e rules set is lucky enough to have the dungeons and dragons brand name attached to it. If any rules set had the marketing available to it that the 4e does, it would bring just as many new players into the game.

It is obvious that WOTC simplified the rules so it would be attractive to non casual gamers or video gamers.

Well, I dissagree with the "reason" for the rules being streamlined, and I guess by default dissagree with the idea that the rules do not play a part in helping retain gamers.

If the rules are too cumbersome, and take too much time/effort to understand and use, then there are less players willing to stick around and put in that time.

If the rules system is easy to start up, and use, then more players will stick around for the longer haul.

 

[Badwe]

New players that have entered the hobby, are not entering on the merits of 4e rules, as much as they are entering on the marketing work done by WOTC.

WOTC marketing has been more efficent with this edition than any previous edition they have released. The D&D brand name will sell no matter what, and the 4e rules set is lucky enough to have the dungeons and dragons brand name attached to it. If any rules set had the marketing available to it that the 4e does, it would bring just as many new players into the game.

It is obvious that WOTC simplified the rules so it would be attractive to non casual gamers or video gamers. As was mentioned in one of the earliest posts, its board game presentation makes it more accessable.
I like board games but I don't want my RPG's to be board games, and so many long time supporters of RPGs left the currnet line of 4e.

Roles are familiar terms to any MMO Gamer, so it gives the m casual familiarity. Roles have been part of RPGs ever since it made the jump from wargames, but WOTC redefined the roles to fit more into the roles of an MMO rather than the roles of a table top RPG.

The living forgotten realms IS doing much better than living greyhawk because of marketing. I have been able to compare the outreach of the RPGA 'then' to RPGA 'now' and they are reaching many more venues. This is completely system independent.

The simple system and board game presentation are characteristics of the system which might attract new players, though I think a more sophisticated rules set could attract players just as well.

The reasons why 4e has attracted new players is completely system independent and reliant upon the multiple platform marketing strategy that WOTC efficiently deploys.

So... if I understand correctly, your point is that everything that is wrong with 4e is either because it's 4e or because of WotC's marketing, and everything that is working with it has nothing to do whatsoever with it being 4e and everything to do with a marketing strategy that could be applied to any edition? Frankly, that is a cop out.

I offer as a counter to your theories the following: not only my group, but 2 other groups I keep in contact with had all played 3.x edition previously. If anything, the marketing that roped us in first was likely the work of 3.x, and yet all of us have made the jump to 4e. Further, one of the new players we introduced was eager after having, as a young teen, read the AD&D monster manual front to back and never having anyone to play with. In this case, the "marketing" was done by AD&D.

Again, this is only anecdotal evidence on my part, but those of us happy with 4e seem to be firing at a moving target. Is it players in, players out mechanics, marketing, or something else that people find issue with 4e over? Honestly if I wanted to read this kind of blind hatred, I would go to an Xbox360 vs. PS3 forum. If someone has antipathy for 4e that is all well and good, but no amount of supposed "proof" of the faults of WotC and 4e is going to convince anyone. I feel like each of the editions are better served by contributing constructively to our own posts rather than engaging in these asinine comparisons of player count.