Is 4e bringing new players to the game?

[Majoru Oakheart]

We attempted to get Living Greyhawk to take off for about 3 or 4 years. We ran weekly games days, twice a year we'd run weekend long games days. We advertised months in advance on the notice board and have the store owner telling people about it when they'd come in.

We grew to have 3 tables running at once around 2005. After that, it went downhill. Less and less people showed up every week no matter how we advertised. We'd periodically have a new person or 2 show up on the recommendation of the store owner. They'd play a game and never come back afterwords. Near the end of 3.5e, there were about 10 of us who played on a regular basis. We managed to play a game once every 2 weeks or so.

Since 4e has come out and we started the same things for LFR, we lost 3 of our 12 players. They left because they didn't want to play 4e(none of them actually played it, but they decided that it sounded stupid and refuse to even try it).

However, we now have 14 people signed up on a regular basis for 2 games every Saturday and 2 games every Sunday at the local gaming store plus a pickup game or 2 during the week. Most of the people who are playing started with 4e or are coming back from 1e or 2e. I'd estimate we actually have around 25 people who play. It's not the same people every week. Some come only on Sat or only on Sun. Some come every couple of weeks. However, the amount of activity around the game is dramatically higher. People are signing up a week in advance to play the next week. Previously, we'd sit at the gaming store and call all our friends and beg enough of them to show up to have a game.

We have a number of kids who show up at the store for Pokemon and Yugi-oh who started playing with us. I am not sure I would have been able to teach them 3.5e. The last couple of kids I attempted to teach 3.5e never showed up again.

 

[Jhaelen]

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

Well, good marketing will get more people to buy the Core books or the PHB. It _may_ also get some of these people to try a game or two.

It will not get them to keep buying supplements and continue playing. That will be solely achieved by the merits of 4E.

If I remember how it was for me - 25 years ago - it was good marketing that got me interested in buying an RPG. After giving it a try, I realized that I liked the concept of RPGs but not that specific RPG, so I started looking for something else.

So, good marketing is a starting point, no more. If the game doesn't hold up to what the marketing promised, it won't become a success.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I think what mournblade is trying to say is 4E was designed alongside the marketing strategy. So that the marketing needs fed into the rules and vice versa. That doesn't mean the things that are good about it, are just a random product of the marketing. Someone still had to design those good rules. It just means they tried to make a game that more people would want to buy, and used that as a guiding principle as they moved forward with design. His pointing to the choice of the term role, is an example of this. Lots of people play and understand games like warcraft. So using terms they immediately recognize is useful for drawing them into the game. I don't think you can fault a company for trying to make a game lots of people like. That is a silly reason not to play 4E. I like when new people enter the hobby, and don't gaming as something I want to keep all to myself. I am definitely more a fan of the 3E system, but I have to admire the straight forward and simple construction of 4E. It just didn't come together in a way that suits my tastes. But if it means more people come to the hobby. Great. If more people come in because of 4E, that will help the sales of all games, not just D&D. And that is a net plus for everyone in the hobby. Anytime the game has had a rising tide of popularity, I have always had more options and material to choose from.

 

[Ariosto]

That "the game" has been radically redefined is something the ramifications of which remain to be seen. The "D&D" trademark has been slapped on the cover, but even old 3E devotees recognize that there's a striking objective difference in the referents.

The "board game" approach was already a notable shift in 3E, along with other things simply taken to greater extremes now. By analogy with heating water, there is eventually a transformation into something meaningfully distinguished as "steam." 4E is likewise "something else."

At the same time, the OGL has facilitated publication of works more or less recapitulating elements that distinguish what "D&D" meant to previous generations of gamers from what WotC is offering now.

Both (or the several) competing approaches have just begun vigorously seeking players.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I think what mournblade is trying to say is 4E was designed alongside the marketing strategy. So that the marketing needs fed into the rules and vice versa.

This isn't true, at least not at a fundamental level. I was there the afternoon R&D first unveiled the initial prototype of what would become 4E; I was one of the first two or three people outside of R&D to see and play it. Most of the fundamental concepts behind the 3E-->4E changes were in place at that time, and that was before anyone with a marketing function got the tiniest peek at it.

Marketing considerations may have led to tweaks later in the process; I wasn't there for that part. But the final version of 4E is very similar, at the fundamental level, to the initial prototype, and that was developed outside of any marketing influence.

It just means they tried to make a game that more people would want to buy, and used that as a guiding principle as they moved forward with design. His pointing to the choice of the term role, is an example of this. Lots of people play and understand games like warcraft. So using terms they immediately recognize is useful for drawing them into the game.

This, on the other hand, is true. The good folk at R&D don't live in a vacuum; they know what they play and like, and are quite savvy about the state of pop culture, especially as relates to fantasy and gaming activities. So it's perfectly true to say that the design was informed by the needs or expectations of current potential new gamers.

 

[Mournblade94]

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 said everything that was wrong with 4e? Yes clearly you misunderstand then. I was pointing out why it MAY be bringing in more players. If you like I will compile my list of everything wrong with 4e. I did not list them here however.

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.

I can easily counter this with my gaming group experience as well. I am in a larp which brings in many new players. We are over 100 strong and contain many gaming groups. We are in North New Jersey.

Easily, I can say both the old school gamers of the group and the younger sets 14-22, think 4e is like playing D&D Miniatures, so they play other systems. Out of all the 100 enthusiastic gamers, not one feels the need to play 4e over third edition or another system.

Big deal. You did not actually refute the point.

There will never be data for how many people STAY in 4e. As far as WOTC knows I love 4e because I bought the three core and some supplemental books before playing a few sessions. I added to the sales as someone who tried it and found it woefully wanting.

 

[Shroomy]

This was my next thought. If PHBII sales are anywhere near PHBI, then that shows the popularity is still going.

Some interesting factoids: When I bought the PHB2 from Amazon, it had a Sales Rank of 198. The next day it was 160. Right now its at 71. (it was 61 at lunch). Buy.com has it at 101. B&N has it at 175.

That's seems pretty good, since you can't really expect it to have PHB1 numbers.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Some interesting factoids: When I bought the PHB2 from Amazon, it had a Sales Rank of 198. The next day it was 160. Right now its at 71. (it was 61 at lunch). Buy.com has it at 101. B&N has it at 175.

That's seems pretty good, since you can't really expect it to have PHB1 numbers.

That does look good, but I would think that the goal was to have PHB1 numbers, since PHBII is really part of a trickled release of the core rules.

What were the PHB I numbers.

 

[Shroomy]

That does look good, but I would think that the goal was to have PHB1 numbers, since PHBII is really part of a trickled release of the core rules.

What were the PHB I numbers.

I don't know, but the Gift Set was one of Amazon's top sellers for the year. However, even if the PHB2 is a very important book, I don't think there is any way that WotC expects its Sales to equal the initial release. That would probably be unprecedented.

 

[ProfessorPain]

I don't know, but the Gift Set was one of Amazon's top sellers for the year. However, even if the PHB2 is a very important book, I don't think there is any way that WotC expects its Sales to equal the initial release. That would probably be unprecedented.

I don't know what numbers they are hoping to get, but I do think this PHBII is much different than previous "splat" books or core book sequels, since it really is a modular release of the core system and they want the numbers to reflect this.