Is D&D 4E too "far out" to expand the market easily?

[Umbran]

D&D gnomes aren't recognizable in mainstream culture because they've never hit mainstream culture. You know why? Because they've never had an iconic, consistent portrayal in the game for even D&D nerds to agree on.

I think you'll find that the D&D races that are recognized in mainstream culture had some iconic representation in fiction or myth before the game ever existed.

The mainstream doesn't recognize drow, mind flayers, or beholders either - and they have had iconic, consistent portrayal in the game.

 

[SSquirrel]

Why does coming from D&D discount them? a) we were talking about recognizability in the mainstream culture, and b) the person who made this challenge said D&D sources or not. I really wonder whether there are many popular mediums more popular and recongizable than Wow.

Actually the question that got the gnome thing really going was this:

This may sound silly but other than D&D fiction, do ha;f-orcs and gnomes show up in the "staples" of what is the influences for D&D?

Influences of D&D, not things stealing ideas from D&D. Personally, the only D&D Gnome I ever liked was the Tinker from DragonLance, but it was stupidly expensive to try and invent anything, so they were really wasted as a PC. WoW Gnomes amuse me greatly tho, esp when my Warrior tanks ridiculously large bosses and all he can see is a toenail

 

[hexgrid]

Secondly, the PoL, does not, to me, seem to be very human-o-centric. All the races live together, and are seen on a daily basis, by default. It's not like Tolkien, were seeing a member of a non-human race is something of an occasion, and as the setting-design book says, the philosophy in 4E has been "Why use a human when a non-human could be used instead?". Time will tell how deep that goes. I have to admit, it seemed like 3.5E was going pretty much the same way, at the end, but that's beside the point. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm saying there's a whole lot of people out there who like fantasy, but not this kind of fantasy (imho).

Doug - Absolutely, but that's just one fallen empire among many, albeit the most recent one. Every town and city is full of the player races, in varying numbers. Eladrin, supposedly magical beings who exist partially in another realm have y'know, houses and stuff. I don't not dig it, it's just it doesn't seem like it's got much appeal to what I would guess was perhaps the majority of "fantasy enjoyers" (I mean, WoW seems awesomely popular, but it only has 2.5 million players in the US - The success of fantasy movies and books seem to suggest the total audience is a lot larger than that).

I just need to make it clear, by the way, that this is not about what I like, or what you like, it's about the market, or specifically, a potential market that doesn't ever, to me, seem to have had much attention focused on it.

Honestly, I don't think it's the non-human races (or lack of them) that make WoW, movies, and books more popular than table-top D&D. If your goal is to make D&D appeal to mainstream, non-gamer types, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

There are so many other factors, and this one does hold up if you start looking for actual examples. Otherwise, the LoTR RPG would have out-sold D&D, and the LotR MMO would be more poplar than WoW.

And then there's Star Wars. Both the least human-o-centric and (by far) the most successful franchise mentioned in the thread.

 

[SSquirrel]

Ssquirrel - First off, you need to re-read the second quote you've used and edit your post accordingly. You seem to have taken the opposite of what I actually said.

"I look at the art of 4E, though, and I very much do see Star Wars, and a world that's extremely distant from ours, almost incomprehensible on any level other than as part of game."

Which had me poke a bit o fun about demi-human neighbors, which I obviously don't have. The point I was trying to make was that D&D has always been very distant from ours. The only similarity is that people in our world once wore chain mail and fought w/swords and it was ruled by humans. Everything else is made up fantasy, so I really don't see how 4E differs on that count than any other edition of the game has.

Secondly, the PoL, does not, to me, seem to be very human-o-centric. All the races live together, and are seen on a daily basis, by default.

The last great empire in the game world was a human empire. The Tiefling empire is long since past. Yes races live together, but that doesn't mean it isn't still human centric. I still stand by my statement that there has yet to be an edition of D&D or a campaign setting released by TSR/WotC that was NOT humancentric.[/QUOTE]

Now Ruin hasn't really been using the term, but I just don't get the whole "wahoo" angle. Heck, isn't wahoo something that gets shouted when you're having fun? So 4E has too much fun for some people? That's really how it comes across.

 

[Psion]

Really? I feel exactly the opposite. It's very, very hard to set a non-over-the-top tone once expectations are set for wahoo

Er, that was my point. Did I invert my statements, or did you read it wrong?

 

[Eric Tolle]

Honestly, I don't think it's the non-human races (or lack of them) that make WoW, movies, and books more popular than table-top D&D. If your goal is to make D&D appeal to mainstream, non-gamer types, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

The popularity of WoW has a lot to do with the fact that the producers of WoW looked hard and long at previous MMORPGs, and made an effort to correct a lot of the mistakes tha they saw in earlier versions.

In other words, and to see how it might apply to D&D...

Ease of introduction: in WoW, players are given step by step introductions to the character abilities and gameplay, in entertaining, short quests.

Strong effort-reward cycles. Both WoW carefully calculates the rewards so that there's both satisfaction from doing the game, and a hunger for even higher rewards.

Emphasis on team-supported play: in WoW, characters are designed to strongly interact and reinforce each other on a tactical level. Likewise, the instances encourage team activities. And that's leaving aside guilds and raid groups.

Now...how many of those elements can be applied to 4E? Not that I'm claiming 4E is WOW derived, but I think both games go fora similar philosophy of drawing players in.

Next to this, trivialities such as available character races won't make muchof adifference at all.

 

[mmadsen]

Er, that was my point. Did I invert my statements, or did you read it wrong?

Let's see; I said:

There's nothing wrong with wahoo, but it's not to everyone's taste, and it's much harder to scale back than to scale up.​

Then you said:

From a practical hands-on-the-rules standpoint it is. From a managing player expectations standpoint, it's not.​

(Hey, it happens.)

 

[Psion]

Let's see; I said:

There's nothing wrong with wahoo, but it's not to everyone's taste, and it's much harder to scale back than to scale up.​

Then you said:

From a practical hands-on-the-rules standpoint it is. From a managing player expectations standpoint, it's not.​

(Hey, it happens.)

I think I read "easier". Anyway, we agree. High five, party on, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And then there's Star Wars. Both the least human-o-centric and (by far) the most successful franchise mentioned in the thread.

Not recently. Pirates of the Carribean and LotR both blew the more recent SW movies away at the box-office. I daresay LotR Online has already taken more money than SWG did, too, and LotR console/PC games in general have been pretty successful in a richer gaming market. SW games were successful, but there was less money around.

Narnia and Harry Potter aren't doing exactly badly either. I'd be unsurprised if Potter takes more money than the SW movies, all told (even adjusted for inflation etc.).

I guess what I've come to realize over this thread isn't that WotC is chasing "the wrong" market, or a market that isn't there, but that I think there's a large number of potential FRPG players for whom there is not an attractive, well-advertised FRPG. I think WotC could fix that and pick up some players in the process. I'd think another company should do it, frankly, but the GSL doesn't allow for that, and I'm not sure anyone but WotC could get the books to where they'd need to be to be successful.

 

[The Little Raven]

And then there's Star Wars. Both the least human-o-centric and (by far) the most successful franchise mentioned in the thread.

Hm? The main characters, and the central focus of the series, are human. Yoda and Chewie are cool and all (as is Admiral "IT'S A TRAP!"), but they're just window dressing (though Yoda does get the coolest lines in the series in Episode 5). The main heroes and the main villains are humans, and they drive the entire saga. Star Wars is very humanocentric, even if Lucas has become enamored of goofy CG aliens recently.