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

[Mercurius]

What are your thoughts? Did 4E hit exactly the right level of fantastic-ness? Too much? Too little, even? Does this really matter to 4E's long-term success? Is 4E even likely to meaningfully expand D&D's market anyway, I guess is perhaps another valid question. I wonder perhaps if there's room for a more human and grounded, but equally playable fantasy RPG out there. I think 4E's general rules design makes it wildly more capable of getting new players in and having fun than other RPGs (including 3.5E, Pathfinder, Runequest etc.), but just as much I wonder if the setting is helping or hurting.

The "right level" in terms of what? Personal tastes? Aesthetically? Market potential?

The answer to all of the above is "I'm not sure yet." Personally I don't really dig Dragonborn and Tieflings, but this is not to say I don't like "out there fantasy"--I love Talislanta, for example. I just find Dragonborn and Tieflings to be more "kewl" than "cool" in that they seem like they were designed more in terms of ass-kicking than as artistic fantasy creations. Contrast this to Talislanta in which every race was designed without "game balance" in mind, so that you have a wide range of power levels in terms of race. Each race was designed because it was interesting, not because it would be kewl to play as a player character. Tieflings and Dragonborn, imo, while not being totally aesthetically offensive, are still one step away from a laser gun in one hand, a sword in the other. This, to me, is where D&D has stepped a bit too far into video game land.

But it sounds like your query is specific to marketability, especially with regards to bringing in new players. Being a semi-grognard it is hard for me to say. I don't play World of Warcraft or any video games, so I am coming at D&D more from a fantasy story angle than a video game one. So I could see it going either way: 4ed could be successful because it appeals to a younger generation, or it could fail (at least compared to the impact of 3ed) because it distances old diehards. What I fear for WotC is that a large portion of "on the fencers" will return to 3ed after the novelty of a new rules set wears off. But this may be unjustified and only time will tell.

Personally speaking I would have preferred if PHB 1 was more traditional, with only slight adjustments on the usual array of races and classes and with a PHB 2 including more "exotic" races and classes, perhaps coming out sooner than later (say, six months after 1) so that WotC could still showcase their "new look". This way you start out with the core D&D we all know and love, and then can add-on and adapt it however you want (which you can do anyways, but I'm speaking in terms of WotC supports).

Overall I think 4ed will succeed in that it will be popular, perhaps even a tad more than 3ed, but it will fail in that it won't increase the game's popularity nearly to the degree that 3ed did. If you are Hasbro you might be a bit disappointed, because the point is always to increase profit, not just float on previous success. I'm not sure 4ed will do more than just continue the plateau established by 3ed.

 

[Mercurius]

I'm pretty certain that you're right. As you mention, demon-like and dragon-like humanoids have always been a popular choice for D&D PCs, especially so in D&D 3x, with numerous sourcebook entries dedicated to them. Of course, the prevalence of 'good monsters' in pop culture -- from the 'demons' of Buffy and Angel to the 'freaks' of the BPRD -- cannot be ignored, either. The public really seems to like the idea of playing 'good monsters' and the designers of 4e seem to be aware of this.

That's a good point and one I hadn't really thought much on. Still, I think Dragonborn would be more appealing if they weren't so "monstery." I mean, they aren't sexy at all

 

[jdrakeh]

. . . but it will fail in that it won't increase the game's popularity nearly to the degree that 3ed did.

You may be right about this. D&D 3x had a huge advantage over D&D 4e by coming in on the heels of the least popular edition of D&D to date. Indeed, I'd argue that AD&D 2e was effectively dead as a brand when D&D 3x was introduced (purely based on anecdotal evidence, of course).

 

[GnomeWorks]

...4ed could be successful because it appeals to a younger generation...

Who keeps saying this? Why? Is there any kind of information that would lead people to believe that this is the case?

I'm 21. I started seriously gaming with 3.5. I've played video games my whole life.

I do not like 4e, and neither does the rest of my nine-person gaming group - and we are all in the same age range (18-22).

So, where is the idea that 4e will appear to younger folk coming from?

 

[jdrakeh]

Who keeps saying this? Why? Is there any kind of information that would lead people to believe that this is the case?

If it helps, I don't think that it is necessarily designed to appeal to younger gamers, so much as it designed to appeal to other consumer markets that D&D has traditionally ignored.

 

[Mercurius]

Who keeps saying this? Why? Is there any kind of information that would lead people to believe that this is the case?

I'm 21. I started seriously gaming with 3.5. I've played video games my whole life.

I do not like 4e, and neither does the rest of my nine-person gaming group - and we are all in the same age range (18-22).

So, where is the idea that 4e will appear to younger folk coming from?

Well it is just an idea, not a fact. Call it "Wizards of the Coast's 4E Gamble" . But seriously, that is just it: WotC is gambling that it will appeal to a younger generation, because in order to grow they need to appeal to younger folk. I mean, the market of 30+ year olds is already tapped. There are very few players of that age group coming in, and probably more leaving than returning. 4E, in my humble opinion at least, is more geared towards bringing a new generation in than it is in bringing the old generation back. That is why I call it a "gamble." 3E already brought back those that could be brought back, so WotC probably figured it was time for a New and Shiny Toy to appeal to the kids .

 

[AllisterH]

Here's the thing though...What makes a race "far-out"?

I'd argue that both the half-orc and the gnome ARE more far out fantasy than dragonborn or tieflings. Outside of D&D, I'm blanking on any source of media that uses either gnomes or half-orcs. Contrast that with "monstrous" heroes/characters like Hellboy and the demons from Buffy and the concept of say "demon cursed human" is NOT far-out for the average person.

Hell, even IN D&D fiction, Draconians have actually managed to be the stars/leading protoganists of TWO novels. (Both come from the pre-3E era), while the tieflings were the main stars of the much loved planescape setting (and also a prominent feature of the critically acclaimed videogame Planescape:torment - again, a pre 3E creation). Halflings (and kenders/hobbits) of course have shown up in popular D&D fiction (THe Halfling's Gem- the original Drizzt book so you KNOW a lot of players know about halflings)

Half-orcs? Gnomes? Help me out here people. What media (D&D or not) that actually has gnomes NOT as comic relief (and not resembling lawn gnomes either)

Personally, I was more surprised that they even made it to 3.x. I mean, even the designers at WOTC didn't like gnomes it seemed (both Birthright and Darksun killed off their gnomes, while the others used those annoying tinker gnomes. Not exactly good adventurer material there..)

re: Defence of 2E
2E _IS_ fondly remembered not as a game system (it's basically 1e really) but the edition where roleplaying came to the front and the rise of the much loved campaign settings.

 

[Mercurius]

You may be right about this. D&D 3x had a huge advantage over D&D 4e by coming in on the heels of the least popular edition of D&D to date. Indeed, I'd argue that AD&D 2e was effectively dead as a brand when D&D 3x was introduced (purely based on anecdotal evidence, of course).

Right, which is why I hear a lot of angst from diehard 3.xers: their edition wasn't dead like 2ed, although it could be argued that it was A) due for an upgrade/update, and B) dry in terms of supplement options. So now we've got 4E, which supposedly upgrades the system and re-sets the clock for supplements and the gives WotC a new burst of cash flow.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

I don't think it's the races or the setting that might limit the number of newcomers to the game. If anything, it's the high price of entry to the game now. WoTC seems to be gambling on the willingness of people to buy minis and dungeon tiles. For hard core gamers like those that frequent ENworld, that's probably not a problem. For groups that have a DM or a single player that's willing to do all the buying and supply all the extra elements the game now needs, it's also not a problem. But for more casual gamers, it's probably going to reduce the appeal of D&D.

 

[CountPopeula]

... whereas the half-orc is pretty much absent from non D&D fiction.

You know, this is something that always bugged me. Half-Orcs in D&D were weaker, a little smarter, and nicer than Orcs, right?

But Tolkien's half man, half orc creatures, the Uruk-Hai, were far smarter, stronger, and far more ruthless than either orcs or men, and towered over them. Where did half-orcs in D&D even come from?