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

[The Highway Man]

"Are there any Dragons or Dungeons in this game? This looks like another planet. Its like Star Wars."

This is one of the best thought-provoking feedbacks I've seen. This is totally spot on, in my opinion. Hammer meets nail.
___________

About Rounser: What rounser tries to say is that it's called Dungeons & Dragons, which are names that will evoke something into anybody's mind because we all, gamers and non-gamers, have an idea of what a "dragon" is, or a "dungeon".

This is a trigger for fantasy for anyone willing to respond.

Eladrin and Dragonborn are not understandable concepts outside of D&D's micro-world. These are specific concepts a non-gamer will find to be non-triggers for imagination, but rather triggers for "What kind of weird thing is that, now?!" which leads to "you guys are nerds. This game blows."

That's what rounser is trying to talk about, and it seems like everyone tries to miss his point systematically.

Regardless of his credentials, he has a huge point, IMO, here.

 

[Particle_Man]

Its not that kids ever had a deeper understanding of mythology, but there are symbols and archetypes that belong to the words hero, adventure, quest, etc.. Horned half-humans who look evil, demonic and sinister (and every detail of their artwork so far does) and dragonmen do not match the afore mentioned words. Its nice to have the possibility to play them, but core? Come on!

I am thinking of playing a Fey Pact Tiefling Warlock named Pan. (Maybe I am thinking back to the old Hercules cartoon with Newton's friends, Toot and Tweet).

I am also thinking of playing a Star Pact Tiefling Warlock named Capricorn.

I could play a Tiefling Paladin trying to atone for the sins of his ancestors.

There is a lot of juicy room to explore here.

It was clearly calculated.

There is evidence that the number of people who have played scaly races- even anecdotally- is quite large. They exist in D&D books, 3rd party products, and homebrews, so its probably safe to assume that scaly fandom lags only slightly behind elf luv.

Heck, the Rogue's Gallery (a 1st ed AD&D, or perhaps even OD&D, product) featured a Lizard Man character (with str 18/00, so scaly = stronger even then). I think he was a reincarnation.

2nd ed AD&D had a Sapient Dinosaur Paladin running around at least one novel.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Interesting as WoW has been mentioned, because I think here - and please don't come at me with rope - I think Wizards should've followed WoW more.

When WoW came out, it didn't advertise anything new conceptually. You had the same races all the fans were used to, and the same places all the fans knew. Instead, they took the stuff they already had and used that to market to the outside crowd. Blizzard, in essence, used two different types of marketing to the two groups.

To the fans, Blizzard essentially said "Everything you love is here, and it's exactly how you've been loving it all this time." People ate it up in droves, and just about ever message board in existance was hit with "Oh man, I get to play an dwarf just like from the games!" or "Holy crap, I hope they go further in depth with tauren, I loved those guys from Warcraft 3!" Blizzard sold the old players the lore.

Then, to the new comers to Warcraft, they pimped - sorry for using the word, it hurts me to say it - out their gameplay. They talked aboutcasual gaming, and how their PVP system would cater to people who want to do it and don't want to do it. The new gamers weren't even close to being as interested in the lore as the old ones - the draw for new players is "This is fun to play."

That's where I think Wizards messed up. They did it backwards. They emphasized new mechanics for the old players who had, by now, simply houeruled whatever they wanted, and tried to make the new fluff WOWEE and XHARDXCOREX TO THE MAX for the new players. But the problem is, while I'm sure lots of new players like the fluff, that's not going to be what gets them into the game, and when you try to go out of your way to stand out and say LOOK AT ME I'M SKYDIVING WHILE CHUGGING GAME FUEL MASTER CHIEF EDITION, most of the new players will ignore you for the cover that has generic caucasian knight facing a dragon. Because new players aren't going to think "Gee, I want to find something new and exciting to dive into!" They're going to want something that's generic enough for them to be able to defend later when they're called a geek. And the more your game stands out, the geekier you are.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

To the original poster (quoting another post). Thank you for that. It's just cleared up something for me in my mind.

I wondered why I actually missed seeing rows of halberd variations in later editions of the game. 1st Ed. AD&D, to me, does have a more 'Medieval' feel to it than later editions, and perhaps it was the 'Quasi-Medieval' feel of the core rules I liked.

I've just started playing Keep on the Shadowfell, and hopefully (slowly) getting to grips with it. (Like the new presentation format, but DM's book could do with a card cover, methinks.)

'Medieval' is not a term I would associate with D&D now. I do remember people describing D&D in various 70s & 80s articles as 'Quasi-Medieval', but I don't think that's a term you could use for the current edition. Very much a personal preference, I used to enjoy medieval wargames using the WRG rules back in the 80s, maybe that's it?

To me, D&D 4th edition feels like its own thing.

 

[hexgrid]

That's where I think Wizards messed up. They did it backwards. They emphasized new mechanics for the old players who had, by now, simply houeruled whatever they wanted, and tried to make the new fluff WOWEE and XHARDXCOREX TO THE MAX for the new players. But the problem is, while I'm sure lots of new players like the fluff, that's not going to be what gets them into the game, and when you try to go out of your way to stand out and say LOOK AT ME I'M SKYDIVING WHILE CHUGGING GAME FUEL MASTER CHIEF EDITION, most of the new players will ignore you for the cover that has generic caucasian knight facing a dragon. Because new players aren't going to think "Gee, I want to find something new and exciting to dive into!" They're going to want something that's generic enough for them to be able to defend later when they're called a geek. And the more your game stands out, the geekier you are.

D&D is not a game for non-geeks, and it never will be. It's funny to think that pretending to be one type of race is somehow less geeky than pretending to be another. For a non-gamer, it's all the same. Only those already steeped in gamer culture will see the difference.

 

[Wombat]

Okay, let me talk about sales of 4e at Borders Books (where I currently work part time).

The books were placed on our "Hot New Books" table.

All of the people who have purchased them were established players.

Many people who look at them still have the same reaction as for previous editions -- "That's a lot of rules! I could never know them all." Very few people understand the (unstated) notion that no one has to know all the rules.

On top of this, many non-(tabletop)gamers are confused over what the game is supposed to be -- they understand that it is about beating things up, but they don't see a computer game, movie, tv show, or other media tie-in. Equally it doesn't seem to match any standard mythologies (King Arthur, Greece, Lord of the Rings, etc.).

So as far as I can see, D&D is selling to people who play D&D ... and confuses or intimidates non-gamers.

Of course there are always a few exceptions, but they are few and far between. And most of these "exceptions" are people directly introduced to gaming by already active gamers.

 

[Umbran]

Of course there are always a few exceptions, but they are few and far between. And most of these "exceptions" are people directly introduced to gaming by already active gamers.

Well, that's hardly surprising. Anecdotal evidence from across the history of these boards is that being taught the game by another person who already plays is the primary entry point to the game.

Given the nature of the beast, and how different it is from most other hobby activities and games people play, this is what I'd expect. And, to be honest, I am not convinced that WotC should try to fight that trend. Current players probably do a better job of selling the game and making it fun for new people than any WotC marketing could.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

D&D is not a game for non-geeks, and it never will be. It's funny to think that pretending to be one type of race is somehow less geeky than pretending to be another. For a non-gamer, it's all the same. Only those already steeped in gamer culture will see the difference.

Anecdotical "evidence":
I started my roleplaying "career" with Shadowrun.

When I switched to D&D, I was surprised by stuff like "Vancian Magic" (though I didn't know the name then, just the bizarre rule mechanic I found) and hit points.
But there were also different races - no Orcs, only Half-Orcs? What's with these Elves, they are smaller then normal humans? Halfings, what's that? Why can't I play Troll (Urk - these are Trolls in D&D?). If I had been coming from The Dark Eye, the Gnomes and Halflings would look strange to me, too.

Experienced role-players over-estimate the knowledge players have about "typical" fantasy games, and mis-judge the expectations of players.

If you go into a fantasy game, you don't know much about what to expect from it, and you have to be willing to accept its premises and jump into it.

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

Eladrin and Dragonborn are not understandable concepts outside of D&D's micro-world. These are specific concepts a non-gamer will find to be non-triggers for imagination, but rather triggers for "What kind of weird thing is that, now?!" which leads to "you guys are nerds. This game blows."

I can counter that argument with a single children's cartoon: Disney's Gargoyles.
All the main protagonists were monsterous humanoids with wings and claws. The series also had adventures in the feywild and dealings with fey that we would call Eladrin. A great deal of the Gargoyle's story borrowed heavilly from the works of Shakespeare, like "A Midsummer's Night Dream", which people of the 1600s were able to comprehend.

So where does this "freaking out the squares" elitism come from? What is so alien about these concepts? What themes in DnD are so different from any other modern fiction? I have non-gamer coworkers discussing things like Heroes and Battlestar Galactica. Ask anyone on the street what a Wookie is and you'll get an answer instead of a blank stare. Parents sit their children down in front of Shrek the freaking Ogre!

If there's any aspect of DnD that turns off non-gamers, it's the idea of doing simple math for fun.

 

[The Little Raven]

So where does this "freaking out the squares" elitism come from?

For a group of people that pretend to be pretty elven princesses, gamers are a surprisingly snobby bunch.