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

[Ruin Explorer]

We should not equate "there was a massive increase in sales" to "there was a massive increase in people learning it from the books by themselves". All the increase shows was an increase in the player base. It does not speak directly to how they were learning.

One DM, setting up a new group, can teach a whole bunch of folks. Do that twice (once in high school, once in college, say), and you have a massive increase in the player base.

You don't need the internet for viral marketing to be effective.

So you're basically denying that the old D&D boxed sets ever got any significant number of people "into" D&D, and that the people who cite that as how they got into gaming are a meaningless minority, and that similar future efforts are worthless?

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

When you say "dragonborn", it's not as clear an idea - most people will ask "what the heck is that?" .

I had that exact thing happen to me with a new potential player.

My response: They're dragon guys- Tough and scaly with a fire-breathing ability. They make good fighters.
Their response: Cool. I want to play one of them!

If we're talking collective memory, I might be inclined to believe that elves lived in trees and made cookies.

A European and a Chinese person would probably have very different takes on the nature of a dragon.

My argument is that while the particulars of the DnD world may not be universally known, the tropes and conventions used in the game are universal and no more than a sentence away from understanding to any lay person that hasn't been living under a rock for most of their life. I keep offering examples from media to show that the fantastical elements in DnD are not new and are more accepted than ever before.

We've had gods, monsters, other worlds, and supermen ever since we started telling stories. The trick in introducing new story elements is to bridge the unknown to the known.

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."

 

[Corjay]

"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."

OMG. Great quote. Great episode. Great way to bring the point home. "You may not know THIS race or THIS story, but it relates to this other stuff in just the same way." Isn't that what a meme is all about? (Rhetorical)

 

[The Highway Man]

Why is any of this a problem?

It's not a problem for a noob introduced to role-playing at a game table if the DM's description is clear and appealing. It is a problem when one of the goals of 4E in and by itself is to appeal to non-gamers as an entry product to the hobby.

Basically, this doesn't make the product any more appealing to non-geeks. It hunts on the grounds of other geek-related hobbies, like MMOs, fans of Farscape, what-have-you. Which previous editions already did.

So in that regard, I'm on Pramas' side when he says 4E as an entry product is a failure. That's just one of the reasons, not the only one, and I think that, in this particular instance, this is becoming worse with every edition of the game. It is becoming more and more "Star Wars". Not in a good way, because you don't have high-budget movies to be the entry product in this case, but hundreds of pages of rules to digest. Quite a gap in terms of potential appeal, if you ask me.

Medusas, Giants, Dragons are becoming something very specific to the D&D-verse for instance, farther and farther apart from the real-life myths and legends that inspired them. A Wizard is something very specific, clearly apart from what a Warlock is, while these terms are far from clear cut in real life. My point is, D&D is becoming more and more its own thing that non-gamers will look at and say "WTF?"

 

[Corjay]

It's not a problem for a noob introduced to role-playing at a game table if the DM's description is clear and appealing. It is a problem when one of the goals of 4E in and by itself is to appeal to non-gamers as an entry product to the hobby.

Basically, this doesn't make the product any more appealing to non-geeks. It hunts on the grounds of other geek-related hobbies, like MMOs, fans of Farscape, what-have-you. Which previous editions already did.

So in that regard, I'm on Pramas' side when he says 4E as an entry product is a failure. That's just one of the reasons, not the only one, and I think that, in this particular instance, this is becoming worse with every edition of the game. It is becoming more and more "Star Wars". Not in a good way, because you don't have high-budget movies to be the entry product in this case, but hundreds of pages of rules to digest. Quite a gap in terms of potential appeal, if you ask me.

Medusas, Giants, Dragons are becoming something very specific to the D&D-verse for instance, farther and farther apart from the real-life myths and legends that inspired them. A Wizard is something very specific, clearly apart from what a Warlock is, while these terms are far from clear cut in real life. My point is, D&D is becoming more and more its own thing that non-gamers will look at and say "WTF?"

I beg to differ. MMORPG's are HUGE. People who know MMORPG's will be able to relate to 4e VERY easily. There's nothing new in D&D to them. Additionally, just the name "Dungeons & Dragons" and the concept do and always have related to everyone. The name is comprehendable and iconic. The main races are seen in every video game there is. And movies have presented such things for years. Besides, how many people are going to hear the term "dragonborn" or better yet "tiefling" before they ever see their pictures? Very few, and no one that plays is going to just assume that such people know what a "tiefling" is. It's the imagery that's going to pull the people in. Not the names. Once again, names are meaningless. They only have value so long as a picture is applied (a name itself is a meme for recalling an image to mind). Since there are plenty of pictures around, the name is unimportant. It's not like D&D posters have the words "we now include Dragonborn and Tieflings!" without showing their images.

 

[The Highway Man]

So you're actually agreeing with my point that 4E appeals to people who are already customers of MMOs, Star Trek, Farscape et cetera.

This for me is a lost battle. Between playing on a console/PC (or watching a show on TV) with little to no hard rules to comprehend before playing, and digesting hundreds of pages of abstract ideas, these gamers will just keep on playing instantly rewarding games.

This just makes D&D more geekish, more entrenched as an has-been's hobby (not unlike wargames were to RPGs when they rose). Not less. It's like an old lady that dies her hair platinum and wears slut clothing to appeal to younger men. That doesn't make her any more attractive, but instead underlines her issues with her own age.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

So you're basically denying that the old D&D boxed sets ever got any significant number of people "into" D&D, and that the people who cite that as how they got into gaming are a meaningless minority, and that similar future efforts are worthless?

An old D&D boxed set got me into roleplaying. A friend introduced me to the game, but I kept playing after that first game because of the boxed set.

Once I 'mastered' that boxed set and its concepts along with playing and running several Basic adventures, I eventually moved onto AD&D. If I'd have been introduced directly to AD&D at the age of 11, I think I would have run away screaming, or more likely just gone "errr, no thanks".

A graduated introduction worked best for me, alas there does not seem to be one these days. Would Wizards have the heart & will to do such a thing, or just rely as they seem to be doing on existing players?

A related question raised by a friend (Mike Mason), should we expect companies to recruit new players or are players best at doing that. If the latter, what have we done ourselves to make more roleplayers (besides the obvious, parents).

 

[Maggan]

Would Wizards have the heart & will to do such a thing, or just rely as they seem to be doing on existing players?

Yepp, they will do a Basic D&D game, as they did for 3e.

I don't think that the Basic D&D format works as well as it did when I was introduced to D&D, and that the high hopes many have for a tiered introduction to D&D via a boxed D&D set will not be fruitful.

The best chances of introduction to D&D will be the new D&D Minitures game.

/M

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

Yepp, they will do a Basic D&D game, as they did for 3e.

I don't think that the Basic D&D format works as well as it did when I was introduced to D&D, and that the high hopes many have for a tiered introduction to D&D via a boxed D&D set will not be fruitful.

The best chances of introduction to D&D will be the new D&D Minitures game.

/M

I still have that 3rd edition Basic Set. It's not the same as the old D&D Basic set in a one important way. The 3rd edition set is a one-off ("Play this once, now go buy our full edition rulebooks."), whereas the old Basic sets had an entire series of scenarios for them (indeed the whole BECMI rules path as well).

Would using the D&D Minis game as an introduction to what full Dungeons & Dragons is, simply encourage new people to treat D&D more as a wargame than a roleplaying game when they get into it? Just not sure on that one.

 

[Corjay]

So you're actually agreeing with my point that 4E appeals to people who are already customers of MMOs, Star Trek, Farscape et cetera.

This for me is a lost battle. Between playing on a console/PC (or watching a show on TV) with little to no hard rules to comprehend before playing, and digesting hundreds of pages of abstract ideas, these gamers will just keep on playing instantly rewarding games.

This just makes D&D more geekish, more entrenched as an has-been's hobby (not unlike wargames were to RPGs when they rose). Not less. It's like an old lady that dies her hair platinum and wears slut clothing to appeal to younger men. That doesn't make her any more attractive, but instead underlines her issues with her age.

No, because you're saying that people won't connect with D&D because they DON'T recognize it in the social memory. I'M saying that the social memory IS established regardless of name, that name doesn't matter to the social memory. Names matter only to quick recollection.

You also said the Dragonborn and Tieflings are not a part of the social memory, but I am saying they ARE a part of the social memory, but go by so many different names in other media that it doesn't matter.