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

[Obryn]

BTW, totally off-topic, is there any way I can put your avatar on ignore whilst viewing your posts?

Adblock is perfect for this, if you're using Firefox. I have it, but I keep the actual site ads active, since I like giving Morrus money without paying anything. I've blocked avatars before for browsing at work.

I believe IE 7 has something which lets you block images, too, but since I generally don't use it, I can't say for certain. If you're using this, right-click his avatar and see.

-O

 

[The Highway Man]

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.

Collective memory is subconscious recollection. In other words, I'm afraid we disagree on this one.

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.

Strawman argument. I agree that dragonborn and tieflings are rooted in some form or shape in fantasy literature, legends etc. That's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm saying that those *words* do not trigger recollections from collective memory. To know what a "Dragonborn" and a "Tiefling" are, you have to be at a D&D table and have a DM explain to you OR read the book. That means you have already been "picked up" by D&D as a player, one way or another.

You say words don't matter (and hinted at the fact that things like memes, collective memory etc are things for intellectuals who like to listen to themselves talking, basically). I disagree. That's the real bottom line I see here.

 

[Corjay]

Now you're just taking it in circles. You say names matter. I say they don't.

Wow. Isn't that...simple...?

 

[The Highway Man]

If 4E successfully attracts a lot of current MMO and console game players, it might be able to tag along on the ride towards mainstream acceptance.

I've got nothing against people playing on consoles. I do myself. I just think that a wide majority of videogamers are just going to stick to what feels natural and easy to pick up, like a video game, rather than bother with an RPG that is the exact duplicate of this or that video game, less the graphics, plus the hassle of assembling people and prepping for the game, no matter how long/"easy" this is supposed to be.

I'm glad you came to D&D from videogames. I'm sure you're far from being the only one. But in the end, to me, tabletop RPGs are going to lose this battle the same way wargames lost to tabletop role-playing a few decades ago. They'll still exist. As an "uber-geekish hobby for old guys".

Now you're just taking it in circles. You say names matter. I say they don't.

Wow. Isn't that...simple...?

Indeed. That's simple. Why do you feel the need to rewrite my arguments to suit your argumentative needs to respawn the cycle, then? We can just agree to disagree, and move on (forgetting that I just countered your claim about collective memory not being about words and quick recollections, and that tieflings and dragonborn appeal to people who are already giving the game a chance, one way or another... but I digress). Yes?

 

[Corjay]

Oooookayyy. Wow.

 

[Scribble]

D&D needs a TV show dedicated to new D&D stuff, and class builds and stuff.

And more ads and stuff with hot chicks playing D&D. Nothing sells stuff more then hot chicks.

 

[Hussar]

For me the problem with the races "Dragonborn" and "Tiefling" is that their symbolical value is alien to heroic fantasy. Both Races have symbolical links to the devil. The dragon being a medieval symbol for pagan beliefs and the devil himself and well the tiefling should be obvious. Deeply ingrained in their horned and red eyed image is the message that they are NOT the good guys. One could always explain the half-orc as the tragical, misunderstood loner, but now it gets very awkward with two races in the game who have the sentence:" Smash me back into hell!" written all over their faces. European culture does simply not support a positive picture for these kind of characters.

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!

Umm, what? There have been tons of "demonic" style good guys for years. Heck, the faun from Narnia looks pretty much like a tiefling. The anti-hero is a pretty popular tradition too. Your entire argument requires that we ignore the past several decades of fantasy in order to only look at themes that occur prior to about 1900.

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?

I would say that the boxed set got lots of people into the game true. But, it was usually one person buying the boxed set and then teaching it to others.

Kinda like now. Except now you have millions of people who have already played TRPG's, who can teach new people how to play the game, unlike in 1980, when no one had ever heard of a TRPG and thus had no one to teach them.

In other words, how many boxed sets would each group typically have? Unless each person bought their own and learned the rules independently, it's still valid to say that viral marketing drove Basic D&D, same as always.

 

[SSquirrel]

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.

You know, this argument could have been made w/o the extreme hyperbole. People talk about the 4E mafia jumping on threads. Frequently I see people trying to defuse ridiculous hyperbole with facts.

That said, I enjoy getting new stuff in a new edition. Go figure. If it's not a large change, why upgrade? I ignored 3.5 b/c except for 2 or 3 major class changes (print a few SRD pages and go), most of the other changes were minutia and fiddly bits I didn't feel was worth relearning. Art is in the eye of the viewer, so no cover will ever appeal to everyone.
They chose a more modern art style, which feels fitting to me. *shrug*

 

[Obryn]

I've got nothing against people playing on consoles. I do myself. I just think that a wide majority of videogamers are just going to stick to what feels natural and easy to pick up, like a video game, rather than bother with an RPG that is the exact duplicate of this or that video game, less the graphics, plus the hassle of assembling people and prepping for the game, no matter how long/"easy" this is supposed to be.

That's if you take as given that there's no benefits to playing a game in a group, led by a DM, with a much wider array of stuff than any MMO could ever have. Or that people trying out RPGs for the first time won't be attracted to these aspects.

Which is plainly false.

Neverwinter Nights didn't kill 3e. Neither did NWN2. Both incorporated the mechanics of the RPG into a networked, accessible, critically acclaimed computer game. They did a much better job of this for 3e than WoW does for either 3e or 4e.

-O

 

[Lurks-no-More]

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

Gaming is a very conservative (not politically) hobby, I've noticed; all the stuff about gamers being more imaginative and open to new things than the average person is starting to seem like a lot of bunk to me.

Anyway... if someone is comparing the Dragonborn to Star Wars (not that the idea of a big, burly, fire-breathing dragon-man or -woman takes more than thirty seconds to explain to anyone with even the most basic idea of fantasy and SF; ie. to anyone who would consider trying D&D in the first place), how is that too far out? Star Wars is only the most popular SF movie series and franchise during the last twenty years, and it's definitely a tightly embedded part of the Western culture by now.