non-4e D&D Players . . .

[jaerdaph]

WotC underestimates how intimidating and overcomplex 4E can seem to new or long-retired players. I don't see how fixing a few bugs (that only hardcore junkies ever noticed) and calling it "Essentials" us going to change that.

The terminology was a big change in 4e from all prior editions. I can follow any D&D discussion from OD&D through 3.5e and Pathfinder, but a lot of the new terminology in 4e leaves me scratching my head. Granted, if you never played 2e (or late 1e) you might not know what THAC0 is, and If I played 4e, I'm sure it wouldn't be insurmountable.

Then again, the only time I ever talk about "strikers" at EN World is every four years during the World Cup...

Still, there are a lot of good things I've heard and am aware of about 4e, such as less DM prep time and the whole Points of Light concept which are intriguing. I'm sure it's a great game because there are a lot of people that obviously enjoy it. It just wasn't for me.

I think we should concentrate on the positive and be thankful we have choices.

 

[Umbran]

Its almost scary and makes me wonder if Essentials is really going to succeed as hoped.

I wouldn't worry on account of this thread. Basically, this is a poll. And, as folks have mentioned at great length - EN World polls cannot be depended upon to represent the greater gaming world at large.

WotC underestimates how intimidating and overcomplex 4E can seem to new or long-retired players.

On the contrary, I think they know exactly how much of a barrier the game presents. However, a really big section of the market is comprised of gaming gearheads - people who specifically want a complicated game. WotC is in the position of having to play a balancing act..

Not to mention the fact that the money is in the place here you can sell the most product. If the game isn't complicated, you can't sell crunch - so having a simple game limits your sales potential.

 

[mxyzplk]

No. Pathfinder is coming out with multiple great products a month, so I really don't have much incentive to even consider changing for my D&D jones.

I might consider buying the Red Box for my 8 year old for Christmas, to get her started on gaming, though Microlite20 might be better at the task... (Doesn't make as good a present though!) But I'm not sure if it'll be truly as simplified as the old Red Box. And I have qualms because I don't think WotC will treat any of its customers right long term, so should I really turn her onto it... In other areas as a parent I steer away from patronizing companies with questionable practices.

If only there was a Pathfinder Red Box! You know, for kids!

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Essentials raised a lot of interest in me, and I followed the issue with great curiosity. I'll wait the final product, but basing my tought on what I see from the previews..

No. Absolutely not.

BTW, in these days Paizo put out the Advanced Player guide. I can spent a limited amount of resources in RPG and since I took the Pathfinder way, Essentials just can't win.

I would consider them for a present for a friend of mine, that has tastes in RPG different form mines, but not for myslef (so WotC could have done a good move, making me sor of an "indirect" customer) but that's all.

 

[Chainsaw]

On the contrary, I think they know exactly how much of a barrier the game presents. However, a really big section of the market is comprised of gaming gearheads - people who specifically want a complicated game. WotC is in the position of having to play a balancing act..

If the so-called gearheads want a game where they can optimize their powerdecks (which I witnessed first hand in 4E RPGA, with people referring to their powers as their deck), that's great - have fun. It's just not that accessible and, in reference to pogre's point, I just don't see it bringing brand new/long-retired people back in. It's too much. There's a whole group of casual gamers that don't spend hours and hours stressing over damage per round, who don't want to feel like they need to use a computer just to fill out their character sheets.

Maybe they should have a basic and an advanced version to cater to both groups? Haha. Seriously, I don't care - doesn't affect me a bit. The OGL has eroded their stranglehold over the game. Wouldn't affect me if HAS shuttered WotC tomorrow.

Not to mention the fact that the money is in the place here you can sell the most product. If the game isn't complicated, you can't sell crunch - so having a simple game limits your sales potential.

Of course, but that is another issue. This is about whether non-4E players (and this subtopic, new/long-retired gamers) will be attracted to Essentials..

 

[Truth Seeker]

Not really, already moved on.

. . . will the new Essentials products get you to try (or retry) 4e?

 

[BryonD]

Efforts at expanding and reinvigorating the D&D player base is a good thing.

True, but it must be done in smart manner.
Not everyone is a potential gamer. Spending money to find "gamers" who just don't really know their options, or "reinvigorate" lapsed gamers is great. Trying to convince John Doe that he wants to spend his evenings playing pretend is a poor use of resources.

 

[WheresMyD20]

There's no way I'm buying Essentials. 4e is a good game system, but it's not the D&D that I'd want to play. What I want in my D&D:

1. Mini-less combat the default, with optional rules for using minis.
2. Fewer (or no) character build options.
3. Less detailed combat.
4. More emphasis on exploration and out of combat activities.
5. More room for DM fiat/interpretation.
6. A darker, grittier look-and-feel to the artwork and implied setting. Go for "R" (or at least "PG-13") instead of "PG". Look at the 1e: there's a devilish-looking idol and bloody lizardman corpses on the cover of the game. Don't take it to a Hackmaster extreme, but a little blood-and-guts in the art wouldn't hurt.

 

[bastrak]

Another no.

Both crunch and fluff would need to change to something considerably closer to what they were in 3.5 for me to even consider it.

I'll check out 5e when it appears.

 

[BryonD]

If the so-called gearheads want a game where they can optimize their powerdecks (which I witnessed first hand in 4E RPGA, with people referring to their powers as their deck), that's great - have fun. It's just not that accessible and, in reference to pogre's point, I just don't see it bringing brand new/long-retired people back in. It's too much. There's a whole group of casual gamers that don't spend hours and hours stressing over damage per round, who don't want to feel like they need to use a computer just to fill out their character sheets.

Just playing off this point...


There is tactical complexity and simulation complexity.
There are people who like differing degrees of each, in unrelated quantities.

I, personally, look to RPGs for simulation complexity. I *like* tactical complexity. So, all in all, that is a plus for 4E. But the tactical complexity is a minor aspect of RPG enjoyment to me.

I'd rather play a strong simulation driven story telling game than have a heavy tactically robust combat/challenge resolution system.
And if I want to play a tactical game, I'd prefer chess, or Warhammer fantasy battles, or even Descent. But that is just my preferences.