Non-D&D 4Ed

[Mort]

Why would Coke make anything other than Coke? Why would Chrysler make cars other than Chyslers?

Because they're trying to capture market share with people who don't necessarily want Coke or Chrysler exclusive of all similar products...but who nonetheless trust those companies.

If the product is sufficiently different sure, but having coke and new coke on the market at the same time - didn't go so well. While the systems may be different - WoTC would be competing with itself for marketshare of the fantasy setting.

That is the conventional wisdom, yes. But conventional wisdom isn't necessarily true. There are companies that manage to produce products that cover similar ground but still cater to different audiences- see the aforementioned Coke and Chrysler. Even within the RPG biz, you see that this is possible. Look at the original WoD games: while mechanical underpinnings were similar, their line of Mage, Vampire, Werewolf, Changeling, etc., were not balanced to be played with each other. Not well, anyway. (Later editions changed this.)

I've always seen the various whitewolf products as different supplements and facets of the same world - while not fully compatible (until, in theory, recently) they play off each other and use the same system. I think this actually argues against your point - If Whitewold had released totally different systems for each facet it would have been worse.

I guess I just don't see 4e as "different enough" from a fantasy perspective - it would be like releasing cars that look way too similar or soft drinks that taste barely different (maybe the ingrediants are different but if they combine similarly, who cares?)

As THE major player, the proverbial 800lb gorilla, WotC has the resources to pull this off...IF they properly differentiate the products, of course.

The question becomes what would they differentiate 4e to, they would have to completely rejiger the system to a very different bend or again, compete with themselves? Being unfocused here would cost them a ton of money.

If 4Ed were released as another product from "the makers of D&D", the rollout goes much more smoothly, since they wouldn't have felt the need to dis the previous edition, there wouldn't have been the same baggage about license cancellations (which may not have occurred), etc.

The rollout was a disaster even with the full force of D&D behind it, I can't help but think it would be infinetely worse if they did not have the D&D backing. I suppose you can say it was disaster because they were so busy running from 3e, but really that was just part of it, they needed a better marketing strategy from day one. And again, I think it would have been that much worse if they couldn't attach D&D to it (saying "from the makers of D&D" can also attach unwanted baggage "I already have D&D for fantasy, why do I need a foreign system?")

just some thoughts.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the product is sufficiently different sure, but having coke and new coke on the market at the same time - didn't go so well. While the systems may be different - WoTC would be competing with itself for marketshare of the fantasy setting.

Actually, Coke was initially replaced by New Coke, which generated backlash and a rapid decline in sales just months after the launch. When the original returned to the market, sales of NC continued to fall, until they stabilized...after NC became Coke II, under which name it sold until 2006.

But Coke didn't stop making other drinks after NC's debacle: the company has a beverage line of over a thousand products, some of which are non-diet, non-"Coke" colas that are profit makers.

...it would be like releasing cars that look way too similar...

If you look at the major international auto manufacturers, they've been releasing mechanical clones of cars with cosmetic differences for decades, some indistinguishable until you get inside or check the badging.

The question becomes what would they differentiate 4e to...

It would be differentiated from 3.5Ed, which is precisely what they did. They would just be able to do it in a more pronounced way, like by having an entirely different cosmology (in addition to changes I listed previously).

The rollout was a disaster even with the full force of D&D behind it...

Because?

Because they ticked off a lot of people generally happy with 3.5Ed who saw 4Ed as an unwelcome replacement with too many changes...but who nonetheless may have been open to an entirely different game. People who didn't personally lose any respect for 4Ed's designers could have evaluated the game on it's own merits as opposed to as a changing of what had gone before.

If you take me to my favorite steakhouse and tell me they added fish to the menu, I may try the fish. If you take me to my favorite steakhouse and tell me fish has replaced all of the beef on the menu, I may well be pissed. (And I'm from New Orleans- I LOVE seafood.)

 

[GreyLord]

Something to think about....4e got much of it's pattern of release from 3.X editions.

Does the similar argument that if 3.X was released as D20 D&D or D20 Fantasy mean that it would have sold better?

You wouldn't have upset a couple million AD&D players (who granted, most were not playing it anyways, so in a way 3.X actually brought a bunch back to the game) and perhaps still appealed to the new people that it brought in (especially if it were called D20 D&D as it still would have the D&D name to reel them in)?

I think not.

It did better in sales because it was called D&D and it was 3e.

The same applies to 4e...in my opinion.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Does the similar argument that if 3.X was released as D20 D&D or D20 Fantasy mean that it would have sold better?<snip good points>

Personally, I agree it would have sold worse.

However, the 3Ed rollout wasn't as negative in it's tone towards previous editions; like the majority of respondents in the (non-scientific) poll in this forum, I also feel it wasn't as radical a departure from previous editions.

And that is key.

And all of that is also besides the point of this thread. Whether or not you agree 4Ed would sell better with or without being crowned D&D (as opposed to being another FRPG from WotC), this thread is supposed to be about what could be done with the 4Ed engine if it were divorced from D&D legacy concerns.

The way I see it (with the changes I've posted), 4Ed could have been THE toolkit FRPG system...maybe something more.

I'm curious about how others would turbocharge 4Ed without the D&D legacy handicapping, not whether everyone agrees with my market analysis.

 

[Greg K]

I've come to the conclusion that 4Ed could have been bigger than it is if it were not released under the D&D badge. My rationale is as follows:

1. Were it not called D&D, it would not have alienated 3.5Ed players who didn't want a substitute for their favored system.
2. Without legacy issues, the game's mechanics could have been "unshackled" and made a more flexible game.

I think it would have done worse. The people that stayed away because of mechanics would still have stayed away. Many of the people that went to 4e or gave it a try, because it was the newest edition of D&D probably would not have given it a look.

 

[Mort]

Second, legacy issues clearly limited the mechanical design of 4Ed. Without legacy issues, 4Ed could have.

Let's look at your 4 changes:

[*]Ditched alignment completely

It could but is it a good idea? Good vs. Evil, Law vs. Chaos etc. is iconic in fantasy - do you want to ditch something recognizable that someone looking at the system could latch on to? I suppose you could completely divorce alignment from mechanics and make it purely fluff - or you could go the other direction and actually have alignment really mean something.

[*]Would not have needed a class-based strucure, meaning no need for multiclassing, more flex in feat utilities, and so forth.

People like class based structure (there was an interesting article by Monte Cook on this a few years back), I think taking away classes would actually drive people away not toward the system. Kind of like, I want to like GURPS, I really do - but while I love the supplements I just can't take the system.

[*]Could have provided a template for race designs not locked into "D&D" expectations

This has potential - basically give some ideas and basics of what races look like and provide a nice way for people to muck with it.

[*]Could have had more variation within the powers themselves: for example, A/E/D/U versions of each could represent either "overcharging"/ lesser=>greater versions of spells (like in Arcana Unearthed) or actual variants of the spells- what would a MM Daily look like? Or an At-Will version of Fireball?

Again interesting, but wouldn't you have an even bigger problem than you do now with people jumping up and down "fighters shouldn't cast spells!"
One thing that could be done is a better narrative portrayal of powers than the ones currently provided.

Some things I think could be done (and heck could be done now under 4e):

Expand page 42, the section allowing off the cuff manuevers etc, of the DMG into a good chapter of explanations and examples. Too many people think all 4e has to offer is rigid manuevers (hey they're on the character sheet, sometimes even in color) and the perception of this needs to change/expand.

Really play up rituals: Rituals are a big departure from before and can really change the pacing of a game/campaign and some of them are just cool (the cure disease ritual is essentialy magic chemo: it might cure you or it might kill you quicker than the disease itself) plus its a true departure from Vancian magic (for better or worse). It actually bugs me that WoTC has stepped back from rituals rather than embracing/expanding them.

Use the healing surge mechanic to its full potential: some people really don't like this mechanic, but I see it as a final departure from reliance on the magical medic. Further, it can do such a good job of simulating fatigue, disease, and other conditions usually quite difficult to simulate. Introduce some alternate time mechanics (where you don't heal up after 6 hours) and that could even make some more people happy.

Anyway I think the 4e as separate from D&D has long since sailed but I certainly think 4e has more potential than many (including unfortunately WoTC) are investing in it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

How would a non-D&D 4e have been received by the mass of disgruntled 3e fans? Much better.

How would a non-D&D 4e have been received by everyone else? Probably worse.

The D&D brand name carries weight, and is the only brand name a person who doesn't play tabletop rpgs have heard of. The only other way to sell the 4e rules would have been to tack them on to another recognizable name (perhaps from a certain popular non-tabletop game).

Bottom line, I doubt the game would have been bigger. I think WotC has done as much as could possibly have been done with the basic ruleset, both in terms of attracting players and accumulating profit.

 

[nightwyrm]

I agree with Ahnehnois here. While there may be a bit less backlash from disgruntle 3e fans, not calling 4e D&D would've killed any serious plans to use 4e to expand the market, which was of course one of the main WotC objectives with 4e. For good or ill, to most people D&D is synonomous with table top RPG. Just like kleenex is the white paper towel, ketchup is the red stuff, and coke is the black pop.

Not calling 4e D&D would've made it the same as the no-name black stuff I buy coz I'm too cheap to buy real coke.

 

[billd91]

I think if 4e had not been called D&D, it wouldn't have done as well as it has. That said, if I wanted to do something with the rule engine in 4e without calling it D&D, I would have:

1. Sold it as a generic ACTION Role-Playing System
2. Sold genre-oriented add-ons to it
3. Planned for my first two genre-oriented add-ons to be a kung-fu one and a D&D-based one with D&D branded content, both timed to be released at the same time as the system in general
4. Publicized plans to put out other genre-oriented add-ons like more fantasy, supers, pro-wrestling, etc.
5. And I'd have kept some elements of D&D 3.5 going

Certainly, I have some benefit of hindsight here, but the 4e system was pretty much untested in the D&D market as a whole entity and I think the polarization we've seen should have been predictable. I'd have been reluctant to go with a massive revision without a massive public playtest period. Putting out the 4e rules engine as a separate and modular RPG system would, in essence, provide that big public playtest, particularly once the D&D-oriented genre add-on was released. Then, if it really took off, the next edition of D&D could incorporate what worked, revise what didn't.

4e lends itself pretty well to table-top skirmishing/action gaming, well-suited to kung-fu action movies and pro-wrestling, but a bit shifted away from many years of D&D traditions and tropes. I'd have used the action gaming as the main selling point as an alternative way to play your D&D, not as the official replacement.

 

[Dungeoneer]

There's a reason that Hollywood churns out endless sequels, every fantasy book is "the first in a seventeen part series!" and we're up to XIII in the Final Fantasy games: brand recognition sells. For better or worse sequels generally outperform the originals. Building a recognizable new property is hard. Even when the first outing is a breakout success, you typically still don't do the numbers of an established franchise.

Establishing a new franchise or IP is tricky in any media, but tabletop RPGs aren't exactly setting the world on fire in 2010. Since 1974, there's really only one name in TRPGs that had made headlines, topped bestseller lists, and penetrated our cultural consciousness: Dungeons & Dragons.

The launch of Fourth Edition was a media event. It got covered in newspapers. Like, real newspapers. There was a lot of buzz. People recognize the brand like no other in the industry.

Even at their best, Wizards of the Coast is never going to get that with a new property. And no, 'From the makers of D&D...' isn't going to cut it. WotC has made other RPGs before now. They haven't exactly set the world on fire, though. Their CCGs have done well, but arguably those are different games entirely.

D&D was and remains the flagship of TRPGs. That's unlikely to change any time soon. The fact is that WotC's major efforts within our hobby going forward are always going to be billed as The Newest Update To Dungeons & Dragons.

4e is a good game, even if it's not your game. They could have slapped the D&D name on a vastly inferior game, raked in piles of cash, and called it a day. They didn't. I think they deserve some credit for that.

But the name D&D is big, and 4e by any other name would not have smelled as sweet.