Pramas on 4E and New Gamers

[hong]

Then I think you misunderstand what we are talking about.

No, no. I really think you misunderestimate the pitfalls of marketing videogames.

 

[Maggan]

Yes. We are not comparing D&D versus other tabletop rpgs here. We are comparing tabletop rpgs and especially D&D with other markets. In this respect -across market marketing- video games are far easier to market than tabletop rpgs. If it were not the case the tabletop market would be higher than the video game market.

One could argue that the D&D core books are equvivalent not to the video games themselves, but to the console they play on. The console is a higher priced investment, and more complex as a product, than the games that run on it.

The console is the enabler of the Halos of this world, and D&D4e is the enabler of ... ?

If WotC can market the hell out of some kind of easy to get going fun that is enabled by the acquisition of the core rules, and can explain that fun easily enough, then the core rules become as bad a hurdle as the console.

Consider the gigatons of money spent by Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony just to get their consoles on the market. I think that' where WotC are at in this slice of time. They'll get to the content that actually runs on the core rules in a while.

/M

 

[BryonD]

When I was 13 years old (lo those many moons ago), I was attracted to D&D precisely because of those dense, mysterious, incomprehensible manuals. A glance through the books was full of suggestion and the promise of many secrets to be revealed. The effort required to ferret out those secrets was a feature, not a bug.

Yes, that was a different era, but I don't fully buy the "kids these days" view that D&D's psychographic has been wiped out by the electronic age. Sure, there are kids who will look at the 832 pages of text and say "that looks like work; I'll stick with Grand Theft Auto." But guess what? That kid was probably never, ever going to play D&D--not now, and not back in 1979.

I agree that simplifying entry-level D&D has the potential to broaden the base of entry-level players (I was, after all, the architect of the 3E Black Dragon version of the Basic Game). And I agree that some of the players who try a broad-base entry-level version of the game will, through it, discover full-fledged D&D. But I reject the notion that D&D's complexity and scope is strictly a liability. It is, in fact, one of the game's key assets, even at the acquisition stage.

Exactly!!!!

 

[Imaro]

So it would be a good thing, then, that the 4E DMG has been lauded as being possibly the best how-to-DM book ever published.

What does this have to do with the argument? You want to know what the best DM introduction for D&D was... check out the red box D&D basic set. Full of examples, a sample adventure, less actually reading required to jump into the game, etc. We're talking bringing new people in, not people who regularly read 800+ pages to run a game. Even a game like Runebound or Descent has about 20 pages of actual rules to read.

I think the biggest problem with the line of thinking is that most people do not get heavily invested in games, for most people they're a casual past time. The D&D basic game was streamlined and quick enough where even a night of beer n pretzels play at high levels was easily accomplished in a casual manner. The time invested to create characters, set up an adventure, learn the rules, or run the game was not so great that it actually precluded casual play.

 

[Maggan]

How about they start selling rpg ideas with comics or even novels and then expand the gaming experience from there?

Been there, done that.

It could work, but it didn't a decade ago. I think it was Casus Belli who did it, and when I worked with Target Games (Kult/Mutant Chronicles) some of that went on as well.

But I'd love to see another shot at it.

/M

 

[hong]

What does this have to do with the argument?

That it makes it even easier to DM than anything produced in the last, oh, 20 years.

I think the biggest problem with the line of thinking is that most people do not get heavily invested in games, for most people they're a casual past time.

If people can get invested enough in WoW to learn half a dozen feat chains macros, they can get invested enough in D&D to learn half a dozen powers.

 

[Maggan]

You want to know what the best DM introduction for D&D was... check out the red box D&D basic set.

But after that red box, which got me into D&D, similar versions of the game have not had the same success at bringing in the new players. 3.e had two Basic Sets, which on the surface were as strong as the red box, in some areas even stronger (minis).

But that didn't ignite the D&D revolution like D&D red box did. And I think we will never see another version of D&D that does. Not because they are bad versions, but because that perfect storm that the red box was released in will not come again.

/M

 

[xechnao]

One could argue that the D&D core books are equvivalent not to the video games themselves, but to the console they play on. The console is a higher priced investment, and more complex as a product, than the games that run on it.

The console is the enabler of the Halos of this world, and D&D4e is the enabler of ... ?

If WotC can market the hell out of some kind of easy to get going fun that is enabled by the acquisition of the core rules, and can explain that fun easily enough, then the core rules become as bad a hurdle as the console.

Consider the gigatons of money spent by Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony just to get their consoles on the market. I think that' where WotC are at in this slice of time. They'll get to the content that actually runs on the core rules in a while.

/M

Not in this world. They invest tons to promote the hardware console to the market but the revenue comes from video games. The supplements Wizards sells are not even comparable to this as an idea.

 

[BryonD]

Lots of good points, but here is the real main quote (IMO):

The real test will come a year from now, when the newness will have worn off. Then we'll see if 4E really sticks.

There is a lot of mixed reaction already (See Chris' prior Blog post), and the newness wears through quickly and things go down from there.

 

[Fenes]

Lots of good points, but here is the real main quote (IMO):


There is a lot of mixed reaction already (See Chris' prior Blog post), and the newness wears through quickly and things go down from there.

If you check any MMOG forum, then the forum reactions to anything (patch, new game, sunshine) are usually mixed all the time, to put it diplomatically. Even and especially in WoW, arguably the biggest success on the market.

I'd really not put too much faith on forum reactions.