What do you want? (Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's target audience?)

[thecasualoblivion]

I caused a thread forking. Huzzah!

Also, I agree with Fallen Seraph with how many forked threads have been created. Is this like the fifth one?

I have to ask why must WOTC provide everything? It may not make sense for WOTC to make certain things like anime books or old school books. That doesn't mean no one is willing to make those things.

As for anime's power level, it does tend to go pretty high. However, once you get past level 9, you 3.5 character can do really powerful things. Things that wouldn't be out of place in many animes. Once you get into the really high levels, your fighter better be like Goku if he wants hang with the Batman wizards and CoDzillas of the world.

Me and some friends started a game at level 21. I built a level 21 Swiftblade Gish, whose spell list was centered around spells to take extra actions, movement type spells and teleportation, and finally blasting things with rays. Between moving at light speed and taking 27 actions in one round, zipping and teleporting everywhere, and using a Split Rayed Polar Ray as my extra standard action from Swiftblade Haste(or "LaZor Beams!" as it was referred to at the table), the character would be entirely at home on Dragonball Z. I decided to fluff and play the character as an over the top Anime superhero because it just fit too well.

The fact is, you can use the 3.5E rules found in core and the most common splats(complete, spell compendium, not to mention ToB) to go Anime full throttle.

 

[FireLance]

Just please not in the core though.

Which re-raises the oft-asked question: how should a game company decide what to put into the core?
Should core material cater primarily to the known tastes of existing customers, or primarily to the expected tastes of potential customers?
If a company wants to introduce new material into the core to attract new customers, what percentage of core material should be new?

 

[justanobody]

Which re-raises the oft-asked question: how should a game company decide what to put into the core?
Should core material cater primarily to the known tastes of existing customers, or primarily to the expected tastes of potential customers?
If a company wants to introduce new material into the core to attract new customers, what percentage of core material should be new?

I think it comes down to what are you trying to do? Are you trying to make a game for a specific reason, or just make something to sale.

If you try to add the most posible for most people to buy, then you have the chance to get more people to buy it, but you also have the chance that it is too loose with no consistency that it may drive others off.

What is the difference in Trouble and Sorry? Sorry has cards that affect the pegs. Why doesn't everyone play Sorry with the added new feature, and why does Trouble still sell?

Some times you just have to make different things for different people, changing them slightly to make sure people get the most out of what they want. The thing you have to choose most is whether to kep the old or not.

With D&D, if you alter a small part of it you main gain stronger favor with some consumers as they like the changes better, and other may abhor them to drive them off. (see 2nd edition to 3rd). Even larger changes to a game have a chance to zero in on a niche within the customers and make them real happy, but also drive off many more that do not fit in that small a niche. (see 3rd to 4th)

It really depends on your purpose for making the game.

D&D started out Medieval Fantasy.

Where is it today in relation to that? Did the people really start disliking medieval games to want these other things? Did medieval gaming really affect what caused it to sale to begin with?

What focus and genre is the game aiming for, or is it trying to aim for one in particular?

So for some D&D may always need that medieval feel which anime, or other eras do not really fit in what they want, while others may want the other areas.

So can the game fit all genres without alienating some people who want a specific genre, and are those who want a specific genre such as the original idea of medieval fantasy, or technologically advanced, and even anime inspired wrong? Or is it that the game just cannot give all those things and hope to keep all the people happy?

So maybe the wrong question was what do people want from D&D, but what has D&D become and trying to be, that people don't like about it...but that seems more like an edition war starting question.

Is D&D still able to fit its origins of medieval fantasy? Is that what people want from D&D? Can D&D fit all genres and still be successful? Can other games be made for the other genres? Say Eberron developing into its own gaming system to better fit the things people want out of it?

So what is the core concept of D&D today?

 

[Rechan]

I know I saw it in this post, but where it went I have no idea.....

The idea it shouldn't be a staple part for many, but being in a supplement like PHBIV that was mentioned in that post isn't a problem, so long as it is not a core part of the game.

There should be allowance for many things, so long as they fit the genre, but really anime is not just something that could be added to D&D and needs it's own game.

I really don't see anyone advocating that they should go full on Mecha and Sailor Moon with the Ki Power source. All Cadfan is discussing is Anime Tropes. He listed several of them: Less armored fighter, unarmed melee class, unarmed/magical class, eastern weapons, refocus mid-combat, and building on Second Wind for further mid-combat recoveries.

So I don't get "Some anime (namely the far-flung or Sci FI anime) doesn't work for d20, so all anime should be segregated to its own RPG and not allowed in the room with D&D."

Princess Mononoke, Ninja Scroll, Basilisk, Berzerk, Scrapped Princess - very easy to facilitate with D&D.

It's like saying "3e D&D does not facilitate low-magic games because of the necessity of magical items and magical healing. Therefore, low magic games have no place in D&D and should be in its own RPG."

Here, I'll show you what is being talked about. Here's an example of something Anime/Wuxiash that can facilitate in D&D:

Quivering Palm * Monk Attack 25
Daily * Unarmed, Ki
Standard Action * Melee
Target: One creature
Attack: Wisdom vs. Fortitude
Hit: 1d[Unarmed]+Wis damage, and target is weakened. Until the end of the encounter, or five minutes, you can decide when the Quivering Palm's effect occurs, as a free action. Target takes 3d[Unarmed] damage and is no longer weakened.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is WotC giving people what they want, or do people only take what they can get?

People will buy anything called D&D in epic numbers because what people want is something called D&D that they can play with their friends.

This will be true almost regardless of what the contents between the pages are.

Almost, because if they replaced it with FATAL, sure, sales might drop.

I bet it'd still sell a boatload of Core Books that broke sales records and demanded fifth printings, though.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Which re-raises the oft-asked question: how should a game company decide what to put into the core?

Feedback I suppose.

Should core material cater primarily to the known tastes of existing customers, or primarily to the expected tastes of potential customers?

Definitely squarely in the court of existing customers but with enough interesting tidbits to bring in the new blood (if that's even required).

If a company wants to introduce new material into the core to attract new customers, what percentage of core material should be new?

Really hard to answer this. In the end, I don't think it comes down to percentages, it's more subtle than that.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[joethelawyer]

Start with 3.5. Have a section in the beginning that has basic rules. In other words, ability checks instead of skills, no feats, limited abilities upon advancement. This would provide for a nice old school feel and speed of play, if that's what people want. Then, after that section, a cleaned up and renovated version of 3.5 for those who want that complexity. All options that were core in 3.5 remain core, just as most monsters have rules for using them as a PC race. Use the 1/2 level + ability modifier mechanic from 4E since it helps flatten the power curve out and keeps the game playable at upper levels. Don't skimp on the amount of material. The core books should be crammed beyond the breaking point with material and should include all options available in the core rules of the previous edition.

this sums up the mechanics i like

In the end, I think all fans want from D&D is something that can in most ways represent the game that they want to play. As long as the rules don't get in the way of that, people seem to be happy (or not happy if they do).

As for myself, the following is my personal opinion of what I would like to see in D&D. It is the charter I described for the group I started (see sig. for further details). Put this altogether and it is the ideal D&D for me:

• Magic is mysterious and dark once more; rather than the safe hum-drum technology of the fantasy world.
• The days of characters being defined by their suite of magical items instead of their skills and heroics are gone.
• Rules and flavour should be in symbiosis with one another, rather than in competition or strained accord.
• Streamline for elegance, not to bash complexity into vague simplicity.
• Adventuring is inherently not safe; combat encounters should present danger to the characters – the safety net must go.
• The assumption of miniatures and a battlemap should not be implicit in the ruleset; the rules must also be able to reasonably support those groups who prefer the landscape of the mind.
• While no specific world is given or assumed, the rules should allow for one that sits between Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Vance’s Lyonesse series, Howard’s Conan Stories, Martin’s Game of Thrones series, Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, Erikson’s Malazan series and Fritz Leiber’s Stories of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; and be able to stretch to any of these fabulous fantasy pillars.
• Verisimilitude is not a dirty word; a logic to the fantasy world should be upheld.
• Character creations must be flexible; the ability to meld different but viable character ideas should be equally encouraged, rather than feeling pressured to focus on a couple of optimised builds
• Players should feel that they can develop a character that is both effective in combat and interesting out of combat – rather than either/or.
• The game economy must make sense and feel real; rather than being a calculated spoon-fed wealth lacking in true achievement.
• The game cannot afford for some classes to dominate at the expense of others at more powerful levels; and nor should the answer be compressing the classes into homogenized lumps of roughly equal measure.
• The game also cannot afford for rules to unmanageably bloat at higher levels with the time taken to resolve this vast array bloating as well.
• And most of all and above all else, the game must be fun! 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

this sums up the style i want.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

this sums up the mechanics i like


this sums up the style i want.

Then play the game that has the mechanics and style you want. Its when you demand that D&D be that game that the "entitlement" issue creeps into things.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

First I think we have to identify the players who switch editions because of the Name brand, not because of the game itself, or who will love anything with the D&D name on the cover even if it was a boxed turd.
Then we have to weed out the people who bought it and didnt like it (with any edition), or who are just collectors, like me, who bought 4e realms and the 4e core set, both things I dont like.

Forget sales figures. All we can really go on is antecdotal evidence which means nothing to begin with. For myself, I would say WOTC is not giving us what we the majority want. Based on? Well based on out of all the game shops I visit over three states none of them can move the 4e product. The Waldens I go to is looking it to returning the product cause they cant move it and ive never met one gamer in real life who likes 4e, and ive only ever met one gamer who did NOT like 3e or 3.5. Couple that with when 3e was coming out everyone I knew who played 2e or earlier hated the system but played cause it was all they had, and embraced 3e with open arms. It was similar enough but different enough.

Your experiences may be different. Im sure they are. Im sure there is someone on here who went to a convention where 3e was booed. I dont know.
All the bean counters at Hasbro and WOTC know is that the people who go with the brand regardless and those that bought it but hate it are still giving them money.

For the recrod ive never seen the hate for a new edtion as for 4e. Even the 3e naysayers havent been this bad.

 

[Rechan]

Then play the game that has the mechanics and style you want. Its when you demand that D&D be that game that the "entitlement" issue creeps into things.

Considering that this thread asks "What do you WANT", criticizing someone for saying what they want really isn't fair. The OP asked for the answer that was given.