When did I stop being WotC's target audience?

[Greg K]

"When did we start asking ourselves questions like 'am I still Company X's target audience?' instead of questions like 'Do I like this product and does it suit my needs?'".

For myself, it was when I started realizing the following:

a) I liked products from numerous third party companies including Adamant, Green Ronin, and RPGObjects;

b) I considered only 17 WOTC 3e DND supplements to be worth purchasing;

- 8 of them without requiring a discount (Unearthed Arcana, MM2, Fiend Folio, Book of Vile Darkness, Fiendish Codex I, Lords of Madness, Heroes of Horror, Stormwrack)

- and another 9 (Arms and Equipment Guide, Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Complete Mage, PHB2, DMG2, Dragonomicon, Sandstorm, Savage Species) provided that I could buy them at a minimum of 75-80% off the cover price. And, even then, less than 50% of the material in these products would be used. To date, I still don't own any of these, because other books have priority.

(Note: To be fair, I haven't seen Cityscape or Ghostwalk so they might fall into one of the above categories);

c) I didn't like d20 Star Wars (with the exception of its treatment of the force) or Star Wars:SE with its per encounter abiities, over consolidated skill lists, and removal of skill points ( a shame, because I like some of the other elements of SE like talent trees and the condition track); and

d) I disliked WOTC's d20 Modern supplements (to be fair, I found d20 Future to be mediocre. Also, I haven't seen d20 Apocalypse or d20 Cyberscape so perhaps they are worth buying);

 

[Gothmog]

Which is quite funny as 1st-2nd edition was not D&D, but a whole new game as noted by the name change to Advanced D&D, while the actual game D&D was still being released at the same time initially.

So 2nd edition AD&D being more like D&D than Basic seems a bit absurd to me to say the least.

I think this may be part of the disconnect people have when talking about D&D, and their perceptions of 4e or earlier editions.

To me, D&D isn't about the mechanics of the game. Sure, polyhedral dice are important, and the d20 for to hit is a staple of D&D, as are classes, HP, AC, and monsters. But how those are implemented in game aren't that important to be honest. We've gone from having lower AC be better to high AC being better now. The game evolves, and so do the mechanics, but they still have the same end result- how the game plays. That said, mechanics can get in the way of the game- which is what happened with me and my group with 3.x. 3.x didn't feel at all like D&D to me- it felt like leaping through overly complicated mathematical hoops to achieve a result that could be reached much more easily. 3.x kept jerking us out of the game and it felt like we were playing a computer simulation where metagaming and character build mattered more than the actions during play. I understand some folks might find 4e's mechanics jarring in the same way I found 3.x's mechanics jarring- to each their own.

D&D to me is about the gameplay. Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D. All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this. Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.

 

[justanobody]

I think this may be part of the disconnect people have when talking about D&D, and their perceptions of 4e or earlier editions.

To me, D&D isn't about the mechanics of the game. Sure, polyhedral dice are important, and the d20 for to hit is a staple of D&D, as are classes, HP, AC, and monsters. But how those are implemented in game aren't that important to be honest. We've gone from having lower AC be better to high AC being better now. The game evolves, and so do the mechanics, but they still have the same end result- how the game plays. That said, mechanics can get in the way of the game- which is what happened with me and my group with 3.x. 3.x didn't feel at all like D&D to me- it felt like leaping through overly complicated mathematical hoops to achieve a result that could be reached much more easily. 3.x kept jerking us out of the game and it felt like we were playing a computer simulation where metagaming and character build mattered more than the actions during play. I understand some folks might find 4e's mechanics jarring in the same way I found 3.x's mechanics jarring- to each their own.

D&D to me is about the gameplay. Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D. All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this. Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.

Yes you could take the Shakespearean approach and go "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", or you could realize that just because it looks like one a bidet is NOT a toilet. The names are different to actually tell people what you are actually talking about and thus why they are different.

So by just calling anything D&D, you never really know what another person is talking about when you meet someone new and discuss it and could be meaning very different things.

I used RPGs before ever playing D&D, and dice, classes, and races had little to do with their use. Well actually in the situation race played a very important part in their use as they were to be aimed only at one race and not your own, otherwise you were using the RPG incorrectly.

So trying to lump all things together only does a disservice to everyone as it doesn't really identify the subject you are talking about but just an over generalization of it.

 

[Dragonblade]

To me, D&D isn't about the mechanics of the game. Sure, polyhedral dice are important, and the d20 for to hit is a staple of D&D, as are classes, HP, AC, and monsters. But how those are implemented in game aren't that important to be honest. We've gone from having lower AC be better to high AC being better now. The game evolves, and so do the mechanics, but they still have the same end result- how the game plays. That said, mechanics can get in the way of the game- which is what happened with me and my group with 3.x. 3.x didn't feel at all like D&D to me- it felt like leaping through overly complicated mathematical hoops to achieve a result that could be reached much more easily. 3.x kept jerking us out of the game and it felt like we were playing a computer simulation where metagaming and character build mattered more than the actions during play. I understand some folks might find 4e's mechanics jarring in the same way I found 3.x's mechanics jarring- to each their own.

D&D to me is about the gameplay. Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D. All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this. Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.

Well said. I sort of disagree with you on the details. I think the rules matter. But I agree with your sentiment. And I also believe that 4e is hands down the best version of the game to date.

I was recently asked to play in a 3e game, and I started flipping through the 3e PHB and I just couldn't bring myself to go back. 4e is just that much more fun to play and DM.

 

[Delta]

So, solely because what has been done displeases you means you get to make stuff up?

You did notice that someone earlier in this thread said "The biggest problem with D&D is that it's D&D"? Did I make that up?

 

[firesnakearies]

Target audience, eh? Hmm.

For the last six or eight years, WotC's "target audience" for D&D seems to have been including more and more cute young girls. Since they've managed to achieve this without making the game less fun or appealing for an old-school gamer like myself, I consider all of the changes to be a fantastic move.

Game still rocks, plus heaps of cute girls want to play it now? Win. Here's my money.

 

[Tetsubo]

I considered myself to be part of the target demographic for D&D for thirty years. Then, with the release of 4E, I ceased to be part of the demographic. I literally spent thousands of dollars on official D&D products. WotC lost a loyal and valuable customer.

As someone once pointed out, I was "fired as a customer". I haven't really forgiven WotC for that. I don't think I am likely too any time soon.

I hope that 5E returns the game to a form that I can once again enjoy.

 

[firesnakearies]

I considered myself to be part of the target demographic for D&D for thirty years. Then, with the release of 4E, I ceased to be part of the demographic. I literally spent thousands of dollars on official D&D products. WotC lost a loyal and valuable customer.

As someone once pointed out, I was "fired as a customer". I haven't really forgiven WotC for that. I don't think I am likely too any time soon.

I hope that 5E returns the game to a form that I can once again enjoy.

I don't get this. What did they do to suddenly eject you from their customer base so forcefully? Is there something about the new edition of the game that you find completely abhorrent, or what?

 

[Psion]

D&D to me is about the gameplay. Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D. All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this. Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.

To me, since with 4e the transition from "dungeon exploration game" to "combat skirmish game" is complete, looking at your above criteria, to me 4e is the least D&D of all published editions.

 

[the Jester]

People have come to see you as a biased source of information on all things WotC, with too much at stake to say anything negative, and indeed being glowingly positive about it in the face of any negative news because you’ve gone the route of 4e or poverty given you freelance for a living and I suppose you feel loyalty to WotC, or you just hope that being such an ardent supporter and pimp of 4e will send more work your way.

People who?