D&D 5E Who really IS the target audience of D&D Next?

[Tony Vargas]

IAnd it makes me wonder just who, exactly, is WotC targeting with D&D Next?

We can only speculate.

The prime targets, IMHO, are:

the 3.5/Pathfinder hold-outs who rejected 4e,

and

Guys in their theoretical 'peak earning years' who started with AD&D back in the 80s. (which, technically, includes me).

Of course, when you cast the net for AD&D fans, you'll likely get 2e fans, as well.


Not so much in the scope:

older fans of 0D&D or BECMI who started in the 70s

and

current fans of 4e (wich also technically includes me).



My rationales are fairly simple. The whole reason for the 'failure' (failure to reach unrealistic revenue goals for Hasbro, that is) must seem to be the success of Pathfinder. Now, every time D&D has rolled rev, there have been holdouts who wouldn't adopt the new ed. But, they never really mattered (much) before, because they'd come around for lack of any new shiny products for their old ed. Eventually something new would catch their eye and suck them in. 3e changed all that because it was open source, so when the time came (a bit early) to switch from 3.5 to 4e, the holdouts got Pathfinder and a steady stream of their own new stuff, so held out indefinitely. Since Pathfinder isn't going anywhere, that means WotC /must/ cater to 3.5 holdouts most slavishly if they are to have any hope of getting them.

The old AD&Ders in their peak earning years are obviously a desireable demographic, and they're at that stage in life when you get all notalgic and spend lots of cash on stuff that reminds of you of the old days. Apealing to them is marketing 101 no-brainer.

The even older 0D&D fans, OTOH, are past that and may not even be paying attention.

Finally, the 4e fans are, by definition, those who have a history of adopting the latest edtion, so WotC should be able to count on a fair proportion just ambling along to 5e, no questions asked. Any remaining hold-outs can be counted upon to give in eventually, since 4e is very much /not/ open-source, and there will be no 3pp material coming down the line for them the way it did for the 3.5 holdouts. Those 4e fans WotC fails to recapture will likely move on to other games entirely.


tl;dr: Next/5e is likely targetting AD&D fans because some of them might have money and nostalgia cravings, and 3.5 fans because the OGL has made it impossible to 'starve them out.'

 

[scadgrad]

I think they have to go after Paizo's customers at all costs simply because that represents the biggest chunk of Fantasy RPG market share that isn't already in the fold. There will be some lapsing among the 4E player base, but logic suggests that many among that crowd have a vested interest in WotC and are very likely to adopt, especially if there is modular play that allows for the sort of game play that is specific to the 4E play style, unique as it is among the 8 or so versions of D&D.

To this notion that those of us who continue to play the old game are an impossible sell, I don't agree. There are many of us among the OSR who have played virtually every edition. I purchased several pounds of 4E Dead Tree product (which I sold at GenCon last year) and made a go at "liking it". I think the key here is simply give us something that functions in a similar fashion to the first 25 years or so of D&D and we'll likely check it out. Of course, there will need be modular elements so that the Post 2E crowd can embrace it as well, but this just doesn't seem all that difficult to me.

OTOH, given Monte's Rolemaster roots and his obsession for crunch and complexity, I remain skeptical about the base game. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[BryonD]

I really don't agree.

Fair enough.

It isn't gonna happen.

I can't offer you proof. But it still won't.

 

[Zaukrie]

I hope it is new players first, 4E players second, pathfinder players third, all other gamers.

By that I mean, I truly believe the hobby needs new players. Video game popularity proves there are people out there that a well designed game could appeal to, imo.

They can't afford to lose the 4E players totally on this. They can't create another huge subculture.

They need to siphon off a good chunk of Pathfinder fans. There is a ton of money there, obviously. Not sure how that will work. From what I can see, there are a ton of Pathfinder fans that are like Apple fans, and stealing that kind of customer takes a lot of staying power, and a great product.

They need to get some money from the all other gamer group. I'll say it again, that's a lot about fluff and the books being more fun to read, at least from what I can gleam from the interwebs. But I could be wrong about that.

 

[mechascorpio]

I'd like to think that D&D Next is partially targeted at gamers like me.

I'm 46, entered the hobby with the Holmes D&D Basic Set and AD&D in the late 70s. Played into the mid-80s, but dropped out of the hobby. The hubbub about 4E years ago brought me back into the hobby, but 4E was not for me (though Essentials somewhat changed that). Other games have kept me engaged over the past few years (mostly SF RPGs), and I've enjoyed re-exploring the older editions through boxes of stuff I kept for years and the OSR, and done some mash-up with newer elements and products I like.

But there is still a part of me that wants to play The Game of today and tomorrow with players of all experience and ages. Actually, ideally, I think I prefer more to play with folks closer to my age bracket and background, and not so much those who are so steeped in this as to have strong allegiance to editions, settings, and playstyles. I not only do not enjoy playing with edition warriors, but frankly have no idea what they're talking about half the time (that's what I get for skipping 2E through 4E!). Nevertheless, part of the gaming thrill for me is anticipating, buying, opening and playing new "product".

D&D Next sounds really promising to me. It sounds as if it might have aspects of 4E that I really enjoy (miniatures, tactics, tight rules, broad range of PC types, sexy production values), but with the flexibility, lighter rules, re-emphasis on non-combat aspects and (hopefully) de-emphasis on system mastery, elements that could make the game more familiar and fun to me and others like me.

I have no idea how big an audience "we" are, but suspect there must be a segment out here that is too casual to be strictly classified as grognard, but still appreciates aspects of those original playstyles. At the same time, we'd also like to see incorporated the genuine improvements and new approaches in gaming that have developed over the past 30+ years. So far, a great deal coming out of DDXP, here and other places sound like just the ticket for me. It sounds like the way I'd re-write the game for myself if I had the time.

I think there are probably a good number of "us", and we're not at all as vocal as those at the extreme ends of "old vs new". But there were an awful lot of D&D players in 80s who (I think) are unaccounted for and looking for an entry back into playing D&D. Whether I'm playing Essentials or Swords & Wizardry, I've already got my toe back in the water. I'm hoping that D&D Next will make me want to jump further in.

In the meantime, I already play an amalgam of old and new with some family and friends and will continue to do so. But I'm the only one buying a very few things. If WOTC happens to release a version of the game that enables or is pretty close to what we want, they might get a half dozen new "prodigal player" customers from our group alone.

(p.s. - nothing I wrote above was meant to generalize or offend any one of any playstyle or allegiance; I have a lot of respect and admiration for those who have played and played hard for years, whether that be 3 or 30!)

 

[n00bdragon]

As someone who really enjoys 4e for the well structured gameplay it presents I feel like it's pretty squarely not me, whatever it is. I'm not really offended or hurt. I still have 4e which is still a good game worth playing. It's just sort of sad that it only lasted two years before they threw it in the gutter for Essentials and now this. Feelsbadman.jpg

 

[Gundark]

Honestly? WotC says that 5e is for everyone but this is just marketing. Who they are really shooting for are gamers that fall between +/- 1 standard deviation of the mean.
The rest WotC won't bother with as they would have to form 5e to target too small of an audience.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

That said, many times on this message board I am staggered at the level of investment of other players and GMs compared to my own.

My RPG collection is a paltry dozen 3.x era books, five Pathfinder books, the Rules Cyclopedia, and a handful (maybe 10 total) from other various systems, most of them recent (Savage Worlds, Mongoose Runequest, Ars Magica, The One Ring, FATE/Legends of Anglerre).


But--

I've never been to a gaming convention in my life.

I've played a grand total of 2 RPG sessions ever, in 25 years, at an FLGS, and didn't particularly like it either time.

I have almost zero interest in "living" campaigns.

I have a miniscule collection of maybe 2-dozen minis (if that), that I only really use half the time anyway.

Though I've now managed read a dozen or more rules systems, the only systems I've ever actively PLAYED with an actual group are BECMI, 3.x/Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, and GURPS, and I don't even own hardcovers of the GURPS rules.

That stuff doesn't mean gamer. I don't like living games, I've never been to a con. The only game at a FLGS I played in was for 3 months when I GMed D&D 3.0 when it first came out (and I was the manager of the store there).

Yes, I have nearly 1000 books, and dozens of system - but I've played D&D, Gamma World, Hero, Rolemaster and Mythus (yeah, I like rules intensive games). I've published 6 articles in the Hero Games Magazine.

Doesn't mean I'm more of a gamer than our, or less than someone who has been to Gencon every year.

So as another poster said - don't be self critical.


As to answering the question - I think of the philosophy behind 3.0 and the OGL. Dancy talked about "Network externalities". Bascially finding people you can play with. If you like OD&D and you move it's going to be hard to find another OD&D group. Similar for 1st & 2nd. Pathfinder and the OGL helped that with 3rd.

I've heard over the years "I want to play X edition but two people in my group don't like the way it plays"

What I think the goal with the "inclusiveness" in D&DN is not necessarily that the rules are the same with older editions, but different modules, dials, switches, what-have-you give you a different feel. As someone who tried to make the same character in Spacemaster, Hero and D20 future - the simple tone of the rules change how the character feels.

So there are people that want to play D&D that is not the current published version (hence the rise of Pathfinder and retro clones) - but aside from Pathfinder, you cannot find those in the game store. And the supplements and adventures overall come out slowly.

So D&DN allows one table to play with players of different style (depending how GM handles the modules) - some people are really into detailed Chargen and as long as play at the table is above a certain quality level they are fine. There a lot of people who have nostalgia for or emotional commitment to "Dungeon and Dragons" independent of the rules.

So I think that target audience is people who want to play, but cannot find a comparable group for rules system, those that want to play D&D for nostalgia, but have found recent rules not to their taste, or friends who want to play without argument about game style, or those wanting to play in an older style but bemoans the lack of supplements/adventures.

Basically, I think, the game is shooting for "good enough" but not necessarily "best" for multiple game tone and style, using the same rules overall (but different modules) - so that a majority (even of 51%) of people that play other D&D-esque games will play D&D instead, as well as those that play D&D because it is D&D.

 

[William Ronald]

To repeat what I posted over here -

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...d-d/317958-open-gaming-license-lesson-5e.html

- but trimming out the portions that don't crossover -

I think that you are right in that casual gamers are the target audience. I would suspect that they hope to capture at least some of the 3E and 4E crowd, but those may be very hard sells. From what I have read here and elsewhere, many of the 3E crowd has moved on to other games or are holding firm with 3E. (More on Pathfinder in a bit.) 4E players may or may not move on to a new edition. It will depend in part if the mechanics appeal to them and whether they want a new edition.

The OD&D, BECMI, 1st and 2nd Edition crowds may be a hard sell, as you indicated. They have either kept up with their game, moved on to other games or left the hobby.

As someone who plays a lot of Pathfinder these days, I think that you hit the hammer on the head. Paizo has found many ways to appeal to its customer base and created a lot of loyalty to their product. I doubt that Paizo will revise Pathfinder anytime soon, and it may come well after we have an idea if the new iteration of Dungeons and Dragons is a success or not.

 

[boredgremlin]

Click on the 5e Info link at the top of the page - they've said a whole hell of a lot more than that. My objections are based on the actual rules that have been discussed. Ability scores as saves. Instead of spell DCs or flat attacks with spells, casters roll a check to set the DC for the attack, and then the target saves. The excessive lethality of the playtests so far.

An opposing roll system like that is clunky and slow as hell, going back to saving throws instead of attacking defenses is a step backwards, and six saves instead of three is just dumb IMO. And I just dislike fragile PCs.

Okay they havent actually said any of that. They threw the ideas out there. This whole design process has been them throwing gaming speghetti at the wall so far and seeing what sticks.

With that said, if they actually did all those things you mention. It would be freaking awesome.

Just awesome and IMO a far better way to do everything then they have ever done before.

So naturally they probably wont do any of those things in the final product. I'm holding out some hope still though.