Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5815235" data-attributes="member: 85870">I'll admit, this topic is largely a response to <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/318158-playing-same-character-since-1985-gwah.html" target="_blank">this thread</a>, talking about the longest-running gaming groups and individual characters within those groups.And it got me thinking--Who really is the target audience for D&D Next? To give some background, I consider myself a "gamer." I've been involved in a weekly or bi-weekly face-to-face RPG group at least 6 months a year over the past 9 years. 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). So when people start breaking out stories of two-plus decades of play, using the same character, I suddenly start wondering if I'm really a part of "the hobby" in the same way other people are. And it makes me wonder just who, exactly, is WotC targeting with D&D Next? In some ways, I think I'm definitely part of the equation--someone who completely skipped over 4th edition, but has a history with the game, and is looking for an elegant rules system that fits my particular GM / group's style. 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. So in this regard, when D&D Next starts talking about being the "all inclusive" edition, are they targeting me, are they targeting the "hardcore" fans, are they targeting the "grognards"? This is important, because their chosen target demographic, and the things important to that demographic, may play a significant role with the direction in which the rules "move." My concerns for how a system should look and feel are not going to be the same as someone much more dedicated to the hobby. In fact, looking at it from that angle, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that at the moment, Savage Worlds greatly appeals to me (fast, easy-to-adjudicate rules, flexible enough to work in multiple situations, still enough "crunch" for the players). Obviously WotC would love to be getting some of my money with D&D-N, since I haven't spent a dime on 4e. But in truth, I suspect they'd like someone more dedicated to the hobby than I am. I'm a dedicated player, with a more than passing interest in the hobby, but I'm not an evangelist (yet). What I'm really asking is, are the concerns and needs for a ruleset of someone who plays twice a month (at most) with friends going to be significantly different than someone playing twice a week, often with people they've never met at a game store? Or, are the things that make an RPG "great" universal enough across play styles that it doesn't matter? Your thoughts welcome as always, En-Worlders. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification