Personally I disagree with the OP.
While 4E is a lot simpler, ironically its simplicity makes for a much more voluminous reading as leaving nothing to assumption or interpretation means you have to explain every little nuance in minucious detail, and the average kid -hates- heavy reading. The 4E DMG was something akin to reading Karl Marx or a -complete- "Microsoft Excel with VBA" manual, I just didn't have the patience to go through it in full.
4E is for the people who want things as simple as possible, yes, but that doesn't necessarily imply kids.
So, I gather if the rules are more complicated this means the game is better? How does having more complicated rules make for a better game?
So, I gather if the rules are more complicated this means the game is better? How does having more complicated rules make for a better game?
It's all in taste really. How heavy a rule system do you want. D&D was never very rules light. and 3.5 is not the most complected system out.
It really falls to your own taste
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Complicated != complete. I think that's the issue.
Let me take Battletech as an example.
If you just want giant robots smashing each other, the boxed set is fine.
If you want more complex giant robots, terrain, vehicles, infantry and aerospace (combined arms) Boxed set + Total Warfare is fine.
If you want to build the giant robots/vehicles/infantry/aerospace and have them fight. Boxed set + TW + Techmanual.
If you want to add in planetary operations: All the above + Tac Ops
If you want to run a game from the inital arrival in system to the last man: All the above + Stratigic Ops.
If you want to run the entire galaxy: All the above + Interstellar Ops.
Boxed set is much less complex than IO, but is still a complete game.
Same thing with 3.x and 4.x.
Both OGL and GSL only really need 3 books to play. (PHB, DMG, MM) You can add supliments (XPH, ToM, ToB etc. for 3x PHB2, PHB27 etc for 4x) but they'll add complexity.
To compare 3.x complexity with all its products and 3pp vs 4x with a much smaller pool is a false arguement.
It's all in taste really. How heavy a rule system do you want. D&D was never very rules light. and 3.5 is not the most complected system out.
It really falls to your own taste
Of course it's by taste. The implication, though, seems to be that 4E is an oversimplification and the game is now for simpletons. Simple rules do not automatically mean a simple game. D&D is a roleplaying game and is therefore as complicated as we wish to make it.
D&D was simpler in its basic form. 3.5 was definitely peaking in complexity. I think this is one of the reasons the designers returned the game to a simpler form. Many seem to think it was initially aimed at a younger audience, but I think the simpler mechanics are aimed more at people like myself that have been playing the game for 30 years and maybe do not have the time to put into it that I used to. Making the game easier to run frees me up to have more time to enjoy playing it. That makes it a success for me.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Sorry but I cannot resist...
Why any discussion about targeting kids as a product audience (game, book, movie, etc) in this days has to imply "simplifying" or "dumbing it out"?
I agree. People often talk like that. I wouldn't want to see any 'dumbing down'. I do think there are some things that gamers of either edition can do to help the make game more appealing to a younger audience without dumbing it down.
1.) Use minis and maps. Lots of minis and maps.
2.) Don't use 'game terms' until the kid understands what they refer to. Don't say, "You lose 3 hp." Say, "You are wounded. You lose 3 hp." ... Make the game 'real'.
3.) Use pictures, handouts, and manipulatives.
4.) Sometimes suggest a few choices rather than leaving the options wide open. Giving them two or three choices is not railroading.
5.) Get them in a conversation about what they would like to do and then summarize the ideas they've come up with. Offer their own ideas to them as choices.
I'm sure that many of the dads and moms who have played D&D with their own kids could add to this list but I don't really see either edition as being more or less for kids. Good DMing makes the game appealing for a younger audience, not the rules.
What makes 4e appealling to a 'younger audience'? (I've heard people say that the 'flavour' appeals to a younger audience but they seem to mean late teens early twenties when they say younger.) Is there anything about the game mechanics that makes it more suitable for a younger gamer?
|
but it's inarguably D&D from a technical standpoint - to the same degree that a Ford Explorer is inarguably a Ford vehicle, even though it isn't a Model T.
That is so weird I thinking of a car based analogy! But in this case you now have Toyota making the "Ford" Explorer - does that still make it an Explorer? In name it is, even if it is no longer made by Ford, I guess?! That is more the situation for D&D since Gygax lost control of "D&D".
I am surprised that anyone would debate the fact that what we call D&D since 1e are nothing but works derived from the actual D&D.
Either great minds or fools we must be, I wonder which?
S.
So I generally get the impression that 4th edition isn't doing any better or worse than previous editions of D&D- some fans of earlier editions have left, some new people have come onboard, and some have stayed with the franchise.
Personally, I don't think it was the intention of WOTC to 'fire' its fanbase- because that would be silly. But I think I've been convinced by the arguments here that WOTC doesn't need the people who have left the game to survive- there will always be people interested in D&D based purely on the brand name recognition / interest in gaming.
But the question still remains- Is D&D being effectively marketed to a younger customer base? And, as previous posters have pointed out, I'm not asking "is D&D being dumbed down for kids?" I'm really just curious about the effectiveness of their marketing efforts.
Of course it's by taste. The implication, though, seems to be that 4E is an oversimplification and the game is now for simpletons. Simple rules do not automatically mean a simple game. D&D is a roleplaying game and is therefore as complicated as we wish to make it.It's all in taste really. How heavy a rule system do you want. D&D was never very rules light. and 3.5 is not the most complected system out.
It really falls to your own taste
But therein lies most of the problems of discussions about merits of any game. By the way, the implication tends to be that people who enjoy 3.X are "savants" (to use the most polite term I can think of) that can't enjoy a simpler systems. It all depends on perspective.
But back to my point. My group had a game of Necromunda a few months back. (Necromunda is a minis game for those not aware. Folloe the link for online material, including complete rules.) I happend to love the flavor of the world. The concepts. But I despise the system. It revolves around a single D6 to handle most things. (Very much like WHFRPG.) I felt, almost immediately, that the system didn't represent combat and modifiers accurately enough. My mind then started to formulate "better," and "more accurate" ways to simulate and represent combats.
It wasn't until I mentally forced myself to realize that "improving" the system would completely take away from what the systems was designed for, that I was able to sit back and enjoy the game. I still can't stand the system though...
Personal taste goes a long way to determining enjoyment of a system. While suggesting, intentionally or not, that a system is "dumbed down" and the participants are "simpletons" for enjoying it isn't good form, suggesting that everyone would really enjoy the "streamlined rules" if they just gave them a fair chance is just as bad form. But more socially acceptable.
We can never really end the "edition wars" until all sides understand that trying to convince their opponents of the incorrectness of their attitudes is what is fueling it.
And for more on topic, I am still interested in:
Keith Baker and James Wyatt stated that they specifically enjoyed playing 4E with their kids aged 7-8 - a type of observation which was pretty rare when 3E was around. Or, take a look at this delight.Hmmm... That thread has some interesting reading, and some not so much.
Does anyone know if Settembrini's "random power used" experiment (or one like it) was ever run?
Now... Before anyone thinks I am trying to stir up "stuff," I'm not. But that was sort of a feel I got for the rules as I read them, and I'd like confirmation - or denial - of it from something other than "impressions."
Also, I'd be curious if the same experience can be had with a group of 15th level (or so) characters. And again for 25th-ish level. Is it still easy enough for one person to run a party of 5 all by themselves?
EDIT::
Personally, I don't think it was the intention of WOTC to 'fire' its fanbase- because that would be silly. But I think I've been convinced by the arguments here that WOTC doesn't need the people who have left the game to survive- there will always be people interested in D&D based purely on the brand name recognition / interest in gaming.
I think WotC (the company, not the actual game designers) really were trying to get rid of a certain subset of their fanbase. There has always been a sort of "elitism" among their forums, going back a decade or so since I visited them. A forum that is actively moderated that allows a certain perspective to be expressed in harsh, sometimes vulgar, language, while suppressing other viewpoints even if expressed in kinder, gentler, terms tends to give me that impression. Not to mention the general attitude of "if you don't play it our way, you are playing it wrong." (This came from the fans, never any figure of authority or affiliation with the company.)
This is gong to sound "conspiracy theorist" at best, I know. But it wouldn't surprise me if it was a social engineering project to set up the "edition wars." I am not claiming it was. Just pointing out it wouldn't surprise me.
WotC, again the company, has a history of remaining oddly silent about the most hotly debated, and I use the word lightly, rules questions/debates. And then, just a few years later, releases the "big fix" for them in the new ruleset.
Even if it isn't intentional, they do seem to be trying to build a fanbase of a certain type of gamer.
And like the tobacco industry, the best way to do that is target them when they are young.
Disclaimer: While almost all of what I posted in this edit was my thoughts and opinions, it was intentionally posted in a satirical way. I purposely made it sound crazier than it is.
|
|
Okay one thing I will say is this, if someone were to create a why I don't like 4e thread on the 4e boards that would be on topic and acceptable, but it is rude to bust into random threads that are nothing about whether or not 4e is dnd or why you don't like it and post comments like the that was posted earlier.
4e isn't my prefered cup of tea, but i like some aspects of it and want to follow it because I know gamers who would find it more to their liking. I get tired because threads do get crapped on and then inevitably wind up either being a war about certain posters because people can't just choose to let things go on either side. In fact please if you don't feel 4e is dnd you're more than welcome to create your own thread on this 4e forum. that way people who like it or don't care can just ignore it, although somehow I doubt that will happen, that is acceptable and appropriate, not this entering random 4e threads to spread vitriol.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I agree, LKL. I'm not very interested in 4e, but I am interested in what makes a game appealing to younger gamers. I haven't seen much on topic conversation at all. What makes a game work for younger gamers? I don't think it is simplicity.
Maybe I'll get Nerrat to try 'Keep on the Shadowfell' now that it is available as a free download. Maybe we just had a lousy DM last year when we tried 4e.
|
Personal taste goes a long way to determining enjoyment of a system. While suggesting, intentionally or not, that a system is "dumbed down" and the participants are "simpletons" for enjoying it isn't good form, suggesting that everyone would really enjoy the "streamlined rules" if they just gave them a fair chance is just as bad form. But more socially acceptable.
I can't see how you can compare the two.
The former is a blatant insult. Excluding people and pushing them away.
The latter is an olive branch. Inviting people to sit down together and join in.
Not only that, but the latter statement actually reflects your own experiences with Necromunda, that you reference in the exact same post.
(As an aside, the system used in Necromunda is Warhammer 40,000 2nd Edition, virtually word for word, with income and experience rules added. As such, it was a doddle to learn, for its target audience when it first came out (less so now).
There was a much more detailed GW skirmish game several years later, 'Inquisitor', a percentile system, which included the sort of extra detail you mention. By their own admission, the writers expected it to sell in far lower numbers, to hardcore fans only, as the barrier to entry was far higher.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
None of this means that 4E, per se, is designed for a younger audience. Mature 4E customers are, in effect, recommended to head over to DDI where they can read material suitable for their age. At the same time, conscientious parents can buy their children 4E books without needing to worry. What's more, when 4E is played, the only books on the table will be suitable for all age groups involved - and that, I think, is the intended result of 4E from its inception: to accomodate parents gaming with their children. Observe how some designers, e.g. Keith Baker and James Wyatt stated that they specifically enjoyed playing 4E with their kids aged 7-8 - a type of observation which was pretty rare when 3E was around. Or, take a look at this delight.
Wanted to touch on this a bit since I missed it on first pass.
I do think that playing with children (no not that way!) is a matter of DM talent. I ran Hollow's Last Hope for kids a little after it came out for a free comic book day. I had minis, maps, funny voices etc. The parents were amazed that I kept 6-10 year olds attention for three hours (personally I lost track of the time) the kids had fun, and, if I'd thought faster, I'd have sucked in the four year old sister as well.
We were using 3.x rules.
I'd also point out, having played w/Keith Baker at a play with a creator game, his style is naturally condusive to small children (no that's not an insult).
If WotC is going a 'G-PG print PG-PG13 electronic' method, I applaud the innovation. It's not something tied to game mechanics though. TC1 is kid friendly and really so was D0
So I generally get the impression that 4th edition isn't doing any better or worse than previous editions of D&D- some fans of earlier editions have left, some new people have come onboard, and some have stayed with the franchise.
I'm not sure that is true. Unlike pervious addition changes when they happened other companies could not simply keep the old addition alive producing effectively PHBs/DMGs/MMs that could still be purchased. Now 4e has to directly complete not only with 3.X but also with 2 and 1 to a degree no other new edition ever had to complete with previous additions.
Add to that the popularity of Online games there is yet another competitor for PnP players. That other editions simply never had to deal with as much.
I don't know how it is doing numerically, all I hear from this thread is "I added new players yesterday, I added 3 new gaming groups last week...." All of it cute but not real useful as evidence of anything. It could mean the game is growing, or it could mean nothing at all. WotC might have a clue one way or another, they can certainly watch sales numbers and hazard a guess, but then again even that gives you a false look. I bought the 4e core and PHB II, but I do not like the game and won't be playing it or buying more. Yet I added to sales of the game. Long term it might take years to know how the game is really doing, did it grow, shrink, or whatever. It will take years.
Personally, I don't think it was the intention of WOTC to 'fire' its fanbase- because that would be silly. But I think I've been convinced by the arguments here that WOTC doesn't need the people who have left the game to survive- there will always be people interested in D&D based purely on the brand name recognition / interest in gaming.
I think they decided they needed to radically change the game, accepting that this would loose them part of their fanbase to get away from the OGL. They knew they would loose some, hoped it wouldn't be too many but figured it would be worth it. Their intent was not to fire long time members, but they did make a change they knew would fire some.
Convincing you that WotC didn't need those who left the game was clearly a Herculean task. Whereas I am convinced thanks to this thread that the game will die in a few years, Hasbro will sell the rights to D&D to me and I will release a 5th ed that everyone has to have it's so good. :)
I think again long term though we will have to wait and see if they needed those fired or not. For now many bought early 4e products to get a veiw of the game, those who decided it wasn't for them will buy no more. I would think waiting and seeing if their sales of furture products continues or changes will tell more then what we have seen this early.
But the question still remains- Is D&D being effectively marketed to a younger customer base? And, as previous posters have pointed out, I'm not asking "is D&D being dumbed down for kids?" I'm really just curious about the effectiveness of their marketing efforts.
Hard to say, the kids I know play 3.5. Those at the local hobby shop bought 4e, but are back to 3.5, I printed out a pathfinder beta for them and they like it. Who knows. Could be a local thing, could grow. A friend of mine whose son plays plays 3.5 as well, but has the 4e books, he just hasn't read them yet. The father plays 3.5 after trying 4e and not liking it. Will the father's dislike of 4e push his son to 4e or to 3.5, I do wonder about that. That might be even more interesting to know, if the older players are leaving 4e for 3.5/Pathfinder will it effect their sons and daughters, and if so how?
In general 4e is on the shelves, but few other places. They could really use I think the release of a computer game featuring 4e rules to get people interested in it more, not an MMO but something like Icewind Dale or Neverwinter, something that young kids will play and get exposed to the new game and machanics. Maybe this has already happened but I've neither seen nor heard about such a game.
These forums are not actively moderated. Flagging threads does little to nothing; action is usually only taken in excessively egregious situations (anti-Islamic extremism, for instance).
Wrong.
Flags are reviewed daily. However, just because one person flags another person's post doesn't mean anything is going to be done about. Flags are not a way to control the conversation. Flags are not a "I flagged it so it should be deleted" system. Flags point us toward trouble spots and most posts that are flagged are only flagged once. Real trouble is when we start seeing 2, 3, 4, or more flags on a single post--that tells us that things are getting seriously out of hand rather than just a minor disagreement. We're not interested in controlling 99.9999% of the conversation here--we're just interested in that conversation being generally civil. The flagging system has led to temp bans and permanent bans. It may not work the way *you* want it to, but it serves our needs and works in so far as we see it.
Personal taste goes a long way to determining enjoyment of a system. While suggesting, intentionally or not, that a system is "dumbed down" and the participants are "simpletons" for enjoying it isn't good form, suggesting that everyone would really enjoy the "streamlined rules" if they just gave them a fair chance is just as bad form. But more socially acceptable.I can't see how you can compare the two.
I can understand that.
It is me trying to illustrate that it is a matter of perspective. Not only is the method of presentation important, the method of reception is important too.
Suggesting some one "give it a try," is one thing. Insisting they will enjoy something "if they would just give it a try," can be insulting. Depends on the presentation, and the reception.
|
|
I don't think that "simple" is a good indicator of the quality of the game. Simple can mean elegant game design. Chess for example, the game is stupidly simple, 64 squares, 16 identical miniatures each side. You can teach someone to play chess in minutes - now too be good... But that is up to the player, or in the case of D&D the DM & players. 4e D&D presents a frame work to undertake roleplaying. If it's being called simple then I would think the designers would be patting themselves on the back! Because if that means elegant game design than 4e will be easy for the young and new to pick up yet provide years of entertainment for those who already play D&D.
S.
PS: Note I still "hate" (strong word but true) with a burning passion the heavy reliance on miniatures during a game. I like 4e D&D BUT as someone once posted it can feel like "Chess - the Roleplaying Game" sometimes. They SHOULD have catered for both schools of roleplaying!
I don't think that "simple" is a good indicator of the quality of the game. Simple can mean elegant game design. Chess for example, the game is stupidly simple, 64 squares, 16 identical miniatures each side. You can teach someone to play chess in minutes - now too be good... But that is up to the player, or in the case of D&D the DM & players. 4e D&D presents a frame work to undertake roleplaying. If it's being called simple then I would think the designers would be patting themselves on the back! Because if that means elegant game design than 4e will be easy for the young and new to pick up yet provide years of entertainment for those who already play D&D.
S.
PS: Note I still "hate" (strong word but true) with a burning passion the heavy reliance on miniatures during a game. I like 4e D&D BUT as someone once posted it can feel like "Chess - the Roleplaying Game" sometimes. They SHOULD have catered for both schools of roleplaying!
I think trying to be everything to everyone would have been a mistake. There are plenty of systems in existence that provide a solid fantasy role-playing atmosphere without reliance on miniatures or some other visual representation. Focusing design on appealing to both "schools" would have resulted in an overall weaker product, I think.
I think trying to be everything to everyone would have been a mistake. There are plenty of systems in existence that provide a solid fantasy role-playing atmosphere without reliance on miniatures or some other visual representation. Focusing design on appealing to both "schools" would have resulted in an overall weaker product, I think.
You've just hit the nail on the head regarding the reasons why I respect 4E. It's not trying to sell itself as something it's not (contrary to other d20 books), nor is falsely trying to please everyone, it's an honest product. As much as people condemn WoTC, they had the balls to set a course for themselves and follow through without looking back, rather than pansy-footing their way.
While I haven't had the chance to try it so far, I'm certaily not opposed to it. Also, for Balderstorm who accused 4E of not having spells: I invite you to check the "Rituals" appendix in the PHB, you might even like them (they're certainly much better and -dignified- than the 'magic' found in some other d20 products I know).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
1.) Use minis and maps. Lots of minis and maps.
2.) Don't use 'game terms' until the kid understands what they refer to. Don't say, "You lose 3 hp." Say, "You are wounded. You lose 3 hp." ... Make the game 'real'.
3.) Use pictures, handouts, and manipulatives.One thing this brought to mind was a set-up I saw (of someone who was teaching the game to new players and young kids) where he simply handed out a bunch of colored tokens to each player to represent their hitpoints. Whenever they took damage, they simply lost that many tokens. Obviously more useful at low levels than high (though still workable then, if you have tokens to represent different amounts of heatlh.)
In any case, this meant two things:
1) Suddenly, they had a very visual effect of taking damage, rather than simply needing to scribble numbers on a sheet of paper. That can be invaluable - and even for experienced players, much less hassle, letting them focus less on doing math and more on just keeping things moving.
2) It also made it very easy for them to constantly be aware of how well anyone was doing. You just glance in their direction and at their pile of hitpoints. You don't even need to worry about counting, since you can pretty much directly tell what sort of state they are in, resulting in the getting the 'best' of metagaming (keeping your player's awareness in sync with their character's knowledge) while avoiding the disruption it can cause when it takes you out of the game (having to pass along that information in the form of raw numbers.)I think little tools like these can definitely be very handy. Which is pretty much what you are saying already, but it brought to mind this example, so I figured I'd share it as an example of the sort of innovation I've seen people come up with.
Yes. I forgot about those. I used a yogurt cup full of pennies when I first started playing with my boy at age 7 but I soon discovered that (1) he didn't like losing pennies because they seemed valuable and (2) doing the math was part of the fun for him.
Are power cards (is that what they are called) an example of a 4e product that could help manage the information for new/younger players?
Are power cards (is that what they are called) an example of a 4e product that could help manage the information for new/younger players?Use pictures, handouts, and manipulatives.One thing this brought to mind was a set-up I saw (of someone who was teaching the game to new players and young kids) where he simply handed out a bunch of colored tokens to each player to represent their hitpoints.
First off, using visual aids/tangible items to enhance the immersive roleplaying experience seems to work for a whole lot of people besides kids. (Take for example, the entire GameMastery line of cards, maps, tokens, etc., not to mention the different flavors of minis.) I think I really like "poker chips as hp" as a potential method to speed up combat decisions.
Power cards (if you get the formatting tweaked the way you want) can be a handy table reference, in a form that's more conducive to tracking powers that temporarily deactivate than photocopies of spell descriptions or post-it flagged rulebooks. The language & organization of info are the same as in the books, so it's mostly a matter of convenience.
Personally, I see the "streamlined" design philosophy as an attempt to adapt to adult gamers who have less available leisure time to prep for and play games b/c of family, jobs, longer commutes, etc. That's certainly been a big selling point for me wrt. 4e, and one of the prime advantages I highlight to my not-playing-yet friends. Faster prep/play might work for kids, too, though. Most kids nowadays seem to have less free-play time than we did at their age (I blame soccer *grin*), and sadly less willingness to simply "sit around and tell stories" (not that they can't, just that many don't).
On the edition war thing: A whole lot of troll feeding going on here. Best tactics against regenerating critters is to report them and then starve them.
Eh 4e forms is a good place to vent unlike lets say the star wars movie thread. If it upsets people well ignore it or flag it if you think its out of line.
Telling posters to shut up and like 4e just because you do not wish to hear them ranting on it is not helping and is in fact baiting more rants
Now can we get back to the thread
Let's see oh yes healing and 9 year olds
Many younger kids just don't get the concept of energy boost, sure they may know what it is but they don't "get it" they understand hurt and magic healing easy enough but magic your not tired is harder for them to grasp as a whole.
That said some kids will grasp 4e easy , many more will not. It is not geared toward kids. Now I think most 12-14 year olds can get it even if they do not understand it
Gonna have to put my vote in for a simpler basic system as well
Sorry but I cannot resist...
Why any discussion about targeting kids as a product audience (game, book, movie, etc) in this days has to imply "simplifying" or "dumbing it out"?
I am not thinking so much of the rules, but of the writing. 4e can become a really complex system if you start throwing in all the new options and powers. That's not my point. If kids find a rule too complex for their liking, they'll cut it down, no problem. We did that at 8th grade, liked AD&D (as it had more options for character creation than Basic), but hated some combat rules (like weapon bonuses vs. AC type), we just ditched them.I am actually addressing the writing style and the toning down of contents. IIRC, Gygax's manuals were for "Ages 10 and up", even if his prose has to be read with a copy of the OED at hand. I do not remember not "understanding" something, at least after checking the dictionary for things like "dweomer" or "milieu".
Nowadays it seems that authors who produce work for an underage audience (or include underage audiences in their target groups) tend to assume that because you are under 16 or so you have some sort of...
This however rests on the foundation of the idea that 'we' learned the game as kids and hence so can the next generation. Were I think this concept falls down is in who 'we' were. The game appealed to a subset of the general demographic commonly referred to as nerds or geeks. I think the goal of WotC is to try and move the game into the mainstream and that requires making it more accessible.
In essence Blizzard proved that you can sell fantasy entertainment to a huge demographic if you do it right. RPGs, in theory, have an advantage over a game like WoW because RPGs are fundamentally social activities and humans love social activities. WoW is not a particularly good example of a social activity - you can interact with people while using it but only at a distance through a cumbersome medium. Hence, at least on a theoretical level, it should be possible to rope in huge numbers of people to get together and build a co-operative fantasy story. The fantasy aspect has been shown not to be a problem. Lots of people like fantasy and participating in social activities is something that the vast majority of us love to do. Hence there is, potentially at least, a huge market out there for this product if only they can be convinced that its for them. Hence a lot of what we have seen appears clearly designed to make getting started in the game and understanding its basic premises as easy as possible not just for 9 year olds but also for the 9 year olds non gamer mother.
But the question still remains- Is D&D being effectively marketed to a younger customer base? And, as previous posters have pointed out, I'm not asking "is D&D being dumbed down for kids?" I'm really just curious about the effectiveness of their marketing efforts.
I question more than marketing.
I think the product is priced beyond the reach of many consumers within the target market.
I think pre-4e versions benefited from a (sometimes misleading) sense that you could buy three books, at relatively little expense, and have enough to play. Few seem to believe this is still true.
Two more cents.
But the question still remains- Is D&D being effectively marketed to a younger customer base? And, as previous posters have pointed out, I'm not asking "is D&D being dumbed down for kids?" I'm really just curious about the effectiveness of their marketing efforts.I question more than marketing.
I think the product is priced beyond the reach of many consumers within the target market.
I think pre-4e versions benefited from a (sometimes misleading) sense that you could buy three books, at relatively little expense, and have enough to play. Few seem to believe this is still true.
Two more cents.
You make some good points. I myself think the price is just too much for a young player. Even teenagers would be hard pressed at times to meet the entry point.
And there is the thought they it's not a complete game. I do not mean this as a dig , but as every thing is core it seems like a never ending collection and not a complete game. The DDI only reinforces the fact you need book x or y. It may be a misconception but it is there
I am still thinking a cheaper basic or light rules set is needed to fill this role
...I'd also point out, having played w/Keith Baker at a play with a creator game, his style is naturally condusive to small children (no that's not an insult).None of this means that 4E, per se, is designed for a younger audience. Mature 4E customers are, in effect, recommended to head over to DDI where they can read material suitable for their age. At the same time, conscientious parents can buy their children 4E books without needing to worry. What's more, when 4E is played, the only books on the table will be suitable for all age groups involved - and that, I think, is the intended result of 4E from its inception: to accomodate parents gaming with their children. Observe how some designers, e.g. Keith Baker and James Wyatt stated that they specifically enjoyed playing 4E with their kids aged 7-8 - a type of observation which was pretty rare when 3E was around. Or, take a look at this delight.
More importantly, if their kids are 7-8, then they wouldn't have been able to play D&D during the heyday of Third Edition, since it came out in 2000 before these kids were born. The game becomes accessible IMO to those at the age of reason (generally accepted as about age 7).
On the edition war thing: A whole lot of troll feeding going on here. Best tactics against regenerating critters is to report them and then starve them.
But me hungry! Me need food! No hate me! *big puppy troll eyes*
I think pre-4e versions benefited from a (sometimes misleading) sense that you could buy three books, at relatively little expense, and have enough to play. Few seem to believe this is still true.Two more cents.
Its only not true for the hard core player or the completest. You can play the game with the first three books. I mean you don't have the rules for air ships or vehicles (you need Adventurers Vault for vehicle rules) but you have a playable game. For example I don't need the official Scrabble Dictionary to play Scrabble, I can play just fine without it...but if I really love Scrabble then I'll probably go and get me the official guide or at least a really good dictionary at some point.
For WotC the goal is to convert non players to casual gamers and to convert casual gamers to hard core gamers. Reminds me of something I saw recently on sports team marketing which stressed the same thing. Casual fans are better then no fans at all but they provide comparatively little to the Franchise while the rabid fan is probably worth 10-20 casual fans. Hence the marketing strategy is to try and provide an entry point so the casual fan can get on board but, once that is done, one wants to really try and turn that fan into a rabid fan.
In this case lots of people buying just the first three books is certainly better then people not buying them but if that's all they buy then they are little more then a one time event on the spread sheet. For an RPG company to survive you need to get as many of them as possible to like the taste that was provided but then want to join the ranks of the hard core fans that buy many products every year. Furthermore its very important to keep giving those rabid fans reasons to keep buying your new products which is where everything is core comes in. If you don't follow this model then you punish the fan that bought your Psionic Power book by not supporting the material in that book in later products. Essentially you punish the rabid fan for being loyal and getting the product in the first place. Its a very bad idea to punish them - what you really want to do is coddle them as they are money in the bank.
But the question still remains- Is D&D being effectively marketed to a younger customer base? And, as previous posters have pointed out, I'm not asking "is D&D being dumbed down for kids?" I'm really just curious about the effectiveness of their marketing efforts.I question more than marketing.
I think the product is priced beyond the reach of many consumers within the target market.
I think pre-4e versions benefited from a (sometimes misleading) sense that you could buy three books, at relatively little expense, and have enough to play. Few seem to believe this is still true.
Two more cents.
I think the majority of players who have not yet experienced the D&D brand certainly are under the (absolutely correct) assumption that you can purchase the first three core books and have plenty to play.
Furthermore, you can spend all of $12 buying the Starter Set through Amazon and have enough to play through the first three levels of the game without having to break open the piggy bank.
And if you really want it on the cheap, you can download the free Keep on the Shadowfell adventure and the free demo of the Character Builder and play through the first three levels of the game without spending more than it costs to buy some dice.
In other words, the actual point of entry for new players is about as cheap as you can get.
So the tools are certainly there - the question is, is WotC doing enough to make potential new players aware of them? I think they are making some efforts - the Gamesday are good at spreading that news, and word of mouth certainly goes a long way - but they could go a lot farther to make potential players aware of those opportunities.
I think that may be an issue, they are pushing the DDI stuff and the free downloads. But who knows of them?
I find the free char builder and the free downloads a good ideal however your preaching to the choir.
People that get them
A: know about 4e and RPG's as a whole
B: Know's where wotc's site is and again knows about 4e
It's bringing no new players in that did not know of it
Free RPG day may be a good time to have a small started booklet. I would like to see more stuff at bookstores not online. A parent who knows nothing of gaming does not give a free download as a gift
So while the info is out there, the knowledge of it is not.
|
|
Free RPG day may be a good time to have a small started booklet. I would like to see more stuff at bookstores not online. A parent who knows nothing of gaming does not give a free download as a gift
That is a great idea! Something WW did with Vampire, they had a "fast start" simplified rule set that they gave away free with their print magazine. Oh hang on, WotC in their cost-saving finite wisdom decided that people don't like print magazines now. Either that or they wanted to dump printing costs onto punter...
S.
Yeah the mags was a bad call to me. However I do think something like a free RPG day fast play rules would do wonders for getting the info out. You could even have something like " want to try more 4e? your in luck visit our web site for a free adventure and even try the character maker for 3 levels free at.."
Just a thought
|
|
Yeah the mags was a bad call to me. However I do think something like a free RPG day fast play rules would do wonders for getting the info out. You could even have something like " want to try more 4e? your in luck visit our web site for a free adventure and even try the character maker for 3 levels free at.."
Just a thought
Agreed. pdf's somehow aren't real, if you get my meaning. That and it is amazing the effect you can have by actually giving someone something they can hold for free. Major issue with piracy on the net is electronic things aren't seen as real - so it's not stealing, really...
I would have thought that pushing the "electronic" idea would lead to more computer literate people then "finding" full copies of the rulebooks on the web and doing what WotC make people do with the mags - print them yourself!
If you give away the fast start rules at a real life book store that it more likely that persons would return to the book store for a printed core rules set? Helps local gaming stores, helps WotC, everyone wins.
S.
Agreed, A pdf seems somehow less. I do not think you will drawl many kids in without a cheap book made of real paper. Sure more kids use the internet now days but I think they are more likely to try something they have a real book for then something on a computer screen
The internet campaign is fine but its one sided and misses the mark I think
So here's a question for you... If you believe the oft repeated phrase that 4th edition will "fire" D&D's current fan base in an attempt to capture a younger audience, how do you think that this will be accomplished?
What's going to be different about this incarnation of D&D that will send kids out in droves to buy it? Is there going to be a new cartoon show? Is it the new Minis game? Perhaps another attempt at making a good movie? A new MMORPG?
Thoughts?
I don't think kids will buy 4th edition, instead I think their parents will buy it for them. 4th edition books are to expensive for a middle class kids allowance. Rather I think the parents who play or have played D&D will purchase the game for their kids. Whether the kids will or will not take to the game - who can say.
I do think 4E will or does appeal to children who like fantasy because of the fancy artwork, but I have found that most kids don't really care about the rules as much as they do about using their imaginations and wiping out miniatures in intense combats.
I also don't think kids will rush out in droves to buy 4E, but parents who have played D&D (or still do) will buy 4E for their kids in an attempt to bring them into the hobby. I have played 4E and think its more of an advanced version of the D&D miniatures game. It's fun and I really dig the strategy involved but I would never use 4E as a roleplaying game or to introduce a novice to roleplaying unless that's what he/she wanted to play.
I think what draws the kids to D&D 4E are the cool collectible miniatures, the board game like combat, but not necessarily the roleplaying. When the kids who cut their teeth on 4E get older, then they will start incorporating more and more roleplaying into the game and it will evolve to reflect that - perhaps by 8 edition.
So I guess what i'm saying is that there is nothing different about this incarnation of D&D other than the massive alteration of the rules and the stiff price of the books. I think the alteration does appeal to kids because kids like video games and 4E is like a video game played at the kitchen table. It was the same with me when I was a child. I just wanted to kill some monsters in the caves of chaos, gain levels and collect treasure. It wasn't until I was older that I wanted to explore the keep on the borderlands, learn about the interesting NPC's that lived there and root out the intrigue and mystery behind those NPC's. Luckily I could afford the basic set and later the expert set on my allowance.
I think WOTC is marketing to kids through their parents. Does any of this make sense??
Woops, forgot to add something. WOTC should make a cartoon. I think the cartoon is what drew a lot of kids to D&D in the 80's. A 12 episode thing on cartoon central might help sell some books. Then again unless they lower the price or put out a basic edition for a lower price they might just have a lot of kids begging for an allowance increase so they can afford the books.
This however rests on the foundation of the idea that 'we' learned the game as kids and hence so can the next generation. Were I think this concept falls down is in who 'we' were. The game appealed to a subset of the general demographic commonly referred to as nerds or geeks. I think the goal of WotC is to try and move the game into the mainstream and that requires making it more accessible.
By nerds or geeks you mean people who did not mind reading English with more than 3000 words or so, or thinking a bit about history, legend or science behind a fantasy setting, or, in other words, putting up with some of Gygax' rants in the DMG.
Definitely, if making something more accessible = reducing the most "intellectual" aspects of it (in the case of RPG, its close connection with literature and drama), then you're actually furthering my point: society assumes that a kid is a short person with limited intellectual skills. Kids who are not are "nerds or geeks", and not "mainstream".
The implications of that notion are troublesome, as any publisher might (maybe they already are doing it) decide to dumb fantasy literature into something "mainstream", or just any kind of literature... Newspeak anyone??
The implications of that notion are troublesome, as any publisher might (maybe they already are doing it) decide to dumb fantasy literature into something "mainstream", or just any kind of literature... Newspeak anyone??
*cough* Harry Potter *cough*
|
|
The implications of that notion are troublesome, as any publisher might (maybe they already are doing it) decide to dumb fantasy literature into something "mainstream", or just any kind of literature... Newspeak anyone??*cough* Harry Potter *cough*
*cough* Most Forgotten Realms novels *cough*
(E.C. gets a pass, I like her style).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Definitely, if making something more accessible = reducing the most "intellectual" aspects of it (in the case of RPG, its close connection with literature and drama), then you're actually furthering my point: society assumes that a kid is a short person with limited intellectual skills. Kids who are not are "nerds or geeks", and not "mainstream".The implications of that notion are troublesome, as any publisher might (maybe they already are doing it) decide to dumb fantasy literature into something "mainstream", or just any kind of literature... Newspeak anyone??
Kids who are nerds and geeks play Pathfinder (kidding, mostly)
Seriously though if what I've read in this thread is true, it may not be that 4x is less 'intellectual' as it is more 'kid safe'. While I don't see the mechanics as complex as 3.x this is advertised as a perk. It also doesn't mean you can't have mature content. I mean really, is it less 'intellectual' if it's spellcraft and not dweomercraft?
(In the US) we live in a society where the adults are more likely to be able to name the final 3 of Dancing with the Stars than 3 of the 9 justices of the Supreme court. Maybe it's not that it's being dumbed down for kids after all
Besides, when the kids are ready to graudate to advanced math and big words, there will be Pathfinder ;-) (and yes, the DDI)
It does surprise me that there still isn't a decent D&D themed cartoon series.
Besides, when the kids are ready to graudate to advanced math and big words, there will be Hero ;-)
Corrected for you.
By nerds or geeks you mean people who did not mind reading English with more than 3000 words or so, or thinking a bit about history, legend or science behind a fantasy setting, or, in other words, putting up with some of Gygax' rants in the DMG.Definitely, if making something more accessible = reducing the most "intellectual" aspects of it (in the case of RPG, its close connection with literature and drama), then you're actually furthering my point: society assumes that a kid is a short person with limited intellectual skills. Kids who are not are "nerds or geeks", and not "mainstream".
The implications of that notion are troublesome, as any publisher might (maybe they already are doing it) decide to dumb fantasy literature into something "mainstream", or just any kind of literature... Newspeak anyone??
OK...but this troublesome implication is a constant going back a century and a half. The whole thing strikes me as complaining that most of the kids just want to do go out and do the Sock Hop instead of curling up with a copy of Moby Dick on a Friday night.
Whats changed is the fact that Blizzard and the Lord of the Ring Movies has turned the notion fantasy gaming is only for the academically inclined on its head because they've managed to sell fantasy to the mainstream. WotC should be able to as well - they just need to figure out how.
Movies and video games are more mainstream than role playing, so I am not sure I buy that it has been turned on its head.
Movies and video games are more mainstream than role playing, so I am not sure I buy that it has been turned on its head.
video games only comparatively recently.
Movies and video games are more mainstream than role playing, so I am not sure I buy that it has been turned on its head.video games only comparatively recently.
We just need a "pro" role playing circuit so it can be televised.
That'll kick start the hobby.