|
Yep, Rouse said this is their strategy going forward. In light of this, their "Never Split the Party" marketing slogan makes more sense - that's the kind of phrase that only has significance to people who have had interaction with the D&D brand (or other party-based RPGs) in the past. I bet we'll see a much more accessible slogan appear next year, when the shift to expanding outside their core occurs.A bit of thread necromacny going on here, is it not? :)
Didn't WotC say that they'll start by marketing the game at older players, then try and recruit new blood starting in 2010? It will be very interesting to see if this actually happens.
Funnily enough I hate that slogan, I've actually built scenarios where the party needed to be split up to continue forward. Never split the party, while I understand it can have issues as one group of players sits out while the other plays, I just hate terms like "never" and "always" when refrencing party tactics.
*snickers* I have a real old skool player and he always freaks out when the party is about to split. It is amusing and has become a running joke that if you split that party then you will likely suffer a horrible fate. Like in those horror movies where they stick together until one of them gets seperated and then BLAM someone is dead. Good times, Good times.
Funnily enough I hate that slogan, I've actually built scenarios where the party needed to be split up to continue forward. Never split the party, while I understand it can have issues as one group of players sits out while the other plays, I just hate terms like "never" and "always" when refrencing party tactics.Yep, Rouse said this is their strategy going forward. In light of this, their "Never Split the Party" marketing slogan makes more sense - that's the kind of phrase that only has significance to people who have had interaction with the D&D brand (or other party-based RPGs) in the past. I bet we'll see a much more accessible slogan appear next year, when the shift to expanding outside their core occurs.A bit of thread necromacny going on here, is it not? :)
Didn't WotC say that they'll start by marketing the game at older players, then try and recruit new blood starting in 2010? It will be very interesting to see if this actually happens.
It's a slogan meant to hit home with players, many of whom have bad experiences with what happens when the party splits up to take different directions. While using absolutes is, in practice, not a great idea, absolutes play out pretty well in marketing.
|
|
It's a slogan meant to hit home with players, many of whom have bad experiences with what happens when the party splits up to take different directions. While using absolutes is, in practice, not a great idea, absolutes play out pretty well in marketing.
Oh I know that, still, doesn't mean I like the slogan any more.
|
Well, I know of about 8 "older" adults who haven't played D&D since ancient times (OD&D, 1st Ed., 2nd Ed. mostly) and suddenly popped out of nowhere to play 4th edition (meetup.com is your gaming groups friend)
Since then, another 6 people showed interest having never played. So...in my personal experience, 3 full gaming groups have formed with players consisting of people who have never played 3rd Ed. (the three DMs, not-so-surprisingly enough, have played 3 ed.)
IIRC, 3 edition did the same thing. With the clout that WOTC has, its sort of difficult for it not to generate interest among people who have never played, older or younger. Nearly every bookstore has a shelf, if not a whole case, dedicated to D&D, usually near the fantasy books and/or the comic books. The kids are noticing, they are curious, and they are playing...what I have been experiencing, however, is that the adults are noticing too and want to relieve the magic or finally learn the game so many people have talked about throughout their lives.
Let's face it. D&D is a sub-culture nearly as popular as the Star Wars sub-culture.
When I filled in an online survey at Wizards, that was the tag-line I chose out of the ones on offer. So... blame me. :D
Didn't WotC say that they'll start by marketing the game at older players,
This boggles my mind. The impression I got from their abysmal marketing campaign was that they were "firing" their older customers and going after the younger cool kids, and all their actions seemed to support that. And now we're told they were actually pandering to us old-timers? Good grief.
Whether or not it actually was the intent of the WOTC advertising team, this thread was originally created with the intention of exploring the aspect of 4th edition that doesn't cater to previous customers of D&D related products, and how they intend on attracting new customers beyond bookstore sales.
We don't know anything about that yet. It's clear that 4th Edition is attracting a pretty solid amount of new blood without them focusing on marketing to new customers, though, so it'll probably be pretty successful when they start to branch their marketing out.
|
With respect to the OP's question (which uses the narrower "younger" in place of "new" customers):
My impression is that the 4E product line, viewed in its entirety, does not specifically overall target a younger audience. That said, I keep getting the impression that WotC follows two different policies, one for digital products, and one for physical products, and these policies do have different repercussions on the intended age groups.
Take, for instance, the DDI article on Fomorians. It featured very intricate language, poetic prose, and explicit references to seriously disturbing sexual practices and breeding techniques the fomorians undergo with their slaves.
Now have a look at the Manual of the Planes. The book's section on fomorians clearly used the DDI article to work from, except that
1. the language is simplified to a primary school level where any literary qualities the original had have not just vanished - they're positively destroyed, and
2. all references to material not suitable to a PG-audience have been eradicated and replaced by generic filler.
1. and 2. are obvious throughout the book and other 4E books. On 1., see Wolf Baur's review on the PHB 2, and on 2. compare how Rob Schwalb redesigned Glasseia's palace (used to feature pretty dogdy pinkish walls filled with lustful moaning - now the walls are static and white) among one of several examples within MotP.
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.
With Paizo it's different, since Paizo delivers products that are physically and digitally identical. As a result, their products frequently feature materials that parenting gamers aren't comfortable to use with their kids (e.g. Hook Mountain Massacre). For mature players who exclusively game with their peers, that's a feature of course, not a bug.
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?
Finally, and this one is based on the memory of my perceptions of a WotC claim for 4th, it looks like there can still be "optimum builds." That is to say, there are a select group of powers that are more usefull than others. If WotC claimed that there was no longer any need for optimum builds, then my perception is wrong. But I thought it was claimed that there would no longer be optimum builds, or something like that...
Just looking to appease my curiosity.
And that, I think, is the important part. You can't say that "there will no longer be optimum builds" - it just isn't going to happen in any game of this nature. But you can make it so that there is "no longer any need for optimum builds", and I think that is something 4E has succeeded at. You can build a more effective character (though you usually give up something to do so) - but even the highly-optimized character isn't going to be so good as to completely overshadow and trivialize everyone else in the party. You still need the full party to succeed, and every build will have some level of capability to contribute to success.
That is what I was trying to get at.
I didn't take the claim as "no longer any need for optimum builds." That is why it stuck out to me. But I will buy that is what was meant.
I really don't see how the 4th Edition is any more accessible to a "younger audience". A number of fans here seem to think WOTC needed to release new Core books so that their (wizards) customers would have something to buy... that makes no sense?
Gygax and crew released the first AD&D DMG in 1979 (1st printing) and the 14th printing in 1990. Over that period of time many different AD&D books were released right alongside the original Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters rulesets. TSR built upon their fan base, and they built upon the intrinsic core concepts of Dungeons and Dragons.
Fans bought Dragon Magazine, Figures, Modules, Supplemental Campaign Settings, novels, etc.
Other game companies like Hero Games, GURPS (just to name a few) have gone through 5 Editions of their rules. Yet if you compare their beginnings to the current rulesets then you will see the core of the game remains the same. The changes are rule refinements, expansions, clarifications and improved game mechanics.
4th Edition is D&D in name only. A "Fighter" is a fighter in name only. WoTC hasn't built upon and refined the game, they've thrown the past away and made the fans years of investment worthless going forward.
I was reading the 4th ED PHB today, and was wondering "strange I haven't gotten to the spells yet...glanced at the page number, did a double-take, flipped forward through the book. OH there are none." There's a lot of that in 4th ED, a lot of oh that doesn't exist anymore.
Good for WoTC's pocketbook if the sheep fall for it. Like MTG fans.
Thankfully there are still gaming companies around like Hero Games, Paizo, Steve Jackson Games (GURPS), WhiteWolf, et al.
I will admit 4th edition would probably make for a good MUD engine though. It aint D&D thats for damned sure. If you want something for a younger audience give them the Basic Set :-)
A company that wants to keep its customers would stop ripping the guts out of the game every 4 years. Wont be much left soon.
Maybe Paizo should incorporate a new name... TSR - oh thats taken... how about TSP ;) (TriSodiumPhosphate... they are cleaning up a mess hehe)
Addenum PS: Isn't Monte Cook involved in some way here? I seem to recall something about that a while back.
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I'm convinced, I've never heard such a compelling or well thought out argument... oh wait a minute... nevermind *rolls eyes*
Heh heh hah.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
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've played 4e with a younger player -- my son, aged 9. That the game seems to push minis more may be an asset. Visually representing what you are doing works better for younger players. Any teacher will tell you that making things concrete helps at first. Of course, you can use minis for 3.5 too so that is a non-starter.
On the other hand, my son was really turned off by 'healing surges'. That was far too abstract for him and he wanted it explained in more concrete terms. The DM tried to do that saying "You are patching your wounds" but that left open the question of why he could only do that so many times per day. I think there are many elements of the game that make sense to gamers but turn off someone who isn't already familiar with them.
So, it turned off one younger gamer. Maybe he's younger than what they are thinking. He might find that 4e makes a lot more sense to him after he's become familiar with a wider variety of games.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I will admit 4th edition would probably make for a good MUD engine though. It aint D&D thats for damned sure. If you want something for a younger audience give them the Basic Set :-)
I think it would make a great engine for a Supers game. From what I've seen of 4e, the fit seems better than it does for fantasy.
The problem is the explanation of "patching" wounds. HP is no longer directly about physical damage (well it has never been about physical damage but alot of people don't realize or recognize that) but also about physical & mental strain that is why the use of a Healing Surge in combat by you is called a "Second Wind". It is a resurgence of energy that had been lost during the course of the fight.
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I'm convinced, I've never heard such a compelling or well thought out argument... oh wait a minute... nevermind *rolls eyes*
Yup. I might as well pack up all my 4E books and send them back in the face of such logic.
For me it doesn't strike me as aimed at a younger audience so much as the audience that was starting to feel that 3E seemed like too much work. The streamlining of the rules lends more towards getting to the fun part of the game for both the players and the DM than to making them simple. Complexity is now left in the hands of those playing the game.
I certainly think younger audience was part of their target that and the audience that does not consider itself particularly hardcore.
Essentially Blizzard has proven that fantasy can sell to huge numbers of people. While they did it with a video game platform historically speaking that used to be a pretty limited demographic. Essentially Blizzard trail blazed the concept. They took a product that everyone and their brothers dog new as an absolute fact only appealed to male nerds living in their parents basement and turned it into a phenomina.
Fundamentally the idea of co-operative story telling full of excitement and adventure appeals to a pretty wide demographic, in fact it, on a theoretical level, should appeal to a wider demographic then Blizzards MMORPG.
Hence many of the goals should be aimed at making the game more accessible to a wider demographic.
I really don't see how the 4th Edition is any more accessible to a "younger audience". A number of fans here seem to think WOTC needed to release new Core books so that their (wizards) customers would have something to buy... that makes no sense?
Gygax and crew released the first AD&D DMG in 1979 (1st printing) and the 14th printing in 1990. Over that period of time many different AD&D books were released right alongside the original Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters rulesets. TSR built upon their fan base, and they built upon the intrinsic core concepts of Dungeons and Dragons.
Fans bought Dragon Magazine, Figures, Modules, Supplemental Campaign Settings, novels, etc.
Other game companies like Hero Games, GURPS (just to name a few) have gone through 5 Editions of their rules. Yet if you compare their beginnings to the current rulesets then you will see the core of the game remains the same. The changes are rule refinements, expansions, clarifications and improved game mechanics.
4th Edition is D&D in name only. A "Fighter" is a fighter in name only. WoTC hasn't built upon and refined the game, they've thrown the past away and made the fans years of investment worthless going forward.
I was reading the 4th ED PHB today, and was wondering "strange I haven't gotten to the spells yet...glanced at the page number, did a double-take, flipped forward through the book. OH there are none." There's a lot of that in 4th ED, a lot of oh that doesn't exist anymore.
Good for WoTC's pocketbook if the sheep fall for it. Like MTG fans.
Thankfully there are still gaming companies around like Hero Games, Paizo, Steve Jackson Games (GURPS), WhiteWolf, et al.
I will admit 4th edition would probably make for a good MUD engine though. It aint D&D thats for damned sure. If you want something for a younger audience give them the Basic Set :-)
A company that wants to keep its customers would stop ripping the guts out of the game every 4 years. Wont be much left soon.
Maybe Paizo should incorporate a...
Let's see:
1) D&D in name only
2) No spells
3) Fans are sheep
4) "Guts ripped out of the game every four years"
Balderstrom, I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the Pathfinder boards, and you'll find them on this website. Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like.
Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like.
I guess I should show myself the door too.
|
|
I certainly think younger audience was part of their target that and the audience that does not consider itself particularly hardcore.
Yes, that's the thing. A score on which 3E failed, abysmally.
I mean, an experienced GM can introduce a set of kids to any RPG, as long as he sticks to the advice Monte Cook provides in the 3E core books: let the kids interface with the simulated game world directly and leave it to the DM to translate the player's actions and decisions into game-mechanical terms. As in, player declares "I slap the guy", DM responds "ok, roll a d20 for me...(looks up character sheet) wow! you hit him!"
But sooner or later the kids want to be on top of the mechanics too - especially when it comes to customizing their characters (it's basically the step from "I like to wield a war-axe" to "what? there are...V-O-R-P-A-L swords in this game??") and that's where I think 4E shines. That, and the scenario of a 10-year old DM noob picking up the core rule books at his local store, and asking three or four of his friends to come over for an evening's game. Won't happen with 3E. Just not a gateway product.
Let's see:1) D&D in name only
2) No spells
3) Fans are sheep
4) "Guts ripped out of the game every four years"Balderstrom, I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the Pathfinder boards, and you'll find them on this website. Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like.
Scott, you're going to give yourself an ulcer trying to discourage the edition warriors on this board. It's sad, but true. Paizo attracts, among others, those who are angry about the shift in design philosphy that 4E represents. The 4E board seems to be the first place those folks come to vent thier frustrations. It has been that way since the release of 4E, and I don't see it changing any time soon. :(
I think 4E is a fine game. In many ways, I prefer the design of 4E to 3E. And while there are many things I dislike about 4E and its marketing (less comprehensive core books, crappy printing, PDFGate, being unreceptive to criticism, etc.), I seriously doubt WoTC ever set out to alienate part of the fanbase, though they certainly have managed to do so, yours truly included. They had to at least be trying to maintain the fanbase as much as possible, at least so far as such maintenance didn't impede the accumulation of new fans (which, in fairness, they must have to keep D&D a going concern).
So while I personally feel "fired," I can't imagine that was the outcome desired by WoTC.
I find this thread silly.
I think it would make a great engine for a Supers game. From what I've seen of 4e, the fit seems better than it does for fantasy.
I'd beg to differ. In my experience, Supers RPGs function best on an ungridded level and when you have access to powers that can be used outside of sharp limits. Most powers I've seen in 4E are sharply defined in what they do, and involve moving you, your allies, your foes, and causing bonuses, penalties, or setting status effects.
What if you want to create a superhero who grows (becoming Large, Huge, or Gargantuan,) or whom flies contantly (all the flight powers I can recall involve landing at the end of your turn,) or whom can absorb substances to become like their surroundings (such as turning into stone or metal like the Absorbing Man?) Superheroes tend to do a lot of strange things with their powers outside of what you'd expect. I'd want something more open ended.
I find this thread silly.
On second though, let us not go to the 4th Edition and the "Younger Audience" thread... 'Tis a silly place.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. :P
I'd beg to differ. In my experience, Supers RPGs function best on an ungridded level and when you have access to powers that can be used outside of sharp limits.
I think it would make a great engine for a Supers game. From what I've seen of 4e, the fit seems better than it does for fantasy.
Absolutely agreed. I remember way back when White Wolf put out Aberrant, and everyone in my group thought 'This is the way to go! Yeah!' Fast forward several years to when the d20 version of Aberrant was published. I was excited as hell to get it for Christmas, and I read it cover to cover. Then I realized the flaw. The level system of d20 was counter-intuitive to the style of game. While you started at third level, and were technically a super hero, it didn't seem like you could ever do anything 'truly' powerful. Even a character with the super strength ability would only top out pretty close to what a D&D character of a similar level would be. A very far cry from the tank-lifting, earthquake causing strength that is a staple of the genre. While it makes sense for heroes to 'grow', the leveling system just didn't fit the bill.
Balderstrom, I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the Pathfinder boards, and you'll find them on this website. Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like.
I don't dislike the game, its really quite interesting. It's just not "D&D". Wizard's would've been better off doing a 3.5 refinement and have 4th edition exist alongside as an alternate version.
Just because Hasbro says this is D&D doesn't make it so. Apparently there is a huge divide between supporters of 4th and naysayers to the extent that civil discussion of its merits or problems can't even be had.
My use of "sheep" prolly was a bit too much, but when a game seems to be more about built in obsolesence like MTG it isn't completely wrong.
I'll sign off this thread people aren't very nice.
Balderstrom, I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the Pathfinder boards, and you'll find them on this website. Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like.
So... Just as an academic exercise, let me ask you; "Where should members post about their dislike of 4th edition?"
If it doesn't belong in the 4th edition forums, where does it belong?
And just to head off some replies, there are posters that post in the Pathfinder forums about disliking Pathfinder. I'll grant there are far fewer, but that is likely because there is far fewer people pissed about Pathfinder, and the way Paizo produces it.
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?
Any one have any information?
Balderstrom, I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the Pathfinder boards, and you'll find them on this website. Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like.So... Just as an academic exercise, let me ask you; "Where should members post about their dislike of 4th edition?"
If it doesn't belong in the 4th edition forums, where does it belong?
The short answer is: nowhere.
The long answer is that if you want to express your dissatisfaction of 4th Edition, send an e-mail to WotC customer service.
But coming on a forum here primarily so that people who enjoy 4th Edition D&D can talk about their game of choice so that you can intrude on a thread (that isn't even on the topic of whether 4th Edition is D&D or not - no one asked you) in order to share an obviously incendiary viewpoint that serves no purpose other than to annoy people who want these boards used constructively is just terribly bad form.
And just to head off some replies, there are posters that post in the Pathfinder forums about disliking Pathfinder. I'll grant there are far fewer, but that is likely because there is far fewer people pissed about Pathfinder, and the way Paizo produces it.
Take a trip over to RPG.net or ENWorld and tell me there aren't plenty of people there discussing what they don't like about Pathfinder. But they do so constructively, without making ridiculous comments like calling people who like Pathfinder sheep. And yeah, they're not pissed about it, that's the point. They let the game be a game and it doesn't get beyond that, to the point where you start using radicalized language to describe that which you dislike (radicalized language, for instance, like employing the vitriolic version of the No True Scotsman fallacy; fundamentalist Christianity, to use an example that a lot of people are familiar with, sees this quite often in the form of comments like "Methodists/Catholics/Mormons/etc. are Christians in name only." Sound familiar?)
Yes, there are a lot of people pissed about 4th Edition. These people share some common traits, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that they exist. Being pissed off about something doesn't make it okay to threadcrap.
It's just sad that after so many months we still have people willing to dedicate half their post to an off-topic diatribe about why they hate game X, and how they think those who like it are dumb.
But coming on a forum here primarily so that people who enjoy 4th Edition D&D can talk about their game of choice
I might be taking this out of context, but when did the 4th Edition Forums become primarily for those that enjoy 4th Edition?
to the point where you start using radicalized language to describe that which you dislike
Kind of like your radicalized language of those posters you don't like?
E.g.:
"no one asked you,"
"in order to share an obviously incendiary viewpoint,"
"It's just sad that after so many months we still have people willing to dedicate half their post to an off-topic diatribe about why they hate game X,"
Not to mention all the other times I called you on being so obsessed with your enemy you have become your enemy.
Note: I'm not even discussing if such language is warranted, or acceptable. But if you are going to hold others to such a standard, you had better be holding yourself to it first.
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
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 mental disability.
Old D&D manuals were not exactly an easy read, but they had a sort of magic or allure which kept kids wanting to read them, understand the rules and understand the setting. The keyword wasn't to make the reading simpler, but to make it fascinating, as fantasy is. If we're giving up on that (and that's not 4e's doing, of course, seems to be a global tendency of these days), we (gamers, designers, writers and even teachers) are already affecting defeat.
I might be taking this out of context, but when did the 4th Edition Forums become primarily for those that enjoy 4th Edition?
That's always the way I've viewed it, and I think that's the way others should treat this board as well. Constructive criticism is also acceptable. Sidetracking a thread with posts that do little beyond denegrating the game and the company that makes it are not only unwelcome, but personal attacks against companies like WotC are explicitly against the rules here.
Kind of like your radicalized language of those posters you don't like?
E.g.:
"no one asked you,"
"in order to share an obviously incendiary viewpoint,"
"It's just sad that after so many months we still have people willing to dedicate half their post to an off-topic diatribe about why they hate game X,"Not to mention all the other times I called you on being so obsessed with your enemy you have become your enemy.
You have been incorrect most - if not all - of those times, Disenchanter.
Furthermore, it is clear that you misunderstand what radicalized language refers to. You seem to think that confrontational language is the same as radicalized language. It is not. Radicalized language refers to ways of conversing that make it clear that the individual speaking is fundamentally dogmatic, recycles material heard by others within his echo chamber of choice, etc. It is also very common in the hit-n-run style of posting, where a poster delivers a rant filled with radicalized language, and then either leaves completely or posts only to say that he is leaving (often with a comment on the alleged intolerance of those who call him on his actions).
None of the quotations you pulled from what I said fall under that heading. All of those are facts - a) this topic was not intended to get people's opinions on whether 4th Edition is "real D&D", b) that viewpoint is inarguably incendiary, and c) is true, though I did give my opinion that such behavior is "sad".
I'm more than willing to hold myself to that standard, and better. I think that I do a pretty good job of remaining level-headed and rational despite some of the material that gets posted here.
Let's all please behave ourselves. There was a time when bitter rants ought to have perhaps been tolerated, though not encouraged. That time ought to have lasted a month, at most. We are well past a month. It's almost a year. I know that this particular community (tabletop roleplaying) is notorious for being a barely-contained factory of rage and unrestrained mockery, but I'd like to believe that it has the potential to be better than that.
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.
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).
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
No one is telling anyone to "shut up and like 4e," and I find it curious that you're implying that's the case. All I have said is that if you don't like 4th Edition, take your ranting somewhere appropriate. For the same reason that I'm sure many of you would be upset if someone decided to threadcrap about why they think Pathfinder "isn't D&D" in the Pathfinder forums, people who hold that viewpoint about 4th Edition should keep that out of the forums where people who like 4th Edition and want to discuss it amongst themselves congregate. Most of us are, frankly, uninterested in or annoyed with such behavior.
what I mean is simply less options. I mean a basic does not have to have all the powers, all classes/races and what have you.
It is a lot to take in which is fine, but it also is not cheap. so something along the basic set with say Fighter,wizard,cleric and rogue with 3 or 4 simple races, and caped at say 5th level
You do not need to have 40 pages of powers or magic items or such. Make it small and with a few options. Sure you can do this but some people do not have adults to bring them into the game. And 30 bucks is a bit to ask a 10 year old to lay down for a book.
Just my thoughts is all
Most of us are, frankly, uninterested in or annoyed with such behavior.
Then do not comment Scott and to show you how easy that is I will no longer reply to anything about that subject
now back to the topic
what I mean is simply less options. I mean a basic does not have to have all the powers, all classes/races and what have you.
It is a lot to take in which is fine, but it also is not cheap. so something along the basic set with say Fighter,wizard,cleric and rogue with 3 or 4 simple races, and caped at say 5th level
You do not need to have 40 pages of powers or magic items or such. Make it small and with a few options. Sure you can do this but some people do not have adults to bring them into the game. And 30 bucks is a bit to ask a 10 year old to lay down for a book.
Just my thoughts is all
I think this is exactly what the younger generation would need to get into the game - an all-in-one, inexpensive, simplified (but expandable) version of the game. The Starter Set satisfies this pretty well, I think. You get pre-made characters, a short playable summary of the game's rules, a low-level monster manual, and figures, dice and maps, all for about $11.50 from Amazon.com. A parent could get this for his or her kid as a birthday or Christmas present (I think the idea of a Christmas afternoon being spent exploring the brand new world of D&D is pretty compelling and iconic) without worrying about spending a lot of money on something the child might not get into.
I had forgot of that, I don't keep up with it much really but yes this is a good entry level game. I am guessing 4e players will have tom see if it does the job or not.
For me I would have liked some way to make pc's and not just pregens but eh 11 bucks ya can't b#@@* to much now can ya
Edit: I just looked it up yeah for 17 bucks I would want something more like the basic rules as for almost 20 bucks I would want something more then a one use.
However they did put something out at a lower entry price level and as I have not seen or used such an item I am not one who can say if it meets the need or not
|
bout why they think Pathfinder "isn't D&D"
Technically Pathfinders creators do not call PF D&D at all, that is a label given by players of the game. The reasons being game mechanically of course it has more in common with previous incarnations. Also technically D&D/AD&D is a fantasy game designed and written by the now deceased Gary Gygax. So in fact neither PF (by creators admission) or 4th D&D are truly "D&D". Both however are works derived from D&D/AD&D. So if neither are actually D&D there seems little to argue about - play the one you like (or in the case of some rabidly love).
S.
PS: The starter set is a great place to start someone learning roleplaying (full stop), I brought one for a 10 year old nephew. Finally something that has torn both him and 3 of his friends away from the Xbox!!!
Also technically D&D/AD&D is a fantasy game designed and written by the now deceased Gary Gygax. So in fact neither PF (by creators admission) or 4th D&D are truly "D&D". Both however are works derived from D&D/AD&D. So if neither are actually D&D there seems little to argue about - play the one you like (or in the case of some rabidly love).
I think it would be difficult to argue that a property that is labeled as "D&D" by guys who call what they make "D&D" for fans who call what they play "D&D" published by a company that holds the legal property of D&D isn't actually D&D. No, it's not the first incarnation thereof, 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.
Regardless, though, "play what you like" is an attitude that we can all get behind.
I had forgot of that, I don't keep up with it much really but yes this is a good entry level game. I am guessing 4e players will have tom see if it does the job or not.
For me I would have liked some way to make pc's and not just pregens but eh 11 bucks ya can't b%&#! to much now can ya
If you want to make PCs, the Character Builder program is free for levels 1-3. Given that Keep on the Shadowfell is also available for free online, if you want the "advanced" entry alternative to D&D, it's even cheaper than the Starter Set (pretty much all you need to buy is dice).
You can basically play from 1st level all the way to the beginning of 4th level without paying a cent. Low heroic tier is, apparently, the gateway drug of D&D.
Again the DDI is not a fix as I know kids in this day and age who do not have a computer or internet, I know shocking. But the starter set will do
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Balderstrom, I hear there's a great set of boards for a game you might find interesting. It's called the Pathfinder boards, and you'll find them on this website. Meanwhile, please stop crapping in other forums about games you don't like. [Emphasis mine]
Comment: So to Scott, Pathfiner RPG is made for the anyone who doesn't like 4e.
No one is telling anyone to "shut up and like 4e," and I find it curious that you're implying that's the case.
Comment: Apparently Scott feels that 'shut up or like 4e' is fine.
I'm more than willing to hold myself to that standard, and better. I think that I do a pretty good job of remaining level-headed and rational despite some of the material that gets posted here.
Comment: Damn, I need a new Irony detector, mine just burned out.
So... Just as an academic exercise, let me ask you; "Where should members post about their dislike of 4th edition?"
If it doesn't belong in the 4th edition forums, where does it belong?
The short answer is: nowhere.
The long answer is that if you want to express your dissatisfaction of 4th Edition, send an e-mail to WotC customer service.
These forums are not actively moderated.
Comment: So Scott feels he has to do it himself.
On Topic: I don't know if 4e is aimed at a 'younger audience' If what I'm reading about the core books being G-PG and the online content being PG-PG13 that does seem to be the case. Fine *shrug* I put 4x in the same catagory I put GURPS, Shadowrun, WHFRP, and Settlers of Cattan in, games I'm not interested in. I do know that here Dr. Nardi does state that the fiction seems to be mature.
If it is targeted at kids, then hey, something to get the younger generation off their x-boxes easier.