|
That's all pretty convoluted imo, how about WOTC release a version of D&D that aims to please older and younger players?I'll reiterate what I said, again. WotC did not aim to alienate older fans, and did not aim to only appeal to younger gamers. They aimed to create a game that would thrive in today's gaming culture.
This seems like WotC then didn't really have a clear idea then of what the market was. If they weren't trying to market to either the old or the young who were they writing 4e for? Gaming culture? What is this "gaming culture"
You paint WotC in a bad light with such statements, your previous one about WotC not caring about old players and seemlying only interested in new? I hope that isn't WotC's thinking, it would be extremely bad form.
S.
This seems like WotC then didn't really have a clear idea then of what the market was. If they weren't trying to market to either the old or the young who were they writing 4e for? Gaming culture? What is this "gaming culture"That's all pretty convoluted imo, how about WOTC release a version of D&D that aims to please older and younger players?I'll reiterate what I said, again. WotC did not aim to alienate older fans, and did not aim to only appeal to younger gamers. They aimed to create a game that would thrive in today's gaming culture.
Yes, they created 4th Edition to appeal to the modern gamer. Believe it or not, that's a valid target.
You paint WotC in a bad light with such statements, your previous one about WotC not caring about old players and seemlying only interested in new? I hope that isn't WotC's thinking, it would be extremely bad form.
Since that's not what I said, or even implied, I don't think you need to worry. The "old" I was speaking of then referred to those who didn't transition to the new game. Again, if you think WotC set out to deliberately alienate anyone, you're missing the point.
|
|
Yes, they created 4th Edition to appeal to the modern gamer. Believe it or not, that's a valid target.
Never said it wasn't...
What you need to understand is that WotC's old customer base - the ones who were "hacked off" by 4th Edition - is nowhere near as valuable as potential new customers. The older customer base is just that: old. Their average age is higher, and they are less likely to bring new people into the game.
Since that's not what I said, or even implied, I don't think you need to worry. The "old" I was speaking of then referred to those who didn't transition to the new game. Again, if you think WotC set out to deliberately alienate anyone, you're missing the point.
Your point seemed very clear, those who immediately didn't see the wonder that was 4e are not as valuable as those who jumped in feet first. Those who may be for reasons of dogma (mine to begin with, I'll be honest) or other more valid reasons didn't just swap to 4e are not really of that much interest to WotC? Makes me feel wanted. I was a "slow adopter", but now am enjoying playing 4e, however I do take offense that I am not valued by WotC then even though my disposible income makes me, I would have though a valued customer.
Having to find your original statement also reminded me that your statement about the old being less likely to bring in new people to D&D? Not in our local clubs, the older gamers are the ones running the in store and in club 4e games with the younger gamers really just be players. You may have generalised a little there, or is New Zealand the only place on Earth with patient older gamers?
Just saying that you should be careful about expounding what WotC think or don't think about sectors of their customer base. It may offend.
S.
Your point seemed very clear, those who immediately didn't see the wonder that was 4e are not as valuable as those who jumped in feet first.
Put a bit less dramatically, those who like the product are more valuable to WotC than those who don't. Is this surprising?
Those who may be for reasons of dogma (mine to begin with, I'll be honest) or other more valid reasons didn't just swap to 4e are not really of that much interest to WotC? Makes me feel wanted. I was a "slow adopter", but now am enjoying playing 4e, however I do take offense that I am not valued by WotC then even though my disposible income makes me, I would have though a valued customer.
You're certainly valued as a customer and participant in the hobby. You enjoy 4th Edition.
Having to find your original statement also reminded me that your statement about the old being less likely to bring in new people to D&D? Not in our local clubs, the older gamers are the ones running the in store and in club 4e games with the younger gamers really just be players. You may have generalised a little there, or is New Zealand the only place on Earth with patient older gamers?
Yes, of course I generalized. I don't have any hard data otherwise. I said that it was merely conjecture on my part, and you're welcome to counter that with anecdotal evidence if you wish.
Just saying that you should be careful about expounding what WotC think or don't think about sectors of their customer base. It may offend.
I don't think you should be offended at a company placing more value in those who like their product than in those who don't.
Yes, they created 4th Edition to appeal to the modern gamer. Believe it or not, that's a valid target.Who exactly is a "modern gamer"?
3E/3.5E players?
World of Warcraft players?
Other MMORPG players?
Hardcore video gamers?
Yes.
|
|
You're certainly valued as a customer and participant in the hobby. You enjoy 4th Edition.
My point got perhaps lost in my "put outness" (if that is a term).
If you perhaps remember back when I first started posting Scott. I bagged 4e but was curious, got the books read them then swore that I would sign up for castration before playing such a game! Now had I read at that time that WotC therefore classed be as a second rate citizen I might have never had a bash and never found out that 4e wasn't the embodiment of evil and doom of D&D.
In part I have this forum to thank for my now involvement in 4e. The forum really showed both sides (at extremes sometimes) of the pros and cons of 4e. And if you want a feel good statement Scott - your conversion of AP to 4e was the game take really got me enjoying the 4e game. That first adeventure from WotC gave me the wrong impression of 4e and was what I based a lot of my negative comments about 4e on.
I would have said that ALL gamers old and new are important, all add to WotC sales and all add to the hobby. In my opinion new gamers and old gamers both have some issues to attract to 4e. New gamers have "video games", why play something like D&D? And old gamers, well I used the word dogma and I don't think I'm too far from the truth (anyone?).
Hope this clears up what I meant,
S.
|
|
WOW d20 ==> and many today are even still in the bargain bins at several local FLGS.Completely off topic, but do they still have a copy of the "Monster Manual" for the WOW d20 RPG?No idea offhand.
I do remember seeing the core WoW book from 2005, and several softcover books for Everquest in the bargain bins locally. I don't remember offhand which other WoW books were there. I'll have to check the next time I go.
Cheers dude, most appreciated.
S.
If WotC's intention was to attract MMORPG and other video gamers to D&D, perhaps they should have examined some more recent history. Around 5+ years ago, there were d20 tabletop PnP rpg versions of World of Warcraft and Everquest. From what I can remember, I knew of nobody who wanted to play these two rpgs. From chatting with local FLGS owners and even some gamer types who worked at big box bookstores in town, they all mentioned that hardly anybody wanted to buy the WoW and Everquest d20 rpg books. Even with "Warcraft" and "Everquest" logos written in big letters on the front covers, hardly anybody was interested in them. Eventually most of the d20 WoW and Everquest books ended up in the bargain bins, and many today are even still in the bargain bins at several local FLGS.
Strangely enough, 5+ years ago there were even a few local video game stores in town which had several WoW and Everquest d20 rpg books in stock, where they were placed next to the WoW and Everquest games along with the hints and "how to play" type books. After awhile, the rpg books also ended up in the bargain bins. I asked the store owners about these WoW and Everquest d20 rpg books, where they mentioned that they sat on the shelves collecting dust for many many years. They only managed to sell around two copies, both of which ended up being returned due to the buyers picking up the wrong book. (The store owners attributed this to parents buying them, and not knowing the correct title their kids wanted).
If WotC is indeed trying to attract the MMORPG + hardcore video gamer crowd, they surely have their work cut out for them.
I think the issue with popularity that the MMORPG PnP games had was largely separate from the issue of setting their target on the video game crowd. I think that the problems were a) very few established PnP gamers were interested in the games, which meant very few non-established PnP gamers who were also Warcraft/EQ fans were exposed to the game, and that the WoW/EQ players who did come across the games on their own had an initial reaction of "Why play this when I can play WoW/EQ?"
In other words, the problem wasn't necessarily that they targeted video gamers. Rather, it was that they targeted video gamers with an experience that they thought they didn't need: another exposure to the world of WoW/EQ.
Again, conjecture, but I think it's safe to say that video game (and MMO) players are a ripe target audience for pen and paper games. The crossover is enormous. And, from what I've heard, any tabletop RPG publisher has their work cut out for them attracting any demographic.
|
I don't think you should be offended at a company placing more value in those who like their product than in those who don't.
From my perspective that wasn't what they were doing. Not at all. Because I used to like their products a lot. And if I'm comparing 3.5 products with 4E products it seems that they put a big effort in removing each and every element of their products that I liked, out of it.
An easy example can be given with the Forgotten Realms. They explicitely stated that the reason for the changes was their own dislike for the old setting as it was as well as the dislike of those they hoped to get as future customers. They decided against the people already fallen in love with the "old" realms, who hoped for continuation instead of a 100-year time jump combined with an RSE.
So just to get the facts straight: Their decision not to place any value on me was the reason for my dislike of their products, it's not the consequence.
|
An easy example can be given with the Forgotten Realms. They explicitely stated that the reason for the changes was their own dislike for the old setting as it was as well as the dislike of those they hoped to get as future customers. They decided against the people already fallen in love with the "old" realms, who hoped for continuation instead of a 100-year time jump combined with an RSE.
If I recall it wasn't out of dislike for FR that they blew it up, it was because they felt the current state of the realm didn't leave elbow room for new heroes. I vaguely agree, its hard to have a campaign where the realm is threatened by some great peril, but not have its regular band of champions involved. So instead you make up a cock and bull story why the rest of them either a) can't help b) are helping in other ways, and dilute your own bands heroics.
Basically the Realms were to detailed to have an opened ended campaign in (at least that is what I recalled the designers saying.) In some ways I agree, and a nice 100 year period lets the realm grow and change and make room for new heroes.
Now the RSE... that was kind of uncalled for and random.
Like you could have done one or the other, but both was just redundant and a little extreme.
But I think you could say that they learned their lesson and with Ebberon introduced the campaign setting largely unmolested.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Both 3rd Edition and 4E are filled with support for roleplaying, imaginative settings, and character development. They simply go about it in different ways. 3rd Edition has the more simulationist approach, creating worlds that operate within rational frameworks that help preserve suspension of disbelief and help enhance the 'reality' of the gameworld. 4E takes a more narrative approach, allowing players and GM to jointly craft an experience tailored for their group and the story at hand.
Matthew, this is the best description of the differences between 3.5E and 4E I've seen.
Hopefully, this explanation will help others to understand that it's time to move on from the edition wars, and pick the version they like to play for their own games, and let others do the same for theirs.
If I recall it wasn't out of dislike for FR that they blew it up, it was because they felt the current state of the realm didn't leave elbow room for new heroes. I vaguely agree, its hard to have a campaign where the realm is threatened by some great peril, but not have its regular band of champions involved. So instead you make up a c!#@ and bull story why the rest of them either a) can't help b) are helping in other ways, and dilute your own bands heroics.
Marvel has had this and made it work for years. They have literally hundreds of superheroes all living in NYC and yet spiderman for instance is the only one responding to doc oc trying to blow up the city today. Either way their decision did nothing if not alienate more of the old fans of the game.
But I think you could say that they learned their lesson and with Ebberon introduced the campaign setting largely unmolested.
Fine but it doesn't undo the harm nor restore a vastly more popular setting.
They really did blow it with the realms it was a major misstep. But 4e is littered with things done that drive away long term players. Whether they are doing it on purpose or because of poor foresight is up for debate.
In the end the edition war wont go away, ever likely. WotC certainly has added to it either on purpose or by accident too often in my veiw for it all to be accidental. Either way how well 4e is doing will remain a hot topic until it either proves itself or fails. Clearly it will never match the level of success of 3e or 1e, they blew the doors off with their sales opening year. But even I don't think it needs to do that to be a moderate success, it just needs to be viable for 5-8 years until another edition comes out. I hate to say it but I think it will prove it can last, if it doesn't I would be shocked. It certainly has a rabid fan base and if that base is big enough and loyal enough it should last.
|
|
As an observation I've seen several threads whose topic headed in the direction of 'Forgotten Realms vs Forgotten Realms' end up in emotional and highly predictable flame-wars - so at this point I'm going to bale out of this thread for now...
If other posters want to go in that direction here, I have nothing much more to add to this thread except to shrug wearily and add 'In Before The Lock'.
Sorry for that, it should serve as an example. Maybe I should have chosen prestige classes or the vancian magic system instead. Didn't intend to derail the thread any further.
So let me try another example to illuminate the point I tried to make:
At the moment, I'm a loyal Paizo customer having bought several hundred dollars worth of Pathfinder related products. According to Scott Betts I should probably be valued a bit higher as customer than someone who doesn't like Pathfinder as is anyway.
So let's assume that for some reason Paizo decides to make major changes at their world (making a lot of their older products incompatible with the new lore) while simultanously publishing Pathfinder RPG v.2 which is for some reason quite incompatible with the old rules system. And as I dislike all those changes I stop being a customer.
I think I wouldn't feel offended but I would be disappointed for sure. But you can bet that I'd feel a bit offended if THEN someone said to me that I shouldn't wonder (or feel offended) that Paizo didn't care for me as much as for those people embracing the changes becauseI didn't like their products anyway.
|
|
Both 3rd Edition and 4E are filled with support for roleplaying, imaginative settings, and character development. They simply go about it in different ways. 3rd Edition has the more simulationist approach, creating worlds that operate within rational frameworks that help preserve suspension of disbelief and help enhance the 'reality' of the gameworld. 4E takes a more narrative approach, allowing players and GM to jointly craft an experience tailored for their group and the story at hand.
Matthew, this is the best description of the differences between 3.5E and 4E I've seen.
Hopefully, this explanation will help others to understand that it's time to move on from the edition wars, and pick the version they like to play for their own games, and let others do the same for theirs.
Or play both as different game experiences...
Chief Technical Officer
|
I think what Vic was saying was that if the poster is going to state something as fact, the poster should have evidence to back up that fact.To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)If we had an official statement from WotC, we wouldn't have this debate.
But how about Paizo, who isn't owned by a listed company show us their numbers. After all, why should WotC be the only company constantly asked to show and tell?
Indeed. I'm not suggesting that Wizards should reveal their sales figures. I'm saying that whoever came up with the notion that a poor-selling Wizards product sells in excess of 50,000 copies has pulled that number out of thin air. In fact, I'm confident that that number is more "wild-ass guess" than "educated guess." And now I see that people are repeating it as presumed fact...
|
|
This is how capitalism works.
I don't mind that they want to make money. In fact I wish them a huge success as this would mean an increase in the overall player pool.
I think that the new edition could have been marketed in a better way and I think that a lot of the outcry could have been avoided. But it's their brand so they can do with it what they want.
This is how capitalism works.I don't mind that they want to make money. In fact I wish them a huge success as this would mean an increase in the overall player pool.
I think that the new edition could have been marketed in a better way and I think that a lot of the outcry could have been avoided. But it's their brand so they can do with it what they want.
It would be interesting to see who was calling the shots, when such decisions about product changes are made. If I had to guess, a lot of the huge decisions for 4E looked like they were made by people who were non-gamers. (I suppose we'll know whether this was indeed the case, once some of the 4E insiders are off of Hasbro/WotC's payroll and they begin to "speak their minds").
It's interesting reading accounts of insiders who worked at TSR back in the day, about the decisions made for particular products. Several threads of this sort are at some old timer D&D message boards.
If your an industry insider you may get this kind of info but I'm a little skeptical otherwise. Reality is that there have been layoffs at WotC but I ain't seeing the 'tell all' book on the shelf of my local big box book store.
It also seems like thats always the case - there is some kind of huge story with the collapse of TSR and yet the information available to the public on this pretty seminal event for the gamer community is all very sparse and spotty.
I'm sure 'upper management' interference and commands did come down from time to time - but I can't imagine what 'huge decisions' would have been made by non-gamers, or why.What I had in mind was stuff unrelated to the actual design of 4E.
I was thinking of more along the lines of general big picture stuff, such as:
- yanking of PDFs
- three core books PHB/DMG/MM released every year
- only three books released per setting (ie. player's guide, campaign guide, module)
- 4E GSL missteps
- bringing Dragon and Dungeon back in house as online magazines
- the decision to release a 4E in the first place
- 4E being more "closed" than 3E/3.5E and OGL
- a sparse 4E SRD
Exactly. Someone calling the shots over there at WotC hasn't a clue, and it isn't the game designers. I really like the game; it's all this other crap that is so disappointing. Poorly made books, core stuff scattered everywhere, knee jerk pulling of the PDFs, etc., etc., etc.
I'm sure 'upper management' interference and commands did come down from time to time - but I can't imagine what 'huge decisions' would have been made by non-gamers, or why.What I had in mind was stuff unrelated to the actual design of 4E.
I was thinking of more along the lines of general big picture stuff, such as:
- yanking of PDFs
- three core books PHB/DMG/MM released every year
- only three books released per setting (ie. player's guide, campaign guide, module)
- 4E GSL missteps
- bringing Dragon and Dungeon back in house as online magazines
- the decision to release a 4E in the first place
- 4E being more "closed" than 3E/3.5E and OGL
- a sparse 4E SRD
Well thats an interesting list - here are my guesses.
- yanking of PDFs
I have no idea one way or another.
- three core books PHB/DMG/MM released every year
This is a replacement for the idea of a revised edition. From 3.5 on they've repeated the mantra that the game is always growing over and over. This, presumably, helps keep the sales up without the same kind of anger that was associated with the 3.5 reboot. Its probably especially effective because the customers that already buy the supplements complained, in 3.5, that the classes introduced in a supplement book where, thereafter, supported extremely sparsely if at all. Hence a method to have ones cake and eat it too.
- only three books released per setting (ie. player's guide, campaign guide, module)
Trying to get around the problem that TSR had were they split the market up to much with different settings. TSR made really big bucks on the new setting materials initially which is what caused them to keep doing it. It eventually came back and bit them in the bum when they had fractured their market to much. This is a way of making the initial big bucks that drew TSR into this in the first place but avoid the pitfalls of creating many small subsets of D&D.
- 4E GSL missteps
Disagreement over the very existence of a GSL. The SRD was viewed negatively by WotC in later years. It essentially created subsets of D&D (just like TSRs campaigns) but now WotC did not get anything from customers of many of these 3PPs. True 20 is purely just a competing game that uses their IP. Much of the 3PP product could not use any WotC material. Eliminating the GSL altogether was probably upper managements first choice but it seemed unfeasible so they went with a really restrictive one - that, it turned out, had the effect of causing the same kind of reaction that eliminating it would have had without any of the upside so they compromised a little further to try and dampen down on this.
- bringing Dragon and Dungeon back in house as online magazines
Part of their online subscription model which they hope will make them big bucks.
- the decision to release a 4E in the first place
Likely sales of 3.5 right near the end had really tanked. There was little money left to be made on the edition - at least not compared to potential profits from a reboot. Especially considering that they could try and shift the game a little in a bid to pick up many new customers. The steep learning curve of 3.5 was likely viewed as a significant barrier to expanding their market. Eliminate that barrier and there was at least the potential to make the brand bigger and better.
- 4E being more "closed" than 3E/3.5E and OGL
See GSL above.
- a sparse 4E SRD
See GSL above.
|
|
Just chiming in my own thoughts on Jeremy's
- yanking of PDFs
I have no idea one way or another.
Knee jerk reaction, to rampant piracy... was it bad move probably, is it irrevocable, no, they just need to decide where they want to go and then go there.
- three core books PHB/DMG/MM released every year
This is a replacement for the idea of a revised edition. From 3.5 on they've repeated the mantra that the game is always growing over and over. This, presumably, helps keep the sales up without the same kind of anger that was associated with the 3.5 reboot. Its probably especially effective because the customers that already buy the supplements complained, in 3.5, that the classes introduced in a supplement book where, thereafter, supported extremely sparsely if at all. Hence a method to have ones cake and eat it too.
Given the choice between 4.0, 4.5.... I'd rather have core books that address core rule errata, and introduce new material in a considered structured way. The table of contents of each PHB will likely be identical: intro, races, classes, epic destinies, feats, gear, rituals, rules. Each iteration will see expansion or updates to those core sections of the game without the need for a new reboot or reprinting old material. As for the Monster's Manual every year? Does anyone not want that? More monsters now please! God you could come out with two of those a year and I would love it! DMG? yeah, not sure on that one, with the magic items moves to the AV, I think I may just take a pass on DMG2, but of course the DMG is almost optional now, and is really targeted at new GMs.
- only three books released per setting (ie. player's guide, campaign guide, module)
Trying to get around the problem that TSR had were they split the market up to much with different settings. TSR made really big bucks on the new setting materials initially which is what caused them to keep doing it. It eventually came back and bit them in the bum when they had fractured their market to much. This is a way of making the initial big bucks that drew TSR into this in the first place but avoid the pitfalls of creating many small subsets of D&D.
They have also committed to servicing the campaign worlds through dungeon and dragon, I believe it is once a month articles for each world, and they are definitely keep the world moving through the RPGA living worlds. Which is really why they brought Dungeon and Dragon in house. I hope they take submissions from 3rd party people to write for them, but I actually have no complaints about the online system except the lack of Mac support for the tools.
Everything else Jeremy said I agree with, I understand the GSL issue they are dealing with, and I sympathize with them, but it was lose-lose.
Different strokes and all.
DMG2 is maybe the book I'm looking forward to the most. I really liked the 4E DMG a lot. Even as a grizzled old timer I feel its always a good idea to review my DMing every so often and adore books like this.
Beyond that an update for the Skill Challenge system incorporating what they have learned so far and including a slew of good Skill Challenges would be fantastic. Templates are fun just like monster books and you can never have too many traps!
I think this book might have the most potential to actually improve my game or my prep as opposed to just giving me some more nice options.
As to the different world settings - yeah they caught me hook line and sinker. I must be their target market. See I play in a homebrew - I ain't using any specific setting - but I steal...oh do I steal. So I might pick up a bunch of these and I think a lot of DMs are the same way - they might just want to dable or are curious etc. Thing is if you have a huge setting thats super detailed, as was the case in 3.5, then I stay away - its just too much of a financial investment.
Finally in regards ti the idea of 4.5...honestly I'd not mind it so much. I love 4E but think there are some major areas that could be cleaned up. But I don't think thats going to happen.
Your point seemed very clear, those who immediately didn't see the wonder that was 4e are not as valuable as those who jumped in feet first.Put a bit less dramatically, those who like the product are more valuable to WotC than those who don't. Is this surprising?
Rather than "putting it less dramatically", I think you have completely distorted the point.
Say I have a company that makes very popular chocolate bars. I then decide to switch from chocolate bars to carrot bars.
It is true that people who like carrot bars will be better customers for me than people who do not like carrot bars. And that is all you have said.
But, some people who like chocolate bars may be hesitant and not jump in feet first. Those people may have been much better customers when I was making chocolate bars than my new carrot bar customers are now. Not any more, of course.
But if I trade great customers for product A out for good customers for product B, the fact that the old customers don't buy product B at all does not make the new customers better, or my choice to market to a softer audience a wise one. And yet in the midst of this blunder I can loudly proclaim that carrot bar lovers are now more valuable to me than chocolate bar lovers. And it would be true. Pointless, but true.
I dispute the term "modern" gamers. Yes, there are certainly some core aspects of 4E that reflect modern ideas of fantasy. And some fraction of the prior fan base is put off by that. But by an overwhelming majority the people who hesitated and found that 4E does not offer what they want did so on the basis on the vast simplification of the game. The core idea that depth of mechanics comes second to quick to play and simple to DM. So it isn't a question of "modern" gamers. It is a question of "casual" gamers.
IMO, the weakness of that approach is already showing just one year in. Casual gamers are far less likely to buy a book a month. Yes, a book every 6 months is a lot more than I buy now from WotC. (those carrot bar lovers are better customers than me) But it is a lot less than what I used to buy. (The avg chocolate bar lovers bought more chocolate bars then than the avg carrot bar lover buys carrot bars now)
And casual gamers are also a lot more likely to move on to the next thing. It is happening, and it will accelerate.
I'm certain none of this describes you. I know there are lots of hard core gamers that deeply embrace 4E and eagerly await each new purchase. Not you, not you and your immediate friends, but you, your friends and many other people.
But, that many of you are out there does not negate that many other are also out there and the market is deeply fractured.
I dispute the term "modern" gamers. Yes, there are certainly some core aspects of 4E that reflect modern ideas of fantasy. And some fraction of the prior fan base is put off by that. But by an overwhelming majority the people who hesitated and found that 4E does not offer what they want did so on the basis on the vast simplification of the game. The core idea that depth of mechanics comes second to quick to play and simple to DM. So it isn't a question of "modern" gamers. It is a question of "casual" gamers.
I don't think "casual" properly describes it. The people I know who enjoy 4th Edition (and I know a lot) for the most part could not be described as casual; certainly not the DMs. I want a game that does not require system mastery to play. I want a game that is easy to DM. I am not casual, but like all of these other D&D gamers I appreciate many of the things that casual gamers also appreciate. I think that arcane, obscure mechanics are a relic of the past. I think that restrictive simulationist tie-downs are a relic of the past.
I think you might be seeing the changes, thinking "Hey, those are changes casual gamers like!" and failing to realize that some of the things casual gamers like are things that most gamers like, casual or not. The changes WotC made were not to cater to the casual over the hardcore - the pace of releases and the Insider business model are both obvious testaments to this - but rather to make the game more accessible to a generation of gamers who have been exposed to everything from Spirit of the Century to the German board game scene to World of Warcraft to Xbox LIVE.
I think you might be seeing the changes, thinking "Hey, those are changes casual gamers like!" and failing to realize that some of the things casual gamers like are things that most gamers like, casual or not. The changes WotC made were not to cater to the casual over the hardcore - the pace of releases and the Insider business model are both obvious testaments to this - but rather to make the game more accessible to a generation of gamers who have been exposed to everything from Spirit of the Century to the German board game scene to World of Warcraft to Xbox LIVE.
I'm going to agree with at least this part of Scott's analysis. WotC did not lead the charge into easier to master and play RPGs. They ware following a trend set by others in the RPG industry such as Savage Worlds and Spirit of the Century. Both games have done exceptionally especially considering just how small their producers are.
The fact that this ties in really well with any marketing strategy meant to bring in large numbers of new gamers makes the direction an easy choice for WotC.
Its probably especially easy considering that its never been particularly easy to get anyone but the DM to buy all the books. If one can get 'casual' gamers to join the ranks and buy some books while still having the dedicated DM who buys pretty much everything thats probably a pretty viable strategy.
I don't think "casual" properly describes it.
I do.
The people I know who enjoy 4th Edition (and I know a lot) for the most part could not be described as casual; certainly not the DMs.
Yeah, I preemptively acknowledged that.
I happen to know a lot of people as well. And taken as groups, the 4E fans are vastly more casual than those who find 4e underwhelming. That does not mean it applies to every individual case.
I think that restrictive simulationist tie-downs are a relic of the past.
I think restrictive simplicity demands are a passing phase.
I think you might be seeing the changes, thinking "Hey, those are changes casual gamers like!" and failing to realize that some of the things casual gamers like are things that most gamers like, casual or not. The changes WotC made were not to cater to the casual over the hardcore - the pace of releases and the Insider business model are both obvious testaments to this - but rather to make the game more accessible to a generation of gamers who have been exposed to everything from Spirit of the Century to the German board game scene to World of Warcraft to Xbox LIVE.
I greatly disagree. And I'm becoming steadily more confident that time will support my expectations.
The pace of release is because they NEED to sell that steady stream of products. The gamble is that casual gamers will buy steadily.
It is interesting that the D20 boom (of a generation, as Joesph Goodman put it) happened in a game that you think required more accessibility.
If one can get 'casual' gamers to join the ranks and buy some books while still having the dedicated DM who buys pretty much everything thats probably a pretty viable strategy.
Yeah. Unless you end up gaining a bunch of casuals who buy very little and lose a large portion of the buy everything DMs.
It is interesting that the D20 boom (of a generation, as Joesph Goodman put it) happened in a game that you think required more accessibility.
The gaming world of 2000 is very different from the gaming world of 2009. Comparing the two is simply not worthwhile (as Joseph Goodman pointed out). D&D didn't need the increased accessibility back then. It is starting to now, though, and it will need to keep pace with that trend moving forward.
|
|
I think that restrictive simulationist tie-downs are a relic of the past.I think restrictive simplicity demands are a passing phase.
This I would agree with. It's swings and round abouts. First D&D was simple as pie, then people complained about lack of skills and options (which became feats) so we got a complicated (or so they say) D&D, then some saw that as a little bit too much for a game meant for fun on a Sunday afternoon and we got the D&D we have now. I will say that it caters perhaps a little more to the new or causal gamer for sure, but given the lack of "Red Box D&D" to get new players started in D&D it sort of has too. 3e isn't a good starter version of D&D I'll admit that and have experienced the information overload that new players feel and but it remains to be seen if 4e can hold the veteran gamers interest. Maybe a slow gravitation from 4e --> pfRPG with time?
Perhaps there will come a time when more detail is required again?
D&D of today is as mentioned by Scott is all about a generation of people who don't want to invest too much time in anything. Shoot me for that statement if you like, but it is all about speed and getting things NOW. Faster computers, faster internet, faster games, faster food. Now we have a faster D&D.
For example it can be seen if we look at fantasy novels, let's compare Lord of the Rings with more comtemperary novels. In the time the hobbits had had a party most newer novels have had at least a handful of combats and perhaps even a world shattering event.
S.
This I would agree with. It's swings and round abouts. First D&D was simple as pie, then people complained about lack of skills and options (which became feats) so we got a complicated (or so they say) D&D, then some saw that as a little bit too much for a game meant for fun on a Sunday afternoon and we got the D&D we have now. I will say that it caters perhaps a little more to the new or causal gamer for sure, but given the lack of "Red Box D&D" to get new players started in D&D it sort of has too. 3e isn't a good starter version of D&D I'll admit that and have experienced the information overload that new players feel and but it remains to be seen if 4e can hold the veteran gamers interest. Maybe a slow gravitation from 4e --> pfRPG with time?
Perhaps there will come a time when more detail is required again?
Forgive me, but I very strongly disagree with the notion that the increased accessibility is had at the cost of detail. I see just as much character variability in 4e as I did in previous editions, especially a year after release. What is gone are the simulationist trappings that forced the DM to invest hours in mechanical drudge work in order to create something that satisfied the rules of the system. I further believe that making the game more accessible to potential DMs is critical, and that's one of 4th Edition's focuses.
D&D of today is as mentioned by Scott is all about a generation of people who don't want to invest too much time in anything.
Append "...if they don't think it should be necessary," and you've got it right. We have an entire generation of gamers out there who doesn't think that those hours of stat pounding I described above should be a necessary prerequisite for sending your friends on an adventure of your own devising. Yes, it's a reflection of the swift gratification we expect in modern society, but it's the way things are (and, frankly, I think the concept of "instant gratification" has gotten a much worse rap than it really should).
|
|
It is interesting that the D20 boom (of a generation, as Joesph Goodman put it) happened in a game that you think required more accessibility.The gaming world of 2000 is very different from the gaming world of 2009. Comparing the two is simply not worthwhile (as Joseph Goodman pointed out).
Whatever causes changes to things like an RPG is not technological advancement (well printing tech). RPG's have dice to cause random effects, we can hardly hail 4e (or 3e) as a break throught in creating some new advanced form of randomisation that didn't exist for hundreds of years after all.
I have not an issue with 4e being the game that WotC felt best suited the current youth market, only that it is some sort of amazing new development in the world of RPG's. Meaning 4e should do well because WotC have tailored it for today but it was perhaps marketed wrongly to the current D&D crowd. But that is obvious and has been stated many times by the disillusioned. The designers of 4e did a good job, the marketers did a bad job.
Still WotC should but some effort into attracting people (like myself) to at least having a go rather than dismissing the unknown.
S.
PS: Scott, why when I use the Char. Gen. to make a Deva Avenger that I get -2 to hit under Misc. <sorry for off topic, my shiney new 3rd ever 4e character...>.
|
|
Forgive me, but I very strongly disagree with the notion that the increased accessibility is had at the cost of detail.
I see what you mean from a character point of view, I was thinking more of the game as a whole - i.e. monsters also. The need for internal consistancy required a more detailed frame work.
We have an entire generation of gamers out there who doesn't think that those hours of stat pounding I described above should be a necessary prerequisite for sending your friends on an adventure of your own devising.
As it was back in 1e AD&D (so it is nothing new really), so I agree with those who say that 4e is closer to 1e in how you go about DMing. If only I could get past the whole miniatures combat and mind numbing number of conditions to keep track of combat round to combat round I might actually enjoy DMing 4e!
S.
|
|
D&D of today is as mentioned by Scott is all about a generation of people who don't want to invest too much time in anything. Shoot me for that statement if you like, but it is all about speed and getting things NOW. Faster computers, faster internet, faster games, faster food. Now we have a faster D&D.
For example it can be seen if we look at fantasy novels, let's compare Lord of the Rings with more comtemperary novels. In the time the hobbits had had a party most newer novels have had at least a handful of combats and perhaps even a world shattering event.
Heh.
D&D for the impatient.
Fantasy for the impatient.At first, I would have thought the basic D&D box set (Mentzer or Moldvay) would have been D&D for the impatient.
I would have said an introduction to D&D. Perhaps it's just the way I got into D&D but I started with the Red Box then progressed to AD&D. Not taking anything away from the basic set, it was a fantastic way to get to grips with D&D before plunging into the world of Gygax.
S.
Heh.D&D for the impatient.
Fantasy for the impatient.At first, I would have thought the basic D&D box set (Mentzer or Moldvay) would have been D&D for the impatient.
Yeah. Damn my impatient nature. Damn the fact that I don't have 12 hours a day to devote to prepping a 4-8 hour session of 3.5e because I have work and a family to deal with. Damn Wizards of the Coast for giving me something that I can put less time into but get the same amount of enjoyment out of the game. Damn them for giving me more control over the creation of my story, world, monsters, npcs without having to worry about some troublesome person with a backpack of rule books that wants to argue that I can't do something.
|
|
Yeah. Damn my impatient nature. Damn the fact that I don't have 12 hours a day to devote to prepping a 4-8 hour session of 3.5e because I have work and a family to deal with. Damn Wizards of the Coast for giving me something that I can put less time into but get the same amount of enjoyment out of the game. Damn them for giving me more control over the creation of my story, world, monsters, npcs without having to worry about some troublesome person with a backpack of rule books that wants to argue that I can't do something.
Heh.D&D for the impatient.
Fantasy for the impatient.At first, I would have thought the basic D&D box set (Mentzer or Moldvay) would have been D&D for the impatient.
perhaps you could add "damn me for not drinking decafe..." :)
I understand what you mean. However I think if you came from DMing something like 1e AD&D then 3.5e was a breeze in that you ignored the rules en masse and did what you always did - meaning I never spent more than 15-30 mins on mechanic issues (I'm DM after all - oh and an evil restrictive one also - not unreasonably so however... for example I would say "If you can fit this chair up your butt you can play the Warforged in my campaign", see not directly saying no.), only made sure I knew where the story was going. 4e is nothing more than a return to how DMs ran D&D previously. I am NOT saying that is a bad thing from my point of view! Now if only my lazy arse could be bothered making/buying a battle grid (tm) and getting some figures...
Oh hum,
S.
I understand what you mean. However I think if you came from DMing something like 1e AD&D then 3.5e was a breeze in that you ignored the rules en masse and did what you always did - meaning I never spent more than 15-30 mins on mechanic issues
S.
This I strongly doubt.
A lot of 1E DMs played in 3.5 (myself for example) and a lot of them utilized the mechanics as they were presented in 3.5 RAW. I might modify mechanics but I very rarely wholesale ignored them.
In fact I suspect that a great many DMs are very much aware of rules mastery and spend a great deal of time becoming familiar with the rules.
I'd go so far as to say 3.5 is a very simulationist game and what it does best is run fantasy worlds in a simulationist manner. One can ignore rules that embrace its simulationist nature but it really does not play to 3.5 strengths.
Certainly a 1E DM learned to pick and choose mechanics to a certain extent because some mechanics were a nightmare that added tons of complexity without really giving one much in return but that is usually not the case in 3.5. The mechanic might be a hassle to deal with but its usually pretty good at simulating what its trying to do.
Beyond this I think young gamers are a focus for 4E but not the only focus the trend in RPGs has been for faster, simpler systems even for much older gamers. There is a reason why Savage Worlds takes the Gamers Choice award in the Roleplaying Catagory at Origins in 2004 and Spirit of the Century went from Indie Game of the year in 2006 to a Silver ENnie for best rules in 2007. Well designed games with simpler mechanics are cleaning up recently and WotC was, among other things, getting on that wagon with 4E.
Whatever causes changes to things like an RPG is not technological advancement (well printing tech). RPG's have dice to cause random effects, we can hardly hail 4e (or 3e) as a break throught in creating some new advanced form of randomisation that didn't exist for hundreds of years after all.
It's the gaming culture that has been evolving. That culture is wildly different today than it was in 2000 (and in many ways better, I believe).
I have not an issue with 4e being the game that WotC felt best suited the current youth market, only that it is some sort of amazing new development in the world of RPG's. Meaning 4e should do well because WotC have tailored it for today but it was perhaps marketed wrongly to the current D&D crowd. But that is obvious and has been stated many times by the disillusioned. The designers of 4e did a good job, the marketers did a bad job.
Part of the problem in that respect may have been that those you identify as "marketers" were actually in many cases the designers as well. We live in an era where fans expect direct communication from game designers (this holds in the video game and tabletop worlds), and unfortunately those designers are not PR professionals.
Still WotC should but some effort into attracting people (like myself) to at least having a go rather than dismissing the unknown.
According to WotC, they'll be shifting their efforts towards attracting new blood to the game starting this next year. Whether that means they'll start targeting people who aren't playing 4th Edition but are playing other RPGs remains to be seen.
PS: Scott, why when I use the Char. Gen. to make a Deva Avenger that I get -2 to hit under Misc. <sorry for off topic, my shiney new 3rd ever 4e character...>.
Are you wearing armor you aren't proficient with? Nonproficiency with armor imposes a -2 penalty to attack and Reflex. Avengers start with only cloth proficiency. If you're wearing another type of armor, be sure you have the feats to support it.