What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[NoWayJose]

Right, but how can they market to "former" players who haven't given it a try? It's kind of like going after new people but yet not because they already have ideas/tastes related to the product driectly where true newbies more likely don't.

Make the fluff more compelling and reasonable, especially wherever there is a deficiency in internal logic (and don't put the onus of reskinning on the DM). Doesn't have to 100% perfect or anything, just better than what it is now. Start with Beguiling Strands, and work from there.

The "metagamists" won't care or be turned off, because they focus on the metagame anyway.

The "ingamists", however, will appreciate the extra imaginative efforts, and possibly forgive or warm up to the overt metagame elements.

 

[Shazman]

They really can't market it to someone who no longer pays attention to what is going on with D&D or refuses to try the game because they don't like something they heard about it. I know that they got a lot of lapsed gamers back with 3.0, so they might want to look at what worked for them then. I was kind of lapsed player at that time, mainly because I didn't have a group to play with. I still went to game stores now and then and looked at issues of Dragon. That's how I found out about the new edition. I bought the first issue of Dragon that talked about the coming of 3.0, and I was sold on it from then on. When 3.0 hit the shelves, it really gave me motiviation to find a group to game with again. I don't know how useful Dragon is for that anymore, since it is largely hidden by a subscription wall on DDI. If you really want to market to newbies, you have to put ads in comic books, streaming banners on forums, youtube, facebook, etc.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Right, but how can they market to "former" players who haven't given it a try?

If you're looking for specifics, you'll need to ask someone like Dannyalcatraz. I know about as much about marketing as I do about nuclear fission.

But it certainly can be done ... I was a former player (I quit 2E in disgust back around '91 or '92) and the marketing for 3E hooked me and hooked me hard.

 

[NoWayJose]

Make the fluff more compelling and reasonable, especially wherever there is a deficiency in internal logic (and don't put the onus of reskinning on the DM). Doesn't have to 100% perfect or anything, just better than what it is now. Start with Beguiling Strands, and work from there.

The "metagamists" won't care or be turned off, because they focus on the metagame anyway.

The "ingamists", however, will appreciate the extra imaginative efforts, and possibly forgive or warm up to the overt metagame elements.

Also, avoid using confusing terms like "bloodied" when hit points are abstract. Whenever possible, do not use titles like "warlord" when that word evokes different meanings to different people or different meanings in-game than metagame. Misleading words cause big arguments.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You mean like if someone says fudging works for him and his group, Jeff? That kind of hearsay?

Exactly that kind of hearsay.

If what is said sounds credible to you, then you tend to credit it.

If what is said doesn't sound credible to you, then you tend not to credit it.

The only problem that arises is when someone demands that you credit what doesn't sound credible to you, or not credit what does.


RC

 

[Umbran]

Already had that discussion. May have gone past the limits of your attention span, I suppose.

Maybe, maybe not. But you've reached the limits of moderator patience.

Doug, you really should not have rubbed salt in an old wound. Bad idea.

Jeff, you really should not have picked up the gauntlet.

Any of you want to continue?

 

[LurkMonkey]

Well, the fact that there was a new rule set for D&D didn't disenchant me. Rulesets rarely bother me.

I didn't like some of the actions taken by WotC, which I am assuming were decided higher up in the foodchain than the actual folks who designed 4e. I didn't like the feel (and this is strictly my opinion) that the company had been handed over to a corporation which was handling it like a piece of merchandise to squeeze, rather than something a lot of folks love and have played for decades.

I do like the way another company (Paizo) handled their transition to a new version of 3e/D20 (Pathfinder). I like the fact they made backwards compatibilty a priority, so that I could still use the thousands of dollars I had invested in 3e books. I am also a big fan of their adventure/story writing, and I love their shared world, Golarion. I like the 'mom & pop' (Lisa & Vic?) feel of the company, where you could post a question on their messageboards and you might get a reply from the CEO, or a head designer. I also like the fact that everyone involved in Paizo is a gamer.

Could WotC win me back? Probably not, but I'm sure they have plenty of market share and don't really need me anyway. Heck, I just bought the Orcus mini, so they got $70 off me anyway =P. I think it is actually a GOOD thing that the gaming market has split somewhat. During the 3e days the D20 standardization kind of dried up the indie rules market. Now we are seeing a lot of new stuff showing up, which is a win/win for the community. Competition keeps all the companies on their toes.

WotC is always going to be tops in the field. They don't need their old customers back. What they have to watch out for is churning the brand too much in the future and losing the customers they just gained.

My 2C

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Exactly that kind of hearsay.

Somebody do me a solid and whack RC with XP for me? he desperately needs it, having flubbed his Will save this badly.

 

[Nifft]

You know what? I HATED these things from the previews (as well as monster/giant "advancement" and Dragonborn and Tieflings as "core" races. Absolutely detested them.) But I found in playing the game they actually work so well in practice even though I was really not impressed the way they read. That's why I'm really glad I tried the game instead of going by heresay.

It seems to me that 4e is a game which reads like crap, but plays quite well. Seriously, it reads like a technical reference manual.

Also: the way one spells criticism of 4e is "heresy".

Cheers, -- N

 

[DaveMage]

Herschel, I should mention one more thing, and I'm trying to choose my words carefully here to not be offensive, so please take them in that light.

I'm not saying 4E is a bad *game* or even a bad fantasy roleplaying game. Gameplay, etc. may be fantastic for the genre. You are correct in that I cannot personally attest to how the game plays.

I'm saying that, based on the rule and fluff changes that were made, that 4E is a poor version of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS for ME (and those who feel similarly to me). I certainly accept that for some 4E is an *awesome* version of Dungeons & Dragons.

The question WotC has to answer (and hence the purpose of this thread) regards the significance of their potential customer base that feels like I do. If we are economically insignificant, then WotC already has their answer: do nothing. But if we are economically significant, then change should be considered. What does "significant" mean in this context? Hell if I know....