Quote from: DrewYep, the inspirational traffic between tabletop and computer games goes both ways.

No doubt. But some of us who don't play MMORPGs are going to be alienated by geeky jargon. Heck, I don't play MMORPGs, or platform games, or watch anime, or read modern fantasy-schlock, or watch all the TV shows that are so influential to RPGs today, etc. I'm completely out of the loop of gaming geek culture. And so are the guys I play with.

Now, I don't expect WotC to worry much what people like my group think. They've no doubt written us off as a fringe market of grognards. But the more 4E comes framed in cross-platform gaming jargon, the less appealing it will be to casual and older gamers.

The fact is, catering to the assumptions of both younger players and grognards who joined the tabletop hobby in its heyday is getting more and difficult for RPG publishers, as every new trend in geek culture reduces the common ground and shared assumptions of the market. The smart money is on going with the younger market & highly geek-literate hardcores, rather than the aging, casual players. However, it's naive to think there's no tension between the two, or that WotC won't have to make tradeoffs between using terms the MMORPG players and comic-store guys expect, and being intelligible to the 36-year-old casual players whose only contact with geek culture is D&D itself.

Quote from: HaffrungNo doubt. But some of us who don't play MMORPGs are going to be alienated by geeky jargon. Heck, I don't play MMORPGs, or platform games, or watch anime, or read modern fantasy-schlock, or watch all the TV shows that are so influential to RPGs today, etc. I'm completely out of the loop of gaming geek culture. And so are the guys I play with.

Now, I don't expect WotC to worry much what people like my group think. They've no doubt written us off as a fringe market of grognards. But the more 4E comes framed in cross-platform gaming jargon, the less appealing it will be to casual and older gamers.

The fact is, catering to the assumptions of both younger players and grognards who joined the tabletop hobby in its heyday is getting more and difficult for RPG publishers, as every new trend in geek culture reduces the common ground and shared assumptions of the market. The smart money is on going with the younger market & highly geek-literate hardcores, rather than the aging, casual players. However, it's naive to think there's no tension between the two, or that WotC won't have to make tradeoffs between using terms the MMORPG players and comic-store guys expect, and being intelligible to the 36-year-old casual players whose only contact with geek culture is D&D itself.

Bingo.

And before someone claims Haffrung is just on some version war or something, please note he's saying it's "smart money" for WotC to take this tact.  As I've said when piled on for not liking some of the stuff I've seen for the very reasons Haffrung mentions.

This is simply a recognition that the game is going in a different direction.  It's not a bad one.  In fact, from a market perspective, it's probably a damn good one. And it's not meant (at least I know in my case it's not, and I get the sense it's not in Haffrung's either) as an insult. It's just...different. And that's fine - I hope it's a great game and brings in tons of players. And I'll probably even buy it - I mean, it's D&D after all.

But when you start to tag things with this kind of tactical meta-information, it loses, to me, another piece of the...I don't know...feeling of the game.  For others, it's just what the doctor ordered.  I hope it scratches your itch!

Quote from: James J SkachBingo.

Or not. Because its still very much a personal opinion.

I cut my D&D teeth on OD&D, I've never played WOW, I'm not a big anime fan. By your reconning I should fall squarely into the grognard category.

Yet I find nothing disturbing in the terminology applied to monster and class types, and in fact applaud WotC for making explicite what was always a fairly obvious underlying feature of the game.

Just becasue they put a name to it that derives from some other media I see no reason to run in personal horror from monster categories.

Let's not forget, folks, that the Pundit himself drew heavily on NetHack for inspiration for FtA!, and I don't recall anybody here raising a stink that he was polluting the purity of the RPG medium by using ideas from computer games. Is there some kind of cut-off year or something - say, 1995 - and you're not allowed to use ideas from any computer game published after that point?

Quote from: HaffrungBut some of us who don't play MMORPGs are going to be alienated by geeky jargon.

The irony in this sentence is turning the walls of my cubicle red.

I don't see this as some VG ripoff, intead, it's more of a cyclical thing. D&D had it's roots in wargaming, where it was only natural to archetype units in a orderly military style. MMOs, liking the useful order that comes with archetyping uses it now to help guide the difficulty and tactics of their mobs. GMs have been doing this for years to be sure, but as D&D creatures became more organic, it had its problems. Archetyping may be a little too solid and regulated for some, but I see it as helping busy or new GMs to assemble their fights quickly and with a quick idea of how the monsters will work best. D&D fight creation is simpy becoming more wargamey. I have my own worries about this turn of events, but so far, they've have not been confirmed.

Quote from: TrevelyanBecause its still very much a personal opinion.

Never said it was anything but a personal opinion.

Look, jargony language mystifies and alienates me. That's just my personal reaction. Nothing anyone says is going to change that, or make me not mystified and alienated. And I'm not suggesting WotC should do anything different. Just pointing out things change, and sometimes they evolve outside someone's comfort zone.

For me, language and images can be as off-putting as mechanics. Mechanically, 4E looks like it has a lot of stuff I like. In terms of tone and feel, commercial D&D left me in the dust long ago. And why shouldn't it leave me in the dust? I'm clearly not the target audience.

Edit: I agree with what James says above. D&D is becoming more explicit in its wargaming tactics and mechanics. Fine. I happen to have shelves full of wargames. But when I sit down to play an RPG, I'm looking for an entirely, 180 degree different game experience than a wargame. And my players aren't wargamers either, and have never expressed the slightest interest in playing D&D as a tactical miniatures game, and they have never played or expressed interest in MMORPGs. So the proposed jargon that surrounds the mechanical tactics of 4E are off-putting. They take me out of the immersion in a setting, and into the realm of standing over playing pieces and directing them in a tactical combat challenge.

Quote from: TrevelyanOr not. Because its still very much a personal opinion.

You will note, of course, that I made it explicit that this was a personal opinion, right?  I mean, I even put "to me" in italics so that nobody would interpret my statements as some kind of assertion of objective truth.

Quote from: TrevelyanI cut my D&D teeth on OD&D, I've never played WOW, I'm not a big anime fan. By your reconning I should fall squarely into the grognard category.

By my reckoning you should...like whatever you like. It's my conjecture that there will be people who find the influences of concern, regardless of their source.  I happen to also believe the sources are those things you mention, but we (the forum, not you and I) had that argument in a different 4e thread when everybody got up in arms for me quoting the Book of Nine Swords). But I draw no conclusions about your particular play based on you history - that would be silly.

Quote from: TrevelyanYet I find nothing disturbing in the terminology applied to monster and class types, and in fact applaud WotC for making explicite what was always a fairly obvious underlying feature of the game.

I hope you enjoy it! I'm sorry that it wasn't that obvious to me[/B] as an underlying feature of the game in various existing versions.

Quote from: TrevelyanJust becasue they put a name to it that derives from some other media I see no reason to run in personal horror from monster categories.

The name isn't important - it's the concept of classifying behavior by category designation that has me concerned - not running in personal horror (my lord, I even said I was likely to buy the damn game).

I'm sure for others it's the cat's meow. Play on!

There are people in our hobby who feel instantly alienated when they hear such geeky jargon as "Dude, I totally scored a crit on my AoO against the big bad last night. We almost had a TPK but I stomped his CR 11 ass!"

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are people in our hobby who feel instantly alienated when they hear such geeky jargon as "Dude, I totally scored a crit on my AoO against the big bad last night. We almost had a TPK but I stomped his CR 11 ass!"

My players would certainly be baffled by that comment. The only reason I understand most of it is because I read RPG boards on the internet.

Quote from: James McMurrayThere are people in our hobby who feel instantly alienated when they hear such geeky jargon as "Dude, I totally scored a crit on my AoO against the big bad last night. We almost had a TPK but I stomped his CR 11 ass!"

And back in the day, you'd have had the same people alienated by the same sort of thing, substituting "THAC0" for "AoO" and "11 HD" for "CR 11", right?

Quote from: WarthurAnd back in the day, you'd have had the same people alienated by the same sort of thing, substituting "THAC0" for "AoO" and "11 HD" for "CR 11", right?

I think we should note that there's a difference between technical game terms like AC, HD, and CR, and geek-culture jargon like Big Bad, Mooks, Artillery, Tank, etc.

Quote from: HaffrungI think we should note that there's a difference between technical game terms like AC, HD, and CR, and geek-culture jargon like Big Bad, Mooks, Artillery, Tank, etc.

Yes, although the new role assigned titles are technical game terms from here on. Each fulfils a distinct tactical purpose, and have stats and abilities calibrated to reflect that.

Quote from: DrewYes, although the new role assigned titles are technical game terms from here on. Each fulfils a distinct tactical purpose, and have stats and abilities calibrated to reflect that.

Fair enough. But when you start creating terms for PCs and monsters in terms of tactical roles - especially if those terms are anachronistic ('tanks'), or taken from other gaming or geek genres ('mook', 'big bad'), you're jarring my sense of immersion in the D&D world and, worse, relying on my familiarity with those other genres.

This is part of a broader issue for me; the increasing cross-polinization of D&D mechanics and terms with other geek genres, like superheroes, video-games, etc. More and more players want RPGs to be like their favourite TV show, movie, or comic. Since I am completely oblivious to that source material, this can only serve to alienate me and my group further from the mainstream commercial D&D scene.

IMHO, this is becoming more of a problem for WotC as their market stretches to include 12 to 45-year-olds, at the same time when there's increasing pressure to reflect youth-culture trends. The more you cater to the younger or more geek-literate gamers by making PCs more like superheroes, or using anime motifs in the artworks, the more you alienate the older players.

As I've said, I'm probably a write-off to WotC anyway. But maybe there are enough of us that Necromancer Games will find a viable market for 4E rules, 1E feel (that is, if the 4E mechanics even support such a style of game).

For the record, since there seems to be some confusion : The top (front) card is a preview of the Spined Devil stat block for the D&D4 skirmish game. The bottom (back) card is the current D&D3 roleplaying stat block.

Now, in D&D4, the stat block for the skirmish game and the roleplaying game might be the same, I don't know.